"Most Overrated Ruleset?" Topic

I completely agree about the British Grenadier scenario books. They're great.
But I dislike the rules, for reasons I stated above.

Poor narrative meant that for me I could not find a race that I could command with a morale sense of duty. Even the humans demanded thousands of souls a day to feed the emperor. It did not peak my interest.

Didn't peak my interest is different than the narrative being poor. No account of an ACW battle has peaked my interest. Doesn't mean any of them are poor.

Forced product purchases. Clearly they forced players to purchase their products to play the game. They deleted armies to the can not field list. This left many players with 100s and 1000s of dollars in unusable and unsalable armies. Simple as a store in 1984, their policy made me not to be interested in any Warhammer 40k.

I thought "forced product purchase" was GW's nickname.
Pretty obvious how this works for anyone who has any contact with them.

Not obvious to me. I have a bunch of the minis. How was I forced to buy them? What else am I being forced to do?

If you wish to play in officially sanctioned tournaments, or in GW sanctioned stores, you are required to use GW miniatures and models.
I don't know how far back in previous editions they're allowing. 🤷
About ~8 years ago, I looked at the price of ONE Ultramarine Apothecary, plastic figure in a blister. It was north of $25. USD That was 8 years ago, and I don't know if it's still "allowed", but I'll give them the benefit of the doubt.

That's for officially sanctioned tournaments, or games in GW stores.
If you want to run illicit or illegal (😄) games in the privacy of your own home, do what you want.
But the officially sanctioned GW cult would shun such games.

I have FIW games that have included 12 different manufacturers. I think I have 8 different Pirate manufacturers, and the same number of Plains Indians. Sadly, only 4 different Apache manufacturers, but I know of at least 2 more out there.

As for rules, some I like. Some I don't.
I have played with rules for Napoleonic ships that went on for pages about the wind. Clearly the author felt that was the most appropriate way. But they didn't float my boat.

If you wish to play in officially sanctioned tournaments,

So … you're being forced to do that?

If you want to run illicit or illegal (😄) games in the privacy of your own home

So, what law are those games violating?

Are we conducting a Physics expeiment or playing a game?

We are doing neither. We are using a TCP tranport layer to exchange data.

You might say we are having a conversation, or posting to a website or discussion board, or a host of other things. Those things may be true, too. But it doesn't change the fact that wew are using a TCP transport layer.

You may never have heard of TCP. Or you may have heard of it, but not really understood or cared about it because someone else set up that detail for you. Even if any of that is true, it doesn't change the fact that we are using a TCP tranport layer to exchange data.

You may not like using the term transport layer and want to call it "Interenet thingy". That may or may not be correct, but it doesn't change the fact that it is, in fact, a transport layer.

What the conversation is about is about playing a game that centers on the execution of a simulation.

You are deliberately misrepresenting what I said.
To many GW players, playing in stores and tournaments is all they do. And they go along with the "rules". Personally, I couldn't be bothered.

I'm sure you got the joke about "illegal and illicit"

In response to people saying GW players were somehow "forced" to buy something, I asked how people were being forced to do anything.

You responded to the question about being forced with a statement about tournaments. No one is being forced to play in tournaments, either.

If you CHOOSE to play in events the GW sponsors, then you have to play by the sponsor's terms of participation. It's no different than any other sponsor, and calling games not sposored by them "illegal" and "illicit" reenforces the idea that some corporation has some authority over how people play wargames.

If you weren't trying to disparage a company you don't like with those terms then you would go around "joking" about every other game described here as "illicit" and "illegal". Your penchant for making up things about those you don't like is tiring and reflects poorly on the hobby.

If you go to your friend's house to play a game they set up, and they say you have to wear clothes to cover your torso and you don't, then you don't get to play in that game. All your shirtless games do not somehow become "illegal" or "illicit".

If you want to run illicit or illegal (😄) games in the privacy of your own home, do what you want.

Apparently you missed the smiley face emoji. Not my problem if your screen is unable to display it. Pray upgrade past Windows 95.

