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.
Kanluwen wrote: I had to spend a month playing with people running that stupid Atlanta Guard list with the Primaris Psyker with Relic of Lost Cadia+Manticores detachment because of netlisting. That list had zero to do with GW "sucking at ruleswriting" and 100% to do with a netlist getting attention for being "SO GOOD!" with an illegal list and the player who ran it didn't read the bloody codex properly.
I think you need to return to this paragraph and REALLY examine it. Lets assume the list was legal (though an argument could be made that if rules are so convoluted that NO ONE picked up on the list being an illegal until well after the fact then that in itself is a problem) then why is the players fault that GW wrote a list that got a lot of attention for being good?
Were people writing down rules on scraps of paper before their games and the opponents just going "yeah sure man whatever"?. Were they making them up as they went along? No, they're using the rules sold to them by GW. I don't understand why the idea that GW not balancing their game is what enables the behaviour of the people using WAAC lists and thusly its GW thats at fault for not writing the rules in such a way that WAAC play isn't possible or at least easier to counter is so complicated for you to understand
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/11/09 17:46:17
Personally, I choose to take responsibility for my own enjoyment. That's not saying "I have to", nor is it saying "everybody should" because it is up to each individual whether they choose to do that.
I will build my armies based on the models I like, and themes and narratives- if that happens to be meta, my win rate will improve; if it isn't, my win rate will drop. I don't actually care either way, since my playstyle (Crusade escalation campaign) allows me to enjoy myself win or lose.
I will seek players who do the same, and politely decline games with those who habitually impact my ability to enjoy the game- whether that's because they are meta-chasers, rules lawyers, intentionally slow players or just nasty people who say a bunch of stuff over the course of the game that makes me crazy.
Everyone has the right to decide whether they want to take similar steps. I have to be okay with them choosing not to, and instead whining for pages and pages about how someone else should be responsible for whether or not they can have fun, because they have the right to do that.
I might wonder why they make that choice. I might think they'd be happier if they made a different choice. But it is still their right to choose to be unhappy if that's what they want to do, and I respect their right to do so.
Personally, I choose to take responsibility for my own enjoyment. That's not saying "I have to", nor is it saying "everybody should" because it is up to each individual whether they choose to do that.
I will build my armies based on the models I like, and themes and narratives- if that happens to be meta, my win rate will improve; if it isn't, my win rate will drop. I don't actually care either way, since my playstyle (Crusade escalation campaign) allows me to enjoy myself win or lose.
I will seek players who do the same, and politely decline games with those who habitually impact my ability to enjoy the game- whether that's because they are meta-chasers, rules lawyers, intentionally slow players or just nasty people who say a bunch of stuff over the course of the game that makes me crazy.
Everyone has the right to decide whether they want to take similar steps. I have to be okay with them choosing not to, and instead whining for pages and pages about how someone else should be responsible for whether or not they can have fun, because they have the right to do that.
I might wonder why they make that choice. I might think they'd be happier if they made a different choice. But it is still their right to choose to be unhappy if that's what they want to do, and I respect their right to do so.
Jake dropping bombs.
I'm glad Jake's "It works for me" nonsense confirmed your bias and made you feel good. Shame it's a load of twaddle. His entire stance works on the assumption that most people get to choose their communities or have multiple communities to choose from, which a lot of people don't. But hey, screw them right? It works for you so there's no need to demand anything more from GW.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/11/09 17:50:07
Kanluwen wrote: I had to spend a month playing with people running that stupid Atlanta Guard list with the Primaris Psyker with Relic of Lost Cadia+Manticores detachment because of netlisting. That list had zero to do with GW "sucking at ruleswriting" and 100% to do with a netlist getting attention for being "SO GOOD!" with an illegal list and the player who ran it didn't read the bloody codex properly.
I think you need to return to this paragraph and REALLY examine it. Lets assume the list was legal (though an argument could be made that if rules are so convoluted that NO ONE picked up on the list being an illegal until well after the fact then that in itself is a problem) then why is the players fault that GW wrote a list that got a lot of attention for being good?
