Ashiraya wrote:
Why does it matter for the game if someone took 3 Wraithknights for fluff purposes or for their game strength?

Because the latter would signify an unjust character, whereas the former would only signify general naivety.

Traditio wrote:

Seriously. Read what you previous said in answer to my claim. Then read what I actually claimed. At this point, you're just making yourself look silly. "If someone does x because y, then z." "But you don't know why he does x!!!" Uh...great. So, there's this thing called a dictionary, and I'm pretty sure that the word "because" is in there. Check it out.

My point is that a) you don't know until stated, and b) even if you do know, it doesn't make a lick of difference.

I'll apologize for the confusion, but really, it doesn't matter why someone takes something, and judging them for their army list remains a childish thing to do.

Hopefully that makes it abundantly clear for you.

Blacksails wrote:My point is that a) you don't know until stated...

Which is completely irrelevent to the point that I actually made. Congrats!

Traditio wrote:


Because the latter would signify an unjust character, whereas the former would only signify general naivety.

In what way?

Because you said so? As the ultimate judge of what is right in wrong in the game?

You have the unjust character of judging people based on their army list.

Traditio wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:
Why does it matter for the game if someone took 3 Wraithknights for fluff purposes or for their game strength?

Because the latter would signify an unjust character, whereas the former would only signify general naivety.

There is nothing naive about Wraithknights in the fluff. They are very much there.

There is also nothing unjust about the character of someone who builds a strong list.

Either way, no matter their purpose, the results in the game will be no different, no?

Traditio wrote:


Which is completely irrelevent to the point that I actually made. Congrats!

Which I cleared up and apologized for the confusion.

Care to address the rest of my point?

Ashiraya wrote:There is nothing naive about Wraithknights in the fluff. They are very much there.

You misunderstand me. What I intended to express is that such a thing would signify general naivety on the part of the player. "What? Wraithknights are overpowered? You're...you're kidding? I just run them because they look amazing and the fluff is the coolest thing I've ever read! They're like Godzilla elves! See? I even painted them green with little streaks of fire! I'm a firing my godzilla lazer: RAAAAAWR!"

Somehow, I just find it difficult to imagine that actually happening.

There is also nothing unjust about the character of someone who builds a strong list.

I've already addressed this. What's unjust is the intent to take advantage of unfair/imbalanced rules.

Either way, no matter their purpose, the results in the game will be no different, no?

Not necessarily. If the former type of person finds out that wraithknights are overpowered, and he's simply using them because they're like Godzilla, then he probably wouldn't have a problem with me using...say, an extra 200 points worth of units.

Either way, I would totally be willing to play against that guy.

Traditio wrote:


You misunderstand me. What I intended to express is that such a thing would signify general naivety on the part of the player. "What? Wraithknights are overpowered? You're...you're kidding? I just run them because they look amazing and the fluff is the coolest thing I've ever read! They're like Godzilla elves! See? I even painted them green with little streaks of fire! I'm a firing my godzilla lazer: RAAAAAWR!"

Somehow, I just find it difficult to imagine that actually happening.

Or more like

'Yeah, I know Wraithknights are strong, but they are a key part of my army's background.'

Traditio wrote:
I've already addressed this. What's unjust is the intent to take advantage of unfair/imbalanced rules.

So, where do you draw the line for where something is unfair?

Even some underpowered units are unfair against the worst units.

Who is judging exactly how many 'compensation points' WKs are worth? You?

How do you manage that in pick-up games?

Not necessarily. If the former type of person finds out that wraithknights are overpowered, and he's simply using them because they're like Godzilla, then he probably wouldn't have a problem with me using...say, an extra 200 points worth of units.

Either way, I would totally be willing to play against that guy.

He would question why you would get 200 points more without him getting 200 too.

Troop choices don't matter. Many of the strongest units in the game are troop choices.

Wave serpents were troop choices.
Wraith guard were troop choices.
Aren't scat bikes troop choices?
Rhinos with basic troops inside used to be quite strong way back when.

That is not a basic principle. Troops aren't even balanced between codexes. Tac marines are awful, plague marines are mediocre, necrons warriors are quite good.



Necrons are quite strong, which was my point. I would need a different army list against necrons, chaos marines, and let's say tau. My Wk could essentially cost 3 different point values, that seems odd.



I still don't see how a 55 point adjustment on a single Wk counters anything I said. Are you implying if he takes more than one, he needs to up the cost of each even more?

My point is, you'd need a single price adjustment to have any hope of telling someone you want to weaken a choice of theirs. You can't come up with 3 different numbers at a single club. I can't even get cryx players to admit they have an advantage against skorne, or that the wave serpent is still a good tank, or that noise marines aren't that great.

In this thread alone, you thought defilers were good. There is a consensus that they are bad. You can tell there is such a consensus, because people popped in to say as much without needing prompting.

Ashiraya wrote:

Or more like

'Yeah, I know Wraithknights are strong, but they are a key part of my army's background. Nothing you won't be able to handle, yes?'

You see the massive amount of naivety here, yes?

So, where do you draw the line for where something is unfair?

Even some underpowered units are unfair against the worst units.

If people commonly complain that something is undercosted, overcosted, overpowered, underpowered or broken, then chances are, it's unfair.

He would question why you would get 200 points more without him getting 200 too.

The goals are different. One guy wants to field 3 godzilla elf monsters. If the godzilla elf monsters were not brokenly good and undercosted, he'd still be using them. The other guy doesn't really care what he's using. He's just using the most broken thing so that he can win.

Traditio wrote:
You see the massive amount of naivety here, yes?

Not at all.

If people commonly complain that something is undercosted, overcosted, overpowered, underpowered or broken, then chances are, it's unfair.

Must be annoying to run a comprehensive census each time you want to find out how good a unit or list is.

The goals are different. One guy wants to field 3 godzilla elf monsters. If the godzilla elf monsters were not brokenly good and undercosted, he'd still be using them. The other guy doesn't really care what he's using. He's just using the most broken thing so that he can win.

Because one player seeks victory first, and the other seeks fluff first and victory second.

Neither of them are TFG. People in tournaments put victory first (except for obvious stuff like behaving well). Are they all TFG?

Akiasura wrote:
Troop choices don't matter. Many of the strongest units in the game are troop choices.

Wave serpents were troop choices

False. Wave serpents were dedicated transports. Dedicated transports don't fill an FOC slot.

Wraith guard were troop choices.

If you took a spirit seer.

Aren't scat bikes troop choices?
Rhinos with basic troops inside used to be quite strong way back when.

I didn't say it's the only rule. I just said it's the number one rule. "Thou shalt not spam," etc.

Necrons are quite strong, which was my point. I would need a different army list against necrons, chaos marines, and let's say tau. My Wk could essentially cost 3 different point values, that seems odd.

You're basically saying: "Yes, the wraithknight is undercosted by at least 50 points. But if I take that into account in my list, my wraithknight will be overcosted in relationship to all of those undercosted units that my opponent won't be taking into account when he writes his list."

Do you see why this isn't a good argument?

I still don't see how a 55 point adjustment on a single Wk counters anything I said. Are you implying if he takes more than one, he needs to up the cost of each even more?

No. If he runs 3 wraithknights, then 1050 points. That may or may be not be fair, but it's more fair than 885 points.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ashiraya wrote:Must be annoying to run a comprehensive census each time you want to find out how good a unit or list is.

Oh, yes. Of course. Because people never discuss such things, on...say...the internet...on...I don't know...you know...websites like dakka forums. And warhammer players most certainly never read such discussions. Right?

Because one player seeks victory first, and the other seeks fluff first and victory second.

Then the latter probably won't mind his wraithknight being reasonably nerfed.

Neither of them are TFG. People in tournaments put victory first (except for obvious stuff like behaving well). Are they all TFG?

I have my suspicions.

The link that Kabob had for "Scrubs" leads to good game theory.
I swear they are talking about 40k and his focus is more Street fighter games.
http://www.sirlin.net/articles/balancing-multiplayer-games-part-3-fairness
Play to win, fairness or not is poor game design not poor player manners.

Traditio wrote:
I have my suspicions.

Yeah, no.

Regardless, waveserpents could be taken as a troop choice. You had to take them with dire avengers, which they were often taken with (and called a tax), but they still required a troop choice to be taken. It's not false.

Same with wraithguard. You have to take certain lists to make cult troops troop choices in chaos armies. This is so commonly done they the Lord is considered a tax and included in their point cost during list building. You yourself said the wraithguard with spirit seer was commonly taken as a troop choice.


For a number one rule, it was pretty easy to punch holes in it.


You're assuming I know my opponents list and can adjust accordingly. I find this is rarely the case. If I don't know, we have to adjust everything to this balance that you had in mind when we adjusted the WK. You are the only one suggesting a point increase.


Honestly couldn't tell if you meant the point cost for each should go up for each one the more you take. You mentioned one WK.

Akiasura wrote:Honestly couldn't tell if you meant the point cost for each should go up for each one the more you take. You mentioned one WK.

I'm recommending a base model cost of 350x, where x equals the total number of wraithknights.

Traditio, they dont understand that it doesnt matter WHY you (the player) are taking the unit. It doesnt matter if it is for the cool model factor or the OP rules factor, the end result is that you get the same benefit in game.

Just as in other games that are outside the hobby such as warmachine/hordes, Dust or whatever else where you build your forces with points like this, your going to have issues with balance and so forth.
The OP of this thread is giving one single option that can be used in certain situations to allow for a fun game. The OP is not saying you HAVE to follow that in those particular situations, only that you CAN. The issue is that his opinion or way of dealing with it in those particular situations is being totally discounted as meaningless in ANY situation.
I feel the OP is being overly naive in thinking it could be expanded to cover all situations, but I still support his right to have his opinion and that his right to his opinion is valid.

 EVIL INC wrote:


Just as in other games that are outside the hobby such as warmachine/hordes, Dust or whatever else where you build your forces with points like this, your going to have issues with balance and so forth.

Do you mean GW as a hobby or table top wargamming?
Because WMH is as much a table top war game as 40k. (modeling, converting and scenery making all included.)
I'm genuinely confused. Could you explain more clearly?

 EVIL INC wrote:
Traditio, they dont understand that it doesnt matter WHY you (the player) are taking the unit. It doesnt matter if it is for the cool model factor or the OP rules factor, the end result is that you get the same benefit in game.

Just as in other games that are outside the hobby such as warmachine/hordes, Dust or whatever else where you build your forces with points like this, your going to have issues with balance and so forth.
The OP of this thread is giving one single option that can be used in certain situations to allow for a fun game. The OP is not saying you HAVE to follow that in those particular situations, only that you CAN. The issue is that his opinion or way of dealing with it in those particular situations is being totally discounted as meaningless in ANY situation.
I feel the OP is being overly naive in thinking it could be expanded to cover all situations, but I still support his right to have his opinion and that his right to his opinion is valid.

Oh boy, GW is the hobby? I guess you're that unicorn ideal GW customer. The hobby is tabletop wargaming. GW is a part of that hobby. They used to be the majority of the hobby, now, not so much. They continually lose ground to companies that know how to balance the game.

it may be that I have missed something. is the topic about what makes up a hobby or it it about the idea that there are situations where 2 or more players could be able to communicate among themselves to come up with a agreement on what is or is not reasonable to take to a purely "friendly game" (with the full knowledge that this would only be possible in a specific set of situations and that it would be only a thumb in the dike solution to cover broken rules)?

 EVIL INC wrote:
it may be that I have missed something. is the topic about what makes up a hobby or it it about the idea that there are situations where 2 or more players could be able to communicate among themselves to come up with a agreement on what is or is not reasonable to take to a purely "friendly game" (with the full knowledge that this would only be possible in a specific set of situations and that it would be only a thumb in the dike solution to cover broken rules)?

Then don't say incredibly ignorant statements and then refuse to support them.

One side, be aware of what you are saying, you aren't that close to the line but never hurts. The other side, just because someone disagrees with you it doesn't mean it breaks the rules of the site. Consider that before spamming the ever living daylights out of the report function. Maybe if you're getting that incensed, step away from the thread for a little while.

Sorry, double post

 EVIL INC wrote:
I dont believe that the OP is ignorent in his thoughts that 2 or more players can communicate among themselves to come to an agreement about what they feel is reasonable to take to a friendly game in specific situations is all that ignorent. A little naive in my opinion in that I think he wants to expect it in outside situations but even so, i would only say that he is a little too trusting rather than calling him ignorant.

That wasn't was I was referring to. If you wish to know more, ask me in PM.

I ill be more aware of what i am saying to ensure i dont come close to the line.
I am honestly not trying to insult you when i say that I agree with the OP. At least to the degree that it is possible to do as he suggests in at least a specific set of circumstances. My apologies that you take offence about that. No offence was intended.games that make it up has issues. Regardless of that, we as players should be able to get along and discuss the game

Akiasura wrote:
Websites claim all kinds of things. Link it, I'd like to read someone suggesting the defiler is a good choice.

1d4chan is one website, but they get LOTS of stuff wrong. In the same Defiler section they said to COMPARE IT TO A DOOMSDAY ARK. AND they say Chaos Space Marines excel at large numbers. It's all bassackwards over there.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Akiasura wrote:
Websites claim all kinds of things. Link it, I'd like to read someone suggesting the defiler is a good choice.

1d4chan is one website, but they get LOTS of stuff wrong. In the same Defiler section they said to COMPARE IT TO A DOOMSDAY ARK. AND they say Chaos Space Marines excel at large numbers. It's all bassackwards over there.

That's the site that I had in mind.

Traditio wrote:
You misunderstand me. What I intended to express is that such a thing would signify general naivety on the part of the player. "What? Wraithknights are overpowered? You're...you're kidding? I just run them because they look amazing and the fluff is the coolest thing I've ever read! They're like Godzilla elves! See? I even painted them green with little streaks of fire! I'm a firing my godzilla lazer: RAAAAAWR!"

Somehow, I just find it difficult to imagine that actually happening.

Well yes, we've already established that you have a hard time understanding perspectives that aren't your own. Perhaps instead of just assuming that everyone who doesn't build their armies the way you do is a WAAC TFG you could consider giving them the benefit of the doubt?

I've already addressed this. What's unjust is the intent to take advantage of unfair/imbalanced rules.

And I've already addressed this: there is nothing unjust at all about using the most powerful options. The only possible injustice is if you take advantage of a community's unwritten rules about army construction not being explicit enough and bring a list that is well beyond the power level that the group agreed on. But that isn't a fairness issue because you're using a powerful list, it's a fairness issue because you're breaking the implied contract you agreed to when you joined the group.

Not necessarily. If the former type of person finds out that wraithknights are overpowered, and he's simply using them because they're like Godzilla, then he probably wouldn't have a problem with me using...say, an extra 200 points worth of units.

So let me get this straight: you think it's reasonable to ask for extra points if your opponent brings something you've decided is overpowered, and you think that any "decent" player would allow you to have them? Are you serious?

Peregrine wrote:Well yes, we've already established that you have a hard time understanding perspectives that aren't your own. Perhaps instead of just assuming that everyone who doesn't build their armies the way you do is a WAAC TFG you could consider giving them the benefit of the doubt?

Do you think it's particularly likely?

And I've already addressed this: there is nothing unjust at all about using the most powerful options. The only possible injustice is if you take advantage of a community's unwritten rules about army construction not being explicit enough and bring a list that is well beyond the power level that the group agreed on. But that isn't a fairness issue because you're using a powerful list, it's a fairness issue because you're breaking the implied contract you agreed to when you joined the group.

And you can say that until your face turns blue. That doesn't address the arguments that I've presented. You literally have the following options:

1. There are no unfair rules in warhammer.
2. It is not unjust to take advantage of unfair rules.
3. There are unjust/unfair ways of playing warhammer (even independently of social convention).

Those are the only three options. You've carefully avoided denying 1, refuse to admit 3, and yet, every time you try to assert 2, you insist on changing the wording from "unfair" to "powerful." Probably because you realize that it's a flat contradiction to assert that it's not unjust (and thus unfair) to take advantage of unfair rules. So, you are stuck between:

1. A proposition which is obviously false.
2. A proposition which is a self-contradiction.
3. My conclusion.

So let me get this straight: you think it's reasonable to ask for extra points if your opponent brings something you've decided is overpowered, and you think that any "decent" player would allow you to have them? Are you serious?

If you grant alternative 3 of the alternatives above, then this necessarily follows. If it is unfair for you to play a wraithknight at 295 points (even though the rules permit it), namely, because the wraithknight is 50 points undercosted, then, if you play a wraithknight, what is fair is for you to play at 50 points less than me. This follows necessarily (presupposing that I don't use any undercosted units myself).

Traditio wrote:
Do you think it's particularly likely?

Yes, I do. Because, unlike you, I can understand that not everyone builds their armies the way I do and give them the benefit of the doubt.

And you can say that until your face turns blue. That doesn't address the arguments that I've presented. You literally have the following options:

1. There are no unfair rules in warhammer.
2. It is not unjust to take advantage of unfair rules.
3. There are unjust/unfair ways of playing warhammer.

Those are the only three options. You've carefully avoided denying 1, refuse to admit 3, and yet, every time you try to assert 2, you insist on changing the wording from "unfair" to "powerful."

Yes, because I object to your ridiculous bait and switch. You talk about how everyone agrees that their are "unfair" rules as defined by "rules that don't have the appropriate point cost", but then once you get that agreement you start talking about "rules that should not be used". So instead of letting you get away with switching definitions of "unfair" I'm going to call unbalanced rules "powerful", not "unfair".

If you grant alternative 3 of the alternatives above, then this necessarily follows. If it is unfair for you to play a wraithknight at 295 points (even though the rules permit it), namely, because the wraithknight is 50 points undercosted, then, if you play a wraithknight, what is fair is either for you to play at 50 points less than me. This follows necessarily.

And I disagree with your premise that it's unfair to play a 295 point wraithknight. I also disagree with your premise that a game where I have a lower point total than you is "fair". A fair game is one where we both have the same resources. So if we agree to play a 1500 point game we both get to take 1500 points worth of models. The fact that you choose to make a badly designed army list and take units that are not as point-efficient as mine does not mean that you're entitled to spend extra points to make up for your strategic mistakes.

Peregrine wrote:Yes, I do. Because, unlike you, I can understand that not everyone builds their armies the way I do and give them the benefit of the doubt.

What do you suppose is statistically probable?

Yes, because I object to your ridiculous bait and switch. You talk about how everyone agrees that their are "unfair" rules as defined by "rules that don't have the appropriate point cost", but then once you get that agreement you start talking about "rules that should not be used". So instead of letting you get away with switching definitions of "unfair" I'm going to call unbalanced rules "powerful", not "unfair".

