You play your army, I'll play mine, Don't let your head explode over this Rating Options

[Cossack]

It appears my comments about "You play your army and I'll play mine" have ruined a few computers as some people had blood shoot out of their eyes over it. I think there's a bit of an over-reaction....

This is about good sportsmanship. Early in my wargaming 'career', I used to fuss and fiddle over every little thing that happened in the game. It was VITAL that everything was exactly correct! (We used to call this 'White Knuckle Wargaming' and even used a Battletech image for it...)



I learned that, while this was normal for us younger guys, all I really did was piss off the older guys. It never mattered except to make the game LESS fun.

30 years later and I'm one of the older crowd now. I've learned not to worry over micrometers or a die rolled one degree off level. The absolute worst thing that can happen is my troops get put back into the box as casualties. They'll be just fine for the next game and still look cool.

So I leave my opponent alone as he moves his army and take his word for it when he tells me about special abilities and such. If he is unsure, we can look it up. But I prefer to leave the rules debates for after the game. If we did something wrong then we can discuss it afterwards without slowing down or interferring with the game.

Likewise, I expect certain considerations from my opponent. One is that he painted his army. Another is that he lets me play without double checking my moves or other things that I do. If he disputes something..."Are you sure a big shoota is Strength 5?" and I say "Yes, it is Strength 5" then that should be the end of it. It's only the same consideration I give him.

It wasn't my intention to cause heads to explode over this. I suggest that you try it and see how it goes for you. This playing style is far more laid back than the typical head-bashing that goes on sometimes....just move troops, roll dice, add some character to the game and have fun. I honestly do not care if I win the game. I just want to enjoy the game and haggling over it is the opposite of fun.

I hope this is clear and not misinterpreted as me being the Angel of Death and starting Armageddon or something.

[Captain Chaos]

HERE HERE

That is exactly how I play too!!!!

[Big Lone]

youve just summed up what i play 40k for in a few short paragraphs, at the end of the day it is just a game im one of the younger crowd i gues coming up to 21 tommorow.. however it gridns on my nackersd when you see people arguing over some silly little rule at the end of turn 2 xD... i take ym opponents word for it on there rules i am a ork player not a beakie, chaos exc exc so who am i to argue if they say thats what it is! if im totaly unsure or somethign sound way off ill ask for a reference number but its always after the game and never initiated as arant just along the lines of hey m8 mind if i check that rule out so ican understand it and undrstand how to counter it sort of thing.

but yeh agree with ya whats the worse that can happen you lose shake hands move on, and if your playing with the same 3 or 4 people then losing is what keeps you going back no point winning every game is there although we orks is good at it Har Har.

ive read through some of the disagreements thats been going on last few days and i come to a similar view point as you cossak bout armys i regulary play with the new ia8 and my 2 best m8s within the game run elysian drop troop and death krieg so if i wasnt laid back bout expansion rules exc then i wouldnt play xD imo the forgeworld rule sets are normaly a lot easier to interpret than the original GW stuff.

sorry for bad spellings my brain aint working that well these days,

[jack da greenski...]

OOHHHH!!!!

I wanna get a word in here before it all kicks off. What you say is quite reasonable, and makes for a good game. where I think many people had the problem is when you said:

"I dont need my opponents permission to play a squiggoth."

you may play in a friendly crowd, in which case you are extremely lucky. therefore I would say, because of your relationship, you can bank on people allowing you, or assume its granted. BUT..... quite clearly, wherever the rules are, it will say you need your opponents permission. I like the fact people let you play what you want, but if say, your opponents army was susceptible to a squiggoth, its no fun for him, and squiggoths arent in normal play so there was no need for him to tailor his list against one.

another thing you bring up is painted models. I dont like playing people with unpainted models, but its sometimes necessary in order to get a game. I sometimes end up playing with PIPs, but ultimately I keep slogging through my painting backlog until I dont have to. I obviously prefer two fully painted armies, but we all live in a real world so sometimes such a luxury is not possible.

I envy your crowd and their gaming ethics.

[BlackSpike]

While I appreciate both your sentiments, and choosing to explain them (I did lurk around that other thread!), I'd like to add a side-point that I find relevant.
Your approach can work well when both people know the rules and Codex quite well.
And as you say, age/experience can be a factor. Yoofs want to win! want it right (so they know they won fair!), want all the shiny toys! Scarboyz have mellowed a little, and want to fight.