Because the guy literally admitted that he didn't properly read the codex and missed that Primaris Psykers don't have the <Regiment> trait...and because it was a "major ITC event" so nobody thought to question anything.
Kanluwen wrote: Or you could just not try to constantly take advantage of holes and then crying whenever they get plugged up later. That's the toxicity that I've seen the most in 40k over the years.
There's absolutely no chance whatsoever this isn't a lie. I don't even think I need to defend that statement, it should be glaringly obvious to anyone who's been in the hobby for any length of time.
Someone suggested alternate rules systems which while not exactly on topic seems to be a much more fruitful discussion to be had. Or, we can discuss what forms restrictions can take, and Maybe discuss restrictions that might be worth imposing on ourselves. Can we work with each other to produce a more enjoyable experience within the system GW produced? Are a different system of restrictions or changes to the current system of restrictions the way to make this system better?
Automatically Appended Next Post: I’m just trying to point y’all anywhere besides where you are now because it is quickly losing its civility...
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/11/09 19:02:43
Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. -Kurt Vonnegut
Kanluwen wrote: I had to spend a month playing with people running that stupid Atlanta Guard list with the Primaris Psyker with Relic of Lost Cadia+Manticores detachment because of netlisting. That list had zero to do with GW "sucking at ruleswriting" and 100% to do with a netlist getting attention for being "SO GOOD!" with an illegal list and the player who ran it didn't read the bloody codex properly.
I think you need to return to this paragraph and REALLY examine it. Lets assume the list was legal (though an argument could be made that if rules are so convoluted that NO ONE picked up on the list being an illegal until well after the fact then that in itself is a problem) then why is the players fault that GW wrote a list that got a lot of attention for being good?
Because the guy literally admitted that he didn't properly read the codex and missed that Primaris Psykers don't have the <Regiment> trait...and because it was a "major ITC event" so nobody thought to question anything.
Way to deflect.
Since you're having trouble actually addressing the point made I'll just ask you this:
Why is it not GWs responsibility to ensure that the product they sell does not allow or tries to minimise people exploiting it and ruining the product experience for others?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/11/09 19:07:44
From what, someone having an illegal list not having read their codex properly?
Relic of Lost Cadia is a Cadian only Relic.
In order to get the Cadian tag, you picked a <Regiment>.
Primaris Psykers didn't have <Regiment>. Nothing told you to treat them as having a <Regiment>.
There is no way, shape, or form that blows back on GW. You can go look up "Warzone Atlanta 2017 Guard List" if you'd like to know more.
Kanluwen wrote: From what, someone having an illegal list not having read their codex properly?
Relic of Lost Cadia is a Cadian only Relic.
In order to get the Cadian tag, you picked a <Regiment>.
Primaris Psykers didn't have <Regiment>. Nothing told you to treat them as having a <Regiment>.
There is no way, shape, or form that blows back on GW. You can go look up "Warzone Atlanta 2017 Guard List" if you'd like to know more.
I edited my last post so this might get confusing if you're replying to the edit. But the post you're responding to asked that you assume that the list was legal. You ignored that part of the post to focus on the legality of the list, rather than address my point.
Why is it not GWs responsibility to ensure that the product they sell does not allow or tries to minimise people exploiting it and ruining the product experience for others?
Why is it not also ours?
Gw are hardly faultless but we, as players are the other side of the exact same coin.
I'm glad Jake's "It works for me" nonsense confirmed your bias and made you feel good. Shame it's a load of twaddle. His entire stance works on the assumption that most people get to choose their communities or have multiple communities to choose from, which a lot of people don't. But hey, screw them right? It works for you so there's no need to demand anything more from GW.
It's neither nonsense nor twaddle- what jake says is a perfectly legitimate approach.
Its fair to demand more from gw, but people are demanding unicorns and claiming we as players are neither responsible for our choices, actions or their consequences. And I think it's perfectly fair to clap back and say there's things we can do at out end too, both within our communities and how we choose to approach our games.
People always have a choice. You can say 'no'. In my experience though a lot of gamers dont want to put work until their communities and treat other gamers as disposable npc's and would rather put all their exp into list building rather than community building. I think in the long term its a self defeating approach. Trust me, its hard bloody work. I won't lie. For us though, extremely rewarding.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2021/11/09 19:54:08
Personally, I choose to take responsibility for my own enjoyment. That's not saying "I have to", nor is it saying "everybody should" because it is up to each individual whether they choose to do that.