But… We are hijacking this thread past the intent.
"Required" figures and models is just one of the many reasons I dislike GW rules.
Am I not allowed to dislike GW rules for any reason I want???
Am I required to LIKE rules if you find my rationale bogus? 🤔

Am I required to LIKE rules if you find my rationale bogus?

You can like whatever you want. Please point out the part where I told you what to like or not to like.

I will just call you out when you lie …

Even if any of that is true, it doesn't change the fact that we are using a TCP tranport[SIC] layer to exchange data.

<pedantry>TCP is a transport protocol (one of lots in the acronym soup of the layer) and the Transport Layer is one of the seven layers of the OSI model. Also, another protocol may be in use (eg you may be using QUIC), depending on a number of variables, including your browser. So it's not a "fact" that "we" are using TCP, just probable.</pedantry>

<more pedantry>At least some of the software used on the TMP side does, in fact,use TCP in its network stack, so we are all using it independent of what any individual is using on their side.</more pedantry>

It probably does, Eto, but I'm not interested enough in TMP's architecture to look. Besides, that's not the point you made, as you know.

Now I've retired I'm happy to regard interwebs workings, and all the digital communications and associated equipment for which I used to write documents, as technical black magic that someone else can bother with. However, when someone is being pedantic and uses incorrect terminology to make a point, it can be fun to to poke a virtual stick into the debate.

It's even better if that person is an engineer, but I don't suppose I've been that lucky, have I?

TSATF,Flames of War and Carnage and Glory.

that's not the point you made, as you know.

It is related to the point. The point is that while some people want to say they are not running a simulation by playing a wargame, they are.

They have no more obligation to know that than they do to know that TCP is being used in the data exchange for this board. (I know it because I use a bespoke OS and network on my side that captures a lot of data from headers and other sources.) But it doesn't change the fact that it is happening.

However, when someone is being pedantic and uses incorrect terminology to make a point, it can be fun to to poke a virtual stick into the debate.

Except I didn't, so fun back at you! ;)

but I don't suppose I've been that lucky, have I?

You did. Four and a half decades of building and programming computers … among other things.

We'll have to agree to disagree on the terminology- put it down to semantics.

Four and a half decades? That's no fun, as you'll be confident in what you're doing. Grad engineers, however, are another matter. Pointing out errors in terminology was a gentle way of reminding them that they still didn't know everything. The good ones would have as much fun tripping up us old farts in return, while the problem kids would slink into a corner and sulk. But you've probably been through similar.

As for rules, if I don't like and/or understand them that doesn't mean they're bad rules, just that they don't suit me. But I'll leave the whole simulation vs game argument alone. Poking taipans with a stick is less risky.

The semantic difference is what is "we use" not TCP. TCP is part of the stack on the TMP side, so that's not the question.

I do Systems Engineering and Test & Evaluation (well, I will be back at it after I return from my interagency assignment in a couple of weeks). I find the holistic perspective to be essential for modern applications. If you don't consider the implications of the whole tech stack on the user, especially a non-technical customer, you are courting trouble.

As for rules, if I don't like and/or understand them that doesn't mean they're bad rules

Completely concur. That's why I have little or nothing to add to the OP of most negatively framed wargaming questions. Likewise, just because you don't like something isn't license to make up stuff about the publisher or insult the content.

But you've probably been through similar.

I was a Surface Warfare Officer in the USN. The type of gentle prodding often put upon grad students or newly-minted engineers holds no fear for me.

So, coming up on 5 decades soon, but …

ἔοικα γοῦν τούτου γε σμικρῷ τινι αὐτῷ τούτῳ σοφώτερος εἶναι, ὅτι ἃ μὴ οἶδα οὐδὲ οἴομαι εἰδέναι – Plato

If have any slight edge over some experts it is that I know what I don't know. A translation I worked with Chat GPT to massage.

If have any slight edge over some experts it is that I know what I don't know.