Our group has all only just started (re-started ... Played 2nd Ed and Epic Scale back in the day, nothing since then), and so we don't know the rules very well, and are still getting to grips with how things work.
Rather than ignore our opponents, we double-check a lot of things, haven't clarified how all the rules work (especially each other's Codex).
I ask my opponent to explain his moves/powers/etc so that I can learn them, and versa vice. Usually along the lines of:
"You can do what?!?"
"Unit X! haha! I think its on P.36, I'll keep moving/rolling while you check it up."
"Oh yeah! wow!" or "No, doesn't work like that. QUOTE"-"Oh, sorry, I'll re-roll the dice then".
It helps that we are good friends and few of us.

I'm kind of split about RAW-mongering.
I love a good discussion, hammering out what the rules say, what loop-holes that leaves, pushing RAW to breaking point.
But i don't want my time at the table to be spent doing that. We hammer out RAW, house-rules, gentleman's agreements between games, and decide how it will work before we play.
Again, helps that we are few. Four of us can reach accord quite quickly (even if one of us is still annoyed he got outvoted! ), and are happy to say "OK, we'll play it your way this time, next time my way, then we make a final call" or somesuch.

Another thing that always helps is having a full set of Rules around. BRB, print-outs of FAQs, Codexs (with FAQs), A couple of copies of your Army List (with all upgrades and points values) so things are easy to check. OK, this won't get round RAW-wrinkles and differing interpretations, but its a start).
We play at my house. Next to the big shelf of Games Workshop books. Alongside the 'net-connected PC with printer.

EDIT: Addition: Un-Written house Rule we use: unpainted models stay on the painting table, not the fighting table!
i'll play your grey plastic men, but I'll take the mick, let you know that I prefer to play vs painted models, and request they are painted next time.

[Rombo]

If it only was so easy... I don't know how many times my oponent has been trying a new list or even codex and had to look up information all the time. But yeah, if we both know what we are doing that sounds like the right way to play.

[Mad Grot Docsnik]

I have to agree. This is the way most of my games go. And often times two days later I or my opponent will say, "you know where X happened the other day? we played that wrong" and we both say "OK won't do that again." I expect my opponent to be competent with his codex and not cheat. If something comes up that we're unsure about, we agree to an interpretation and keep playing.

Now, on the other hand, if I asked my opponent "are you sure Big Shootaz are S5?" and he answered "I'll play my army, you play yours", them would be fightin' words. Unfortunately, the Internet loses the voice when making a point. You can't hear what the poster meant. The whole thing is flattened down to the text on the page so you have to be careful how you take things and careful how you write things.

So let's all check our guns at the door and have a pleasant game together where you're allowed to question a rules interpretation without drawing blood.

[Orxymandiuz]

I think the problem might be poorly thought out and inflammatory statements that make people's head explode.

"you play your army, I'll play mine" is a rather curt and trite way of saying "let's not let rule's lawyering and misunderstanding's about each other's codex's ruin what could otherwise be a fun game. If you are willing to show flexibility and consideration in your dealings with me, I will extend you the same courtesies and we will be able to mutually enjoy the game, regardless of the outcome." By your explanation, this is clearly what you mean, but not what you said.

Similarly statements that begin "I don't need my opponent's permission..." also raise hackles, because it implies you are unwilling to enter into the game with the attitude of respect, consideration and cooperation that is the basis for any type of game and its enjoyment.

Whether this is what you mean or not - that is the tone of these kind of statements, clearly designed to be provocative, not constructive.

Personally I play for fun, and if someone is so hung up on rules, statistics and arguing that it stops being fun I'm all too happy to just walk away from the game. It's not about a win or a loss, it's a good time and a chance to display some models I've worked really hard on. If my opponent has lost sight of that I'll find another.

[Penelope the Won...]

Now you phrase it this way, yeah, I get you. But if I questioned something my opponent was doing and he flat out said "I'll play my army, you play yours" instead of just politely answering the question and moving on, I would take this as a) hostile and b) dodging the question, which wouldn't exactly endear him to me. Its just the way it was phrased in a previous thread, kind of got my hackles up. I see where you're coming from now though.