I will build my armies based on the models I like, and themes and narratives- if that happens to be meta, my win rate will improve; if it isn't, my win rate will drop. I don't actually care either way, since my playstyle (Crusade escalation campaign) allows me to enjoy myself win or lose.
I will seek players who do the same, and politely decline games with those who habitually impact my ability to enjoy the game- whether that's because they are meta-chasers, rules lawyers, intentionally slow players or just nasty people who say a bunch of stuff over the course of the game that makes me crazy.
Everyone has the right to decide whether they want to take similar steps. I have to be okay with them choosing not to, and instead whining for pages and pages about how someone else should be responsible for whether or not they can have fun, because they have the right to do that.
I might wonder why they make that choice. I might think they'd be happier if they made a different choice. But it is still their right to choose to be unhappy if that's what they want to do, and I respect their right to do so.
Jake dropping bombs.
I'm glad Jake's "It works for me" nonsense confirmed your bias and made you feel good. Shame it's a load of twaddle. His entire stance works on the assumption that most people get to choose their communities or have multiple communities to choose from, which a lot of people don't. But hey, screw them right? It works for you so there's no need to demand anything more from GW.
Maybe, and this is a wild take I know, maybe if your community is that toxic, you should consider NOT playing Warhammer.
Death Guard - "The Rotmongers"
Chaos Space Marines - "The Sin-Eaters"
Dark Angels - "Nemeses Errant"
Deathwatch
Sim-Life wrote: So rather than ask GW to fix their game people should just give up their hobby? Good stuff.
Is that what I said?
Someone else said that there is no rules set that will fix donkey-cavery. This is the truth. If your community is SO TOXIC that you NEED GW to make a ruleset that absolutely no one anywhere can take advantage of, that will cater to the way YOU want to play Warhammer so exclusively that no one will ever possibly play a game with you that gives you grief, where netlisters and meta-chasers are literally impossible, you're wishing on a star.
You might get more hobby-related enjoyment from a different community, and if that is literally impossible for you, you might want to consider a different hobby.
EDIT: We have chosen, for whatever reason, to play a social game that requires other people to play. That means, to some extent, we are at the mercy of those other people for our enjoyment. GW can (and should!) work to create a framework that allows us to enjoy ourselves to the maximum possible extent within the limitations of "other people."
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/11/09 20:26:42
Death Guard - "The Rotmongers"
Chaos Space Marines - "The Sin-Eaters"
Dark Angels - "Nemeses Errant"
Deathwatch
I notice that the conversation has turned from competitive players, to WAAC players to donkey-caves. Not all donkey-caves are WAAC players, not all WAAC players are donkey-caves. No one has really answered my question.
So to drag the point kicking and screaming back to where we were, why is it not GWs responsibility to balance the game to the point where casual can compete fairly with WAAC?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/11/09 20:45:39
Why is it not GWs responsibility to ensure that the product they sell does not allow or tries to minimise people exploiting it and ruining the product experience for others?
Why is it not also ours?
Gw are hardly faultless but we, as players are the other side of the exact same coin.
Personal responsibility is a thing.
The players only responsibility with a game is to follow the rules.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kanluwen wrote: The crux of the matter is that you seem to believe that GW is responsible for managing the behavior of players via the rules in their books.
They're not. They literally cannot be.
Can they tighten up rules? Sure. And they should.
But there will never be a rules set in existence that can prevent people from being jerks.
No. The issues we are talking about is not players behavior outside the scope of the rules. Its their behavior WITHIN the scope of the rules. You think the players need to be responsible to go above and beyond following the rules because failing to do so ruins the game. If that is the case than the game itself is broken and that falls directly onto GW.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/11/09 20:56:18
Sim-Life wrote: So to drag the point kicking and screaming back to where we were, why is it not GWs responsibility to balance the game to the point where casual can compete fairly with WAAC?