Peregrine, be more of a Thomist, and set aside such univocal conceptions. Think more analogically!

At any rate:

Just = fair = proportionally equal.

If something does not have an appropriate points cost, then it is not proportionately equal. If it is not proportionally equally, then it is not fair.

Will you now tell me that it is fair or just to take advantage of something which is not fair? Presumably, you will. But I'm afraid that I'll have to pity you for being bound by such contradictory conceptions.

And I disagree with your premise that it's unfair to play a 295 point wraithknight. I also disagree with your premise that a game where I have a lower point total than you is "fair". A fair game is one where we both have the same resources. So if we agree to play a 1500 point game we both get to take 1500 points worth of models. The fact that you choose to make a badly designed army list and take units that are not as point-efficient as mine does not mean that you're entitled to spend extra points to make up for your strategic mistakes.

If the wraithknight is undercosted (which, I assume, you admit) by 50 points, then if we are both running 1500 points lists, and I'm not running under costed models, then we do not have the same resources. I have, de facto, 50 points less than you. We have the "same" resources if and only if our armies would be equivalent if only they were appropriately priced in terms of their points values. Consider, furthermore, what Aristotle says about equity (Nicomachean Ethics). In fact, just read the Nicomachean Ethics. For difficult passages, consult St. Thomas Aquinas' commentary.

And again, I can't help but think that the reason that you are refusing to concede to such obvious and clear reasoning is the overwhelming probability that you have a really big horse in this race. You probably spam OP units, am I right? Why don't you play Orks for a while and come back to me?

Traditio wrote:
What do you suppose is statistically probable?

I don't care what is statistically probable because individuals are not statistics. Unlike you I don't feel any obligation to question a player's motives for taking something based on what other people have done.

If something does not have an appropriate points cost, then it is not proportionately equal. If it is not proportionally equally, then it is not fair.

But those things aren't the same. You're assuming that a fair game is one in which both players have the same total value of stuff in their lists, when in reality that's just your personal preference. Another player might define a "fair" game as one where each player has the same point total to spend, regardless of how intelligently they spend their points. You're certainly entitled to play the game that way and try to find other people who share your goals, but please stop assuming that your personal opinions are universal truth.

If the wraithknight is undercosted (which, I assume, you admit) by 50 points, then if we are both running 1500 points lists, and I'm not running under costed models, then we do not have the same resources.

Except we do have the same resources. We both had 1500 points to spend. The fact that you wasted some of your points on weaker choices is not my problem.

We have the "same" resources if and only if our armies would be equivalent if only they were appropriately costed in terms of their points values.

Why do you keep ignoring the fact that army construction is part of the game? The game starts when you start writing your list, not when you finish it and put models on the table. You're doing the equivalent of arguing that the game is "unfair" and I'm "taking advantage of unfair things" because on turn 3 I have 900 of my 1500 points still alive against your 600 points, and that I should give you an extra 300 points to make up for the "unfairness".

You probably spam OP units, am I right?

It really says a lot about you that this is the only reason you can think of for disagreeing with you.

Traditio wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Akiasura wrote:
Websites claim all kinds of things. Link it, I'd like to read someone suggesting the defiler is a good choice.

1d4chan is one website, but they get LOTS of stuff wrong. In the same Defiler section they said to COMPARE IT TO A DOOMSDAY ARK. AND they say Chaos Space Marines excel at large numbers. It's all bassackwards over there.

That's the site that I had in mind.

You should have realized that the site, for Chaos, is out of date. Go to Necrons or Eldar; they have updates for 7th edition, talk about how strong their options are, mention formations, and rate nearly every single choice.
The chaos section barely mentions psykers and clearly doesn't include the new psychic phase. The defiler page mentions it being a powerful beast, true, then has a large section mentioning its drawbacks. Nearly as large as its strengths.

The website isn't great, but claiming 1d4chan as a credible source is well....

Traditio, Evil Inc.,

These people are trolling you. You might as well stop responding. I am not sure why the mods don't shut this kind of thing down, but they don't. This thread was basically over 6 pages ago.

This is a somewhat religious argument anyhow.

To some people winning and playing at the highest level of competition is the most important part of a game. If you are not bringing your "A" game then don't bother and don't get mad when I beat you. You need to get better. That IS NOT TFG or WAAC, it is simply being an "elite" player.

To others the competition and "how you play the game" is more important and less emphasis is placed on winning. So to them, the first group IS TFG and WAAC. It is a sliding scale depending on where you are coming from.

This happens in all kind of competitive endeavours and I think is just part of human nature.

Just give up making the the argument for being a "decent human being" it is simply not something the other side on the argument in this thread even wants to hear about and they think they are being a "decent human being". They are playing within the rules given to them by GW, so how is playing within the rules not being a "decent human being"? They just have different expectations from the game and are looking to get something else out of it than someone who wants for the game to be more "fair".

Of course it is possible they are simply making the argument for arguments sake to illustrate how broken and imbalanced the GW rules are. They are playing/making lists within the rules > someone thinks they are "unfair" and calls for "fixing" them somehow > therefore GW makes bad/unbalanced rules > GW is a bad company.

Either way stop feeding the trolls in this thread. Which ever point they are trying to make (if they even have one.)

Wow.

I'm used to people who can't actually put forward a valid counter argument resorting to name calling, it's what frequently happens when the "apologists" have their points undermined by pesky things like facts and logic, but to dismiss a whole viewpoint as trolls? That's a first.

But yeah, why not? Much easier than actually tackling the points they're making or admitting to yourself that your view doesn't actually stand up to scrutiny I suppose.

How is dismissing one side with the "apologist" pejorative not the same thing as dismissing the other side with the "troll" pejorative?

The second may be harsher, but its the same logic.

Neither label is accurate. Oddly, the first one goes to length to try to explain the actions of the group as something completely non-offensive ("Elite" players), and does a good job. Shouldn't have ended in calling them trolls, though.

The second simply dismisses the other group.

It keeps going like this:
GroupA: "Be reasonable"
B: "That's a stupid idea. We shouldn't because the rules are dumb"
A: "Not arguing that the rules aren't dumb. Just saying things can be OK despite the rules."
B: "Apologist. Stop defending GW. Dumbass.
A: "Troll."

And it just keeps repeating for 12 pages.

"Just saying things can be OK despite the rules."

Many of us with 15+ years of experience have 15+ years of experience indicating that this is not true. I think that might be the objection. I'd rather not play the Eldar player or forfeit to him than beg him not to bring certain units. I'd rather go lose honestly somewhere else.

Bharring wrote:


It keeps going like this:
GroupA: "Be reasonable"
B: "That's a stupid idea. We shouldn't because the rules are dumb"
A: "Not arguing that the rules aren't dumb. Just saying things can be OK despite the rules."
B: "Apologist. Stop defending GW. Dumbass.
A: "Troll."

And it just keeps repeating for 12 pages.

Exactly. That is why the mods should have shut it down about 6 pages ago.

I'd also like to point out that I don't have to negotiate with, or BEG, in this case, my opponent in any other game system.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Loborocket wrote:

Bharring wrote:


It keeps going like this:
GroupA: "Be reasonable"
B: "That's a stupid idea. We shouldn't because the rules are dumb"
A: "Not arguing that the rules aren't dumb. Just saying things can be OK despite the rules."
B: "Apologist. Stop defending GW. Dumbass.
A: "Troll."

And it just keeps repeating for 12 pages.

Exactly. That is why the mods should have shut it down about 6 pages ago.

Maybe they aren't out of popcorn yet.

Bharring wrote:
How is dismissing one side with the "apologist" pejorative not the same thing as dismissing the other side with the "troll" pejorative?

The second may be harsher, but its the same logic.

Neither label is accurate. Oddly, the first one goes to length to try to explain the actions of the group as something completely non-offensive ("Elite" players), and does a good job. Shouldn't have ended in calling them trolls, though.

The second simply dismisses the other group.

It keeps going like this:
GroupA: "Be reasonable"
B: "That's a stupid idea. We shouldn't because the rules are dumb"
A: "Not arguing that the rules aren't dumb. Just saying things can be OK despite the rules."
B: "Apologist. Stop defending GW. Dumbass.
A: "Troll."

And it just keeps repeating for 12 pages.

Because one side seems to think that it's okay that the rules are dumb. The "apologist" term doesn't get thrown out until people start saying it's okay that the rules are dumb and it's not GW's fault that the rules are dumb, it's the players' fault for not discussing how to fix the dumb rules before playing the game.

One side consistently tries to argue that it's okay to ignore bad rules, that it's okay to have bad rules and pay a premium for them, that it's on the players to fix them instead of acknowledging that the rules are terrible, GW is at fault but X Y and Z are ways that you can overcome those flaws. Often, said side can't even acknowledge that there ARE flaws in the rules.

That's why.

Martel,
That may be a point that "Group A" (myself included) may be missing.

However, while the arguement would support "That doesn't work for me", it does not support "That doesn't work for many".

Bharring wrote:
Martel,
That may be a point that "Group A" (myself included) may be missing.

However, while the arguement would support "That doesn't work for me", it does not support "That doesn't work for many".

No, I think all the other posters protesting your "solution" does support it, however. Maybe I just know gamers better than you. They love their exploits and loopholes. And that's why tight rules sets get a lot more respect than crappy ones. Because then gamers can't trivialize the situation.

Wayne,
From what I've seen in this thread, it has been rare to see someone defending GW much at all.

The comments about it being OK were about it being feasible for the bad rules to not prevent us from having fun. Which is where the whole "be reasonable" thing comes into play.

Fault in one party doesn't materially negate the ability of another party to mitigate/fix the problem. Not sure what you do professionally, but has it ever been acceptable to say "Jim Bob screwed up. I'm not gonna do nothin!"? I still have to make the apps work. Doesn't matter if some contractor doesn't know what he's doing.

My point being, trying to solve a problem, or recognizing the capacity to do so does not absolve the source of the problem (GW's crappy rules).

Some have pointed out that other systems have problems too (how many players preferred I didn't take eHaley? His much of my collection did practically nothing to Collasals once they came out?) Pointing these out doesn't mean GW isn't worse than PP or whoever. Its just an attempt to show that even better systems aren't perfect.

Perhaps if we stopped assigning beliefs to others that haven't expressed said beliefs, this thread might come to a cordial conclusion naturally.

My issue with the supposed group A is either the labelling of people as WAAC TFG for a list, or the vague, nebulous concept of 'reasonable', which can't in any be nailed down or defined, making it an empty statement.

As far as I'm concerned, every player should be able to build a list with whatever they want and not be judged or labelled for it.

Your order of operations for playing a game with someone would go like this;

1. Find opponent;
2. Exchange pleasantries, offer to court their sister, exchange lists;
3. a)If lists are deemed to be on the same general power level, or the players are happy to carry on regardless, then play starts and everyone is happy (end here if that's the case, carry on courting sister after);
b)If lists are deemed to be too different, then two further options present themselves (go to 4, skip courting sister);
4. a)Compromise on lists, where each player tones up or down their own list to match the other better, which allows the players to carry on;
b)Don't compromise on lists and find a different player as your two ideas of what constitutes fun are too different and the game wouldn't be too enjoyable;
5. At no point should any player assume their list or style of play is superior to the other, or assume any player should change for them without also offering to change.

Oh, and so long as we all agree GW's rule writing is borked.

Courting your opponent's sister is optional. Or brother I suppose.

the problem is... any GAME ... even ones where units are pre selected in controlled scenarios... someone will try to cheat...

even video games with lag switches and hacks.

Some people enjoy abuse and see cheating or abuse as fun. I dont think that can ever change.

" Its just an attempt to show that even better systems aren't perfect. "

There's no reason to say this. No one is asking for perfection. For example, I think that zerglings and marines are somewhat better than zealots in Starcraft. These are all base units, so in theory, they should all be equal. But it's okay if they aren't as long as everything else balances.

Martel,
I am quite aware that the "Elite Players" subgroup of this hobby is, in fact, quite large.

However, it is not the only subgroup. I'm quite confident it isn't the majority, but I wouldn't be surprised if it were a plurality.

Be aware that the several more casual subgroups also exist. These are the groups that 'be reasonable' is meant for (note - a less loaded label would probably be helpful).

What makes you think non-elite players want to beg their opponents to go easy on them? In fact, elite players are more likely to agree to this, I think, because they already know what turning it up to 11 looks like.

Martel732 wrote:
" Its just an attempt to show that even better systems aren't perfect. "

There's no reason to say this. No one is asking for perfection. For example, I think that zerglings and marines are somewhat better than zealots in Starcraft. These are all base units, so in theory, they should all be equal. But it's okay if they aren't as long as everything else balances.

Late game zelot spam can win games. I'd just say the late game usefulness of a zelot is higher than a marine or a zergling after a huge engagement where both players lost a huge chunk of an army. Plus warpgates need to be considered - a good toss is deploying the zelot exactly where he wants it to be once he has those flying pylons. Still though - Zerglings beat zelots straight up and critical mass marines kill zelots with ease. This is why high Templar exist.

BlackSails,
Group A calling Group B a TFG is about the same as Group B calling Group A apologists.

Neither is accurate. Both beat a strawman. We just keep talking past each other.

WAAC is also loaded. But what do you think of using the term "Elite Player"?

"Reasonable" could also be considered loaded, as it presupposes "Elite Players" are unreasonable. Which is an unreasonable assumption.

The "reasonable" label can't be nailed down. But neither can 'fun', or 'love', or 'unreasonable'. That doesn't make the concepts useless. "I know it when I see it" is unacceptable in a legal framework. However, it can be quite useful in a social construct.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
" Its just an attempt to show that even better systems aren't perfect. "

There's no reason to say this. No one is asking for perfection. For example, I think that zerglings and marines are somewhat better than zealots in Starcraft. These are all base units, so in theory, they should all be equal. But it's okay if they aren't as long as everything else balances.

Late game zelot spam can win games. I'd just say the late game usefulness of a zelot is higher than a marine or a zergling after a huge engagement where both players lost a huge chunk of an army. Plus warpgates need to be considered - a good toss is deploying the zelot exactly where he wants it to be once he has those flying pylons. Still though - Zerglings beat zelots straight up and critical mass marines kill zelots with ease. This is why high Templar exist.

At any rate, it's much closer to balanced than anything GW has vomited up. Because there's actually a question of how good the thing is. GW makes it trivial usually to make such comparisons.

IIRC, in SC1, Zelots that bottleneck Zerglings eat their lunch money. You aren't going to push them, because if you get surrounded you lose, but you can hold at a fraction of the investment.

I shouldn't have to expect that a human being be decent to expect a fair game. In fact, I kinda expect my opponents to be dicks and self serving - as this is actually human nature.

Bharring wrote:
IIRC, in SC1, Zelots that bottleneck Zerglings eat their lunch money. You aren't going to push them, because if you get surrounded you lose, but you can hold at a fraction of the investment.

Only if there's a bottleneck. On most SC2 maps, this involves sentries for force fields or for you to be defending your base. It's a personal preference. My biggest problem is that in early game, zealots can't defend reapers, so I usually go stalker first against terran.

 Xenomancers wrote:
I shouldn't have to expect that a human being be decent to expect a fair game. In fact, I kinda expect my opponents to be dicks and self serving - as this is actually human nature.

Yeah. I mean yeah be reasonable and use common sense, but you absolutely cannot rely on people doing the same, and you most certainly cannot write a rules set for people who are reasonable and use common sense. Rules should be written so you don't need common sense and to be reasonable to play the game, otherwise people will break them.

Common sense is a total myth anyway. There are 7 billion different versions of common sense on the planet. One for every distinct human.

Bharring wrote:
BlackSails,
Group A calling Group B a TFG is about the same as Group B calling Group A apologists.

Neither is accurate. Both beat a strawman. We just keep talking past each other.

WAAC is also loaded. But what do you think of using the term "Elite Player"?

"Reasonable" could also be considered loaded, as it presupposes "Elite Players" are unreasonable. Which is an unreasonable assumption.

The "reasonable" label can't be nailed down. But neither can 'fun', or 'love', or 'unreasonable'. That doesn't make the concepts useless. "I know it when I see it" is unacceptable in a legal framework. However, it can be quite useful in a social construct.

Well, I'm basing that off one user who has stated and continually implied that people are TFG's for using units, but I get that's not everyone in the camp.

Regardless, do you agree or disagree with how I actually feel on the subject overall based on my post?

Bharring wrote:
IIRC, in SC1, Zelots that bottleneck Zerglings eat their lunch money. You aren't going to push them, because if you get surrounded you lose, but you can hold at a fraction of the investment.

Yeah and toss isn't going early pressure practically ever. It's quick expand and early tech rush. DT, Oracle, immortal sentry, or stalker harras. With proper micro though - 4 zerglings beats a zelot with 0-2 losses. This is why SC is a brilliantly balanced game. Even the maps are built with game balance in mind - so that protoss are able to run early expand by choke points being present at every base. Unlike a 40k game where there isn't even a standard for the terrain.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:

Bharring wrote:
IIRC, in SC1, Zelots that bottleneck Zerglings eat their lunch money. You aren't going to push them, because if you get surrounded you lose, but you can hold at a fraction of the investment.

Only if there's a bottleneck. On most SC2 maps, this involves sentries for force fields or for you to be defending your base. It's a personal preference. My biggest problem is that in early game, zealots can't defend reapers, so I usually go stalker first against terran.

toss vs terran early game is about vision. If unprepared for a reaper - you lose the game.

An interesting thing here comes up when you take into account David Sirlin's definition of "The Scrub" (from http://www.sirlin.net/ptw-book/introducingthe-scrub)

A scrub is a player who is handicapped by self-imposed rules that the game knows nothing about. A scrub does not play to win

The underlying problem here is that 40k is designed around self-imposed rules, in part because the rules are so imbalanced themselves, so in effect 40k almost requires one to be a "scrub" in order to play it otherwise everyone would only be playing the best units to try and win and the scrubs would be the ones trying to play a fluffy Space Marine army and getting steamrolled.

As a fan of Sirlin's book (I recently started reading it) I find this perplexing because by design a game should be played to win (IMHO of course) but 40k all but encourages the opposite due to how it's rules are. I wonder what Sirlin would have to say about 40k's design goals as it relates to his ideals.

Loborocket wrote:

Of course it is possible they are simply making the argument for arguments sake to illustrate how broken and imbalanced the GW rules are. They are playing/making lists within the rules > someone thinks they are "unfair" and calls for "fixing" them somehow > therefore GW makes bad/unbalanced rules > GW is a bad company.

Just on this bit....I don't know if it was intentional, but you are completely right. If adhering to the rules (that are sold at a premium price!) produces degenerate & unfun game, then the problem lies with the rules and the writers of those rules, rather than the players who simply do what the book says they can do.