[Buzzkill]

Okay, not to stir the pot here, but I feel a point should be made on the painting of models. I can totally get behind two fully painted armies duking it out on the table, but in friendly games, isn't it a bit harsh to refuse to play against an unpainted army? Especially for those of us who are just starting (or restarting) the hobby, we may not have our army fully painted yet, but we want to play. I enjoy painting and modeling, but most of all, I wanna get my boyz on the table and do some krumpin'. I don't have time to throw a couple hours every night into painting my army. I have other hobbies (probably too many of them, to be honest.) and work and oh yeah, a powerful need to eat sometime soon. Sometimes, for whatever reason, aesthetics can fall by the wayside. Does that make me a lousy opponent? I don't think so. I share all your sentiments on sportsmanship, and then some. I've been known to insist that my opponent cheat because the RAW is stupid, uncharacteristic, and boring. I laugh, I joke, I make fun of my boyz for bein' zoggin' useles gits when they screw up. But my army isn't fully painted. Hell, against my roomies, we'll use proxies that only vaguely approximate the model if we're experimenting. Try before you buy, y'know? One of the guys used a couple bottles of airbrush medium for wraithlords. Roughly the same size and shape, mostly. Enough for determining LOS. It's an expensive hobby, and we have no interest in spending large amounts of money on models for a unit that we don't like.

So yeah. My two teef on the subject. Amongst a close circle, that kind of thing is fine, but when you venture into the wide world to play with folks you don't know, maybe ease up on 'em for the painting? They may not have time, or skill, or any number of things. The game's still fun, they can still be fantastic opponents. Leave the hardline painting rules for tournies. And if I'm misinterpreting what you're saying, then you can write my rant off as the ramblings of a hungover man who's still working on his morning coffee.

Cheers, boyz.

[jack da greenski...]

Okay, not to stir the pot here, but I feel a point should be made on the painting of models. I can totally get behind two fully painted armies duking it out on the table, but in friendly games, isn't it a bit harsh to refuse to play against an unpainted army? Especially for those of us who are just starting (or restarting) the hobby, we may not have our army fully painted yet, but we want to play. I enjoy painting and modeling, but most of all, I wanna get my boyz on the table and do some krumpin'. I don't have time to throw a couple hours every night into painting my army. I have other hobbies (probably too many of them, to be honest.) and work and oh yeah, a powerful need to eat sometime soon. Sometimes, for whatever reason, aesthetics can fall by the wayside. Does that make me a lousy opponent? I don't think so. I share all your sentiments on sportsmanship, and then some.
Cheers, boyz.

I get that too. except, if I paint like a demon for a few weeks before an event or something, working around school, schoolwork, extra schoolwork and sport, and the same guy turns up with 50 unpainted boyz, then I really think he's being a weedy git.
two weeks ago, I decided to enter a kill team tournament, and I needed to paint 10 gretchin to have all my team painted. I asked the organizer if everything had to be fully painted, and despite the effort required, I'm glad he said yes. It meant that I would have to paint 10 gretchin, something which is hard to find time for, but it also ensured every army I played against would be painted too.
It all comes down to courtesy. If someones starting out, by all means play them, painted or not, but if the same lazy git is using lynxcans as dreadnoughts and your facing a force of grey figures for the upteenth time, he's not respecting you or your dedication to the hobby.

[Buzzkill]

Yeah, for a tournament, by all means, expect the effort. Tournaments are competitive, and should be respected as such. You don't see a team show up for the Super Bowl in t-shirts and torn up jeans. But for some people, the painting and modeling has no bearing on the hobby for them, it's all about the game. Let's be honest, as much as painting displays dedication to the hobby, it's purely aesthetics. A person can still be a great sport and brilliant general with little grey men, and someone with a beautifully painted army can still be a rotten little brat. I hold that it doesn't necessarily mean that they're not respecting me or my dedication, merely that that particular aspect of the hobby is less important to them. I've known people that love to paint, but never play, because they think the game itself is dumb. To a lot of people (and to be honest, I'm one of them) the game plays the same, painted or not. I had this debate from the other side with one of my friends who was thinking about getting into the hobby, but was really only interested in the gaming aspect. I can see both sides of the issue, but in the end, I find myself believing that it's not about the models, it's about the player. If the other gamer is fun, I don't care if he's using homemade cardboard cutouts for models. If he's a jackass, then it doesn't matter how nice his army is, I'm not gonna play him.

[Cossack]

Thanks for the replies.

Maybe it's because of too many years playing Slaanesh, but I will often just 'render' down a bunch of words to "you play yours, I'll play mine". My gaming group has a lot of sayings....."You win. Now let's play for fun." "If you feel better doing it that way, go ahead" (when somebody is obviously stretching the boundaries a bit...like MOVING terrain!) and so on.