Sure, it is. They should (morally) balance the game perfectly, so every possible interaction with every possible combination of every possible codex is perfectly on par with every OTHER possible etc. etc., such that the only determining factor of who wins or loses is player skill and tactical accomplishment.
HOWEVER, it is also OUR responsibility to recognize a) that's never going to happen, and b) it's on us (practically, not morally) to make do with what we get, and to wring as much joy and pleasure out of it as we can however we can. For some people, that means being a WAAC player, and for some it means being a casual player. Sometimes, those things do not synch up as well as we, the players, would like.
Feel free to continue exhorting GW to make the perfect game. But what I, and at least two others, are recommending is that you ALSO attempt to derive as much entertainment and enjoyment from what you HAVE as is possible within that framework.
Death Guard - "The Rotmongers"
Chaos Space Marines - "The Sin-Eaters"
Dark Angels - "Nemeses Errant"
Deathwatch
Sim-Life wrote: I notice that the conversation has turned from competitive players, to WAAC players to donkey-caves. Not all donkey-caves are WAAC players, not all WAAC players are donkey-caves. No one has really answered my question.
So to drag the point kicking and screaming back to where we were, why is it not GWs responsibility to balance the game to the point where casual can compete fairly with WAAC?
Due to it being inherently impossible. There are faaaaaarrrrrr too many shades of gray.
Sim-Life wrote: So to drag the point kicking and screaming back to where we were, why is it not GWs responsibility to balance the game to the point where casual can compete fairly with WAAC?
Sure, it is. They should (morally) balance the game perfectly, so every possible interaction with every possible combination of every possible codex is perfectly on par with every OTHER possible etc. etc., such that the only determining factor of who wins or loses is player skill and tactical accomplishment.
HOWEVER, it is also OUR responsibility to recognize a) that's never going to happen, and b) it's on us (practically, not morally) to make do with what we get, and to wring as much joy and pleasure out of it as we can however we can. For some people, that means being a WAAC player, and for some it means being a casual player. Sometimes, those things do not synch up as well as we, the players, would like.
Feel free to continue exhorting GW to make the perfect game. But what I, and at least two others, are recommending is that you ALSO attempt to derive as much entertainment and enjoyment from what you HAVE as is possible within that framework.
Its never going to happen while we have people blaming the players for GWs failures. I also never asked for a perfect game. I asked for a reasonably balanced game. If Warmachine can have 80+ units per major faction and achieve reasonable balance then I fail to see why 40k also can't achieve that.
Sim-Life wrote: So to drag the point kicking and screaming back to where we were, why is it not GWs responsibility to balance the game to the point where casual can compete fairly with WAAC?
Sure, it is. They should (morally) balance the game perfectly, so every possible interaction with every possible combination of every possible codex is perfectly on par with every OTHER possible etc. etc., such that the only determining factor of who wins or loses is player skill and tactical accomplishment.
HOWEVER, it is also OUR responsibility to recognize a) that's never going to happen, and b) it's on us (practically, not morally) to make do with what we get, and to wring as much joy and pleasure out of it as we can however we can. For some people, that means being a WAAC player, and for some it means being a casual player. Sometimes, those things do not synch up as well as we, the players, would like.
Feel free to continue exhorting GW to make the perfect game. But what I, and at least two others, are recommending is that you ALSO attempt to derive as much entertainment and enjoyment from what you HAVE as is possible within that framework.
Its never going to happen while we have people blaming the players for GWs failures. I also never asked for a perfect game. I asked for a reasonably balanced game. If Warmachine can have 80+ units per major faction and achieve reasonable balance then I fail to see why 40k also can't achieve that.
Okay, so you're asking for a reasonably balanced game that GW has not delivered. What are you going to do about it?
Death Guard - "The Rotmongers"
Chaos Space Marines - "The Sin-Eaters"
Dark Angels - "Nemeses Errant"
Deathwatch
Sim-Life wrote: So to drag the point kicking and screaming back to where we were, why is it not GWs responsibility to balance the game to the point where casual can compete fairly with WAAC?
Sure, it is. They should (morally) balance the game perfectly, so every possible interaction with every possible combination of every possible codex is perfectly on par with every OTHER possible etc. etc., such that the only determining factor of who wins or loses is player skill and tactical accomplishment.
