Kirb your enthusiasm!

WEBSITE HOSTED AT: www.3plusplus.net

"Pink isn't a color. It's a lifestyle." - Chumbalaya
"...generalship should be informing list building." - Sir Biscuit
"I buy models with my excess money" - Valkyrie whilst a waitress leans over him


Tuesday, August 17, 2010

BoLS & Wound Allocation


I tried, I really tried to give BoLS the benefit of the doubt. Didn't work. Once again iamaddj puts out an opinionated article which does...nothing. So here's another snowmobile of his article (with the ensuing lols) whilst also highlighting the why of wound allocation. My comments in blue.

Just over two years ago, in an unpredicted and horrifying move cheating was legalized in 40K. Following GW rules = cheating. Oh, I knew I was doing it wrong. How did this happen? Two words, Wound Allocation. So what's the INAT FAQ then?

That's right my friends, two years ago Warhammer 40,000 5th edition was released, I thought it was recent from your last article. and something subtle and nefarious found its way into the ruleset. It seemed like such an innocent little rule at first glance. This rule was, again I assume, never intended to be used to allow people to cheat, It's a rule. How is it cheating? and yet it like Anakin Skywalker, was used and turned to evil. What's your excuse for abusing the English language and our retinas? The rule I speak off is the often debated and controversial wound allocation system. It's not debated it's clear cut. One wound per model before wounds stack. Wounded multi-wound models must die first unless there are varied wargears then you allocate first. Was that hard? Now last week I called out true Line of Sight. I said it was killing our games, You were wrong. 10-1 odds you are again here. I said it was a plague upon wargaming, and I stand by that. But for me TLoS is a major plague on all wargaming, not just 40k. Wound Allocation is only a major problem for 40K. But in that limited scope, and by limited I mean the most popular and played wargame of all time, it is most likely the most serious flaw. Or lack of intellect. That's right, I said it, Wound Allocation is the single biggest flaw in 40K at this moment. Why, and how has it made cheating legal you might ask? Cheating - violating accepted standards or rules (thanks to Web Dictionary). Hey, wound allocation is a rule. Shut up. Well lets look at the facts. That's all the facts I need thanks. Let's pre-face this. Wound Allocation slows the game down when you get a bunch of different attacks and models particularly squads of multiple wounds such as Nobz and Thunderwolves being hit by some weapons which ignore armor, some which cause instant death and some which are just regular old wounds. When you have two players who know this system and have a somewhat decent IQ, it's not too bad. It's slower than what it was before but it also stops special guys only dying at the end. I imagine there are serious ways to streamline this but nothing comes to my mind atm. Let's hear your thoughts on this. How can wound allocation be streamlined so it's quick yet special/sarges/heavies can die mid-game?

Wound Allocation Was Supposed to Help the Shooter

When 5th Edition was released all the interviews and production notes agreed, wound allocation was in the game to help the shooting player. Wound allocation had been added to the game to allow for the chance that the shooting player might kill one of the target squad's important members. I haven't seen any of these interview notes but yes, this was the concept behind this design but I imagine GW designers having some understanding of math (since the systems they use are based on math) knew wound allocation actually improved a squad's survivability once you hit a magic number or if there were armor ignoring wounds, etc. Maybe they wanted the game more realistic lol. This was seen as a huge positive, a move away from the old style of play where the last model in a squad was also the most important, normally the sergeant or special weapon guy. Wound allocation was put into the game to replace the older "torrent of fire" rule which allowed the shooting player to force saves to be taken on a model of his choice if he did enough hits. But in the face of canny players this new rule backfired. How? This concept uh, well it works. Special models can die before their squad is wiped.

Many People Don't Actually Use Wound Allocation

The first major strike against wound allocation is that many, many people don't actually use it, or like the gym, use it infrequently. 100% of my games use it. When someone doesn't or forgets, we randomly roll to allocate the failed wounds because...it's part of the rules. Not doing so is cheating. Once again you've generalised from your personal experience which seems strange to say the least. The truth is the wound allocation rules are a bit complicated and slow the game down. Spot on but you haven't explained how or why. On a normal squad of 10 marines w/Flamer/Sarge/MM it's not complicated. On a squad of 3x TW w/TH, SS, m-bombs being hit by 3x S4, 1 AP2, 1 S10 hits, well it becomes a bit more difficult. Because of this many people just skip the allocation step. And that is cheating. Its something I see a lot. "Oh you did 10 wounds?" rolls ten saves together "Well I failed four, so I guess these four guys die". That's common occurrence, and unless the squad was all exactly the same, its wrong. And cheating. It in fact leads to the very thing wound allocation was made to stop, the most important members of a squad being the last to die. It's cheating, too. Because the rules are complex and unpopular they didn't get used much, especially by newer players which is a major strike against them. So they are cheating. Furthermore unlike TLoS, which many people say simplified the game, wound allocation just made it more complicated. Correct but not using it is cheating...rather than using it being cheating like you said. For game balance though, those specials being able to die and who are much more likely to die the smaller the squad, is important. Mechanics and balance > ease of use. Do I believe it needs a change to streamline it? Sure. Let's see if you offer up an alternative then and this article will just make me look like a douche then.