Again, I understand the principle of "Don't exploit the underpriced stuff.", and think it's a good way for players to keep the unfun elements out of games. But such balancing shouldn't have been left to the players to decide with a vague, subjective, shame-based system.

 tenebre wrote:
the problem is... any GAME ... even ones where units are pre selected in controlled scenarios... someone will try to cheat...

even video games with lag switches and hacks.

Some people enjoy abuse and see cheating or abuse as fun. I dont think that can ever change.

But again, it's not cheating. By definition, if you use the rules as written in the book and never go outside of them, you're obeying the rules. You could argue that spamming the underpriced stuff is unsportsmanlike, certainly, but if the codex places silly prices on things and lets you take a lot of them, then doing that is not cheating.

Bharring wrote:
How is dismissing one side with the "apologist" pejorative not the same thing as dismissing the other side with the "troll" pejorative?

So, the fact I used quotation marks conveyed nothing to you, and the fact that it is a legitimate and factually accurate term to describe the position of a certain group (and I made no attempt to ascribe it to any individual) means nothing?

Troll has one very definite meaning in this context, unless you're going to try and argue that it is simply a convenient way of summarising another viewpoint. (Please do, that'd be hilarious.)

Azrael,
The quotations certainly didn't make it less of a pejorative. They did suggest that the label might not be the right one, but the rest of your post supported the use of said label.

You clearly attach the label to the preceding post, and any that agree with "that side". While the preceding post, and those it was agreeing with, were not apologizing for GW.

Troll, in this regard as used here is similar.

It is used as a pejorative. It doesn't fit with the class accused. It us used to frame the other group to align with a preferred straw man, enabling both groups to continue to talk past each other.

Both labels fit each of these facets.

"Troll" has much stronger negative connotations than "Apologist", but they both serve the same purpose in this conversation.

BlackSails,
I generally agree that your post is rational and valid, and up to the outline of a game you post, reasonable. That part had some hyperbole in it. But I agree with the rest of the spirit of your post.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
(TLR, your sister isn't the right woman for me.)

Troll has no legitimate application beyond the obvious.

Apologist clearly does, which is the manner in which I'm applying it. The quotations were largely a nod to those who insist on telling me what my intentions are.

Bharring wrote:

BlackSails,
I generally agree that your post is rational and valid, and up to the outline of a game you post, reasonable. That part had some hyperbole in it. But I agree with the rest of the spirit of your post.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
(TLR, your sister isn't the right woman for me.)

I'm not entirely sure what part was hyperbolic, but details I suppose.

And yeah, she's not much into gaming anyways.

Troll can be used to describe something that is big and green and hates fire. Not a reasonable use in the context, sure.

Either *can* be used without a negative connotation. Certainly nether here were.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
We could dig into that, BlackSails, but a little hyperbole is more reasonable than half the internet. Not really a problem. I don't think we need to sort the fine details out. I think we understand eachothers' positions.

Again, stop telling me my intentions.

In case anyone is interested, this thread's inching ever closer to a lock!

Are people really still trying to claim that 'apologist' is a negative term? Its an academic term for "one who defends a position. There is no negativity what so ever. If you choose tò be offended by it then that's on you. go get educated about the English language.

Peregrine wrote:I don't care what is statistically probable because individuals are not statistics. Unlike you I don't feel any obligation to question a player's motives for taking something based on what other people have done.

Translation: Statistically speaking, your judgment will be correct the vast majority of the time. But hey, that one guy (even though he's the exception, not the rule, and is literally one in one hundred) purchased his wraithknight just because it looks cool and for no other reason.

Ok. I mean, I'm not impressed by this, but ok.

But those things aren't the same. You're assuming that a fair game is one in which both players have the same total value of stuff in their lists, when in reality that's just your personal preference.

A game is fair if and only if both players have a proportionally equal chance of winning, apart from player skill, at the very beginning of the game.

Another player might define a "fair" game as one where each player has the same point total to spend, regardless of how intelligently they spend their points.

And he would be wrong. In principle, the points system is supposed to give us strict proportional equality. In practice, they don't.

You're certainly entitled to play the game that way and try to find other people who share your goals, but please stop assuming that your personal opinions are universal truth.

I'm simply assuming that fairness = justice = proportional equality. If you disagree with me, you disagree with Aristotle and St. Thomas Aquinas.

Except we do have the same resources. We both had 1500 points to spend.

De jure, not de facto.

The fact that you wasted some of your points on weaker choices is not my problem.

You keep using these vague, loaded, emotionally-charged terms. There are, Peregrine, three possibilities:

1. I spent my points on overcosted units.
2. I spent my points on reasonably priced units.
3. I spent my points on undercosted units.

You might want to blame me for 1, but I'll answer that, given the points system, there should be no overcosted or undercosted units. That's what the points system is supposed to effect. But fine, blame me for 1.

Nobody can blame me for 2. But if you spam undercosted units and I only use reasonably priced (neither undercosted nor overcosted), then I'll be at a strong disadvantage of the start of the game. How much of a disadvantage? A disadvantage of however many points it is by which your units are undercosted, multiplied by the number of units that you're spamming.

But you'll still say that I'm "wasting" all of these points on reasonably priced units. So what you're really telling me, Peregrine, is that unless I spam the most broken, undercosted cheese in the codex, I'm "wasting" points. Except, watch what happens:

I spam, let us assume, the most broken, undercosted cheese in the Orks codex, and you spam the most broken, undercosted cheese in the Eldar codex.

I'll still probably be at a de facto points disadvantage. So then, Peregrine, you'll blame me for wasting points...in an 'inferior" codex. You'll tell me that I deserve to lose simply because I chanced to purchase the wrong book (in point of fact, I do not own an Orks codex).

You see how silly this line of reasoning can get?

Why do you keep ignoring the fact that army construction is part of the game?

The points system is intended to effect proportional equality between units. QED.

The game starts when you start writing your list, not when you finish it and put models on the table. You're doing the equivalent of arguing that the game is "unfair" and I'm "taking advantage of unfair things" because on turn 3 I have 900 of my 1500 points still alive against your 600 points, and that I should give you an extra 300 points to make up for the "unfairness".

No, that's stupid. A game is fair if and only if both parties have proportionally equal chances of winning, apart from skill, at the beginning of the game.

It really says a lot about you that this is the only reason you can think of for disagreeing with you.

Humor me. Why don't you post your standard list?

 MWHistorian wrote:
Are people really still trying to claim that 'apologist' is a negative term? Its an academic term for "one who defends a position. There is no negativity what so ever. If you choose tò be offended by it then that's on you. go get educated about the English language.

Technically yes. However, that ignores the connotation, which is often associated with people defending bad things.

To everyone else: Why don't you just drop the argument about the word "apologist"? It's completely irrelevent to the topic of the thread. If you want to squabble like school girls, you could always take it to private messaging.

Mustela wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:
Are people really still trying to claim that 'apologist' is a negative term? Its an academic term for "one who defends a position. There is no negativity what so ever. If you choose tò be offended by it then that's on you. go get educated about the English language.

Technically yes. However, that ignores the connotation, which is often associated with people defending bad things.

That still doesn't make it an insult though. If people are defending GW rules writing then they are defending a bad thing. It's not an insult still, it's just a statement of what's happening.

Loborocket wrote:
Traditio, Evil Inc.,

These people are trolling you. You might as well stop responding. I am not sure why the mods don't shut this kind of thing down, but they don't. This thread was basically over 6 pages ago.

This is a somewhat religious argument anyhow.

To some people winning and playing at the highest level of competition is the most important part of a game. If you are not bringing your "A" game then don't bother and don't get mad when I beat you. You need to get better. That IS NOT TFG or WAAC, it is simply being an "elite" player.

To others the competition and "how you play the game" is more important and less emphasis is placed on winning. So to them, the first group IS TFG and WAAC. It is a sliding scale depending on where you are coming from.

This happens in all kind of competitive endeavours and I think is just part of human nature.

Just give up making the the argument for being a "decent human being" it is simply not something the other side on the argument in this thread even wants to hear about and they think they are being a "decent human being". They are playing within the rules given to them by GW, so how is playing within the rules not being a "decent human being"? They just have different expectations from the game and are looking to get something else out of it than someone who wants for the game to be more "fair".

Of course it is possible they are simply making the argument for arguments sake to illustrate how broken and imbalanced the GW rules are. They are playing/making lists within the rules > someone thinks they are "unfair" and calls for "fixing" them somehow > therefore GW makes bad/unbalanced rules > GW is a bad company.

Either way stop feeding the trolls in this thread. Which ever point they are trying to make (if they even have one.)

Funny I honestly thought that the OP is trolling when I saw the thread title. Just agree to be decent human being? Cmon the hyperbole not to mention bit of an insult to all disagreeing. Worrying? Dont worry be happy, whistle, GW logo, buys a codex with a grin.

And no it's not only people who bring only the A game or elite. It's also people who believe gentleman's agreement is a crap solution to balance problems.

 ImAGeek wrote:

Mustela wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:
Are people really still trying to claim that 'apologist' is a negative term? Its an academic term for "one who defends a position. There is no negativity what so ever. If you choose tò be offended by it then that's on you. go get educated about the English language.

Technically yes. However, that ignores the connotation, which is often associated with people defending bad things.

That still doesn't make it an insult though. If people are defending GW rules writing then they are defending a bad thing. It's not an insult still, it's just a statement of what's happening.

Sure, it describes what's happening. Other ways the term is used are holocaust apologist, slavery apologist. That's the kind of bad thing I'm referring to. Eldar, while arguably quite egregious, are not quite on that scale. It's unrealistic to expect people not to be offended by being compared to those things, however unintentionally, by used of a niche word. Also, unless it is an insult, the manner in which people have been using it makes no sense. No duh, they're defending their position. People do that all the time. What else does it mean?

It can still be a pejorative in that case. Think about racial comments. To keep it from getting too far off topic, consider this:

(I hope you don't mind, BlackSails)

"BlackSails is such a human."

Technically correct. But if an Eldar says that while refuting BlackSails points, its also clearly an insult.

Now imagine "BlackSails is such an Ork.". There are Orks. Calling an Ork an Ork may or may not be insulting. Calling a Human an Ork, especially when refuting his points, is probably going to be insulting.

So, when "Apologist" is used to dismiss arguments that do not apologise for GW, its at best a mistake.

Mustela wrote:
...Other ways the term is used are holocaust apologist, slavery apologist.

Now the thread should surly be closed as we are fast approaching the end of the road with Godwin's Law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law

Bharring wrote:So, when "Apologist" is used to dismiss arguments that do not apologise for GW, its at best a mistake.

Apologists...don't...apologise. Dictionary. Now.

Edit: Apologists are people who offer an apologia. Thus, Plato's Apology isn't about Socrates apologising for corrupting the Athenian youth. It's about Socrates' legal defense in court.

I find it crazy that so much discussion has been about the term "apologist".

Martel732 wrote:
I find it crazy that so much discussion has been about the term "apologist".

I'd welcome you to the web forums but you have a good 9000+ posts on me.

You can't control or dictate what/how other people want to play.

You can however choose who YOU play.

Seek out like-minded individuals that approach the game the same as you if that is important to your enjoyment.

I prefer a more story-based almost, rpg approach to 40k. I much prefer scenarios, story-based campaigns and narrative style gaming. I don't enjoy tournaments or win focused leagues so I don't waste the time of those who do by joining their events. I politely decline games with TFGs. I game at home with friends that agree with or enjoy my style of gaming.

People that want to make 40k a sport aren't wrong or bad per we, we just derive enjoyment from the game differently. agree to disagree and find other opponents. Both of you will be happier for it.

Wow...this thread has taken a dive...back on track?

In my gaming group, we've never really had a problem with OP armies. I myself was the resident Tau player, and I didn't spam stupid units. I had 2 Riptides, but even then, within our own meta, they were rubbish (almost all Xenos armies I think, but very little Imperium). I had 1 squad of missilesides, no Farsight Enclaves, etc. Those spam oriented lists are just boring. And I don't think I have ever tabled someone or come out of a game thinking I was winning from start to finish.

On the other hand, our resident Eldar player was very intense, very badly wants to win, and can get very short tempered and tetchy. Fortunately this didn't equate to pure Eldar cheese. However, he did take elements of what made 6th ed Eldar so powerful, a couple of Serpents, bikes, and a Wraithknight. While it was possible to deal with this list, considering none of us like spamming powerful units the Eldar still typically came out on top. I think I only ever beat him was in a Kill Team game in a tourney to celebrate the opening of our local GW. My White Scars were taking heavy casulties until my last 2 bikes just decided not to die, and then the Eldar just ran off the table after a failed break test! That was a good day. However, his power gaming tedencies to come through. In one other case, I had done the rules for a zombies game for our group, and he decided he would take a Chaos Dreadnought (not the standard one but a Chaos variant that I can't remember) and a Warpsmith, when everyone else was taking infantry! The strength of the majority of the zombies wasn't high enough to damage the front armour of the Dreadnought in combat, which itself camped on a piece of scenery roasting them with a Heavy Flamer as they approached via the walkways. Fortunately I did the rules so he wouldn't get a massive advantage from playing it, and eventually it got swarmed when the scenery collapsed (more special rules designed for the game).

These days, fortunately, he is playing Chaos Marines, and he isn't buying the new 7th ed codex for Eldar. Now he doesn't have to worry about opponents claiming all his wins were down to his choice of army.

So all in all, within our typical group it's all good. However, one experience I had in a pickup game in that local GW is one that seems typical when you look at accounts of people meeting stupid power gamers. I was playing White Scars, and the opponent I'm facing is playing an Ork army, fully comprised of Ork Nobz with Mega armour, or whatever it's called. But what really was the icing on the cake, was that he also had some Forge World Ork bomber, that he used to drop countless AP3 bombs on my White Scars, removing a lot of them. I can't remember what firepower it had, but I knew that I had no chance once I realised what it could do. What really confuses me is, what sort of sadistic high do these people get off on, that lets them enjoy beating someone just because they have some big expensive model? Do they do it because they get some weird fix by somehow feeling superior to someone else because they have a better piece of plastic and that they beat me in an unfair game? The best games for me are easily the ones that have you on the edge, where it is so close that it doesn't matter as much who wins and who loses, just because it was so close.

It should really be GW's job to keep it balanced, but considering they have failed almost completely to do that, then we should just keep a mindful watch on what we decide to play. The game requires multiple people to play, so you should remember that everyone should be able to have fun. So when it ends, you can all easily say that you would like to do it again sometime.

tophit101 wrote:
Wow...this thread has taken a dive...back on track?

In my gaming group, we've never really had a problem with OP armies. I myself was the resident Tau player, and I didn't spam stupid units. I had 2 Riptides, but even then, within our own meta, they were rubbish (almost all Xenos armies I think, but very little Imperium). I had 1 squad of missilesides, no Farsight Enclaves, etc. Those spam oriented lists are just boring. And I don't think I have ever tabled someone or come out of a game thinking I was winning from start to finish.

On the other hand, our resident Eldar player was very intense, very badly wants to win, and can get very short tempered and tetchy. Fortunately this didn't equate to pure Eldar cheese. However, he did take elements of what made 6th ed Eldar so powerful, a couple of Serpents, bikes, and a Wraithknight. While it was possible to deal with this list, considering none of us like spamming powerful units the Eldar still typically came out on top. I think I only ever beat him was in a Kill Team game in a tourney to celebrate the opening of our local GW. My White Scars were taking heavy casulties until my last 2 bikes just decided not to die, and then the Eldar just ran off the table after a failed break test! That was a good day. However, his power gaming tedencies to come through. In one other case, I had done the rules for a zombies game for our group, and he decided he would take a Chaos Dreadnought (not the standard one but a Chaos variant that I can't remember) and a Warpsmith, when everyone else was taking infantry! The strength of the majority of the zombies wasn't high enough to damage the front armour of the Dreadnought in combat, which itself camped on a piece of scenery roasting them with a Heavy Flamer as they approached via the walkways. Fortunately I did the rules so he wouldn't get a massive advantage from playing it, and eventually it got swarmed when the scenery collapsed (more special rules designed for the game).

These days, fortunately, he is playing Chaos Marines, and he isn't buying the new 7th ed codex for Eldar. Now he doesn't have to worry about opponents claiming all his wins were down to his choice of army.

So all in all, within our typical group it's all good. However, one experience I had in a pickup game in that local GW is one that seems typical when you look at accounts of people meeting stupid power gamers. I was playing White Scars, and the opponent I'm facing is playing an Ork army, fully comprised of Ork Nobz with Mega armour, or whatever it's called. But what really was the icing on the cake, was that he also had some Forge World Ork bomber, that he used to drop countless AP3 bombs on my White Scars, removing a lot of them. I can't remember what firepower it had, but I knew that I had no chance once I realised what it could do. What really confuses me is, what sort of sadistic high do these people get off on, that lets them enjoy beating someone just because they have some big expensive model? Do they do it because they get some weird fix by somehow feeling superior to someone else because they have a better piece of plastic and that they beat me in an unfair game? The best games for me are easily the ones that have you on the edge, where it is so close that it doesn't matter as much who wins and who loses, just because it was so close.

It should really be GW's job to keep it balanced, but considering they have failed almost completely to do that, then we should just keep a mindful watch on what we decide to play. The game requires multiple people to play, so you should remember that everyone should be able to have fun. So when it ends, you can all easily say that you would like to do it again sometime.

Pfffft! Apologist.

The problem with putting the restriction on your opponent comes when you only/mostly play pickup games at a shop where you don't know who will show up, and often you don't have a lot of time to play anyways so you want to minimize the discussion beforehand. If the shop closes at 8 and you can only get there at 5:30, you aren't going to have time to play a game if you have to spend time discussing what is and isn't acceptable to play.

May I try to drag this thread back on topic?

The thread title states, 'Worried about powerful codexes? Just agree to be decent human beings.'

To me this first part of the thread title is saying the imbalance in the game of 40k is apparent to a lot of players.
Does everyone agree this is a reasonable statement of intent based on the thread title?

And so the people paid to develop the game and communicate clearly how the game should be played to arrive at a enjoyable experience for the players, have failed to do their job properly.

The inclusion of point values and force organisation charts in a table top war game is ONLY used to support random pick up games , and tournament type play.

If a game is supposed to be narrative driven, then campaign books with multiple scenarios are used to support the narrative gaming.Point values are not needed for narrative games.Just an agreement on what makes a cool story for a game.

So including point values and force organisation that have not been fully play tested to arrive at enough game balance for enjoyable random pick up games .
Does in fact result in a defective product, as the product does not support the function PV and F.O.C are developed for.

The customer buys GW publications assuming the point values and force organisation charts have been play tested enough to arrive at enough game balance to facilitate enjoyable pick up games.(As this is the case in practically every other game from other manufacturers .)