Not a bad creedo. I was sometimes surprised, usually by users who were using equipment or architecture in ways we hadn't even considered. Then I'd find out I didn't know the things I didn't know. :-)

Not all the interplay was playful. A couple of times we had to RODUM equipment because the designer wouldn't accept that their design or build had flaws. The worst was a design that required the users of an armoured truck to climb on top and manually point an antenna. Not only was the mount (necessarily) stiff and hard to manipulate, the designer also saw no problems with the troops having to do that while under fire.

But that sort of thing is someone else's problem now. I'm surprised you've been at it for near 50. My BS meter had locked on full at 46.

As for rules, I still use Grant and JR2, so as far as rules are concerned I'm a useless Luddite.

Well, rounding the corner past 47 soon.

I think your problem was not the designer, but the program manager who was incapable of blunt object counseling. I've seen tons of poor requirements go out where the content isn't wrong, but also isn't near sufficient. Then you get what you asked for instead of what you wanted.

Luddite, hunh? I'm a fan of them. They weren't afraid or lacking comprehension of technology like people often say. They believed that the industrialization of the textile industry would put them, cottage-industry artisan textile makers, out of a job. And they were right.

inlgames.com/rotm.htm
PDF link

In a sense, it relates to our earlier discussion. Part of their belief was that people wouldn't look under the hood and see what happened in factories and what was happening to independent craftsmen, but would look at the easy/cheap button for getting clothes.

Eto, if I'd known you were about my son's age, I might have phrased some things differently. (It's "piqued" and not "peaked" in this context, by the way.)

But on GW and all the little WH's, If I might use an analogy?

Amazon's kindle people would like me to believe I'm buying a digital book. Just like paper, but no storage problems! You have to dig a little to realize this isn't what's happening. What they actually sell is a lifetime lease. My descendants inherit my books, but Amazon will wipe the kindle as soon as they realize I'm dead. Nor will Hyde Brothers Used & Rare make me an offer on unsatisfactory kindle stories. The kindles themselves have a lifespan of maybe five years or so, so you have to keep buying kindles and re-downloading purchased content, and there's no guarantee that content won't have been censored to remove anything "offensive." I've got a lot of product on kindle, but I don't confuse it with purchasing books.

So with GW, and to a lesser extent their "Flames of War" clones. They sell games and figures, but better. In-store games! Tournaments! The same game as your friends, so you'll have opponents! Only with time does their 12 year old victim realize that he hasn't purchased entry into this world, but rented it. He'll have to keep buying fresh rules, new codexes, new figures and sometimes whole new armies. He may need to subscribe to something to stay current enough for tournament play. Only the "Oldhammer" people tend to treat GW products like other wargame rules. I'd love to know what percentage of the whole they are.

So:
1) The OFM is right in much of his critique: relatively few people treat WHwhatever as a set of rules like any other, and GW doesn't intend that they should. He's attacking a system, not a stand-alone set of rules.
2)Eto is quite right: You can buy WHwhatever, pick up figures as you please and play it with your friends until the paper gives out. I'd be interested in an assessment of the various versions on that basis, but it would be pretty academic: I've never met a GW player who did it that way.

Leaving Luddites for another forum.

Battlefront tried to force players in Flames of War tournaments to play with only Battlefront figures and models.
They ran into massive resistance.
1. Flames of War players were much older than 12 year olds. They were adults and wouldn't put up with such nonsense.
2. There were at least 10 different manufacturers of 15mm WWII figures and models. Many were of better quality and cheaper.

Now, before some fool accuses me of being a liar, I have two very good friends who attended at least 5 FOW tournaments per year. They stopped playing after Battlefront moved to the inferior 4th edition. In my not so humble opinion, 4th edition IS inferior. So do others in my group. So, I am not lying. It's an opinion.
So, if they wished to continue playing in FoW tournaments, they would be "forced" to buy new rules, new Army books, "unit cards" (🙄🤷) and so on. So, they now compete in Arte de la Guerre tournaments.
FORCED is an accurate and appropriate description, if they wished to play FoW "on the road".