Wound Allocation Slows The Game Down

Another major problem with wound allocation is that is slows the game down. You just said this. Unlike the old system where you rolled saves and then pulled guys as you wanted, wound allocation makes you take the time to allocate the wounds. While this slows the game down a bit, the fact that you then have to roll saves separately slows the game down even more. By seconds...the allocation is actually the pain and only when you get complex units hit by different types of weapons as you need to think of the best way to allocate the ignore save wounds. The rolling...is marginal, especially since the majority of people have different colored dice. While every instance of wound allocation doesn't really take all that much time, doing it over and over again in the course of a game does tend to slow things down a bit. Worse so since many people just ignore wound allocation, this means you often have to stop and explain how it works. Many times in tournaments I have seen this bring games to a halt. This is the second major strike against wound allocation. Now these are both bad things about the rule, but not quite cheating. No. It's not cheating. At all. It's the rule.

Wound Allocation Actually Helps The Target, Not The Shooter

Ah yes, the cheating. So remember how wound allocation was supposed to help the shooter? It does. Specials can die. Well it really doesn't - instead knowing the wound allocation rules well almost always helps the defender. It does this, too. I've said it before and I'm sure the designers knew the math and the 'shenangians' that could happen. One major case of this is with multi-wound model units. Remember a few years ago when Nob Bikers where the terror of the tournament world (they are still pretty annoying)? That doesn't mean much because they were never that scary. Over-costed and inefficient. Well they were so good in large part because of the wound allocation rules. Or so people though but they actually weren't. Ideally with a multi-wound unit like Nob Bikers you would have to kill whole models, and that is clearly the intention of the rules. However players where able to find a loophole in the wound allocation rules to get around this. Namely the fact that is every model in the unit is equipped differently, which is possible in Nob Bikers you don't actually have to kill whole models. Instead by exploiting the rules you could put one wound on every one of your Nobs before actually killing any of them. Unless your opponent actually whacked them with S8+ weaponry.

An even worse exploitation of the wound allocation rules, and this is really what I would call cheating, Following the rules is cheating? is the ability to just make wound vanish, just go away. Here an example of what I mean:

6 Space Marines (a Sergeant, a meltagunner, a guy with a lascanon, and 3 normal Marines) get shot by an Imperial Guard veteran squad. The Marines take 6 lasgun wounds and 6 wounds from plasma guns. Now your first instinct is to say "man they took 6 wound from weapons that ignore their saves, they should all die." And that makes sense. But then in comes wound allocation. The defending player knows the wound allocation rules, so he allocates two lasgun wounds each to the sergeant, the meltagunner and the guy with the lascannon. Meanwhile the 3 normal marines take the 6 plasma gun wounds. So the normal guys all die, but there is a good chance the special guys all walk away unhurt after making their saves. And those three extra plasma gun wounds that should have killed the squad? They vanish into thin air, victims of black magic voodoo. Let's try a more realistic example. 10 marines w/Sarge, special & heavy take 6 normal wounds and 6 ignore save wounds. Now here's where wound allocation really kicks in, by taking multiple ignore save wounds on specials you reduce the actual number of average deaths. You then have an opportunity cost, lose a special but less models or lose more models but no specials?