When this is proven not to be the case, what action should the customer take?

I understand some people would want to complain about being 'mis-sold' a product.And others would want to try to address the issues themselves.

The second part of the title,'Just agree to be decent human beings.'

Seems to imply if you have a problem with the lack of balance in the game of 40k, you are not a decent human being?

I have the pleasure of knowing several decent human beings in my gaming group.
David is a teacher who works with children with special needs.He uses craft skills to help develop their motor and social skills.
Patrick is a lawyer who still takes on lots of 'pro-bono'(Sp ) cases for charitable organisations.

Both these blokes are decent human beings by practically every definition of the word.

However , David always plays to win, he will work out the most cost effective options/combination in any game he plays.Its all part of how he enjoys his hobby.(Its just as much fun as painting minatures to him.)

Patrick just loves making up a back story for every thing he puts on the games table .(He is an avid RPG player.)
These two people can pick up most table top war games and have a fun experience playing each other.

But because 40k has such poor game balance and lack of clearly defined rules, they simply can not enjoy a game of 40k!

So clearly being a decent human being does not empower you with the ability to totally understand the complicated mess that is 40k, and be able to arrive at balance force lists instinctively.

As the PV are applied subjectively , (based on the opinion of the devs , from limited play testing.)And the F.O.C is finalized by the sales department.

How on earth can the players sort this mess out on their own?
Unless they spend a huge amount of time and money play testing lots of different combination to find out what combinations of units are about balanced enough against each other to arrive at enjoyable games.
(Eg do the game developers job for them , and reward GW plc for publishing poorly balanced games.)

Why expect people to pay GW plc for publications that are not fit for purpose, then accuse players that have issues with this as not being decent human beings?

A better thread title would be..' We know 40k rule and codex books are rubbish.But just deal with it because GW plc does not care about game play.'

I posit that decent human beings actively realize the failings of GW and play better games from companies that offer superior customer service at a more affordable price. But then again, that's my definition of "decent" in respects to wargames.

GW has created an almost impossible to balance system using the current army composition rules along with a single list format and their codex method of army updates. Anything is "CHEESY WAAC TFG" (which are scrub terms that identity themselves more than the people they point towards) when you cannot effectively plan to encounter it. Unit parity aside, given the broad spectrum of unit types alone, building a traditional TAC list is nearly impossible simply because of the variability you would need to engage while also playing a scenario (which itself can be random and requires further house ruling).

Every other better designed game features great diversity, but the to intelligent game design, list composition is seen as part of the game strategy (because it is) and is balanced as such with either two lists, when lists are constructed, or managing unit construction with composition limits/requirements.

If you bring a bad list in any other game, you failed that part of the strategy. You can them be coached and mentored into better composition to make for winning tools for tactical decisions. In 40k, if you bring a bad list it's "blame your opponent." It's 100% on GW for making a bad army composition system which is a majority of 40ks problems and also because GW actively encourages scrub mentality.

Warhammer 40k is a bad game and requires house rules to operate. There's no point in labeling people who take the best items because the rules endorse it. It's not an RPG by literal design as a PvP game. It must hold to such traditions of game design or it results in this cluster of the "Care Bears v WAAC holes" that you can see from other games that mix these elements.

I agree with you up until the suggested title, I think.

A better one - because loaded words might be fun, but are less productive, would be "GW rules aren't well written. But I believe the game can still be fun despite this, if we all try to avoid things we think are OP".

Now, as some posters have shown, this doesn't work for them, as they play for the challenge. They have been called hateful things, but I think "Epic Players" (or "Group B") is a reasonable label.

That doesn't mean that it doesn't work for others. Let's call them "Casuals" (or "Group A").

Both groups have reasonable, decent people (and probably terrible people, too). Different strokes and such.

The OP is most likely a "casual". And it appears that his "solution" will work for "casuals". But it is strongly suggested that it won't work for "Epic Players".

Does this sound accurate?

Honesty Bharring, I would be considered quite casual in my approach to gaming. I don't want to waste time trying to find a solution that GW should have found. If it's casual that this solution works for, why does it involve a lot of extra work ?

When I play a warmachine game I don't have any issues, I don't get told I need to tone down my list. (More often people ask for something specific so they can play there own).
It's unheard of with infinity and starwars here for sure.

And none of the board gamers we share days with go, hey mind toning down the game so I can keep up. They say, hey I am new so it would be great if you let me learn.
All in a casual enviroment.
We still all want to try and win, we all play as best we can, and are all friendly and help each other to create the best enviroment posible.
In that end the game of 40k is dieing out, by the end of the year I don't think it will be played anymore at all here.

Bharring wrote:
I agree with you up until the suggested title, I think.

A better one - because loaded words might be fun, but are less productive, would be "GW rules aren't well written. But I believe the game can still be fun despite this, if we all try to avoid things we think are OP".

Now, as some posters have shown, this doesn't work for them, as they play for the challenge. They have been called hateful things, but I think "Epic Players" (or "Group B") is a reasonable label.

That doesn't mean that it doesn't work for others. Let's call them "Casuals" (or "Group A").

Both groups have reasonable, decent people (and probably terrible people, too). Different strokes and such.

The OP is most likely a "casual". And it appears that his "solution" will work for "casuals". But it is strongly suggested that it won't work for "Epic Players".

Does this sound accurate?

Eh, I would say any game can be fun if you have people who have the right attitude about it. Heck, some people could probably make Superman 64 a fun experience! (I don't know how, I imagine it would involve a lot of drinking).

All of these issues always come back to the point of monetary cost. It costs at minimum $135 for the rulebook and one codex. Single plastic miniatures are nearly $30, and the game continues to inflate armies so that you get less and less bang for your buck for a 1500 point army. On top of this, the rules are purposely not put together well, with the only reason being cited for this is that it's "for narrative forging." As if that meant ANYTHING!

I go look up in the thread about Australian trade restrictions and see the language GW uses there, so I KNOW they can write stuff without loopholes. But they don't do that, they leave the rules purposely a mess so that people will always be clamoring for the next version of their codex- "man, I can't wait till they re-do orks so Gorkanuauts can maybe get better"....does that offer any intrinsic value in the product??

So you have to balance the cost of the rules, the cost of the models, both of which are ever increasing, and then the rules get recycled and balanced poorly. You try to build an army that's reasonable, maybe aiming for the 50% win rate goal... you're aiming to hit a point where your actions and your opponents actions dictate what happens in the game. But GW makes that nearly impossible! So we get back to the point we always get to: it's the player's faults! Why, why, WHY do we always get back here? Because we don't want to blame GW? Because we know they damn sure won't do anything about it?

It's just a really frustrating situation, and I see it as why new players look at this game and say "uh, hell no. I'll go do...anything else!"

Apple,
I don't think it needs to take much time. I got used to not taking more than one serpent. Once I was used to that, it took me no more time to put together a list than it would if I hadn't been trying to match my meta.

In my meta, it clearly works. We don't see Serpent Spam or Screamer Star, or even many IKs. We haven't codified any rules. We don't sit down and discuss what's reasonable as a group (admittedly, I have had conversations with a few people, to keep myself in check as I'm a TFG at heart, but I've instigated those conversations, and they are rare).

Doing "it" in a codified manner is indeed a very complex and problematic undertaking. But it can be done in an ad hoc manner easily and simply.

Bharring wrote:
Apple,
I don't think it needs to take much time. I got used to not taking more than one serpent. Once I was used to that, it took me no more time to put together a list than it would if I hadn't been trying to match my meta.

In my meta, it clearly works. We don't see Serpent Spam or Screamer Star, or even many IKs. We haven't codified any rules. We don't sit down and discuss what's reasonable as a group (admittedly, I have had conversations with a few people, to keep myself in check as I'm a TFG at heart, but I've instigated those conversations, and they are rare).

Doing "it" in a codified manner is indeed a very complex and problematic undertaking. But it can be done in an ad hoc manner easily and simply.

And that would mean taking units I don't want, making the game far less fun. Not to mention players feeling rather hollow about any games, the best way to fix this has been found and it's playing better games.

Right now, where I am no one really puts up with 40k anymore.
It's close to dead.
GW will have to change to save it, and they will have to change fast.
Other games are being played, people feel empowered to play and when they lose feel like they can improve.

GW has lost the faith it's players had, without the nostalgia they got nothing left.

@Bharring.
Fair point about the loaded words in the proposed thread title revision..

Here is another thread title that is longer but probably more accurate.

'40k rule and codex books fail to deliver the basic functional requirement for enjoyable random pick up games!But rather than play something else,lets see if you can make the best of a bad situation.'

In my experience all war games are basically competitive.(Players have opposed objective to with the game.)

Games with clearly defined and intuitive rules are fast paced and fun to play.
(No 'rules lawyers' can force an intent that was not part of the developers planned game play.)

Games with focus on game play tend to be heavily play tested ,( and often take feed back from player groups.)To ensure an enjoyable experience for players .
So players see all games they play of that game system as a worthwhile use of their time.

This is true of all good narrative based war games, and all good war games balanced enough for random pick up games.

I think there is a clear distinction between people who expect a quality product for the price GW plc charge .
EG
The rules to be well written , professionally proof read and edited.
Any point values and F.O.C. used are there to facilitate enjoyable random pick up games.

When GW plc does not meet this expectation , these customers are understandably upset.

And people who accept that the product they have bought is defective.But know that GW plc is not going to bother improving the quality.So decide to try to make do with the poor quality GW plc have sold them.

This can be done by just using the most cost effective options available.To allow more competitive players to enjoy the games they play.

However, the level of imbalance away from the top end 'uber competitive' mind set is vast.

So the 'casual players' can still call each other names if their particular idea of of balance is far enough away from another casual player.

It is more than likely all the name calling is actually in the 'casual' player group.As the tournament players are much closer in their mind set of how to play the game to have fun.

It is possible for a small group of players to put in the time and effort in to agree to have fun with 40k in the same way.

Beyond this , 40k is just not fun to play.This is the fault of GW plc , not any particular group of players.

 Blacksails wrote:
My issue with the supposed group A is either the labelling of people as WAAC TFG for a list, or the vague, nebulous concept of 'reasonable', which can't in any be nailed down or defined, making it an empty statement.

As far as I'm concerned, every player should be able to build a list with whatever they want and not be judged or labelled for it.

Your order of operations for playing a game with someone would go like this;

1. Find opponent;
2. Exchange pleasantries, offer to court their sister, exchange lists;
3. a)If lists are deemed to be on the same general power level, or the players are happy to carry on regardless, then play starts and everyone is happy (end here if that's the case, carry on courting sister after);
b)If lists are deemed to be too different, then two further options present themselves (go to 4, skip courting sister);
4. a)Compromise on lists, where each player tones up or down their own list to match the other better, which allows the players to carry on;
b)Don't compromise on lists and find a different player as your two ideas of what constitutes fun are too different and the game wouldn't be too enjoyable;
5. At no point should any player assume their list or style of play is superior to the other, or assume any player should change for them without also offering to change.

Oh, and so long as we all agree GW's rule writing is borked.

Courting your opponent's sister is optional. Or brother I suppose.

I've offered a much simpler reasoning process earlier in the thread, which, if everyone were to agree to follow, would cut through a lot of nonsense. It would also get rid of the need to "talk to your opponent" prior to the match.

1. Does my list spam* non-troop choice** units?
2. Does my list take popularly/publically recognized undercosted units, unit combinations or broken rules into account (and have I adjusted accordingly to compensate my opponent for them (for example, by running a list at x number of points below the agreed upon points limit)?
3. Would an opposing list with a blended composition of infantry, some vehicles, 0-2 MCs and 0-2 fliers (presupposing, also, that he is using no undercosted models) have a roughly 50/50 shot against this list, abstracting from player skill level or tactics?

If the answer to 1 is "yes," or if the answer to 2 and 3 is "no," then you need to revise your list.

If you are opposed to revising your list because of one of these reasons, it's probably because you're a WAAC TFG.

If everyone agreed to these conventions, the following would result:

1. There would be far fewer (if any) cries of "cheese."
2. There would be much greater unit variety.

And most importantly:

3. All games would be pretty much perfectly fair.



*Defined as more than 2 full squads in the case of infantry, as more than 2 models in the case of non-dedicated transport vehicles.

**Defined as a "troop choice" presupposing the standard FOC slot.*** I'm looking at you, SM bike spam!

***This does not apply to dedicated transports for troop choices.

Loborocket, I understand your post and I totally understand it. my issue isnt with that. it is with the total dissmissal of one side that the other has a right to a differing opinion. i dont care that someone disagrees with me. i only have an issue that they feel they are the only ones that have a right to their opinion.
by the way, calling someone a "insert derogatory name such as apologist for example" is name calling. Saying someone is doing something(insert verb such as trolling for example" is addressing an action and not the person so is not name calling. There is a huge difference. One addresses the person while the other addresses the behavior.
I would rather communicate with my opponant to discuss what type of game they want to play and bring an army accordingly. Thus A-game, I dont hold back or I expect to lose but do so in a fun and fluffy way. While B game (where winning is not the only goal) I bring whatever looks cool in my eye at the time or devise a pure fluff army. Either way, communication is key and I agree with the OP in that it should be done despite all the arguments to the contrary.

 EVIL INC wrote:
Loborocket, I understand your post and I totally understand it. my issue isnt with that. it is with the total dissmissal of one side that the other has a right to a differing opinion. i dont care that someone disagrees with me. i only have an issue that they feel they are the only ones that have a right to their opinion.
by the way, calling someone a "insert derogatory name such as apologist for example" is name calling. Saying someone is doing something(insert verb such as trolling for example" is addressing an action and not the person so is not name calling. There is a huge difference. One addresses the person while the other addresses the behavior.
I would rather communicate with my opponant to discuss what type of game they want to play and bring an army accordingly. Thus A-game, I dont hold back or I expect to lose but do so in a fun and fluffy way. While B game (where winning is not the only goal) I bring whatever looks cool in my eye at the time or devise a pure fluff army. Either way, communication is key and I agree with the OP in that it should be done despite all the arguments to the contrary.

Except there shouldn't BE a need for communication except what point level you want to play. Do you not really see an issue there?

Traditio,
Do you not see any difference between a 'WAAC TFG' player and a 'Epic Player', as outlined earlier in the thread?


Lanrak,
I don't think we're that far off in what you posted, until towards the end of your post.

In the last two lines you are saying 40k can't be fun for people unless they either play competitively, or the group formalizes an understanding of what is "reasonable" and what isn't.

That seems to be mostly true for the "Epic Player" group, but the "Casual" group, I believe, is a clear example of where it is possible for some groups. I know I've had fun, and so has my opponent, at times where we were neither competitive, nor did we pre-arrange alternate rules.

My conclusion is that some people won't have fun without a tight rulesset, but others still can. Different strokes for different folks.

(I don't blame players for GW's gak rules. But not being at fault and being unable to fix it are two different things.)

Bharring wrote:
Traditio,
Do you not see any difference between a 'WAAC TFG' player and a 'Epic Player', as outlined earlier in the thread?

No. Not really. I have a very strong suspicion that "Epic player" is just a euphamism for "WAAC TFG."

Traditio wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:
My issue with the supposed group A is either the labelling of people as WAAC TFG for a list, or the vague, nebulous concept of 'reasonable', which can't in any be nailed down or defined, making it an empty statement.

As far as I'm concerned, every player should be able to build a list with whatever they want and not be judged or labelled for it.

Your order of operations for playing a game with someone would go like this;

1. Find opponent;
2. Exchange pleasantries, offer to court their sister, exchange lists;
3. a)If lists are deemed to be on the same general power level, or the players are happy to carry on regardless, then play starts and everyone is happy (end here if that's the case, carry on courting sister after);
b)If lists are deemed to be too different, then two further options present themselves (go to 4, skip courting sister);
4. a)Compromise on lists, where each player tones up or down their own list to match the other better, which allows the players to carry on;
b)Don't compromise on lists and find a different player as your two ideas of what constitutes fun are too different and the game wouldn't be too enjoyable;
5. At no point should any player assume their list or style of play is superior to the other, or assume any player should change for them without also offering to change.

Oh, and so long as we all agree GW's rule writing is borked.

Courting your opponent's sister is optional. Or brother I suppose.

I've offered a much simpler reasoning process earlier in the thread, which, if everyone were to agree to follow, would cut through a lot of nonsense. It would also get rid of the need to "talk to your opponent" prior to the match.

1. Does my list spam* non-troop choice units?
2. Does my list take popularly/publically recognized undercosted units, unit combinations or broken rules into account (and have I adjusted accordingly to compensate my opponent for them (for example, by running a list at x number of points below the agreed upon points limit)?
3. Would an opposing list with a blended composition of infantry, some vehicles, 0-2 MCs and 0-2 fliers have a roughly 50/50 shot against this list, abstracting from player skill level or tactics?

If the answer to 1 is "yes," or if the answer to 2 and 3 is "no," then you need to revise your list.

If you are opposed to revising your list because of one of these reasons, it's probably because you're a WAAC TFG.

If everyone agreed to these conventions, the following would result:

1. There would be far fewer (if any cries) of "cheese."
2. There would be much greater unit variety.

And most importantly:

3. All games would be pretty much perfectly fair.



*Defined as more than 2 full squads in the case of infantry, as more than 2 models in the case of non-dedicated transport vehicles.

Or the simplest answer. Play a rules set where their is no reason to force (1) to get (2). GW is the reason for the fake divide between, with a good rule set Structured Play (Tournaments or Campaigns) and Pick-Up game would be no different as you could being what ever you wanted and have a 45-55% chance to win at the same skill level. It is a really simple concept.

Noir wrote:Or the simplest answer. Play a rules set where their is no reason to force (1) to get (2). GW is the reason for the fake divide between, with a good rule set Structured Play (Tournaments or Campaigns) and Pick-Up game would be no different as you could being what ever you wanted and have a 45-55% chance to win at the same skill level. It is a really simple concept.

Such a rule set does not exist in WH40k. Given that fact, the solution I've proposed is the best, fairest and most reasonable solution.

The only possible person who would disagree with this solution are powergamers who have pretty much nothing else going on in their lives, for whom winning a toy soldier game somehow compensates for their utter failure as human beings.

An "Epic Player" wouldn't necessarily:
-Cheat to win
-Use external situations to their advantage (such as calling the meter maid)
-Demean their opponent

A WAAC TFG would do all the above. Some "Epic Gamers" would, but so would some "casual" players.

To the "Epic Player", min/maxxing is, itself, a part of the game. So, any advantage they can eek out is fair, because capitalizing on every in-game advantage is a central part of the game to them. Note that they also want opponents who do the same.