One other thing. Back when I was interested in playing Warhammer Fantasy, I purchased and painted an army of 120 Forest Goblins. Right as I finished painting the cute little rascals, a brand new edition of WFB came out, as well as a brand new "Codex". This invalidated my army. I could no longer take it "on the road" to play in WFB tournaments or stores. I could and did play in my basement.

Quibbling about semantics does not make me wrong, nor does it make me a liar.

Oh, and thank you, RP. +1

By the way, the same "adults" I mentioned above were happy to play 4th edition. Good on them. Age quod agis.
But my friends' anecdotal experience showed a massive shrinkage in FoW tournaments attendance.
But at least a Command Decision or Peter Pig Sherman tank looks identical to a Battlefront one. So, unless you pick up a model and look under its skirt…

I'd love to know what percentage of the whole they are.

relatively few people treat WHwhatever as a set of rules like any other

So … which is it? Do you not know the ratio of tourney players to non-tourney players or doo you know that non-tourney is only a few?

GW doesn't intend that they should.

I have no psychic abilities of my own, so I will have to defer to yours.

What does someone's intent have to do with what you do with their product? I teach classes pointing out that those things are inherently separate. It's essential to security to undertand that.

1. Bubble Wrap – Originally developed as textured wallpaper, it became popular as protective packaging.
2. Play-Doh – First invented as a wallpaper cleaner before becoming a beloved children's toy.
3. Viagra – Originally developed to treat high blood pressure and angina, it became famous for treating erectile dysfunction.
4. Post-it Notes – The adhesive was intended for a strong bonding agent but turned out to be weak, leading to the creation of removable sticky notes.
5. Coca-Cola – Initially created as a medicinal tonic, it evolved into a global soft drink.
6. Lysol – First marketed as a feminine hygiene product and antiseptic before becoming a household disinfectant.
7. Rogaine (Minoxidil) – Initially developed to treat high blood pressure, it was later found to promote hair growth.
8. Super Glue – Discovered while searching for clear plastic gun sights, it became an all-purpose adhesive.
9. WD-40 – Originally developed to prevent corrosion in missile parts but became a household lubricant and cleaner.
10. X-ray Machines – X-rays were discovered accidentally when experimenting with cathode rays, leading to their medical use.
11. Microwave Oven – Invented after a scientist noticed a chocolate bar melted in his pocket while working with radar technology.
12. Slinky – Originally developed as a tension spring for stabilizing naval instruments, it became a popular toy.
13. Dynamite – Initially created as a safer way to handle nitroglycerin, it became widely used in warfare.
14. Tea Bags – Originally meant as a packaging method for tea samples but became a convenient brewing method.
15. Treadmills – Invented as punishment devices for prisoners in the 19th century, now used for fitness.
16. Credit Cards (Magnetic Strips) – The technology was initially used for CIA identity verification before being adapted for banking.
17. Drill (Electric Hand Drill) – Originally designed for mining operations, now a household tool.
18. Corn Flakes – Originally created as a bland health food for sanitarium patients but became a breakfast staple.
19. Laughter Tracks (Canned Laughter) – First used in radio to simulate live audience reactions, now widely used in sitcoms.
20. Teflon – Discovered while working on refrigerants, later used in non-stick cookware.

I don't think TMP will let me post thousands …

He's attacking a system, not a stand-alone set of rules.

I don't think it is an attack. But he is identifying something he doesn't like about a specific part of something that includes much more. Saying WH or GW does this is simply incorrect, and since he acknowledges that he knows which part, he is being deliberately deceitful. Possibly because the actual truth sounds whiny and lame.

I wonder if the OFM would react to the statement "Penn State alumni are [insert felony here]ists/ers/philes." I'm pretty sure there are dozens of felonies that more than one alumnus of PSU has commmitted, so such a statement would be factually correct. But it is intentionally manipulating content to create an effect.