No, You just need player decision making to matter more than list building. This isn't some insane feat that is impossible to accomplish. Other games do it ALL THE TIME. 40k is just so devoid of meaningful player choice that the list building is all that matters.
HOWEVER, it is also OUR responsibility to recognize a) that's never going to happen,
Because GW sucks.
and b) it's on us (practically, not morally) to make do with what we get, and to wring as much joy and pleasure out of it as we can however we can.
No its fething not. You don't have any obligation to GW. Nobody does. You don't HAVE to play by their rules. And you don't HAVE to make the most of the gak situation they have tried to sell you and you have been a sucker for buying. Again, literally play any other more balanced and better rule set.
For some people, that means being a WAAC player, and for some it means being a casual player. Sometimes, those things do not synch up as well as we, the players, would like.
Feel free to continue exhorting GW to make the perfect game. But what I, and at least two others, are recommending is that you ALSO attempt to derive as much entertainment and enjoyment from what you HAVE as is possible within that framework.
See above. Derive your joy while not subjecting everyone to GW's Sysipheon hill.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/11/09 21:05:33
These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
Lance845 wrote: See above. Derive your joy while not subjecting everyone to GW's Sysipheon hill.
I'm not subjecting a single soul to any hill, Sisyphean or otherwise. I'm saying, practically, you have a thing. That thing is not ideal, but it exists. You can a) exhort the makers of said thing to make it better, b) derive pleasure from the thing as it exists (which, let's be fair, does include house rules), and/or c) not play with the thing.
I'm choosing A and B. What are you choosing?
Death Guard - "The Rotmongers"
Chaos Space Marines - "The Sin-Eaters"
Dark Angels - "Nemeses Errant"
Deathwatch
Sim-Life wrote: So to drag the point kicking and screaming back to where we were, why is it not GWs responsibility to balance the game to the point where casual can compete fairly with WAAC?
Sure, it is. They should (morally) balance the game perfectly, so every possible interaction with every possible combination of every possible codex is perfectly on par with every OTHER possible etc. etc., such that the only determining factor of who wins or loses is player skill and tactical accomplishment.
HOWEVER, it is also OUR responsibility to recognize a) that's never going to happen, and b) it's on us (practically, not morally) to make do with what we get, and to wring as much joy and pleasure out of it as we can however we can. For some people, that means being a WAAC player, and for some it means being a casual player. Sometimes, those things do not synch up as well as we, the players, would like.
Feel free to continue exhorting GW to make the perfect game. But what I, and at least two others, are recommending is that you ALSO attempt to derive as much entertainment and enjoyment from what you HAVE as is possible within that framework.
Its never going to happen while we have people blaming the players for GWs failures. I also never asked for a perfect game. I asked for a reasonably balanced game. If Warmachine can have 80+ units per major faction and achieve reasonable balance then I fail to see why 40k also can't achieve that.
Okay, so you're asking for a reasonably balanced game that GW has not delivered. What are you going to do about it?
Lance845 wrote: See above. Derive your joy while not subjecting everyone to GW's Sysipheon hill.
I'm not subjecting a single soul to any hill, Sisyphean or otherwise. I'm saying, practically, you have a thing. That thing is not ideal, but it exists. You can a) exhort the makers of said thing to make it better, b) derive pleasure from the thing as it exists (which, let's be fair, does include house rules), and/or c) not play with the thing.
I'm choosing A and B. What are you choosing?
As long as you are buying from the maker you are not doing A.
These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
Lance845 wrote: See above. Derive your joy while not subjecting everyone to GW's Sysipheon hill.
I'm not subjecting a single soul to any hill, Sisyphean or otherwise. I'm saying, practically, you have a thing. That thing is not ideal, but it exists. You can a) exhort the makers of said thing to make it better, b) derive pleasure from the thing as it exists (which, let's be fair, does include house rules), and/or c) not play with the thing.
I'm choosing A and B. What are you choosing?
As long as you are buying from the maker you are not doing A.
You dodged the question.
