"What is your gaming group most likely to argue about?" Topic

Measurements?
Rulings?
Crooked dice rolls?
Interpreting historical units?
What period to play next?
What scale to play?
Which rules to use?
Non-gaming related items?

Lately, the firing arc of fixed weapon teams in Bolt Action. It's 45 degrees off each side of the barrell but we've been too lazy to make some sort of template

The American tank destroyer rules in Flames of War.
Half think they are really stupid, and the others think they are stupid but manageable.

Rulings and rules. Oh and the use of Battalion guns in the SYW…I should clarify two guys always and I mean always disagree on the matter of their usage.

Rules interpretations usually although lately we've had a lot of more basic arguments along the playability verus history lines.

Given that my gaming group is just me, we argue mostly about whatever random misfirings in my head are ricocheting off of whatever coherency I might have left.

What goes on the pizza.

Absolutely nothing of serious value in the eternal sense whether gaming, politics, spelling, grammar, or personality.

In other words, all the usual "stuff."

Inside/outside of arc of fire. Flank attack or not. Why does the entire parent unit rout because a subunit the other subunits could not have seen has routed.

For every set of rules we play we have introduced a Recrimination Phase which occurs at the end of the turn.

This allows players to whinge, gripe and/or complain about the rules,dice scenario and/or other players

It works well as it enables us to get on with the game

In our group it's the bashing of each others favourite rulesets, bolt action 40,000 is one I hear often but that's why I like them!

Rulings, often even when the rules are clear.

Bolt Action. The game is fine as a game but NOT as a WWII game. The armor rules stink and the infantry point costs for different armies are out of whack. We won't be playing it any more. Too many problems that are causing arguments and no one wants that.

Force composition.

There is a school of thought which entirely ignores what each side actually DID on the table, and instead ascribes victory/defeat to what each side brought to the table.

Infinite cavalry actions, tie after tie after tie.

Mostly rules interpretations – although we don't argue a lot

What kind of beer is best.

Almost anything concerning woods!

Who is picking up the beer, and what brand/type/style of beer.

Top disagreement: whether it's all the fault of the banking industry …

2nd: what were pre-biblical period 'chariots' really like … (battle taxis or new-fangled uberweapons)?

3rd: which day of the week is best for wargaming …

Phil

Where to eat

If you argue you don't get to be in my playing group.

Constructive discussion is OK though!

Whose favourite microbrew beer we should drink next.

We have rather loud discussions… and we bust lots of b@lls.

Mostly it's how Skippy and I differ on GM style. He has no problem killing PCs. I have no problem letting them live. I can torture them enuf w/o killing them. :)

We tend to avoid conflict about rules and stuff rather than have arguments.