A WAAC TFG want to capitalize on any advantage they can, but will probably cry cheese when the opponent does.

By contrast, the "Casual" considers the game something else. They love their WK and want to see it wreck some face. They want to lead their on-foot SM captain to victory over the endless swarm. They want to just hang out with others who enjoy the universe and roll some dice. They want a story to unfold.

Different things they enjoy, but that doesn't make either wrong.

Traditio wrote:
1. Does my list spam non-troop choice units?

"Spam: maximum amount or just more than troop choices? Remember much of these are scoring not just troop choices. In prior versions of 40k you needed the troop choices to score, now most units can score so a "troop" choice has little meaning.

2. Does my list take popularly/publically recognized undercosted units

Sometimes undercosted units were viewed as a way to equalize an imbalanced codex, now you can pretty much shop around so I cannot easily assign blame for using them.

, unit combinations or broken rules into account

GW regularly publishes formations that get some bonus or throwing in some psy unit can give a major buff: really hard to know what is competitive vs "taking undue advantage".

(and have I adjusted accordingly to compensate my opponent for them (for example, by running a list at x number of points below the agreed upon points limit)?

I do not know about others but I tend to get insulted when someone feels they need to create a "handicap" at least you can try to hide it a bit in a scenario or play an army to it's comfort zone (raid vs. defend)

3. Would an opposing list with a blended composition of infantry, some vehicles, 0-2 MCs and 0-2 fliers have a roughly 50/50 shot against this list, abstracting from player skill level or tactics?

Would said opponent know this is the target opponent you are looking for? Would they dare use anything different and make you upset?

If the answer to 1 is "yes," or if the answer to 2 and 3 is "no," then you need to revise your list.

There is just no good way to be "fair" (according to these rules) and still even try to win.
There is a measure of dissatisfaction beating someone who is not giving it their all.
It is a hollow victory and confuses your opponent on these various rules.

If you are opposed to revising your list, it's probably because you're a WAAC TFG.

Ha! typically I face the opposite, a very aggressive player who did not sharpen his choices well enough to ensure a win and wants me to change.
If someone demands from you in a loud voice why reward bad behavior?
Oddly, if I face a new player or my choices hugely outclass the other army I would request making a change to "try" to even-up the game which is a challenge all it's own.

WAAC and TFG tend to not be overly concerned with following rules which by definition is not REALLY playing a game.
Playing within the rules to the bleeding edge is trying to push tactics to the max, to drive competition.

I don't know about you but the trend of "we do not keep score, we are all winners!" suddenly makes me want to steal your prom date and kick sand in your face.
I want a good, honest, challenging win; why be so determined to hamstring yourself and not take a good honest win or loss?
It just defeats the whole purpose of WAR gaming, gentlemanly war is rather over.

Traditio wrote:

Noir wrote:Or the simplest answer. Play a rules set where their is no reason to force (1) to get (2). GW is the reason for the fake divide between, with a good rule set Structured Play (Tournaments or Campaigns) and Pick-Up game would be no different as you could being what ever you wanted and have a 45-55% chance to win at the same skill level. It is a really simple concept.

Such a rule set does not exist in WH40k. Given that fact, the solution I've proposed is the best, fairest and most reasonable solution.

The only possible person who would disagree with this solution are powergamers who have pretty much nothing else going on in their lives, for whom winning a toy soldier game somehow compensates for their utter failure as human beings.

Or people who would I don't know.... want to play the game and see what crap they are and stop or just don't start. All you solution does is keep the die hard fan playing while the game die around them. Only the possible person who would disagree is a fan boy who believe once money it spent on something they have to keep playing or they some how feel like dumb, and can't figure out that models and fluff don't have to go with the rules sold for them.

Slayer-Fan123, So your saying that 2 players should not communicate? What is so wrong with friendly banter? discussion of tactics or compliments on paint jobs or even the communication needed to say "hey, want a game" and "sure, how many points".

the point is not that the rules are broken (each and every wargame in existance is imperfect and thus broken). The point is that such communication can alleviate that problem in SOME situations as a thumb in the dike stopgap method to help. This whether its 40k, flames of war or dust or whatever.

the problem in this thread is that OP is being told that he does not have the right to have the opinion that communication can be helpfull in making the situation at least somewhat better in some situations. the rest of us are trying to say that if he wants to feel that way, he has the right to.

Traditio wrote:
I've offered a much simpler reasoning process earlier in the thread, which, if everyone were to agree to follow, would cut through a lot of nonsense. It would also get rid of the need to "talk to your opponent" prior to the match.

1. Does my list spam* non-troop choice** units?
2. Does my list take popularly/publically recognized undercosted units, unit combinations or broken rules into account (and have I adjusted accordingly to compensate my opponent for them (for example, by running a list at x number of points below the agreed upon points limit)?
3. Would an opposing list with a blended composition of infantry, some vehicles, 0-2 MCs and 0-2 fliers (presupposing, also, that he is using no undercosted models) have a roughly 50/50 shot against this list, abstracting from player skill level or tactics?

If the answer to 1 is "yes," or if the answer to 2 and 3 is "no," then you need to revise your list.

If you are opposed to revising your list because of one of these reasons, it's probably because you're a WAAC TFG.

If everyone agreed to these conventions, the following would result:

1. There would be far fewer (if any cries) of "cheese."
2. There would be much greater unit variety.

And most importantly:

3. All games would be pretty much perfectly fair.



*Defined as more than 2 full squads in the case of infantry, as more than 2 models in the case of non-dedicated transport vehicles.

**Defined as a "troop choice" presupposing the standard FOC slot.*** I'm looking at you, SM bike spam!

***This does not apply to dedicated transports for troop choices.

This subjective minefield of a post does a better job illustrating how borked the 40k rules are than any "hater" could possibly hope to achieve.

 EVIL INC wrote:
the problem in this thread is that OP is being told that he does not have the right to have the opinion that communication can be helpfull in making the situation at least somewhat better in some situations. the rest of us are trying to say that if he wants to feel that way, he has the right to.

The problem that got this all going was the attitude displayed in the OP:

And there you have it. My probably poorly thought out, possibly too rational to ever be accepted, answer.

It's the whole "I guess I'm the only one good enough to think of something so braindead obvious, the rest of you don't get anything" that sent us down this fun road.

Talizvar wrote:Spam: maximum amount or just more than troop choices? Remember much of these are scoring not just troop choices. In prior versions of 40k you needed the troop choices to score, now most units can score so a "troop" choice has little meaning.

I defined "spam" at the bottom of the post that you quoted...you may have started responding to it prior to my edits.

Sometimes undercosted units were viewed as a way to equalize an imbalanced codex, now you can pretty much shop around so I cannot easily assign blame for using them.

Undercosted units are unfair to play as written. This is true by definition of "undercosted."

GW regularly publishes formations that get some bonus or throwing in some psy unit can give a major buff: really hard to know what is competitive vs "taking undue advantage".

Note the words "publically/popularly recognized."

I do not know about others but I tend to get insulted when someone feels they need to create a "handicap" at least you can try to hide it a bit in a scenario or play an army to it's comfort zone (raid vs. defend)

With all due respect, I don't think that anybody would claim that playing a wraithknight as though it were 350 points instead of the 295 points listed in the rules is a real "handicap." De jure, it's a handicap, but de facto, it's really not. Learn the distinction.

De jure: what is indicated by official rules
De facto: what actually holds in practise.

Would said opponent know this is the target opponent you are looking for?

Note, I'm not saying that you actually have to run such a list. I'm saying that you should assume, when you write your list, that you are going to be playing such a list, and that you are aiming for a 50/50 chance of victory, abstracting from player skill level.

There is just no good way to be "fair" (according to these rules) and still even try to win.

My point is that you should try to win after the game starts.

What is so difficult to understand about this?

WAAC and TFG tend to not be overly concerned with following rules which by definition is not REALLY playing a game.
Playing within the rules to the bleeding edge is trying to push tactics to the max, to drive competition.

No it isn't. You sound like that guy who plays a fighting game and insists on spamming that one combo move. Seriously. There's other moves. The fact that you can hit down, down, B doesn't make you good at this game. It makes you unpleasant to play against.

I want a good, honest, challenging win

Then follow the list guidelines that I set out above and dazzle everyone with your superior tactics.

But you won't do that, of course, because you probably insist on spamming the most broken thing in the codex...because you need a crutch to win. You consistently would lose in an even, fair match-up. Right?

Apple fox wrote:

Other games are being played, people feel empowered to play and when they lose feel like they can improve.

This, for me, is a key point.

While I'm still working on 40K armies from a painting/modelling POV, nearly all my game time now is dedicated to X Wing (and probably Armada, hope to have my first game next week.)

I've seen at least one person in this thread claim that other games suffer from balance issues, and cite X Wing as one of them. While there are defintitely optimal and sub optimal lists and options in X Wing (and Warmahordes and pretty much any other high profile system one cares to mention) the key difference is they aren't so far from centre that they feel insurmountable in the way that some 40K match ups can.

I remember tackling new Tau when they were the recent update with my Blood Angels. I wasn't running anything like an optimal list, but I wasn't running a bunch of gak either, but I do remember not only losing, but thinking afterwards that I couldn't see how I could have won if I'd done things differently.

Contrast that with X Wing where I've run lists that I've never played before and taken all of 20 minutes to construct against copies of world championship winning lists and still had a good game, been able to compete and, while I did admittedly lose, felt like if I played better or implemented a few tweaks, that I could have won.

This is a big weakness for 40K in it's current incarnation. List construction is too big an element and in game decisions are frequently being replaced with random tables. I wouldn't have half the issues I do with the current state of the game balance wise if there was more I could do as a player to mitigate it, but the reality is, barring the odd statistical outlier, that the strongest list on the table at the start of the game is going to win, and player skill in terms of in game play is nowhere near as important as it should be.

Noir wrote:Or people who would I don't know.... want to play the game and see what crap they are and stop or just don't start. All you solution does is keep the die hard fan playing while the game die around them. Only the possible person who would disagree is a fan boy who believe once money it spent on something they have to keep playing or they some how feel like dumb, and can't figure out that models and fluff don't have to go with the rules sold for them.

I'm not sure I understand. Rephrase?

 Accolade wrote:

 EVIL INC wrote:
the problem in this thread is that OP is being told that he does not have the right to have the opinion that communication can be helpfull in making the situation at least somewhat better in some situations. the rest of us are trying to say that if he wants to feel that way, he has the right to.

The problem that got this all going was the attitude displayed in the OP:

The problem was not the attitude of the OP at all. The attitudes responding to him are far far worse. The problem was that he had an opinion that differed from those who replied to him. it is because his opinion differed or that he had the gall to disagree that caused the problem. i only stepped in because i feel he has a right to his opinion. One that I agree with in that it CAN be usefull in SOME situations. likewise, I feel that you have a right to your opinion in that the rules of the game need work (just as does any other wargame because none of them are perfect some worse, some better but that is not the point the point is that there are problems that exist at all.) and that that level of communication should not be needed because that too, I agree with.
But we have what we have and have to deal with it. We have the issu and thats the OPs opinions of how he deals with it in his gaming group.
Different opinions may be more or less valid nd that is even before bringing in the sources of the needto form those opinions. What I see all the time here is not issues with differing opinions themselves but outrage and vitriol at people excercising their right to have those opinions

Traditio wrote:


I've offered a much simpler reasoning process earlier in the thread, which, if everyone were to agree to follow, would cut through a lot of nonsense. It would also get rid of the need to "talk to your opponent" prior to the match.

I fail to see what about the rest of your post is simpler than what I wrote. Additionally, mine doesn't have odd rules, definitions, or nonsense about abstract concepts. Further, for better or for worse, the talking to your opponent is kind of important for 40k to function.

Ultimately the real solution is to play a better designed game, but there are many reasons why that wouldn't be applicable for some people.

1. Does my list spam* non-troop choice** units?

Already in your first step you have to define two concepts. Hardly simple.

2. Does my list take popularly/publically recognized undercosted units, unit combinations or broken rules into account (and have I adjusted accordingly to compensate my opponent for them (for example, by running a list at x number of points below the agreed upon points limit)?

More vague terms you won't get a consensus on, making it a meaningless guideline in reality.

3. Would an opposing list with a blended composition of infantry, some vehicles, 0-2 MCs and 0-2 fliers (presupposing, also, that he is using no undercosted models) have a roughly 50/50 shot against this list, abstracting from player skill level or tactics?

And why does any of that matter? What if I want to play a list with multiple MCs, or tons of flyers, or not having a blend of different units? These are totally random, arbitrary standards you're holding people to. In other words, its not simple, and its not fair for all players involved, as it actively seeks to limit player choice based on your arbitrary and/or vague concepts.

If the answer to 1 is "yes," or if the answer to 2 and 3 is "no," then you need to revise your list.

If you are opposed to revising your list because of one of these reasons, it's probably because you're a WAAC TFG.

If everyone agreed to these conventions, the following would result:

1. There would be far fewer (if any cries) of "cheese."
2. There would be much greater unit variety.

And most importantly:

3. All games would be pretty much perfectly fair.

Or...you could do as I listed.

And you know, play a list you want to play instead of jumping through your own totally arbitrary hoops.

*Defined as more than 2 full squads in the case of infantry, as more than 2 models in the case of non-dedicated transport vehicles.

Why? Why does that matter? Why shouldn't players just play with whatever they want? Who are you to judge or make random restrictions in addition to the rules of the game?

**Defined as a "troop choice" presupposing the standard FOC slot.*** I'm looking at you, SM bike spam!

Again, why? More totally random, arbitrary, and restrictive nonsense that doesn't actually balance the game or make lists fluffier. In other words, it not only fails at its intentions, but it restricts players needlessly.

***This does not apply to dedicated transports for troop choices.

So I can't spam some units, but I can spam chimeras all I want?

In short, your entire proposal doesn't do anything it actually tries to do.

It doesn't make the game more balanced, as different armies will suffer differently with restrictions. Eldar will still be significantly stronger than Orks even after all these restrictions, and I'd argue it'd hurt the likes of weaker codices more.

It doesn't make the game fluffier, as just about any combination of units from within a codex and using battle brother allies is entirely fluffy, and even some lesser alliances make perfect sense.

Its more complex, it doesn't allow for flex between players, and it assumes that everyone is looking for the same thing from the game as you.

Instead of all of what you wrote, my list is far more adaptable, lays out all possible options, and still lets players play with whatever models they so choose without being judged, labelled, looked down on, insulted, or generally frowned upon.

"Ultimately the real solution is to play a better designed game, but there are many reasons why that wouldn't be applicable for some people."
This is what both sides in this thread are saying. The fact that the rules need work is not the issue. A "perfect" set of rules would mean that there would be zero questions ever and that each and every single person in the entire world would agree perfectly on every aspect. As that will never happens, your right, there would always be some people who would not like or would like different aspects.

That is not the issue and is being used as a smoke screen to hide the fact that the whole controversy in the thread is that the OP expressed the opinion in that some situations a deeper level of communication could help use deal with the issue until it gets better.
You may feel that there shouldnt be that need to begin with. We ALL do. He and others are of the opinion that finding ways around it until it is fixed can allow us to still have a little fun. I see nothing wrong with him having the right to that opinion.

Blacksails wrote:I fail to see what about the rest of your post is simpler than what I wrote.

It's universally applicable and eliminates the need to work things out on a one on one basis.

Already in your first step you have to define two concepts. Hardly simple.

If you look at the definitions, it's really not that complicated.

More vague terms you won't get a consensus on, making it a meaningless guideline in reality.

Again, the key words are "publically/popularly recognized." I envision the following. A player thinks about running a wraithknight. He's not sure about this. So he comes on dakka forums and he sees everyone complaining about them, insisting that they should be at least 50 points more expensive. He then decides to treat the wraithknight as though it costed 350 per base model.

And why does any of that matter? What if I want to play a list with multiple MCs, or tons of flyers, or not having a blend of different units? These are totally random, arbitrary standards you're holding people to. In other words, its not simple, and its not fair for all players involved, as it actively seeks to limit player choice based on your arbitrary and/or vague concepts.

Note that I'm not claiming that you must use such an army composition. I'm saying that, when you are making your army, you should be comparing it to an army composition of that sort for the sake of determining whether or not your list is "fair" to your opponent. IE, you should be asking yourself: "Are there certain army types that my list completely shuts down?" If the answer is "yes," then revise your list. Don't be TFG.

But if you want to play only infantry, then fine. Go for it.

If you only want to play monstrous creatures, then, depending on which ones you have in mind, bring it on, maybe, just so long as it passes the guidelines. You want to play an avatar of khaine, one wraithknight (suitably nerfed), a few wraithlords, etc? That might be acceptable.

Or...you could do as I listed.

And you know, play a list you want to play instead of jumping through your own totally arbitrary hoops.

If you're interested in fairness, my solution is the best shot at it.

Why? Why does that matter? Why shouldn't players just play with whatever they want?

Fairness and balance. A game is fair if and only if both parties have roughly a 50/50 chance at winning at the beginning of the game.

Again, why? More totally random, arbitrary, and restrictive nonsense that doesn't actually balance the game or make lists fluffier. In other words, it not only fails at its intentions, but it restricts players needlessly.

You can say that it's totally random, arbitrary, etc. that doesn't balance the game, etc...but you haven't really supported this with any arguments. If you actually think through the consequences of how you would actually have to build a list if you followed my guidelines, you might think otherwise.

So I can't spam some units, but I can spam chimeras all I want?

Maybe. All 3 of my guidelines work in tandem. You have to be able to give the appropriate answers to all 3 in order to play your list and meet my guidelines. Note that 6th edition wave serpent spam would pass guideline 1, but it would fail guidelines 2 and 3.

What I had in mind was rhinos. So what if I want to put all of my troops in rhinos? Nobody is going to complain about rhinos.

It doesn't make the game more balanced, as different armies will suffer differently with restrictions. Eldar will still be significantly stronger than Orks even after all these restrictions, and I'd argue it'd hurt the likes of weaker codices more.

Ok. Propose two such lists that meet all 3 guidelines but are still unbalanced relatively to each other.

Its more complex, it doesn't allow for flex between players, and it assumes that everyone is looking for the same thing from the game as you.

I'm just looking for fairness. If you're not, then I don't really care about your opinion. That would simply mean that you have, at least to some extent, a bad and unjust character.

 EVIL INC wrote:
"Ultimately the real solution is to play a better designed game, but there are many reasons why that wouldn't be applicable for some people."
This is what both sides in this thread are saying. The fact that the rules need work is not the issue. A "perfect" set of rules would mean that there would be zero questions ever and that each and every single person in the entire world would agree perfectly on every aspect. As that will never happens, your right, there would always be some people who would not like or would like different aspects.