I'll admit I was a bit flippant about the Squiggoth thing. It is inconceivable to me that somebody would actually tell me "That's not in the main codex book, so I will not ALLOW you to use it." I have never in my life heard of that actually occuring. I know of tournies where they prohibit stuff (like special characters, too)...but then you know that going in.

Remember that Forge World stuff is (generally) not worth the points you pay. So if somebody plops a FW model down he's more interested in the coolness factor than winning.

My biggest issue is when I show up to an Apoc game with my Gargantuan Squiggoth and somebody tries to kill him with a scratch built Titan that's nothing but a cardboard box with stuff glued on it and paper towel tubes as guns - and unpainted. He really needs to FINISH IT before he tries to shoot my precious Squiggy.....


As for the unpainted thing - the issue is really only with players who have been gaming for years yet still don't field a painted army. If you 'lower the bar' then you'll find people always coming right under it....then that becomes the new bar and they'll go lower....until you end up with empty bases or coins being used. If you've seen my website you'll notice that I like to take photos of my games....so the painting is important to me.

Anyway, enough words from me. Clean your monitor if you don't like 'em!

[hakbash]

First off I want to clear this up for the Mad Grot. The supa-scorcha is the large hellstorm template and not the smaller flamer template. We played that wrong by the way ya zogger.

Just an example of how we play games. We don't look up every rule we don't know by heart and often just go with the flow until the smoke clears.

I agree with Cossack, leave the fiddly bitz till after the game. Heck the rules are so bad nowadayz its really the only way to have fun anyway.

Now of course good skumgrodz are ard to come by so playing in a total fun filled game is often a lot harder than it appears.


WAAAGH! da rules lawyers aint proppa

[jack da greenski...]

Again true, although I believe those are just exceptions.

A great general is a great general, whatever his army looks like, but I believe a good sport (I'm generalising) would feel a bit of guilt for not having a painted army. I may be confusing good sport with nice guy, but the two are pretty much mutuality inclusive. A good sport is a good sport, whatever the army, but I've seen far more good sports with nicely converted, painted armies than a grey legion.

People who just play for the game - people who are primarily gamers, still paint. those who dont, still feel a twang of guilt, and buy/commission painted miniatures. people who game generally aim for tournaments, where minis must be painted, so paint or commission are options.

what you say is true, although I think they are one-offs, not a rule of thumb.

[big mek tank kru...]

then again, mainly aimed that the 'i don't need permission to play my army' comment, i did have a game where i simply didn't see a point in playing. it was against 2 players who'd teamed up, and all they had on the board were two landraiders. i couldn't crack them at ranged, and the lascannon one blew up my trukks then the crusader blew up the small squads of boys. the only PK i got to one was my boss with a single nob left, and then he missed as it'd rolled forward last turn, then it disgorged a squad of grey knight termys with inquisitor termy.

needless to say next time i faced them i said 'i'm not playing against more than one land raider'. they agreed, realising that it was no fun fer me. another guy tried to do a 3 LR list with 2 minimal chaos squads as troops against me, i just said no, as there was no way i could win. masses of boys don't do against AV14 on all sides. he said 'oh, you can't just not play me!', at which point i packed up my army and went to find someone else to play. he was a spoilt kid anyway, only started like 2 months ago, parents bought him all his stuff and painted it for him in the shop. hardly helping him for the future. he was in there assembling a baneblade 'he' had just bought.

[Cossack]

You probably did the right thing there big mek. When they run out of opponents and just play each (and age about ten more years) they'll figure it out.

[Big Lone]

i stopped playing in my local GW shop for a while cause it was new in town found alot of 10-14 year olds where in there asking questions everry zogging 5 mins and then making rules up when they couldnt win exc, just say unles your old nuff to comprehend the rules dont bother with me because ill woop you with the cheesyest army orks can field until you quit the game... yes unles you cant tell i hae kids and feel this is a game designed for people who can comprehend sportsmanship not just omg i pew pew pew cause im 12 with daddys credit card. im the youngest in my group of friends who play being 21 as of tomoz, my friends are all in there 40's and been playing since rogue trader days so playing them is alot of fun as there easy going with rules but we all agree this is more of a adult orienatated game.

[jack da greenski...]

found alot of 10-14 year olds

You didn't generalize, but for anyone who does, not all kids are dicks. I'm 14 and buy warhammer out of my paperround money, and I hate spoilt rich kids too.