So lets look at everything that is wrong with that example. Firstly wound allocation failed in all it's stated goals, it helped the defender and not the shooter, and it failed to get rid of the special guys while killing all the normal troops. So suddenly the shooter also has an option, shoot only with the plasma guns :O. Remember 4th ed was gun-line armies and GW moved away from that. This means assault armies have to be able to cross the battlefield somehow. Secondly it allowed the defending player to ignore wounds to his squad that should have killed people. Thirdly it was far more complicated than a simple, they took 6 wounds that ignore their armor, they die, rule would have been. And this took 5 seconds to figure out? And finally here's the big kicker, it means the shooting player made a big mistake by firing all his weapons. See the IG player would have been better off just firing his plasma guns, with only the 6 plasma gun wounds the whole enemy squad would have died, by shooting his lasguns as well he actually saved his enemy. You mean, the shooter should of thought before hand and by being stupid and not, this is a knock against a RULE? And that's just wrong. In no system should shooting your enemy more times actually make it more likely he survives. It doesn't make any sense from either a logical perspective or a game play perspective. It's just bad. But specials staying alive until the end did. Got ya.

So those are just a quick few reasons why wound allocation is a huge, huge problem in 40k right now. I thought it was cheating? Now I know it may seem like I just don't like change, like I just really want to go back to an older system. Who gave you that idea? Well that's not true. While I admit I really liked the old system of Torrent of Fire, that doesn't mean I want to go back to it, I think almost any other system would be better then the current one. And that's really the point I guess, the current wound allocation system is bad, really bad. It doesn't achieve what it was meant to, it slows the game down, and it very easily and legally, Whoa. Stop. I thought you said it was cheating. Make up your mind. exploited. And it's something we should talk about. Hiding our heads in the sand, saying things like "well that's the rules, we can't do anything about it" won't actually help. Waiting for your suggestions then... Talking about it, admitting that its a bad rule will help, telling people its a bad rule will help. Finding ways to house rule around it will help, short term and long term. So that's what I aim to do from now on, when I find a bad rule, wound allocation, TLoS, whatever, I'm never going to ignore it, I'm going to talk about. I have only seen complaining so far. I hope you all will join me in talking about it, because remember at the end of the day it's our hobby. Quitting or keeping quiet won't help a thing, talking, arguing, about it just might. Or at least it'll make me feel a little better. Altruistic motivation my arse. If you want to promote discussion don't write an essay with a clearly negative overtone on why you think using a rule written by GW in their 40k rulebook is cheating. Rather provide some basis for discussion like:

"I feel Wound Allocation is a bad system. I feel it was designed to help shooting armies by allowing special weapons to not remain alive until the last guy but make it possible for them to die before plebs of the squad dies. However, this system can be very complex and slows the game down especially when there are different types of wounds (i.e. instant death, no armor save, etc.) and multi-wound models which goes against what 5th ed 40k was really about, streamlining. Furthermore, shooting with ignore save guns and non-ignore save guns can actually make you do less wounds! Whilst you can obviously make the choice not to shoot everything it seems counter-intuitive and perhaps bad for the game that shooting with more guns would lead to less deaths. What do you guys think? Is this a bad mechanic for 40k or does it's purpose to potentially remove specials that important? What are some changes to perhaps stop the 'abusing' of this rule with multiple-wound models or speed up wound allocation?"

See how much different that is. It covers most of your points whilst providing your opinion but is actually promoting a discussion rather than bitching and whining (and falsely accusing people of cheating). I actually agree in regards to it slowing the game down but I believe the mechanic is very important for 40k and I think the biggest problem is multi-wound models like Nobs and Thunderwolves. Whilst you could simply say any wounded models must have wounds allocated to them first (even with different wargear and excepting ICs) as a change, it's still going to be rather slow to someone who doesn't understand the game. So, let's hear your thoughts, what are some other options to help the wound allocation system out and do you think the mechanic is necessary in 40k. You may also flame, face-palm, rage, cry, rage war upon, etc. iamaddj to make yourself feel better.

40 pinkments:

Dethtron said...

it would help if this guy's opinion wasn't so wrong :)

also, thanks for the shout out on beating you to this. OH wait, you didn't. Time to pull a Kirby

http://dethtron.blogspot.com/2010/08/u-mad-dj.html

<3

iamaddj said...

Nice one dude! I really enjoyed the commentary! Hope you'll tune in next week to comment on whatever I write about then. Keep up the good work.

Kirby said...

This is payback for screwing up last weeks FNIF. I gave you the link and everything and you didn't get to it before the mods!

@iamaddj; ugh you're writing more? *sadface*

Falk said...

Perfect response again.

I got the impression that iamaddj is a very inexperienced player - his "articles" sound like they were written by someone who got the rulebook and then tried to figured out what might be a big issue - without playing the game once.

Or he is just a troll.

And after all: If you don't like the rules, play a different game.

iamaddj said...

@Kirby; Well dude if I don't keep writing what will YOU have to write about?