Death Guard - "The Rotmongers"
Chaos Space Marines - "The Sin-Eaters"
Dark Angels - "Nemeses Errant"
Deathwatch
Lance845 wrote:
The players only responsibility with a game is to follow the rules.
I dunno man. 'We were just following orders' doesn't get much traction at the Hague.
'But it's legal', or even better 'but iys not against the rules' is often a copout of the morally bankrupt in real life.
'Following the rules' doesn't absolve you from responsibility when said rules are poor, or when abuse of said rules has negative consequences .
Our responsibilities extend to ensuring we all have a good time.
Personal responsibility is a thing, whether you like it or not.
Sim-Life wrote:
Its never going to happen while we have people blaming the players for GWs failures. I also never asked for a perfect game. I asked for a reasonably balanced game. If Warmachine can have 80+ units per major faction and achieve reasonable balance then I fail to see why 40k also can't achieve that.
It's never going to happen so long as players refuse to accept they have a role to play in it either. Gw can do a hell of a lot better. So can the players. I mean, thing x is broken. Players take a dozen of them. Some of the responsibility is on us for that.
You asked for a resonable game and point to warmachine. Mate, i loved wmh and played the hell out of mk2 to a pretty decent level (coyple of placings and even scalped a UK masters winner with... strakhov1 once upon a time). warmachine was decent but still, often broken as hell and often very poorly implemented. In mk2, cryx and legion were quite ott, the game had loads of silver bullets and control casters like haley 2 were serious NPEs. There was a very large % of each faction that was generally never taken and what was, often boiled down to crutches and plenty casters had go-to lists. A handful of casters dominated the meta. If you were goodies, you could mitigate it to an extent, but it was always uphill. If as many people played wmh as 40k, anf its balance was aa good as wmh, you'd see no difference in the content of the online discussion.
Lance845 wrote: See above. Derive your joy while not subjecting everyone to GW's Sysipheon hill.
I'm not subjecting a single soul to any hill, Sisyphean or otherwise. I'm saying, practically, you have a thing. That thing is not ideal, but it exists. You can a) exhort the makers of said thing to make it better, b) derive pleasure from the thing as it exists (which, let's be fair, does include house rules), and/or c) not play with the thing.
I'm choosing A and B. What are you choosing?
As long as you are buying from the maker you are not doing A.
You dodged the question.
I didn't. My answer was in the post you quoted. I have said my answer several times in this thread. Play an entirely different game by choosing any of the other community created rule sets. Not some house rules. A game entirely built out of house rules. You want people to bend within GWs bad game to make other peoples experience more enjoyable something you have no rules for, is entirely up to interpretation, has different values for different people, and will never work on any scale that matters.
GW sucks at writing rules. It's unreasonable to expect them to get better while throwing money at them. Stop paying and playing them. Get your joy anywhere else.
These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
GW sucks at writing rules. It's unreasonable to expect them to get better while throwing money at them. Stop paying and playing them. Get your joy anywhere else.
I see. So in order for you to get what you want, I'm going to have to give up something that makes ME happy.
Sounds an awful lot like what you were accusing me of... something something Sisyphean hill something something.
Whatever. I'm going to keep buying GW's stuff as long as I can keep enjoying it an amount roughly equal to how much I'm paying for it. So far, that's occasionally. Good luck trying to stop people. Have fun! Or don't, your call.
Death Guard - "The Rotmongers"
Chaos Space Marines - "The Sin-Eaters"
Dark Angels - "Nemeses Errant"
Deathwatch
Sim-Life wrote: I notice that the conversation has turned from competitive players, to WAAC players to donkey-caves. Not all donkey-caves are WAAC players, not all WAAC players are donkey-caves. No one has really answered my question.
Because you lot keep trying to equate "competitive players" with "WAAC players" and shifting goalposts.
WAAC is a specific mentality. There's a reason why it has always been treated as an insult. It means Winning At All Costs. It's everything short of actively cheating.
There's another reason that it got used as a de facto insult for so long: it tended to go hand in hand with an extremely argumentative attitude.
So to drag the point kicking and screaming back to where we were, why is it not GWs responsibility to balance the game to the point where casual can compete fairly with WAAC?
It's right there in the name. Winning At All Costs.
