Post by mike954 on May 21, 2011 0:15:56 GMT
Continued from an Opponents Wanted thread hijacked by adjudicator at:
bedfordgladiators.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=opponentswanted&action=display&thread=1239
@ adjudicator: Allow me to retort!
I find your outburst surprising because I thought all of us made an effort and made a reasonable fist of getting a large scale game in using a mix of 40k and Apocalypse rules. In the circumstances I thought we did well to get as far as we did.
I was looking forward to future games that would run faster and better as we all got to grips with the rules. I bought a round at the bar and we settled back for a drink and a chat afterward.
I certainly wasn't expecting any verbal paraquat to follow on the forums of all places. In any case, I assume you wouldn't waste time on a rhetorical diatribe and actually wanted some dialogue, so here you are:
1. Gaming etiquette
You disputed basic rules of the game. You had not in fact read the rules. You did not even own the rules. As such you ought to be less sensitive about polite enquiries from players about your knowledge in these areas. Perhaps they were being considerate in finding out your level of experience with the rules so they could take the time to explain rules.
2. "Reading in part," "bending rules" and "deliberately misreading rules" to personal advantage:
Every point made regarding the rules was backed up with a page reference and passage of text which was shown to you. Despite prompting for any reasoned argument from you based on the BRB I can only recall your offer of (perfectly valid) personal opinions in the vein of "that rule is stupid."
I'm afraid I still see nothing in the p.41 BRB assault rules that produces your favoured interpretation - only the amendments made by the FAQ to the original rules do so, as pointed out by Elle.
I stand by my own reasoned interpretations of the BRB but remain, as I was then open to changing my mind in the light of any reasoned objection. In any event, "reading in part" was your vice, from the very start of the game onward. It cost you a strategic asset as I recall, when anonymice spotted the partial reading.
What you have claimed ("deliberately mis-reading rules") to have occurred is cheating by others. I'm sorry if you feel that is what happened, but I'm afraid I simply don't share your view. Nor can I sympathise with the choice to broach the topic as you have rather than doing so in person.
However, I do wish you the best with your future games and commend your purchase of the rules. I think they'll make playing the game easier and more enjoyable.
bedfordgladiators.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=opponentswanted&action=display&thread=1239
@ adjudicator: Allow me to retort!
I find your outburst surprising because I thought all of us made an effort and made a reasonable fist of getting a large scale game in using a mix of 40k and Apocalypse rules. In the circumstances I thought we did well to get as far as we did.
I was looking forward to future games that would run faster and better as we all got to grips with the rules. I bought a round at the bar and we settled back for a drink and a chat afterward.
I certainly wasn't expecting any verbal paraquat to follow on the forums of all places. In any case, I assume you wouldn't waste time on a rhetorical diatribe and actually wanted some dialogue, so here you are:
1. Gaming etiquette
You disputed basic rules of the game. You had not in fact read the rules. You did not even own the rules. As such you ought to be less sensitive about polite enquiries from players about your knowledge in these areas. Perhaps they were being considerate in finding out your level of experience with the rules so they could take the time to explain rules.
2. "Reading in part," "bending rules" and "deliberately misreading rules" to personal advantage:
Every point made regarding the rules was backed up with a page reference and passage of text which was shown to you. Despite prompting for any reasoned argument from you based on the BRB I can only recall your offer of (perfectly valid) personal opinions in the vein of "that rule is stupid."
I'm afraid I still see nothing in the p.41 BRB assault rules that produces your favoured interpretation - only the amendments made by the FAQ to the original rules do so, as pointed out by Elle.
I stand by my own reasoned interpretations of the BRB but remain, as I was then open to changing my mind in the light of any reasoned objection. In any event, "reading in part" was your vice, from the very start of the game onward. It cost you a strategic asset as I recall, when anonymice spotted the partial reading.
What you have claimed ("deliberately mis-reading rules") to have occurred is cheating by others. I'm sorry if you feel that is what happened, but I'm afraid I simply don't share your view. Nor can I sympathise with the choice to broach the topic as you have rather than doing so in person.
However, I do wish you the best with your future games and commend your purchase of the rules. I think they'll make playing the game easier and more enjoyable.