On a unrelated note, are you a fan of YTTH?

Meister_Kai said...

"On a unrelated note, are you a fan of YTTH?"

Oh Jesus. Lets please, please, please not go down this road. Please.

iamaddj, its clear that you're all about the "fun", the "uncompetitive", and the "not WAAC attitude that YTTH etc puts forth". There is nothing wrong with that at all, takes all kinds etc.

However, please don't lump us all together. You are a very controversial figure who writes for a blog with a HUGE following, that which can be scrutinized by anyone. You double the hurt on you when you take a system that is in fact a rule, and say it is in an obtuse way cheating.

You shouldn't be surprised at the response to this and your other articles. You have both camps (competitive and not) calling you out (the first person to comment was someone from my LGS who vocally plays for "fun").

When the entire 40K online world sees your writing and disagrees, this is what happens. Live with it or move on.

Dethtron said...

"Well dude if I don't keep writing what will YOU have to write about? "

good thing Kirby isn't just about the most prolific writer on the 40k scene

Wallshammer said...

I will add that iamaddj is the worst "blogger" in the hobby. What were his last 3 articles? Bitching about rules and asking questions that had blatantly obvious questions... yet that he tried to twist to his advantage. I am curious as to what armies this douche plays. Probably ones that would benefit the most if the game were as he wanted it.

YOU ARE FOLLOWING THE RULES! THAT'S CHEATING!

God, writers like him have ruined a once good blog to smithereens.

Kirby said...

"Well dude if I don't keep writing what will YOU have to write about?"

Lol don't flatter yourself. I've written 2 articles pertaining directly to you and maybe 7-8 all up about BoLS. That's out of nearly 500 articles by the combined authorship of this blog. Gee, if you stop being a moron what am I going to talk about? This will require some deep thought.

Wallshammer said...

If he stopped writing, you could talk about how BoLS made an improvement.

Auretious Taak said...

I just want to expand on Meister_Kai's points on YTTH Vs 3++, because it's not an unrlated curiosity iamaddj, your writing is as shallow as your attempts at subtlety. Do the Ynquisition and their ZombYe Nation have what it's got to take on The Pink Army? Who really cares, I believe the introduction to this blog and at the top of every single thread opened answers your so called unrelated question:

"3++ is like YTTH but without the emo-bitching." - Ben
"Pink isn't a color. It's a lifestyle." - Chumbalaya aka Froddo.

Let me ask on an unrelated note iamaddj, are you happy with the way BoLS has gone down hill in the past year or so, moving from a pinnacled following within the 40k community to a position which is primarily fluff bunnies and wannabe hardcore noobs? Are you proud of the fact you are trying to lump a blog which churns out a great many articles which examine the game mechanics and tactics and strategies in fine detail to help improve players finer points of play into what has become more and more a place of bitching and rambling in amongst top notch army list analysis articles and a constant feud with BoLS which goes both ways and is entirely pointless and counter-productive to the fostering of a united and much more powerful and fulfilling 40k tournament scene? Just my thoughts there, no need to apply them to all of 3++, because I know some people will.

[quote]Let's try a more realistic example. 10 marines w/Sarge, special & heavy take 6 normal wounds and 6 ignore save wounds. Now here's where wound allocation really kicks in, by taking multiple ignore save wounds on specials you reduce the actual number of average deaths. You then have an opportunity cost, lose a special but less models or lose more models but no specials?[/quote]

Will, I never looked at the rule in that way before. Thankyou for actually teaching me something new in amongst the crap that was iamaddj's article on playing by the rules being misconstrued as cheating.

Cheers all,
Auretious Taak.

lyracian said...

About half my opponents use wound allocation correctly. It has never really seemed worth pushing the point with the rest.

The rest still follow 4th ed style and remove the models they want leaving the PF sgt. At least they are consistent. If they get hit with six rends then six marines die. :o)

Farseer Dave said...

''Well dude if I don't keep writing what will YOU have to write about? '

This is a hillarious statement. have you ever even looked at kirbys blog posts? the man churns our top notch articles on a daily basis..
You are ofc entitled to criticise the way kirby Reviewed your post (your post is a load of rubbish btw) but dont insult the great work that goes on over here by kirby and his pink army.

'' are you a fan of YTTH?

I am , not sure what YTTH has to do with anything though , Stelek doesnt churn out the rubbish BOLS (especially your last 2 articles) seems to enjoy feeding people.