I think your analogies have fundamental flaws in them. If you didn't read the contract when you bought something, that's your problem. Is there a contract you sign when you buy minis or rules? What about terms and conditions when you sign up for a torunament? Substantively different things.

Also, I've never seen them selling tourneys on Amazon or at Walden Books. I'm not sure I've seen them advertised in White Dwarf, but I haven't bought that in quite a while. The closest GW store to me (DC metro area) is 20 miles away. The closest one to where I grew up (now, not when I grew up) is ~100 miles and three states away. I fail to see the massive saturation and monopoly.

The five closer stores to me that are not GW that offer just regular (not sponsored) WH40K games are all playing different versions this weekend. But yes, they do require you to be prepared to play the version that they wrote the scenario for.

Can you provide the list of other stores providing sponsored games and tournaments that have no conditions on what you bring to play? How about the other non-sponsored games that are advertised that say things like "Yeah, bring AD&D 2.0, D&D d20 3.5, and white box stuff to play this one scenario"?

Let me offer you another analogy:

Restraunt X promised me "fun, food, and friends", but when I got there they wanted me to buy their food and their beer! What deceptive practices! OMG! They are evil!

If instead of saying "WH requires you to buy figures" you said, "When I sign up for a specific event paid for by GW, they want me to conform to their conditions which includes using figures for which the scenarios were designed instead of using figures that the other players won't recognize, so I have to keep explaining which ones they are. And they don't pay to set up events for products they don't sell anymore!"

Eto, I cling to my waffle, and my Magic 8 Ball backs me up. I assess with moderate confidence that the number of players sticking to older versions of WH are "relatively few" because I've never met one myself, and my local game shop owner doesn't seem to know of any. I know there are some because one or two have spoken up here, and I see posts from "Oldhammer" players on line.

I would love to know actual numbers, as I said. It's one of many points at which our overall ignorance of miniature wargaming as it is gets in the way of our discussions. We know what's played in our own circles and in the conventions we attend, but everything else is guesswork and impressions partially illuminated by the Great Wargaming Survey. I know of three different groups playing Napoleonics between Indianapolis and South Bend in two or three scales and three basing systems. (28mm NB, 30mm CLS, 15mm Empire if anyone's counting.) Those could be all there is. But there could be some multiple of that. There's simply no way to tell.

As for your benign view of GW tournament figure requirements, the GW player I know best (my son) assures me troop recognition has nothing to do with it, nor "scenarios for which the figures were designed"--only that the figures were or were not sold by GW. This is complicated by GW minions too young to recognize older GW products. You don't get booted because your Dwarves don't look like Dwarves: You get booted because your GW Dwarves were purchased before the GW minion started playing.

the GW player I know best (my son) assures me troop recognition has nothing to do with it, nor "scenarios for which the figures were designed"

Ah, he inherited your psychic gift!

So, still, which is it? Your first conclusion relies on knowing what the ratios are.

This is complicated by GW minions too young to recognize older GW products.

So you actually acknowledge that recognition is a factor. Now, if you would just stop using derrogatory terms for people you don't like … oh, well …

between Indianapolis and South Bend

link

link

All models must have their base attached to them. 3D prints or kitbashes, as usual, are allowed. Please try to keep it close to the silhouette and not modeled for advantage

link

Doesn't have a FAQ for their game, so you never know…

Luddite, hunh? I'm a fan of them.

It's amazing how the "stupid and destructive" stigma is still attached to the Luddites, even when you know the history and accept the motivation.

Agreed, project managers and directors were a major part of many problems. But I may leave the field at this point, before memories get my blood pressure up to eight figures (figuratively). I'm also skirting the OSA, which can be uncomfortable.

Instead I'll make up the flags for McLaw's division. I may even buy the figures and get them painted, eventually.

It's amazing how the "stupid and destructive" stigma is still attached to the Luddites

I gave a lecture on separating the voice of the victor in history from the reality of what happened last week. Different subject matter, but same point.