Still gonna keep tilting at that particular windmill are ya?

you keep acting like finding pickup games in other games works...

video games for example - not one friend i know enjoys playing with randoms... why would a table top be the same?

the same situations i read on here i have seen happen in risk and axis and allies with "randoms"

people who abuse rules to win will always do so. The people who argue that RAW trump RAI will never change. they just arent fun to play with. with the exception of ASL i have not found a game that isnt rife with exlpoitation for those that dedicate their life to "cheating" cheating ti intent of a game is just as bad and moving chess pieces when the other guy isnt looking.

The game is broken. Play it the way you like when you can, but expect to play it as written in a PUG environnement. Deal with it.

 tenebre wrote:
you keep acting like finding pickup games in other games works...

video games for example - not one friend i know enjoys playing with randoms... why would a table top be the same?

the same situations i read on here i have seen happen in risk and axis and allies with "randoms"

people who abuse rules to win will always do so. The people who argue that RAW trump RAI will never change. they just arent fun to play with. with the exception of ASL i have not found a game that isnt rife with exlpoitation for those that dedicate their life to "cheating" cheating ti intent of a game is just as bad and moving chess pieces when the other guy isnt looking.

Finding pickup games in other wargames tends to be as easy as "Hey want a game? How many points? Okay, cool!".

Traditio wrote:

It's universally applicable and eliminates the need to work things out on a one on one basis.

Except its not universally applicable because your concepts are so vague and will not find universal agreement.

Further, if you want to eliminate the need for discussion, then just go ahead and balance the game, rather than impose arbitrary restrictions. Tweak values, balance, play test, tweak more until you have a balanced codex for all the factions you and your opponents play. Telling people what they can or can't bring is not a good idea.

If you look at the definitions, it's really not that complicated.

Its not that its complicated, its that they either make no sense, or are too vague to get any sort of general agreement in a diverse group of gamers.

Again, the key words are "publically/popularly recognized." I envision the following. A player thinks about running a wraithknight. He's not sure about this. So he comes on dakka forums and he sees everyone complaining about them, insisting that they should be at least 50 points more expensive. He then decides to treat the wraithknight as though it costed 350 per base model.

Define publically/popularly recognized. Then, explain why that's relevant. Then explain why its needed such things be restricted. Then explain why using those things without restrictions makes a person TFG.

Note that I'm not claiming that you must use such an army composition. I'm saying that, when you are making your army, you should be comparing it to an army composition of that sort for the sake of determining whether or not your list is "fair" to your opponent. IE, you should be asking yourself: "Are there certain army types that my list completely shuts down?" If the answer is "yes," then revise your list. Don't be TFG.

No, you shouldn't be concerned with that. You should be concerned with building the army YOU want to use, not the one your opponent would wish you to use. Playing with a collection of models I like does not make me TFG, and your insistence on that makes you TFG for dividing, labelling, and judging people on their collection of plastic miniatures in a game.

If you're interested in fairness, my solution is the best shot at it.

No, no it isn't. We have a sub forum here called 'Proposed Rules'. Go there and propose in depth and complete balance fixes in a fan made codex. Make it look good and presentable. Offer it to be play tested and for feedback. Test it yourself. Change it, tweak it, improve it. When you've played dozens of different styles at dozens of point levels against dozens of different armies, you might have a good idea if its balanced and fair.

Telling people what they should or shouldn't take isn't fair. Not in the slightest. If you well and truly are invested in fairness, put your money where your mouth is, and develop a balanced set of codices that offer similar levels of freedom/variety the current books do.

Fairness and balance. A game is fair if and only if both parties have roughly a 50/50 chance at winning at the beginning of the game.

Then balance the game, don't restrict players and judge them.

You can say that it's totally random, arbitrary, etc. that doesn't balance the game, etc...but you haven't really supported this with any arguments. If you actually think through the consequences of how you would actually have to build a list if you followed my guidelines, you might think otherwise.

If you propose a system of not using multiple of 'X', some armies that are inherently weaker will not be able to maximize the usage of their best units they depend on to remain even a little viable. Books like Necrons and Eldar are universally better than other books, like Orks. Restricting Orks or Sisters the same way you'd restrict Eldar would still leave Eldar as a superior army.

Maybe. All 3 of my guidelines work in tandem. You have to be able to give the appropriate answers to all 3 in order to play your list and meet my guidelines. Note that 6th edition wave serpent spam would pass guideline 1, but it would fail guidelines 2 and 3.

And the point is that your guidelines are totally arbitrary and don't actually balance the game or make it any fluffier, while restricting player choices they'd otherwise have. Why should you be concerned about an opposing list that had a blend of stuff, and not just be concerned with a list of all tanks that was otherwise fair and balanced based on point distribution and blended weapon profiles for a number of threats?

In other words, if you really want to balance the game, then go ahead and do that. Universal restrictions don't help all armies equally. There have been dozens of threads on army comp systems (similar to your proposal) and each time they got shot down for the same reasons. They don't balance the game. They simply shift it, and even then, many of the current top armies remain top armies. Weak books need help, not restrictions. Surely you can understand that.

Ok. Propose two such lists that meet all 3 guidelines but are still unbalanced.

No because guideline 2 is not something that can be agreed upon or defined sufficiently, and guideline 3 is a totally arbitrary standard that makes no sense from either a balance perspective or fluff perspective. Guideline 1 is also arbitrary for the same reasons.

Stop thinking about restrictions, and start thinking about balance. Make a fan-made FAQ/Errata for the books, or write new ones entirely. That's how you fix things. Telling people to leave their favourite models at home is not the solution.

I'm just looking for fairness. If you're not, then I don't really care about your opinion. That would simply mean that you have, at least to some extent, a bad and unjust character.

Oh good, I have an unjust and bad character for letting my opponents play with whatever they so choose.

Explain to me how I'm the bad person for not judging people, not laying out guidelines and rules to follow, and not restricting their own personal choice?

For someone so concerned with character, you sure do spend a lot of judging other people based on their plastic miniatures. Remind me again how that isn't a sign of bad character? Something about judging a book by its cover?

WayneTheGame wrote:

 tenebre wrote:
you keep acting like finding pickup games in other games works...

video games for example - not one friend i know enjoys playing with randoms... why would a table top be the same?

the same situations i read on here i have seen happen in risk and axis and allies with "randoms"

people who abuse rules to win will always do so. The people who argue that RAW trump RAI will never change. they just arent fun to play with. with the exception of ASL i have not found a game that isnt rife with exlpoitation for those that dedicate their life to "cheating" cheating ti intent of a game is just as bad and moving chess pieces when the other guy isnt looking.

Finding pickup games in other wargames tends to be as easy as "Hey want a game? How many points? Okay, cool!".

Indeed. Though a dick is a dick no matter what game they play; it is decidedly more difficult to game the system in WMH than it is in 40k for example due to a tighter written ruleset that leaves very little open to inventive interpretation.

Blacksails wrote:Except its not universally applicable because your concepts are so vague and will not find universal agreement.

The rest of your post is basically just more of the same of the above. So, I'll restrict my answer to this: Ok. What in particular do you find vague? For someone who is accusing me of being vague, you are being pretty vague yourself. You can contradict me all day long. That's one thing. Actually providing specific reasons that what I've proposed is unworkable or unfair is another thing.

Give me concrete examples of where the guidelines that I've proposed do not, in fact, make for a fair match-up.

If you can't do that, then you have no case.

You're just sticking your fingers in your ears and going: "BLA BLA BLA, I CAN'T HEAR YOU!" Probably because you spam OP units and would otherwise suck at the game if you actually had to play a fair, balanced match up.

As I said: Don't be TFG.

I'd definitely agree that being "a decent human being" is the best way to be. Don't be a bad loser, don't be an obnoxious winner, make friendly conversation with your opponent, and all the rest of it. Be nice. But I've never thought that list composition came into this.

Maybe this is because in the past I've been criticised for taking strong lists so it feels unseemly for me to be telling someone that they shouldn't use the models they invested time and money into. Or perhaps I also have a different perspective in that I've pretty much jumped ship from GW's games (still enjoy the fluff and models, but it's rare for me to get a game). I've never seen the kind of arguments and ill-feeling that WH40K can generate in less bloated and ambiguously-worded games Deadzone or Bolt Action, for instance. If you're having to examine each other's lists with a magnifying glass or tick boxes on what constitutes beardy cheese before the game even starts, maybe it's time to cut your losses.

If, however, you decide to stick with GW games, then...just accept it. I think that by agreeing to play the game you're implicitly agreeing to use the rules GW have provided, meaning that the other player can bring any list, as long as it's legal. By all means ask if they'll agree to your restrictions or house rules but if they say no, you've got to accept that too.

Traditio wrote:


You're just sticking your fingers in your ears and going: "BLA BLA BLA, I CAN'T HEAR YOU!" Probably because you spam OP units and would otherwise suck at the game if you actually had to play a fair, balanced match up.

No words...

Traditio wrote:
1. Does my list spam* non-troop choice** units?

So my unbound IG ratling spam list is a WAAC TFG list that I need to revise?

If you are opposed to revising your list because of one of these reasons, it's probably because you're a WAAC TFG.

Or because you play in an area where people don't use low-power lists like your example in #3, so the fact that everyone in the group would crush the #3-style lists is irrelevant.

Traditio wrote:
Then follow the list guidelines that I set out above and dazzle everyone with your superior tactics.

Any idea how many games I played setting up both sides of a game, letting my opponent pick a side, then switch at the end and play again?
I lost count, but in those special amazing cases they were fun as heck.
Notice this requires a complete customized list for both sides and a suitable scenario.
To try to achieve the much sought-out nail biting to the end game.

Those "guidelines" are just another house rule you place on yourself while failing to inform your opponent: that's nice.

I should summon Peregrine on his fine treatise on how what few things not determined by a dice roll, is your army list, that is why so much emphasis is placed on it: tactics tend to be watered down a bit with all the heavily random elements that is 40k.
That is why so many units with high probability of success or modify/bypass certain elements of the rules are the preferred choice you get to actually perform some successful tactics.

But you won't do that, of course, because you probably insist on spamming the most broken thing in the codex...because you need a crutch to win. You consistently would lose in an even, fair match-up. Right?

I think I am detecting the holier than thou attitude that was being pointed out... takes me a bit to notice but beat me over the head enough...

<sigh> I really need to go look at your definition of "spam", I do have some concepts of broken but there are so many examples across so many codex's that I really wonder if "broken" is the new normal.

I have played many times with the classic example of a "balanced" force and at least in my local meta: that is not what you face... things have ramped up a bit grasshopper.
So please contact them and let them know the new rules... or should I inform them I would like to go back to kinder and gentler times.

"Need a crutch to win." Hehehe... ooh! that is beyond the pale insulting... no idea of the person at the other end, hehe. Gaming is a target rich environment for the WAAC players you keep talking about, victims are easy to find. I do not need them or want them. Tighten up your game, you beat me good and square according to rules as written and you will get a firm handshake and a smile.

I have no idea if I will lose or win because your concepts of "even" and "fair" are nebulous, I would be happy to agree to a game with various "house rules", it is still then a game (where both parties agree).
Just do not expect me to read your mind and to actually understand how being nice, polite and joke but play my hardest within the rules and I would still be a TFG?

Peregrine wrote:So my unbound IG ratling spam list is a WAAC TFG list that I need to revise?

I don't know what a ratling is. But chances are, if you yourself are calling it a "spam list," then yes, probably.

Or because you play in an area where people don't use low-power lists like your example in #3, so the fact that everyone in the group would crush the #3-style lists is irrelevant.

An objection to the guidelines that I've proposed is not "but people don't play like that." For obvious reasons.

Traditio wrote:


The rest of your post is basically just more of the same of the above. So, I'll restrict my answer to this: Ok. What in particular do you find vague? For someone who is accuse me of being vague, you are being pretty vague yourself.

Give me concrete examples of where the guidelines that I've proposed do not, in fact, make for a fair match-up.

If you can't do that, then you have no case.

You're just sticking your fingers in your ears and going: "BLA BLA BLA, I CAN'T HEAR YOU!" Probably because you spam OP units and would otherwise suck at the game if you actually had to play a fair, balanced match up.

As I said: Don't be TFG.

Vague notions include usage of popular undercosted overpowered units.

First of all, how do you define if its popular or not?

Second of all, how powerful does it have to be? How overpowered or undercosted?

Third, how do you determine that? Again, just by popularity/consensus? By who, from where?

The rest of your solutions don't actually address game balance issues, and hurt fluffy armies.

Finally, I play Guard, a notably mid to bottom tier army. I've always played either blob guard, or mechanized with armoured support, both of which are hardly overpowered.

Really, all you're doing when you say gak like that is making yourself out to be the TFG you're so against who's so ready to judge, insult, and otherwise dismiss based on something as childish and trivial as a list of models for a game. You can take your condescension and general rudeness elsewhere, because assuming things about someone does nothing to further the discussion.

You've made that mistake once in this thread already, I figured you would have learned. Clearly not.

If you wish to continue this discussion, you need to apologize for this;

Probably because you spam OP units and would otherwise suck at the game if you actually had to play a fair, balanced match up.

As I said: Don't be TFG.

And learn to discuss your points without this sort of nonsense.

And again, if you really, well truly intend on trying to create a fair and balanced game, then actually make the game balanced by tweaking points costs and profiles. You want to talk about fair and just, that's fair and just. Let players play with what they want and simply make all the options on a level playing field.

Traditio wrote:
I don't know what a ratling is. But chances are, if you yourself are calling it a "spam list," then yes, probably.

An IG sniper unit pretty much universally considered to be garbage. A list that spams them would be seriously hurting its chances of winning by doing so. But yet you're willing to call it a WAAC TFG list based on nothing more than the fact that it has the word "spam". This is a pretty clear sign that your "simple rules" for balancing the game are hopelessly broken.

An objection to the guidelines that I've proposed is not "but people don't play like that." For obvious reasons.

And that's the problem: you've created a system that maybe works ok in your own group of friends, but utterly fails to handle groups that don't share your opinions on the game. Once again you fail to understand any perspective that isn't your own.

 EVIL INC wrote:
"Ultimately the real solution is to play a better designed game, but there are many reasons why that wouldn't be applicable for some people."
This is what both sides in this thread are saying. The fact that the rules need work is not the issue. A "perfect" set of rules would mean that there would be zero questions ever and that each and every single person in the entire world would agree perfectly on every aspect. As that will never happens, your right, there would always be some people who would not like or would like different aspects.

That is not the issue and is being used as a smoke screen to hide the fact that the whole controversy in the thread is that the OP expressed the opinion in that some situations a deeper level of communication could help use deal with the issue until it gets better.
You may feel that there shouldnt be that need to begin with. We ALL do. He and others are of the opinion that finding ways around it until it is fixed can allow us to still have a little fun. I see nothing wrong with him having the right to that opinion.

And that is the problem and why it well not be fixed. But like I said it is hard for the ones helping to kill the game to understand the are. One way brings in new people, the other slows the bleeding.

Blacksails wrote:Vague notions include usage of popular undercosted overpowered units.

It's really not.

First of all, how do you define if its popular or not?

Google. 1d4chan. Dakka forums. Seriously, internet. It's a thing now. It's been a thing for a while.

Second of all, how powerful does it have to be? How overpowered or undercosted?

At all. If it's overpowered or undercosted at all, you need to take it into account, for the sake of fairness, when you write your list. This is analytic to the notions of "overpowered" and "undercosted."

Third, how do you determine that? Again, just by popularity/consensus? By who, from where?

Supra.

The rest of your solutions don't actually address game balance issues, and hurt fluffy armies.

How?

Finally, I play Guard, a notably mid to bottom tier army. I've always played either blob guard, or mechanized with armoured support, both of which are hardly overpowered.

Imperial guard consistently pwn casual space marine lists. They bring overwhelming numbers and can spam pie plates. In fact, they can spam AV 14 vehicles which shoot pie plates. I have no sympathy for IG players.

I have already issued my challenge. Either step up to the challenge or admit that you're all smoke and fluff.

Propose 2 lists which would be an imbalanced match for each other, presupposing the guidelines I've set out.

Traditio wrote:


Google. 1d4chan. Dakka forums. Seriously, internet. It's a thing now. It's been a thing for a while.

Then how did you not know what a Ratling was then?

I have zero intentions to carry on a discussion with someone who will make assumptions, insult, and dismiss other arguments with zero backing.

You've shown your colours to everyone. TFG is an attitude, not a list. You're the one name calling, judging, and otherwise assuming things of others.

Instead of being so quick to label others as TFG, you should go and read through your own comment history.

It is 100% a flaw of the game if a balanced army sucks and can't win. Look at the type of armies GW sells and has sold in the past. Things like this:

Space Marine Megaforce (circa 2012?)
Captain
Command Squad w/Razorback
2x Tac Squads
Drop Pod
Land Raider
Scout Squad
Dreadnought

That, to me, is a balanced Space Marine army. It accurately represents the fluff, it doesn't spam units. If an army like this will get absolutely crushed by anything at the same points value (and I have no idea how many points it is, let's say 1250 for sake of discussion) then it's a flaw of design because it's actively punishing the player who DOESN'T just spam OP units, you know the opposite of what "forge the narrative" and "spirit of the game" are supposed to be encouraging. A narrative, fluffy player shouldn't want to spam bikes just because bikes are OP, they should be wanting to play a force that's fairly true to the source material. So sure you could take some bikes, up to 20 (two assault squads worth), but you shouldn't ONLY take bikes because that's not how a Battle Company operates.

And therein is the big problem. The game, for all the talk of narrative and casual and beer and pretzel play, seems to be ENCOURAGING spamming OP units and not taking balanced or fluffy lists.

To put it another way: What kind of player am I for bringing that to a game? The answer, if you're curious, is one who gets frustrated and gives up after having my fluffy army stomped into the ground by spam units because I choose to play fluffy.

Grimtuff wrote:Then how did you not know what a Ratling was then?

I didn't. I had to look it up on 1d4chan. Thus strengthening my point.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blacksails wrote:
I have zero intentions to carry on a discussion with someone who will make assumptions, insult, and dismiss other arguments with zero backing.

Sup, pot! Have you met kettle?

And, with all due respect, if I am in error about your motivations, then my apologies. But that's how you come off. What you are effectively defending is the "liberty" of the player to spam cheesy units. That makes me seriously question why you would be defending such a thing.

Traditio wrote:
But hey, that one guy (even though he's the exception, not the rule, and is literally one in one hundred) purchased his wraithknight just because it looks cool and for no other reason.

And right on schedule there's the judgement of other players' motives. Why are you so obsessed with judging the purity of everyone's motives? Why can't you just accept that some people buy models because they look cool or because they like the fluff without trying to dismiss them as a tiny minority or "prove" that they "really want overpowered stuff and are just using fluff as an excuse".