These articles are just poorly written and nobody gets anything out of them , there just big whinefests that look like some noob that has never played more than 20 games has posted up.

my .02 euro.

0range said...

Again with the nonsense. If there was at least some logic in it, or if it stemmed from a problem everyone can relate to - but wound allocation? TLoS? I've ~NEVER~ had a problem with either, nor read or heard about such, and suddenly there's this guy on BoLS damning it as the worst thing there ever was?

"Roll 2d6 to determine which rule you'll hate upon this week!"

Pseudo said...

The posts at BoLS have fallen way off in quality, applicability, and frankly, interest (except for a couple of specific posters). But ya gotta love those photos that Goatboy keeps finding.

The_King_Elessar said...

LOLOL.

You AND Dethtron write an article about this piece of shit article...mere hours after I declare my intent to do the same. Well, I guess I just have to snowmobile your articles on this article.

Saves me the pain of revisiting the original.

Messanger of Death said...

Hehe please do the Snowmobile TKE. After the fun I had last time this will be awesome.

Messanger

VT2 said...

Much like how hometaping and the internet are killing music, wound allocation is killing wargaming.

Dethtron said...

"I just have to snowmobile your articles on this article."

at this point it will only be funny if you snowmobile Mkerr snowmobiling kirby snowmobiling iamddj. I think it will work best if it makes no sense at all, tke.

Jt3n said...

Article is much better after commentary!

Honestly, the old way of taking casualties was boring. Wound allocation forces you to play with some flexibility! You have to be more adaptable in 5th edition... You should not be able to depend on the other guys in your squad to take the wounds before that special weapon goes to the grave.

iamaddj said...

@Kirby, Auretious Taak, and Meister_Kai

Firstly I meant my comment about Kirby not having anything to write without me as a joke. I've only been to your blog through the links you've posted in our comments section to this and your other post about my stuff. I guess I should have included a smiley face as I can see it would be misunderstood. That being said you might notice that unlike some other people I have never in my articles or comments resorted to personal attacks. In my very first comment on your sight I complimented Kirby, I found what he wrote to be funny to me and to even make some points I wish I had. And I asked him to keep up the good work, because even though I don't agree with everything he says I can see that he, and the other guys on this site (Sorry I don't really know you yet) are working hard to help build up the warhammer community, that same thing we at BoLS are doing. Now even when i the response I got was "ugh you're writing more? *sadface*" I still tired to make a joke, rather then get mad about it or something, heck why be mad, its the net. Anyway maybe I'll try to check out your other articles, and I look forward to reading any other "snowmoblies" (why is it snowmonlieing?) of my stuff you do!

As for the YTTH comment. I really wasn't trying to lump you guys, I honestly don't know. I saw that YTTH was in your blog roll and stuff, and some of your comments all this "competitive/non-competitive" stuff sounded a little like something I might hear on YTTH. So rather then lumping you guys together, or making an assumption I thought I would just ask.

Evil-Termite said...

Kirby, the part where you rewrote that guys article was great. It got me thinking (like it was supposed to do). There are cases where wound allocation hinders killing stuff and there should be some sort of solution.

So here is a simple solution.
When you are shooting or attacking at a unit, if you don't want your opponent to allocate wounds, simply state, "I want these wounds to be treated as if your unit had all the same models".
That would take care of the Nob Bikers and problems with stacking low AP wounds all in the same place.
My solution is simple, but is it good enough? What do you all think?

Meister_Kai said...

I guess my next question is what are the implications or being a fan of YTTH or not? As I'm sure you know, being affiliated with YTTH is either a good thing or a very bad thing depending on who you are talking to. What are your opinions on competitive Warhammer, YTTH, etc? I don't want to go around just assuming things like I had defaulted to earlier.

What I think you are doing though, iamaddj, whether you realize it or not, is that you are becoming a very controversial figure (like Stelek, which I think you realize). You can't go around saying something you don't like, which at this point is seemingly 5th edition period, is wrong or ruining the game without people who play the game coming to the defense. I'm going to assume again that you are smart enough to realize this, and you also seem smart enough to not get into the thick of it over the net, which is probably for the best.

While I don't really agree with anything you have written so far, especially the bit about not shooting with everything being wrong or whatever (more like strategic), I guess its important on some level to get your viewpoint out there. I just really hope its not to gain hits for BOLS like I sort of think it is.

Also on a positive note, you either did a much better job grammatically this time around or the "editor"s (lol) finally got a clue.

Dethtron said...