Independent of the specifics, the general arc of the experience is common. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

The modern penchant for people to want journalists to interpret events in a way compatible with their world view has rendered pure propaganda unnecessary, IMHO.

And suddenly "recognition" no longer means "I can't tell what troops types these are" but instead "I don't see these in our current catalog." If you're going to nitpick, eto, you can't pull such an obvious fast shuffle.

My son's a sharp kid, but you don't need psychic skills to observe that the "troop types for which the scenario was designed" aren't new troop types, or to collect reports from friends and on line that older GW troops of clearly recognizable type were kicked out of conventions because GW now cast from a more recent mold. I am in fact, doing GW a courtesy by blaming inexperienced minions and not calling it company policy.

If you don't care for "minion" please insert whatever term you please for bottom-level employees, not paid much and subject to being blamed for their superiors' misdeeds. I've been one myself, and do not think the term derogatory. (Hmm Does "minion" rate above or below "data monkey?" We used to have that on the cubicle wall around our part of the maze.)

older GW troops of clearly recognizable type

The bit I quoted from the people who play WH40K in your area (of which there are none because you can't be bothered to spend 5 minutes on the Internet looking for them) actually points out that people who have been playing for a long time and are not GW employees can't always tell old units from the new ones. Let alone trying to accomodate new players. And that people will leverage using different models for deceptive purposes.

"troop types for which the scenario was designed" aren't new troop types

So you GW is making new troop types but never includes them in their sanctioned play? What an innovative business concept! Create a product and then don't create demand for it! Brilliant!

because GW now cast from a more recent mold

I appreciate that all the people you know and all the people you've heard of are psychic like you and "know" the motive is not the one that is written in the terms of participation for the event. I mean, you are right, why would the reason for excluding someone's models be because the terms of participation said so?

bottom-level employees

I thought you were still denegrating people who played. I guess you also get off on degrading entry-level employees because … they are lesser than you?

Poor eto. I see you still can't or won't provide a term you prefer to "minion" and I still can't see why you insist it's degrading. We can't all be the Evil Overlord. Is it worse in your mind than "Data Monkey?" Or, for that matter, "grunt" "plebe" "firstie" "doolie" or "lower enlisteds?"

I never looked for WH players because it's not my type of wargaming. I certainly never said or implied there weren't any: in fact I mentioned the ones I heard complaining in the local game shop.

I'm also still working on what I said which denigrated GW players. I've only posted three times since you started your heroic defense of GW. Only thing I can come up with is "12 year old victim" suggesting that many young GW players don't realize going in that GW requires an ongoing financial outlay to stay current, while an ancients, horse & musket or WWII army tends to stay bought. Is this not true? Or is it denigrating to mention an age? I find my own somewhat depressing, I'll admit.

Coming up with events not run by GW and figure-source agostic was very well played, by the way. You know, for one wild moment I thought you'd done something helpful and spotted another Napoleonic group in the are. I should have known better. Out of curiosity, did you have to sort, or were these the first three out of the box?

Games Workshop has always referred to "The Games Workshop Hibby", as if to differentiate from … "normal" wargamers. And their minions and cult followers are okay with that.
Can you even believe charging a "normal" historical wargsmer $50 USD for Napoleon or Robert E Lee? Alexander? Caesar?
Yet they DO REQUIRE their acolytes to use the approved miniatures, and pay the approved price.
Find the lie here.

Yet they DO REQUIRE their acolytes to use the approved miniatures, and pay the approved price.

Well, you're making up the term acolytes, which could mean anything.

But, no company requires anyone to purchase anything.

But, no company requires anyone to purchase anything.

Have you always been this obtuse?
To play in officially sanctioned GW tournaments, or to play at GW stores, a player IS required to use their minis. And I am not the only one to say that. So, it can't be a "lie", which you seem to be obsessed with.
This carries over to games "in the privacy of their own home". By consenting adults. If you play in tournaments, why have a separate army to play in your basement? Or at the VFW or the Harvey Mudd College game room? You practice for a tournament with your "official" army. Dance with who you brang.

