Friday, 19 August 2016

Tom's Adventures in Facebookland - Part 1

There are 3 terrible places where you can find people saying dumb things about 40k. Obviously you can find these people everywhere but these are probably the most notorious:


1) Online 40k Forums
2) The Bell of Lost Souls Comments section (in fact a lot of the article are trash can worthy as well)
3) Any 40k related non ETC Facebook group.


Here is an interaction I had today. I recently joined an Eldar group as motivation to paint stuff, and I came home from a movie night with friends to a monstrously long comments section on debating Warp Spiders wound Artillery.


Tom Leighton: Guys this really isn't complicated. It's not down to player discretion, it's down to actually reading rules. FAQ > Codex > Main Rulebook is how it's always been and how it continues to be, whether or not the main rulebook says 'always wound against toughness' is irrelevant if the individual entry for the weapon in the Codex says initiative. End of story. Pick up your Warp Spiders, find the initiative of the Guardian Crew, and move on.


Random: for 95% of my games its down to that or a TO the other 5% is my mates having a laugh and using the thing that makes sense if it was IRL are you saying that us having fun is wrong? but its FAQ Where advanced rules apply to a specific model, they always override any contradicting basic rules then Codex>main rulebook


Tom Leighton: Uhm, what? xD. Ok, going to address a few points from that.
1) 'are you saying that us having fun is wrong?'. Did I write that in my comment? No. Then probably not :P.

2) 'where advanced rules apply to a specific model, they always override'. Define, 'advanced rules'. Explain how toughness of an artillery piece is a so called 'advanced rule' and the way you wound with a death spinner isn't, and lastly but most importantly, can you find me any rules reference currently in use anywhere to back up the assertion that 'this rule is complex so screw what your Codex says'.

Even for a British guy I'm horrendously sarcastic.


Random: Citation as requested the artillery type is an advanced rule and as such in some cases can over rule codex (none come to mind as im English and its 00:03 and not sure where you are from been British but if its scotland n ireland or walesyoull appreciate the time)
page 468-469 of the digital version

Basic rules apply to all the models in the game, unless stated otherwise. They include the rules for movement, shooting and close combat as well as the rules for morale. These are all the rules you’ll need for infantry models. Advanced rules apply to specific types of models, whether because they have a
special kind of weapon (such as a boltgun), unusual skills (such as the ability to regenerate), because they are different to their fellows (such as a unit leader or a heroic character), or because they are not normal infantry models (a bike, a swarm or even a tank). The advanced rules that apply to a unit are indicated in its Army List Entry.


and on your rules reference currently in use anywhere to back up the assertion that 'this rule is complex so screw what your Codex says'. part did you read the post before jumping in my post before yours ran through all this with the conclusion of .... well ill let you re read and ill wait here for my apology


Tom Leighton: Thank you for the citation random, it makes this much easier 'Advanced rules apply to specific types of models, whether they have a special weapon (such as a boltgun).' and 'because they are not normal infantry models'. That second one is probably the one most closely relating to the artillery, but any of them make my point.
By this definition, there is no denying that the toughness value of an Artillery piece is an advanced rule. However, by the first quotation that I made, the statlines and special rules of any and all weapons are also advanced rules. Therefore we have 2 seperate advanced rules competing against each other, therefore we refer to Codex > Main Rulebook. Therefore wound against each other.

Hence, it really is that simple.

That said, I find it actually hilarious that you are asking for an apology for me not actually reading what you wrote, when what you wrote actively failed to address any of the points that I made in my post, even going so far as to accuse me of being anti fun for pointing out the method of the rules. So you can stuff your apology quite frankly.

I literally lifted quotes from what you wrote and addressed them individually, and yet you accuse me of not reading your post. Alright mate.


Random: so you agree with my original statement,
apology accepted

i'm glad you now realise you only go to the codex rule if it specifically over rides the rule book not just assuming that it automatically does


Tom Leighton: Yeah I did, hence why I was a little bit surprised :P. However not as surprised as I was to click back onto Facebook and find dozens of comments on a very basic rule ^^.


Random: lol i know why i went into full sarcasm mode with you because even tho you were correct no need to talk to people like that its better for advanced players like yourself to help people if they only play with their friends then its fine to play it as it affects the gun in anyway they find enjoyable but point out if they play outside that group most people will do it this way because of then point it out in the rulebook


Tom Leighton: I'm sorry mate, you seem like your heart is in the right place but I cannot take that seriously. Of course people are welcome to play the game however they enjoy it, to suggest anything else is ridiculous. The conclusion that Warp Spiders wound against initiative had already been asserted on multiple occasions, and yet no-one heeded it. I took a different approach and broke the whole thing down, in my own sarcastic way. I even made this very clear that I was being sarcastic, and therefore my tone was not to be taken seriously, but at the same time i had to be firm with it, because it was clearly the only way to get through. I am a little bit perturbed that you are now trying to lecture me on behavior after trying to acknowledge an apology that i explicitly did not give. After all, my sarcasm was noted and noticeable (i literally wrote that I was being sarcastic) to avoid upsetting or offending anyone, yours was not.
Also, I never assumed automatically that the Codex overrides the rulebook. What I perceive to know is not always the same as what I actually know, it's merely a rhetorical device to lead those interested to that conclusion. I've been playing far too long and at too high a level not to know that xD

I'm an ETC player now. Why. The Fuck. Do I still have clowns. Trying to debate rules with me, and then personally attack me?

1 comment:

  1. Facebook is a troll's second home; 2009 was the last time I ever used it. The majority of individuals on there either whine about their lives or verbally attack people; even if they're clearly in the wrong. Stick to invite-only groups.

    ReplyDelete