"I look forward to reading any other "snowmoblies" (why is it snowmonlieing?) of my stuff you do!"
-for the record it's called snowmobiling because when you're getting it on from a rear position sometimes you just have to take control of the situation and grab the arms or pigtails....

OMG, my word verification for this is "creep." wow!

iamaddj said...

@Meister_Kai- What are the implications of being a fan of YTTH? Well I can't say I agree with much of what is posted on YTTH, but I have no big problem with his fans, per se. However as Auretious Taak has pointed out there is some animosity between BoLS and YTTH, and it's something I really try to stay out of. So I guess my question came down to weather I wanted to stay around talking or not. If the answer was "OMG yes YTTH is the bestest ever (which it does not seem to be) then I would have quietly left. Staying around in that environment would do nothing productive, and would just lead to a crazy flame-war, it's why I don't go and comment on YTTH. To put it another way, while I might enjoy reading Blood of Kittens some times, and while I might personally like Tasty-Taste, I'm not him and I don't want to get into this crazy personal attacks and people bashing that goes on there. As you guys here don't seem to have the same animosity towards BoLS that YTTH does (though there does seem to be some animosity) I figure I might stick around a talk a bit, and it won't just be a waste of both our time.

As for my views on competitive Warhammer? I think it's awesome, I'm a tournament player, and I play a lot of systems in a lot of tournaments, I even have a few trophies. No offense but I would guess you formed your view of me as a fluff bunny/non-competitive player based just on my last two articles. I've actually been writing and doing stuff for BoLS for like 4 years now, I worked on the original Horus Heresy book for instance. I've often gotten complainants (on the blog, not in person) that I am too hard core of a player, and that I only worry about the competitive and tournament scene. Though I might add that those are maybe more common in my WFB articles, which you may not read.

As for being controversial, I might be, it's a recent thing, but I would also say my topics are controversial. Contrary to the way you seem to be portraying it the comments on my articles are no overwhelmingly negative, they are often about 50/50. I would argue that if the topics weren't a hotly debated subject they never would have gotten the attention or the amount of comments they did. Certainly we have put up bad articles in the past and they don't get nearly this much attention.

One last point, I don't hate 5th edition. There are some things about it I really don't like, and I am clearly not the only one who doesn't like them, but that doesn't mean I hate the game. If I hated the game I would stop playing.

@Dethtron; so thats what it means? Must be a northern thing. We don't really have snowmoblies down here.

Roland Durendal said...

@ Dethron...we call it jetskiing out here on the coast...

Ok no we really don't. Though that does remind me of the old "Moose" Trick. Maybe we should call it "Moosing" someone. That has a nice ring to it...

"Well, I guess I just have to MOOSE your articles on this article."

"Hehe please do the MOOSE TKE"

"at this point it will only be funny if you MOOSE Mkerr MOOSING kirby MOOSING iamddj. I think it will work best if it makes no sense at all, tke."

Hahha oh man, I laughed way too much at that. From here on out, I will refer to all acts of "snowmobiling" as "moosing".

And if you don't know what moosing is in reference to what Dethron said above...you're missing out on tons of fun with your significant other.

Meister_Kai said...

@imaddj: Well, I am obviously in no way qaulified to talk for Kirby or anyone else from this blog, but I for one endorse Stelek as he was the first person I really latched onto to gain insight into what it takes to play and succeed (on both a win and fun level, as I enjoy competitive play) in 40K. Sure he comes off really strong sometimes, and has flung his fair share of mud, but he has been somewhat turning over a new leaf as of late, one that is starting to make Tastytaste look a little silly to be honest. I would urge you to read his blog ESPECIALLY if you are not interested in tournament play, so you have insight into how this type of player thinks (not that he speaks for all of us). Not to be rude but it is for this reason that I read BOLS sometimes, so I am grounded in reality and can still relate to less competitive players.

I have to say this though. I would not post on YTTH if I were you. I know that sounds cryptic, and it sort is, but I think you know that its for the best too. I personally think its really brave of you to go on as you have.

I would say your first paragraph is mostly spot on. I would say your second is also. I did assume you were a "fluffy bunny" etc because the articles you wrote are usually the sort they write (not a good generalization I know). I can't really comment you on being too hard of a tournament player per say the WFB people except that I know many people who play WFB because it is less "hard" than 40K is now. When competitive players try to make things fair for themselves it seems to somehow ruin things for others, which I don't understand now per the NOVA Open experience. Oh well.