I dont like 3 way games, because by pairing up with a mate you guarantee a win but have no fun. you destroy the other army with no effort, and its not fun for anyone. again its the kids who do this, for them its all about the win.

for me, a games a game. I've played in the past, and I will play many in the future. It's not worth cheating or being a dick for, which some people (kids) seem to think.

[Dim_Reapa]

Sometimes, for whatever reason, aesthetics can fall by the wayside. Does that make me a lousy opponent? I don't think so. I share all your sentiments on sportsmanship, and then some. I've been known to insist that my opponent cheat because the RAW is stupid, uncharacteristic, and boring. I laugh, I joke, I make fun of my boyz for bein' zoggin' useles gits when they screw up. But my army isn't fully painted. Hell, against my roomies, we'll use proxies that only vaguely approximate the model if we're experimenting. Try before you buy, y'know?

Cossack essentially answers how I will with regards to this, but I don't think anyone who insists on painted models, no proxies or WYSIWYG is doing this to chastise those who haven't followed them precisely. Some will, but those types tend to oppose everything with regards to rules, and very few of them are that fun to play against anyway.

It's what Cossack says. I really don't like coming up against whole unpainted armies, but I don't mind people who show they're slowly moving towards painting everything. It's those people who never bother that bug me. A friend of mine thinks its okay to buy what is essentially a box of unpainted/poorly painted bits on ebay, carry them around in a shoe box and stop short of almost throwing them down on the table. Most of the hobbyist gamers find it quite unfair to encounter the 'just gamers' who don't bother. If you are a slow painter like me, I'm not bothered, but if you have no intention of painting anything, ever, that bugs me.

The ruling against such things is common in a lot of gaming groups. The bar is set high for a reason. It is so that you are aiming to reach that bar. It doesn't mean you wont be allowed to play if you are below that bar, but it is a standard you are expected to achieve. Its a game about wargaming models that you buy and paint yourself - that itself is as important as the game you play with them.

So yeah. My two teef on the subject. Amongst a close circle, that kind of thing is fine, but when you venture into the wide world to play with folks you don't know, maybe ease up on 'em for the painting? They may not have time, or skill, or any number of things. The game's still fun, they can still be fantastic opponents. Leave the hardline painting rules for tournies. And if I'm misinterpreting what you're saying, then you can write my rant off as the ramblings of a hungover man who's still working on his morning coffee.

Well Cossack has mentioned numerous times, he tends to play within his own group. I'm the same. I'm not very keen on playing new players, because my experience has tended to be quite negative of late, at least when playing GW games. I tend to stick to my convictions, because they're why I still play wargames, so I tend to avoid the stores 'tournament' players. I've always had a hefty disregard for them, and I also don't agree with the idea that hard-line rules should be exclusive to tournaments.

There are standards of play, and we all have our own standards. I expect general chit-chat during games, a lark on, creative rules solutions, lots of laughing, and a fun game. I really dislike facing powergaming lists, and I don't like to be 'tournament list' practise. Most people practising 'tournament lists' don't play anything else. The 'creative rules solutions' often raises eyebrows on forums, but I agree with the approach of solving a rule by how it makes most sense. If this sense is shared by the other player, there is no problem. I certainly don't believe in holding up games with rules arguments. Nor do I feel RAW is always right. You learn to know a system, so you learn to 'expect' how a rules mechanic should work within its ruleset. That, imo is how rules solutions should be figured out, and why I feel the Deffrolla FAQ turned out, despite Kelly saying what he did on the subject.

Nor do I feel tournaments represent the peak or highest realm of wargaming. I don't think you ever need to take part in one to be considered a wargamer, nor to assume that their practises are the highest standard. In fact a lot of tournament players (but not all, mind you) have some pretty poor attitudes to such basic wargaming prerequisites such as sportsmanship, the pursuit of fun and especially not any sense of fairness or consideration for their opponent. There's a fair amount of them who are elitist powergamers, who I've often caught suggesting not to play the game at all if someone complains about the use of a power list in a 'casual game'.

No games are casual anyway, you always have to turn up.

I'll admit I was a bit flippant about the Squiggoth thing. It is inconceivable to me that somebody would actually tell me "That's not in the main codex book, so I will not ALLOW you to use it." I have never in my life heard of that actually occuring. I know of tournies where they prohibit stuff (like special characters, too)...but then you know that going in.