MANY, but not all 40K players don't get to play anywhere except the few tournaments or game stores in their area.
And, as I've pointed out already, it's "The Games Workshop" hobby.

To play in officially sanctioned GW tournaments, or to play at GW stores

So, you are forced to play at tourneys or in GW stores?

MANY, but not all 40K players don't get to play anywhere except the few tournaments or game stores in their area.

Please provide your data on this.

This carries over to games "in the privacy of their own home"

So which is it … people can only play in official games or they can also play in their home?

Just stop it. You know exactly what I mean.
Have a nice day.

. You know exactly what I mean.

Yes. You mean your feelings were hurt because you painted up your sad little gobbies and nobody wanted to play with you, after all everybody knows the only opportunity to play is at a GW store or GW sanctioned event, just like everyboy knows that lithium-ion battery fires can't be extinguished (that isn't a made up "fact" either).

I see you still can't or won't provide a term you prefer to "minion"

Yes, I can't help you with putting derogatory labels on people. I'm sure "everybody" does it, just like the "everybody" who can't play WH40K except by GW sponsored events.

So …

I would love to know actual numbers, as I said. It's one of many points at which our overall ignorance of miniature wargaming as it is gets in the way of our discussions.

Agree 100%. Then why you you assert this?

relatively few people treat WHwhatever as a set of rules like any other

Out of curiosity, did you have to sort, or were these the first three out of the box?

It's two. They were the first two substantively different responses to a search using a common web search engine. I am not counting ads that get prioritized actual topic results, or the fact that both locations gave multpile results in the search (for example, the announcement I linked to and then the conditions).

As far as doing your homework for you, I don't know which people you already know … how many of these ~100 people are already included (second result):

link

Have you tried IU or other large schools? They usually have gaming groups, and the larger ones, usually have broader scope. Often wargaming, and Napoleonic combat is part of the curriculum.

Wow, what a flame war, guys! Complete with acronyms from different disciplines, pedantry, grammar pedantry, accusations of pedantry, pedantry on what is pedantry, AND rags on engineers, pre-teens, laborers, enlisted soldiers, obscure 18th century eco-political movements, college rivalries, game companies, game stores, and occasionally even rules systems so as to vaguely remain on topic!
*applause* *applause* *applause*

Yes, Maximus, I am entertained!

Why am I even bothering here…

Naaaah. It's not worth it.

If you don't want to hear what I think you mean, then don't tell me that I know what you mean.

I COULD simply write again what I mean, but why bother? I've been clear from the beginning, so why attempt to "clarify" anything?
YOU will just LIE, again, about what I wrote, and distort it like a 5th grade bully, who thinks he's the smartest kid in class.
You, sir, are the LIAR. Not me. You're not worth a stifle. I want to see every absurd thing you post.

Good day, Sir!

Point out the things I said that are untrue. I have given you that courtesy:

- Companies are not forcing people to do anything.
- Nobody knows what proportion of WH player can only play tourneys and at stores.

Asked and answered.

Asked and answered.

Anybody else got any ideas what he means?

Back to the topic… sort of…

This is one of those polls where the results will be inverted. The high vote getters will be quite well liked overall, but just have a larger pool of grumpy gamers upset that other people are enjoying them so much.

? I'm not grumpy about DBA. I just don't like the game. Doesn't bother me that others do.

Instead I'll make up the flags for McLaw's division.

Which I did, Eto. One thing I should thank Defence for- learning how to be fairly competent when using Corel Draw. Low res', reduced size raster graphic here dalg.id.au/ACW/T_McLaws.jpg. I'll print them from the vector graphic and they'll come up better.

Reference: Infantry Flags; Longstreet's Corps; Army of Northern Virginia; Gettysburg 1863 by George Anderson & Ryan Toews.

Parzival, does this help the flame war diversity? I'm sure someone will come up and tell me the colours, stars, designs and regiments are wrong, which may help.

PS I should start looking at AB's ACW figures, to go with the flags. One day.