I don't think TLOS and wound allocation were hotly debated things until you wrote about them honestly, I have read my way around the 40K network and talked with most of the people from my LGS and never really heard any flak about either system (small sample size I know). I think it was just the way you presented your argument(s) that made them blow up this way. I think having another author write a rebuttle article at the same time as yours would of helped to mitagate all the hate thrown your way.

Thats all I really have to say about that. I know that journalism teaches that strong talk makes strong talk, and you seem to be taking the pain being dished your way much better than others could have in your situation. I'm not going to go as far as say keep up the "good" work, but keep up the work.

iamaddj said...

@Meister_Kai; I happy you have someone you like among the bloggers. Again I can't say I agree with much of what he say's, but that's my personal opinion about another person, and I won't go too deeply into that. I will say the one time I met him in person (I was with Goatboy at the LV GT when that picture of Stelek was taken) he seemed like an OK guy. Though I guess you misunderstood part of what I said, because I'm certainly interested in tournament play. I won't even touch on any of the competitive vs, non-competitive stuff, I think its all just BS buzz words, and I can get that from watching the news thank you very much.

Don't worry though I don't plan on commenting over on the YTTH, if i did it would just turn into mud slinging, and no one would gain anything.

I guess the point is its cool if you like Stealek, I just don't want to get into a hardcore partisan debate here, so I asked the question to see if it was even worth me to keep talking.

As for the debate stuff. Well I can't compare my experience to yours, but being with the BoLS crowd I do talk to a lot of people, and I go to a lot of events, and after hearing a lot of arguments about it, and talking to plenty of people at WAR Games con I have to say that from my point of view they are hotly debated topics, so I brought them up. And I know that some people might think I'm just trying to get hits and comments, and that's part of it sure, I do want hits and comments. But I could say the same about Kirby writing this article and posting a link in my comments. Seems like hes also trying to get hits and comments (seems to be working this articles has like twice the comments of any of the other articles Ive seen here, though I haven't looked at all that many). And there's nothing wrong with that, we are blogers and we want people to read our stuff and talk about it. But if you don't think my original article added anything to anything, then I find it hard to see how you would think that Kirby's added anything either, but whatever, I had a laugh.

Also having people do rebuttals is actually something I've brought up to Bigred a couple of times, it's an idea I really like a lot. We are going to try doing that some more in the future, but it takes a certain level of coordination and forces writers to agree to write on one topic, rather then on something they might want to talk about.

Finally, its been nice talking to you and I certainly will keep up the work.

The_King_Elessar said...

Right, I need to know - is it 'I a mad dj' or I'm a dj' ??

Also, did MKerr snowmobile this? Gotta check that out...

iamaddj said...

@TKE, it's neither. And yeah Mkerr did snowmobile this http://www.chainfist.com/2010/08/stupid-it-burns-cough3-bols-wound.html#comment-69428257.

Marshal Wilhelm said...

iamaddj:
Stelek writes good articles. Some of them I dodge, as they are not constructive. No one has helped my gaming as much.

I first started going to BoLS and Jawaballs blogs, as I found Stelek too harsh. BoLS and Jawaballs did lift my game [I had played most of my games against my brother or myself ~ lol] I think the Speeders and Pods articles were real eye openers for me.

But after that, for gaming acumen, BoLS and Jawa left me hanging. I started trying YTTH again and found that I understood what Stelek was on about and was not intimidated by his manner.

I don't think non~ and competitive are buzzwords. People play with sub-par lists and/or tactics. Stelek does not advocate those B lists [unless he makes it clear he is] and pushes for excellent play within the rules.

I can't remember the last BoLS article [besides Speeders and Pods] that made me think "hey, I NEED to play like that". I do with YTTH.

Some of the flame wars between YTTH has been when BoLS has put out blergh arguments and Stelek shows them for what they are. Then the BoLSites get offended because what they have done has been called out. Sure Stelek has done things roughly, but still what he is saying is the truth. But the BoLSites get huffy because he has "disrespected" them, not because he was wrong. Even prominent BoLSites have gently agreed with him.

For me, that shows Stelek IS right. Getting offended because of offensive delivery doesn't make the message false, even if it is hard to swallow.