A game is fair if and only if both players have a proportionally equal chance of winning, apart from player skill, at the very beginning of the game.

And they do. No matter how many times you try to pretend otherwise army construction is part of the game. If we agree to a 1500 point game we have the exact same chance of winning (at least in terms of list strength) because we can make the same army construction choices. If I take overpowered units you can take the same overpowered units and we're both equal. The fact that you make bad decisions and bring a weaker list with your 1500 points doesn't mean that you didn't start with an equal chance.

But if you spam undercosted units and I only use reasonably priced (neither undercosted nor overcosted), then I'll be at a strong disadvantage of the start of the game. How much of a disadvantage? A disadvantage of however many points it is by which your units are undercosted, multiplied by the number of units that you're spamming.

This is not true at all, because the game begins at the start of list construction (if not earlier). Talking about how much of a point advantage once lists are written is a meaningless statement because we're already playing the game. You're doing the equivalent of looking at the game in the middle of turn 3, discovering that you have fewer points on the table because you've taken heavier casualties, and demanding that you get to add some more units to your army to bring the game back to 50/50.

I spam, let us assume, the most broken, undercosted cheese in the Orks codex, and you spam the most broken, undercosted cheese in the Eldar codex.

Then it's your fault for playing orks when you can't come up with a decent list for them. Don't blame me for your decision not to play a better army (like Eldar). The game was still fair when it started, you just made bad decisions and put yourself at a disadvantage.

No, that's stupid. A game is fair if and only if both parties have proportionally equal chances of winning, apart from skill, at the beginning of the game

And the game begins at the start of list construction (if not earlier). Please stop changing the supposed "beginning" to a much later point in the game just because it suits your argument.

Traditio wrote:



Sup, pot! Have you met kettle?

Then find the posts where I called people names, assumed things and insulted their ability to play a game in order to dismiss an argument or credibility or was otherwise unnecessarily rude.

I will apologize for each and every instance if you can find them.

For topic reasons, a PM will suffice.

Traditio wrote:
They bring overwhelming numbers and can spam pie plates. In fact, they can spam AV 14 vehicles which shoot pie plates. I have no sympathy for IG players.

Sounds like you're just bad at the game. Pie plates are not a major threat because you're usually hitting 3-4 models with a good shot, and probably giving up a cover save. Most IG players understand that the pie plate LRBTs are mediocre units at best.

Peregrine wrote:Then it's your fault for playing orks when you can't come up with a decent list for them. Don't blame me for your decision not to play a better army (like Eldar)

This is basically what your argument comes down to. If you're saying this, then there's something seriously wrong with your way of thinking.

And I refuse to admit that the game starts before the game starts (which is, let us note, when dice start rolling, and not a moment before). You disagree with me? Then cite the relevent portion of the BRB.

 Grimtuff wrote:

Traditio wrote:


Google. 1d4chan. Dakka forums. Seriously, internet. It's a thing now. It's been a thing for a while.

Then how did you not know what a Ratling was then?

More importantly, how is someone with such a shallow knowledge of the game in any way feeling justified in lecturing the rest of us how to play?

If you don't know what one of the trademark IG units is, that pretty much tells me you don't know what you're talking about re: the wider game in general.

Traditio wrote:

And, with all due respect, if I am in error about your motivations, then my apologies.

You are absolutely in error. Claiming I'm a terrible player and using it as a means to discredit my position is no way to discuss anything.

But that's how you come off. What you are effectively defending is the "liberty" of the player to spam cheesy units. That makes me seriously question why you would be defending such a thing.

I defend such a thing because there's more to building a list than needing to win beyond all reason.

I like tanks, and I like infantry. Why should you judge, insult, or look down upon my choice of units based on again, totally arbitrary restrictions you've made up that serve neither to help balance the game nor promote fluffy lists?

I'll wait for the apology though, still.

WayneTheGame wrote:
It accurately represents the fluff

And this is where we disagree. I don't think that battleforce army is a fluffy list at all. It's a random collection of units (probably heavily influenced by profit margin decisions) that has no coherent theme. It's only a fluffy list if you define 'fluffy' to mean "the opposite of powerful".

 Blacksails wrote:
I have zero intentions to carry on a discussion with someone who will make assumptions, insult, and dismiss other arguments with zero backing.

You've shown your colours to everyone. TFG is an attitude, not a list. You're the one name calling, judging, and otherwise assuming things of others.

Instead of being so quick to label others as TFG, you should go and read through your own comment history.

When you post 90+ of your 120ish post on something like this, I think the problem might be something else.

WayneTheGame wrote:
It accurately represents the fluff, it doesn't spam units.

White Scars armies with massed bikes are very fluffy lists indeed.

IG tank companies, Saim-Hann jetbike armies... All fluffy.

Or perhaps 'lore-accurate' is a better term, since at this point the lore is not just fluff - it is what keeps many players from leaving for other games.

Traditio wrote:
If you're saying this, then there's something seriously wrong with your way of thinking.

Or, once again, you're stubbornly refusing to accept that other people enjoy playing the game in different ways. Some people genuinely enjoy playing as competitively as possible against other people who are doing the same, and that includes picking a powerful codex. You clearly don't. But the point here is that your definition of "fairness" is just your personal opinion, not some universal truth about how the game works.

And I refuse to admit that the game starts before the game starts (which is, let us note, when dice start rolling, and not a moment before).

So deployment doesn't count as part of the game? Placing objectives in a good location isn't part of the game?

The OP has coupled legal choices within rules as an indicator of the nature or character of the person determined by his evaluation.

By society's definition and church I am a decent human being.

I do not appear to fit his definition.

After reading some of the insults bandied about, I would surmise a wee bit of hypocrisy is at work.

When I railed against the rules in 40k a rather sympathetic individual commented: "Who Rofl stomped you in a game and how often?"
I offer the same advice: you have most likely been beaten badly in the game many times and will not accept that many of your decisions have lead to your defeat.

Rather than seek changing others and labeling them "bad" just accept they obviously play a different game from you and can be good people.
I exercise the ignore button very infrequently but really am trying to seek some understanding no matter how painful that may be but it is getting tempting.

I will now thank the MODS for being patient, it is a bit like watching a train wreck.

Blacksails wrote:You are absolutely in error. Claiming I'm a terrible player and using it as a means to discredit my position is no way to discuss anything.

You might not be. What I said, admittedly, was a bit extreme and offputting. What I intended is something more like the following:

If you are not a terrible player (you, let us note, in general, not you in particular), then why the need to spam units? Why not dazzle us with your tactics after the game begins with a fair match-up?

I defend such a thing because there's more to building a list than needing to win beyond all reason.

Then what's the problem?

I like tanks, and I like infantry. Why should you judge, insult, or look down upon my choice of units based on again, totally arbitrary restrictions you've made up that serve neither to help balance the game nor promote fluffy lists?

You keep claiming this, but you have yet to give any actual reasons for it in concreto (thus my pot/kettle comment). Again, I repeat my challenge:

Show me this in concreto. Provide examples.

If you can't, you have no case.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Peregrine wrote:So deployment doesn't count as part of the game? Placing objectives in a good location isn't part of the game?

By the time deployments are taking place and objectives are being placed, dice have started rolling.

Traditio wrote:
Why not dazzle us with your tactics after the game begins with a fair match-up?

Because the game begins in list construction.

 Ashiraya wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:
It accurately represents the fluff, it doesn't spam units.

White Scars armies with massed bikes are very fluffy lists indeed.

IG tank companies, Saim-Hann jetbike armies... All fluffy.

Or perhaps 'lore-accurate' is a better term, since at this point the lore is not just fluff - it is what keeps many players from leaving for other games.

And there's such a great discrepancy between some fluffy armies and others. Although I'd argue White Scars aren't ALL bikes, they'd be all mobile (the original 3rd edition "Just for Fat Bloke" rules required all units to have transports or Deep Strike). Still IMHO a game problem. The fluffy Saim-Hann player is going to stomp the fluffy Ultramarine player whether they try to or not because the power levels of the armies are way out of whack.

Peregrine wrote:Because the game begins in list construction.

If the points system is what GW claims it is, then you are wrong.

Furthermore, you are just obviously wrong. A game does not begin until the game begins. QED.

Traditio wrote:
A game does not begin until the game begins

List construction is part of the game.

Peregrine wrote:List construction is part of the game.

You can keep saying that as much as you like. I disagree that what you are saying is true in the precise sense that you intend it. Until you can back up what you are saying, I can dismiss what you are saying with the same facility wherewith you are asserting it.

It isn't really possible to have an opinion about facts.

Have you tried playing a game without a list?

 Azreal13 wrote:
It isn't really possible to have an opinion about facts.

Have you tried playing a game without a list?

Touche.

Note that I edited my answer to Peregrine.

Ok, let's make this nice and simple:

You prefer a game where list construction is a fairly minor element and everyone brings lists that are roughly the same power level as the ones you like to play.

Other people prefer a game where list construction is a competitive element and everyone tries to gain an advantage in that part of the game just like they try to gain an advantage in the movement phase.

The correct response to this disagreement: "Well, I guess we just like different things, I'll make sure I only play with people who share my opinions."

The wrong response to this disagreement: "ALL OF YOU ARE WAAC TFGS WHO HAVE NO SKILL YOU NEED TO HAVE FUN THE WAY THAT I HAVE FUN!!!!!!!"

Unfortunately you've stubbornly insisted on taking the second option.

Traditio wrote:

You might not be. What I said, admittedly, was a bit extreme and offputting. What I intended is something more like the following:

I suppose this is the closest I'll get to an apology from you.

If you are not a terrible player (you, let us note, in general, not you in particular), then why the need to spam units? Why not dazzle us with your tactics after the game begins with a fair match-up?

Spam is also a poor word choice. Why can't I take 3 Russes in my list, and call it redundancy or synergy? Supporting them with 5 chimeras with vets inside, backed by 2 or 3 vendettas is fluffy, cohesive, lends itself to a certain playstyle where I can dazzle you with my strategic and tactical genius. However, according to your guidelines, I'd be breaking rule 1 of spamming. In order to avoid breaking that rule, I'd have to drop a russ for...something else, like an arty piece or hellhound that do not in any way jive with my list or my intended style of play.

Then what's the problem?

You're restricting players based on nothing more than some buzzwords and vague notions 'the internet has spoken!'. Again, how do you define is something is overpowered enough to warrant being on rules 2? Does enough of the internet have to agree? Is there a standard? How good must the unit be? Do support/force multipliers affect this power level? What about weapon choices? What if an IC joins the unit? Is it overpowered then? Are you talking about units, or combinations?

There are too many variables to nail down to make it practical in application, thus making it an empty guideline.

You keep claiming this, but you have yet to give any actual reasons for it in concreto (thus my pot/kettle comment). Again, I repeat my challenge:

Show me this in concreto. Provide examples.

If you can't, you have no case.

No, I have a strong case, because your guidelines are not strong enough or make enough sense to even be used as a demonstration. Again, why do I have to consider how my list would fare against another list that contained a random hodge-podge of unit types? Of what codex even? Why is spam bad? Why can't it be redundancy, theme, or synergy instead? Can you, beyond a shadow of a doubt, lay out in explicit detail every unit that is considered 'popularly overpowered or undercosted', and all of the combinations and wargear choices each of those units could take that would make them less or more so?

My counter challenge to you is to provide a complete and detailed list of units that would fall under guideline 2.

 Peregrine wrote:
Ok, let's make this nice and simple:

You prefer a game where list construction is a fairly minor element and everyone brings lists that are roughly the same power level as the ones you like to play.

Except, not really. You can have two WAAC TFGS play against each other who spam the most broken unit in their respective codices (for simplicity, let us suppose that they both use the same Eldar internet list).

They're evenly matched, but they're still playing unfair lists.

Unfortunately you've stubbornly insisted on taking the second option.

Until you confront the trilemma I presented earlier head on, without changing the terms of the discussion, my "second option" is the only reasonable one.

Traditio wrote:
They're evenly matched, but they're still playing unfair lists.

How exactly is it unfair if both players have an equal chance of winning?

(And yes, I know the answer. It's pretty clear that your definition of "fair" is "my list can beat this", not "both players have the same chance of winning".)

Until you confront the trilemma I presented earlier head on, without changing the terms of the discussion, my "second option" is the only reasonable one.

I'm sorry, did you seriously just say that yelling at people and calling them WAAC TFGs is the "only reasonable option"?

Peregrine wrote:How exactly is it unfair if both players have an equal chance of winning?

In concreto, it's not unfair. Abstractly, the lists themselves are unfair (because full of OP and undercosted units). Again, you can talk about how "list building is part of the game" all you want. But that doesn't address the fact that there are such things as OP and undercosted units. You've been dodging this point the entire thread.

I'm sorry, did you seriously just say that yelling at people and calling them WAAC TFGs is the "only reasonable option"?

I was referring to the position of which your description was a caricature.

Traditio wrote:
In concreto, it's not unfair. Abstractly, the lists themselves are unfair (because full of OP and undercosted units). Again, you can talk about how "list building is part of the game" all you want. But that doesn't address the fact that there are such things as OP and undercosted units. You've been dodging this point the entire thread.

But why do I care about some abstract philosophical point about "fairness" when both my opponent and I have a roughly equal chance of winning, and both of us enjoy the entire game? And why should I care about anything besides that?

I was referring to the position of which your description was a caricature.

Ok, so you admit that you believe that calling people WAAC TFGs is the "only reasonable option".

Traditio wrote:


Until you confront the trilemma I presented earlier head on, without changing the terms of the discussion, my "second option" is the only reasonable one.

So people not accepting your idea mean you can start being a dick, good to know. But, I don't think that is how grownup do things.

Yeah, plus we need that detailed list of units that are considered overpowered.

I mean, its all on the internet, it shouldn't be too hard for him to lay it all out.

Then I can go ahead and make some lists using the guidelines.

Traditio wrote:

Noir wrote:Or the simplest answer. Play a rules set where their is no reason to force (1) to get (2). GW is the reason for the fake divide between, with a good rule set Structured Play (Tournaments or Campaigns) and Pick-Up game would be no different as you could being what ever you wanted and have a 45-55% chance to win at the same skill level. It is a really simple concept.

Such a rule set does not exist in WH40k. Given that fact, the solution I've proposed is the best, fairest and most reasonable solution.

The only possible person who would disagree with this solution are powergamers who have pretty much nothing else going on in their lives, for whom winning a toy soldier game somehow compensates for their utter failure as human beings.

So, because my friends and I are competitive by nature and enjoy the challenge of building and facing the best possible lists, we are all utter failures as human beings? Makes perfect sense.

Blacksails wrote:Spam is also a poor word choice. Why can't I take 3 Russes in my list, and call it redundancy or synergy?

Redundancy = spam. You're quibbling over words.

Supporting them with 5 chimeras with vets inside, backed by 2 or 3 vendettas is fluffy, cohesive, lends itself to a certain playstyle where I can dazzle you with my strategic and tactical genius.

How would your list fare against a fluffy marine list of scout marines, assault marines, tactical marines, devastator marines, rhinos and maybe a dreadnought?

However, according to your guidelines, I'd be breaking rule 1 of spamming. In order to avoid breaking that rule, I'd have to drop a russ for...something else

Yes. That shouldn't be a problem.

You're restricting players based on nothing more than some buzzwords and vague notions 'the internet has spoken!'. Again, how do you define is something is overpowered enough to warrant being on rules 2? Does enough of the internet have to agree? Is there a standard? How good must the unit be? Do support/force multipliers affect this power level? What about weapon choices? What if an IC joins the unit? Is it overpowered then? Are you talking about units, or combinations?

Does dakka forums have a thread on it? Do most people in the thread (who aren't WAAC TFG) agree that there's a problem?

If you start a thread about it, what do people say about it?

There are too many variables to nail down to make it practical in application, thus making it an empty guideline.

It's really not. There's a clear way of applying it.

Can you, beyond a shadow of a doubt, lay out in explicit detail every unit that is considered 'popularly overpowered or undercosted', and all of the combinations and wargear choices each of those units could take that would make them less or more so?

No. But then again, I don't really have to. The fact that I can't come up with a list doesn't mean that, in concreto, you can't go on dakka forums, ask everyone what they think about x unit coupled with y wargear, and get a concensus.

So, are you going to come up with a couple of lists or not? Until you can do that, you'll have to pardon me if I remain unconvinced by you.

I'm sorry you had to learn this way, TooFast.

Don't worry, I'm a failure too.

Traditio wrote:
How would your list fare against a fluffy marine list of scout marines, assault marines, tactical marines, devastator marines, rhinos and maybe a dreadnought?

Who cares? Is that the list my opponent is bringing, or is it a hypothetical list you've created just to claim that my list is "unfair"? And why are we assuming that this random collection of marine units is "fluffy"? I don't see any coherent theme in that list, and certainly couldn't tell you what chapter or character it's supposed to represent.

Yes. That shouldn't be a problem.

It's a problem because it makes the list less fluffy. I thought we were supposed to care about fluff?

Does dakka forums have a thread on it? Do most people in the thread (who aren't WAAC TFG) agree that there's a problem?

Pretty much every unit has a thread where some people argue that it's too weak and some argue that it's the worst TFG cheese.

It's really not. There's a clear way of applying it.

Only if you don't care if the results are completely absurd. Your rules for army construction label the unbound ratling spam list "WAAC TFG cheese", so they're clearly not a sensible set of rules.

Peregrine wrote:But why do I care about some abstract philosophical point about "fairness" when both my opponent and I have a roughly equal chance of winning, and both of us enjoy the entire game? And why should I care about anything besides that?

In that particular case, you shouldn't. However, you should care for the following reasons:

1. How your game decisions affect other players (if you both buy the next, best broken thing, what does that say to GW?).

2. What if you plan on playing other people?

Ok, so you admit that you believe that calling people WAAC TFGs is the "only reasonable option".

No.

Traditio wrote:

You're restricting players based on nothing more than some buzzwords and vague notions 'the internet has spoken!'. Again, how do you define is something is overpowered enough to warrant being on rules 2? Does enough of the internet have to agree? Is there a standard? How good must the unit be? Do support/force multipliers affect this power level? What about weapon choices? What if an IC joins the unit? Is it overpowered then? Are you talking about units, or combinations?

Does dakka forums have a thread on it? Do most people in the thread (who aren't WAAC TFG) agree that there's a problem?

If you start a thread about it, what do people say about it?

Traditio wrote:
No. But then again, I don't really have to. The fact that I can't come up with a list doesn't mean that, in concreto, you can't go on dakka forums, ask everyone what they think about x unit coupled with y wargear, and get a concensus.