One of the reasons I never got involved with this spat or the one in the deleted thread, is because I guessed what Cossack was on about. I hope Cossack will forgive the term, but I knew Cossack was an old git, and most likely an old git who plays Old Skool style. I grew up with this, back in the days of 2nd Ed. I know what the phrase "You play your army, I'll play mine" means. In fact, I feel a little guilty I didn't mention this sooner. I could have possibly resolved a few bad feelings in the forum.

The attitude to how 40k is played now is completely different to how it used to be. It isn't nostalgia goggles, it's true. I don't really like chucking this word around (especially with regards to something involving toy soldiers) but the atmosphere of 40k used to be a lot more mature. It was a more mature game back then too. I need only passingly mention that the stuff slaanesh and his followers got up to was a lot less PG-13 back then. Let's not get started on the Khaine followers...

The older gamers just want to get on with it. It's easier to assume cheating when you're younger, because, let's face it, most of your peer group will if they can get away with it. In honesty I think this is half of 40k's problem. When stuff benefits people, some of us will not mind being really, really stupid and need everything literally spelling out to the nth degree if it gets us the slightest advantage. You get power lists based on poor rulings. You can probably half imagine that Apoc games will face huge amounts of Lifta Droppa spam until its clarified that Liftas cannot remove models from the game by knocking them off the table edge.

Besides, liftas were always about the dropping damage they inflicted, more than moving models around.

Its not to say that the mature gamers are better. I've met plenty that cheated horribly. But people who cheat are always going to cheat, and I hate to say it, but taking them to task on it may reap rewards, but it can be as much about retribution rather than a pursuit of fairness and risks impacting on the enjoyment of a game even more.

I played 2nd Ed for a number of years after 3rd came out. In fact I have still played the odd game up until last year, when most of us separated too much even for the odd game. Wargaming is as much about the attitude of play as much as the rules. It has affected my own rules writing completely, so much so that my games function around instilling a certain element of attitude and contribution into the ruleset. 40k in particular is a unhealthy example of the complete evolution of game and its company. Things have changed, not always for the better, and I think that a lot of newer gamers are less than sympathetic to those who sat through these changes uncomfortably.

Back in the day you solved most of your rules issues yourself, unless the very rare FAQ featured in a white dwarf article threw light onto your solution. The internet has made it far too easy both to find and request (as well as overly expect) FAQs and also to find rules issues. In light of this RAW ended up being chucked out, most likely because GW were not going to bother with large in-depth FAQs, because they knew expectation would be there to feature them all in Codex re-prints, which let's face is as much of a pain for gamers of that army to keep buying the book just for the corrections.

There are just some rules issues that don't come up when I play older gamers. I've started to empathise with this. I just ended up not having enough time to actually care, and with other Wargames that are not very widespread I've found myself being even more polite with my opponent, knowing that they are among a handful of gamers I know who play the game, and in Confrontation's case, the only ones I knew playing the game within a 30 mile radius.

Its actually one of the better attitudes to take, in a way. People forget that supplement and expansion rules back in 1st and 2nd Ed were part of the game, and often not very well balanced. In Necromunda, there wasn't a thing that was limited by permissions, and something you were expected to sort out yourselves within your own group.

I'm not a huge fan of interventionist rules. Every gaming group has its own politics it may want to consider. I've never asked my opponent's permission to field anything, but if issue was taken I've always been happy to change it, so long as they weren't violating it themselves. I just don't really care any more. The amount of time I have to play, I want a few games in when I get the chance, and although I will raise rules issues, I tend to only do it against power gamers, which admittedly is an increasingly large population of today's gamers.

On a final note (as if you didn't have enough to read) I may know better than anyone what its like to be misinterpreted and to sound harsher than intended. Although I also don't mind criticising or being criticised like this, people do have to remember it is as much about being a good reader as it is a good writer. It is just that you should endeavour to be more easily understood and to remember that in a multi-cultural forum setting, people's values differ utterly, and I'm not just on about different countries. Your own gaming 'culture' can factor into it.

I also blame the use of some language. In my experience, Yanks do have a habit of using words I'd consider quite serious in a offhand way (we brits have starting copying it, damn media ) words such as awesome and sucks are used in minor circumstances, whereas a word like 'awesome' should precede being 'awe-struck' rather than when a tin holds 15 hot dogs rather than ten, as Eddie Izzard puts it.

Not that I actually like this, I actively discourage it. I don't like the term 'sucks' applied to units ever. That bugs me. Its far too simplistic. Most arguments are not as simple as such a simple term but oh well, itz teh internetz...