I'm not even "for" YTTH, 3++ or BoLS. Whoever speaks the truth to get the best from the Codices on the TT, I am with them. For a while, the bottle has been pointing towards Stelek.
Pointing out holes in rules, etc. doesn't really help anyone enjoy the game anymore. Every edition will have bits that should change [be that objective or emotive] but as we can't change it, why not just work with it?
Then people who are fluffites or are poor players get offended when people actually use the rules well. Why not stop the half empty outlook AND not give people an excuse the remain as rubbish players?
By making a rules complaints article, you are condoning peoples attitudes of "the rules suck" "he's such a rules jerk" "your codex is broken" and other 'woe is me, I'm being victimised' outlooks.

Don't dumb down the game and let people get away with being rubbish. Upskill them! Lift the quality of the game! Don't let people acquiesce into lameness, but equip them for greatness!
Don't write how things are bad, write how things are good.

Your positive attitude and articles will coax people out of being sooky-lah.
Is WA brilliant? Who cares? It simply is, at least for this edition.

Don't be old-minded iamaddj, don't long and lament for yesterday. Embrace today with two thumbs up and a cheerful disposition.

[This is what I feel Stelek does. Sure he can be heavy, etc. But don't let his style ruin his message]

Are you feeling me?

Da Warboss said...

The original poster amazingly gets to pick replies.

Kirby said...

@iamaddj; this is clearly going to be a love-hate relationship I see. I have no problem with you having problems with the rules. I raise issue with how you phrase it. Wound allocation and things like ICs in combat can be a pain for some people to grasp because it involves multiple processes, that's fine. You may believe it hurts the game concept wise and game-play wise, that's fine. Phrase it differently. I'm one for promoting discussion (as much as Mkerr snowmobiled my snowmobile of that point :P). Put down your opinion in a way that encourages discussion of the topic rather than I agree, I don't agree type replies. If you want to make the post amusing or light-hearted, etc., go about it a different way because the message is lost in the dislike for the rule/concept. Check how Dethtron does his snowmobiles. Check the last two of these snowmobiles. Check Mkerr's snowmobile of this, etc. (I will readily admit Dethtron's are much funnier than mine :P). THey are all clearly for the fun of it and whilst someone is the butt of a joke, it's not ragey hate that BoLS/Dakka/YTTH see. Whilst mine tries to add some serious components to it because 3++ is more about analysis, it's nothing like what Tasty would do.

@Taak; play nice :P. Glad you got something out of it though.

@Termite; that's too much of a case of "this rule applying would benefit my opponent so I'm going to turn it 'off.'" And that's not a good thing. I think solving the issue with multi-wound models is simple in the fact of forcing wounded models (except ICs) to keep taking saves until they die. For example, you've got 5 nobs each with different wargear. They suffer 4 wounds and you allocate them each to a different squad member and one fails a save. They suffer 4 more wounds and under the current rules you can allocate those 4 to the unwounded models. I think if you were forced to allocate to the wounded model first and then to un-wounded models, etc. it would minimise the 'shenangians' part of it to an extent. I really think this is the only major problem of wound allocation as unless you want to revert to the old system, it's going to take some time to allocate, etc. and you still have to think before you shoot, etc.

@Roland; stay off the coffee :P

@TKE; do a triple snowmobile please, please!

The_King_Elessar said...

Okay, today's the 18th, so, when getting my 4-hour train journey (Don't Stop Believin'!) on the 24th, I will begin the monumental task of the triple-Snowmobile.

Hopefully I can finish it in that time.

Thud said...

If I weren't so lazy I'd snowmobile TKE's snowmobiling of Mkerr's snowmobiling of Kirby's snowmobiling of Iamaddj's article. But I am lazy so you can all go and suck it.

Kirby said...

Hopefully Dethtron will step in. Then maybe Brent can snowmobile Dethtron's snowmobile of TKE's snowmobile of Mkerr's snowmbile of my snowmobile of that article thing by someone named iamaddj. Or Brent and Lauby should get together and do it at the same time in a google doc whilst drunk!

I'm game =D. lol

Thud said...

It's not over until everyone involved has forgotten about what was in the original article.

Also, I'm disappointed that you haven't written an article on how you idolize me yet. :(

Messanger of Death said...

TKE - hurry up already. I never got around to doing what I thought last time. But if you get it done soon then man will it be fun... *justtypingthoughtsaloud*

Messanger

Kirby said...

for the lol's:

http://hobbyinfobythekingelessar.blogspot.com/2010/08/iamaddjkirbymkerr-triple-snowmobile11.html

Kirby said...

http://imperial-life.blogspot.com/2010/08/wound-allocation-bols-kirby-mawr.html

Brent! Your turn damnit.

Post a Comment

Follow us on Facebook!

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...