So, are you going to come up with a couple of lists or not? Until you can do that, you'll have to pardon me if I remain unconvinced by you.

I'm guessing you only count the people posting what works for you.

Traditio wrote:


Redundancy = spam. You're quibbling over words.

Maybe yes, maybe no. The fact is that you're viewing multiples of something as a negative to be punished, while I view it as a positive to be encouraged. At least in my usage, I'm not demeaning anyone for their list they choose.

How would your list fare against a fluffy marine list of scout marines, assault marines, tactical marines, devastator marines, rhinos and maybe a dreadnought?

How would it fare against a fluffy eldar list with wraith units, bikes and serpents?

What's your point?

Yes. That shouldn't be a problem.

It is a problem.

I don't own an arty piece. I own russes, and troops. It is very much a problem.

Does dakka forums have a thread on it? Do most people in the thread (who aren't WAAC TFG) agree that there's a problem?

If you start a thread about it, what do people say about it?

First, how would judge if someone is WAAC TFG on these forums? You continue to throw this around incorrectly and unfairly, which works against you.

Second, is a thread on dakka sufficient to declare a unit is overpowered? Is that what it takes?

It's really not. There's a clear way of applying it.

Then apply it generate a list. Further, for guideline 3, what codex am I comparing to? Any codex? The ork codex? The Eldar codex? Because they'll be two vastly different comparisons.

No. But then again, I don't really have to. The fact that I can't come up with a list doesn't mean that, in concreto, you can't go on dakka forums, ask everyone what they think about x unit coupled with y wargear, and get a concensus.

So, are you going to come up with a couple of lists or not? Until you can do that, you'll have to pardon me if I remain unconvinced by you.

I'm afraid you do if you want to convince myself, and anyone really, that your guidelines are indeed universal and simple. If they're as universal, straightforward, and simple as you claim, then generate a list and cut out the nonsense of quibbling over whether a unit is powerful enough or not to meet guideline 2. I refuse to create a list and then have you claim it breaks rule 2, because I can assure that is what will happen.

You get a list of units that would fall under rule 2, and I'll write a dozen lists.

Traditio wrote:
1. How your game decisions affect other players (if you both buy the next, best broken thing, what does that say to GW?).

Why do I care? My opponent and I are having fun. How our fun might impact some random person we'll never meet doesn't matter one bit to me.

2. What if you plan on playing other people?

Then maybe I'll reevaluate my approach to the game if I want to play against these hypothetical people. But think about what you're suggesting: that I change how I build my lists and have less fun right now against my real opponents because someday in the future I might play against other people that wouldn't share my approach to the game.

Ok, so you admit that you believe that calling people WAAC TFGs is the "only reasonable option".

No.

Then why did you say exactly that?

Peregrine wrote:Who cares? Is that the list my opponent is bringing, or is it a hypothetical list you've created just to claim that my list is "unfair"? And why are we assuming that this random collection of marine units is "fluffy"? I don't see any coherent theme in that list, and certainly couldn't tell you what chapter or character it's supposed to represent.

Check out the relevent sections in the codex on those units. That's pretty much standard, according to the fluff.

It's a problem because it makes the list less fluffy. I thought we were supposed to care about fluff?

Fairness, then fun, then fluff, then winning.

In that order. But only the first is absolutely important.

Pretty much every unit has a thread where some people argue that it's too weak and some argue that it's the worst TFG cheese.

Then if it's a 50/50 coin toss between one group of people (who are not WAAC TFG) crying about how weak something is, on the other hand, and another group saying that it's broken, you can safely discount both opinions. In other cases, you can't. Most people agree, it seems, that the wraithknight is broken.

Only if you don't care if the results are completely absurd. Your rules for army construction label the unbound ratling spam list "WAAC TFG cheese", so they're clearly not a sensible set of rules.

What FOC slot do ratlings fill?

Traditio wrote:

What FOC slot do ratlings fill?

And you want to set guidelines to fair and balanced play but don't know this.

Come on.

Is it really that hard to understand that some people (gasp!) have fun playing with/against "cheese spam WAAC TFG" lists?

Traditio wrote:

Peregrine wrote:Who cares? Is that the list my opponent is bringing, or is it a hypothetical list you've created just to claim that my list is "unfair"? And why are we assuming that this random collection of marine units is "fluffy"? I don't see any coherent theme in that list, and certainly couldn't tell you what chapter or character it's supposed to represent.

Check out the relevent sections in the codex on those units. That's pretty much standard, according to the fluff.

It's a problem because it makes the list less fluffy. I thought we were supposed to care about fluff?

Fairness, then fun, then fluff, then winning.

In that order. But only the first is absolutely important.

Wait what.... only FUN is important this is a game something done to have FUN.

Traditio wrote:


Fairness, then fun, then fluff, then winning.

In that order. But only the first is absolutely important.

You just rated something in a game above fun.

You lack the knowledge of said game sufficiently to know any detail about a well known and well established unit.

I'd just leave the thread if I were you.

Traditio wrote:
Check out the relevent sections in the codex on those units. That's pretty much standard, according to the fluff.

I haven't exactly studied the marine codex, but I don't remember anything saying that a marine army should have one of each type of unit. That might be the composition of a full company, but a 40k battle does not involve a full company.

Fairness, then fun, then fluff, then winning.

In that order. But only the first is absolutely important.

And that's just your personal opinion. Other people might disagree about the order of those things.

Also, the game is automatically fair because both players have access to the same rules and decisions. Please stop using "fair" to mean "my lists can win" and be honest about the fact that the latter is what you're talking about.

Then if it's a 50/50 coin toss between one group of people (who are not WAAC TFG) crying about how weak something is, on the other hand, and another group saying that it's broken, you can safely discount both opinions. In other cases, you can't. Most people agree, it seems, that the wraithknight is broken.

I see, so a 50/50 coin toss means throw out both opinions, but "most people" is sufficient to conclude that the wraithknight is broken despite having some people say that it isn't. Could you quantify exactly what percentage of posts in a thread about a unit need to be "this is overpowered" for that to be the conclusion?

What FOC slot do ratlings fill?

Elites. So spamming them would fall under your "non-troops spam = revise your list" rule.

Azreal13 wrote:You just rated something in a game above fun.

Yes. Fairness. That's more important than fun. Whether we're talking about games or not.

You lack the knowledge of said game sufficiently to know any detail about a well known and well established unit.

I'd just leave the thread if I were you.

I'm offering general principles.

Traditio wrote:

Peregrine wrote:Who cares? Is that the list my opponent is bringing, or is it a hypothetical list you've created just to claim that my list is "unfair"? And why are we assuming that this random collection of marine units is "fluffy"? I don't see any coherent theme in that list, and certainly couldn't tell you what chapter or character it's supposed to represent.

Check out the relevent sections in the codex on those units. That's pretty much standard, according to the fluff.

It's a problem because it makes the list less fluffy. I thought we were supposed to care about fluff?

Fairness, then fun, then fluff, then winning.

In that order. But only the first is absolutely important.

Pretty much every unit has a thread where some people argue that it's too weak and some argue that it's the worst TFG cheese.

Then if it's a 50/50 coin toss between one group of people (who are not WAAC TFG) crying about how weak something is, on the other hand, and another group saying that it's broken, you can safely discount both opinions. In other cases, you can't. Most people agree, it seems, that the wraithknight is broken.

Only if you don't care if the results are completely absurd. Your rules for army construction label the unbound ratling spam list "WAAC TFG cheese", so they're clearly not a sensible set of rules.

What FOC slot do ratlings fill?

This is a game right? The point of a game is to win.

By trying to put a sequential order on the purpose or purposes of the game you've added a completely subjective element. Fairness and fun might come befors winning for you but it won't for everyone.

Personally I put fairness, fun, and winning on equal footing in terms of importance, but I understand expecting others to feel the same would just be arrogance on my part.

Traditio wrote:
Yes. Fairness. That's more important than fun. Whether we're talking about games or not.

And that's just hilariously wrong. The reason we play games is to have fun, not to be fair. If both players are having fun then whether the game is "fair" (however you define the term) is irrelevant. But under your ranking a game that is perfectly 50/50 balanced but an exercise in masochism for both players is better than one which is completely unbalanced but both players have lots of fun.

I'm offering general principles.

You're offering general principles based on an incomplete understanding of the game. This is probably why your general principles fail so badly.

OverwatchCNC wrote:This is a game right? The point of a game is to win.

By trying to put a sequential order on the purpose or purposes of the game you've added a completely subjective element. Fairness and fun might come befors winning for you but it won't for everyone.

Having fun by doing unfair things makes you a bad person. That's a fact. I don't care if we're talking about a game or anything else.

Thus, you should never lie. Not even for the purposes of a game. If a game requires you to lie, then don't play that game. Period.

Traditio wrote:
Having fun by doing unfair things makes you a bad person. That's a fact. I don't care if we're talking about a game or anything else.

Why does the "fairness" of something matter more than whether or not both players are having fun? If both of us bring the "unfair" lists you hate and have lots of fun playing against each other then how exactly are we bad people?

Thus, you should never lie. Not even for the purposes of a game. If a game requires you to lie, then don't play that game. Period.

IOW, you don't think people should ever play games that involve bluffing or deception. I can't imagine living in such a boring and restricted world.

Traditio wrote:

OverwatchCNC wrote:This is a game right? The point of a game is to win.

By trying to put a sequential order on the purpose or purposes of the game you've added a completely subjective element. Fairness and fun might come befors winning for you but it won't for everyone.

Having fun by doing unfair things makes you a bad person. That's a fact. I don't care if we're talking about a game or anything else.

Thus, you should never lie. Not even for the purposes of a game. If a game requires you to lie, then don't play that game. Period.

How old are you?

Blacksails wrote:maybe yes, maybe no. The fact is that you're viewing multiples of something as a negative to be punished, while I view it as a positive to be encouraged. At least in my usage, I'm not demeaning anyone for their list they choose.

Google "warhammer spam." I'm not pulling my view from thin air.

How would it fare against a fluffy eldar list with wraith units, bikes and serpents?

What's your point?

Mech lists have always been a cheap way to win. They automatically shut down normal infantry weapons.

What's your point?

I don't own an arty piece. I own russes, and troops. It is very much a problem.

Bring more troops, then.

First, how would judge if someone is WAAC TFG on these forums? You continue to throw this around incorrectly and unfairly, which works against you.

It seems to me as though they're pretty easy to spot. They're the ones defending unfair rules and overpowered units, and are constantly screaming about how people should learn to adapt and play better every time a broken new codex comes out.

Second, is a thread on dakka sufficient to declare a unit is overpowered? Is that what it takes?

Potentially.

I'm afraid you do if you want to convince myself, and anyone really, that your guidelines are indeed universal and simple. If they're as universal, straightforward, and simple as you claim, then generate a list and cut out the nonsense of quibbling over whether a unit is powerful enough or not to meet guideline 2. I refuse to create a list and then have you claim it breaks rule 2, because I can assure that is what will happen.

You get a list of units that would fall under rule 2, and I'll write a dozen lists.

You're poking holes and raising doubts where there are none. In practice, things are not as complicated as you say. Again, I use the wraithknight as my example.

Noir wrote:

Traditio wrote:

OverwatchCNC wrote:This is a game right? The point of a game is to win.

By trying to put a sequential order on the purpose or purposes of the game you've added a completely subjective element. Fairness and fun might come befors winning for you but it won't for everyone.

Having fun by doing unfair things makes you a bad person. That's a fact. I don't care if we're talking about a game or anything else.

Thus, you should never lie. Not even for the purposes of a game. If a game requires you to lie, then don't play that game. Period.

How old are you?

I'm guessing 14, with a healthy dose of Red Bull.

Noir wrote:How old are you?

Old enough to be working on a Ph.D. program.

Traditio wrote:

OverwatchCNC wrote:This is a game right? The point of a game is to win.

By trying to put a sequential order on the purpose or purposes of the game you've added a completely subjective element. Fairness and fun might come befors winning for you but it won't for everyone.

Having fun by doing unfair things makes you a bad person. That's a fact. I don't care if we're talking about a game or anything else.

Thus, you should never lie. Not even for the purposes of a game. If a game requires you to lie, then don't play that game. Period.

So, the card game 'cheat' is some evil thing now? Poker? Call my bluff?

A game should be fair, but fairness should be built into the rules. The responsibility isn't on the players to be fair, if they're following the rules. Especially if they're in an environment where people play 'broken' lists, and they enjoy playing to win.

Peregrine wrote:Why does the "fairness" of something matter more than whether or not both players are having fun? If both of us bring the "unfair" lists you hate and have lots of fun playing against each other then how exactly are we bad people?

There is a moral obligation to act justly. Always.

IOW, you don't think people should ever play games that involve bluffing or deception. I can't imagine living in such a boring and restricted world.

Lying is per se evil.

Heavens you're naive.

Traditio wrote:

OverwatchCNC wrote:This is a game right? The point of a game is to win.

By trying to put a sequential order on the purpose or purposes of the game you've added a completely subjective element. Fairness and fun might come befors winning for you but it won't for everyone.

Having fun by doing unfair things makes you a bad person. That's a fact. I don't care if we're talking about a game or anything else.

Thus, you should never lie. Not even for the purposes of a game. If a game requires you to lie, then don't play that game. Period.

Way to cut out the part where I said fun, fairness, and winning are equally important and then attack me about something I didn't say nor believe. Cutting out portions of something someone said to alter the point to fit your needs is unethical and rude.

Traditio wrote:

Noir wrote:How old are you?

Old enough to be working on a Ph.D. program.

Then there is no way I believe what you said about how you should never lie.

Traditio wrote:

Peregrine wrote:Why does the "fairness" of something matter more than whether or not both players are having fun? If both of us bring the "unfair" lists you hate and have lots of fun playing against each other then how exactly are we bad people?

There is a moral obligation to act justly. Always.

IOW, you don't think people should ever play games that involve bluffing or deception. I can't imagine living in such a boring and restricted world.

Lying is per se evil.

By changing my quote through cutting out a portion of it you misrepresented what I had said. That's lying.

OverwatchCNC wrote:Way to cut out the part where I said fun, fairness, and winning are equally important and then attack me about something I didn't say nor believe. Cutting out portions of something someone said to alter the point to fit your needs is unethical and rude.

I wasn't trying to misrepresent you. At any rate, you're wrong. Fun and fairness are not equally important. The obligation to act fairly obtains universally. There is no such obligation to have fun.

Traditio wrote:
There is a moral obligation to act justly. Always.

And the point is that your definition of "justly" is absurd. You think that complying with your personal (and entirely arbitrary) standards for "fair" army lists is more important than whether the players are having fun. A more sensible definition of playing "justly" might be something like "respecting your opponent as a person and not sacrificing their enjoyment of the game just to ensure that you win".

Lying is per se evil.

Why?

 Blacksails wrote:

Traditio wrote:



Sup, pot! Have you met kettle?

Then find the posts where I called people names, assumed things and insulted their ability to play a game in order to dismiss an argument or credibility or was otherwise unnecessarily rude.

I will apologize for each and every instance if you can find them.

For topic reasons, a PM will suffice.

I came back to the thread too late, I have the quote somewhere around here but I think I used it earlier on in this very thread

Next time I won't be watching a movie Blacksails

Noir wrote:Then there is no way I believe what you said about how you should never lie.

This is the teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Augustine, a whole host of church fathers, Immanuel Kant, and probably a bunch of other people as well.

Lying for the sake of fun, humor or leisure is not seriously wrong. But it's still wrong.

Traditio wrote:
There is no such obligation to have fun.

Then why are you playing a game?

40k is not a game where you can make money or win fame, if you aren't having fun then the game is a failure. It's just amazing to me that you think that abstract philosophical concepts about "fairness" are more important than this.

Traditio wrote:

OverwatchCNC wrote:Way to cut out the part where I said fun, fairness, and winning are equally important and then attack me about something I didn't say nor believe. Cutting out portions of something someone said to alter the point to fit your needs is unethical and rude.

I wasn't trying to misrepresent you. At any rate, you're wrong. Fun and fairness are not equally important. The obligation to act fairly obtains universally. There is no such obligation to have fun.

That seals it for me. You're either trolling or incapable of reason. I'm out, have fun with this "PhD aged" (whatever that means) argument.

Traditio wrote:
1. How your game decisions affect other players (if you both buy the next, best broken thing, what does that say to GW?).

As discussed in other threads: GW is more concerned with the merits of it being a collectable model.
Nothing had been proven that at least upper management is overly concerned with the rules accompanying them.
In regards to "broken" nothing of that nature has been specifically mentioned or addressed in an FAQ.

2. What if you plan on playing other people?

The whole point of the thread right here.
The rule base allows for a vast difference in power levels that are not proportionate for the points.
We are also human beings and pick models/units/armies for vastly differing reasons.
He has a similar odds of getting a like minded person to play as a fluff player that thinks vanilla guard with no vehicles and no heavy weapons are epic! (but he is spamming troops! unfair!)

Play X-wing or Warmachine or some system where some attempt at balance has been made where pick-up games have a hope... or chess for that matter, but you could be construed as a WAAC for picking white because you go first!

40k is a game with rules (not ideal, but at least they are written down).
You cannot seem to agree to some formulated house rule to fit your "expectations".

I think I am happy with not meeting your arbitrary, nebulous determination of a "decent" person.
I suspect if I met your approval, I would be less of a person.
Good luck with your "pursuit of perfection".

<edit> Just saw the "No lying" thing.
Now I understand!
Why the heck are you playing a "war game"????
If bluffing for fun shocks the morality meter, simulating death and destruction is OK?????!!!!
No name calling, I know, but, but, he is operating on a different reality than most... the denial is staggering

 Peregrine wrote:

Traditio wrote:
There is no such obligation to have fun.

Then why are you playing a game?

40k is not a game where you can make money or win fame, if you aren't having fun then the game is a failure. It's just amazing to me that you think that abstract philosophical concepts about "fairness" are more important than this.

Or, as an alternative, he doesn't really think that at all and is just enjoying the attention.

Traditio wrote:
This is the teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Augustine, a whole host of church fathers, Immanuel Kant, and probably a bunch of other people as well.

Nice appeal to authority. Though it does explain a lot about where your opinions come from.

(PS: those "church fathers" are all laughably wrong, and Kant's ethical system is a broken mess.)

Lying for the sake of fun, humor or leisure is not seriously wrong. But it's still wrong.

And thankfully you're (almost) alone in that black and white world of yours. The rest of us understand that lying in a game (bluffing, playing a game where deception is part of the rules, etc) is not an ethical problem at all.

Peregrine wrote:And the point is that your definition of "justly" is absurd.

"Proportional equality." That is what justice is.

You think that complying with your personal (and entirely arbitrary) standards for "fair" army lists is more important than whether the players are having fun. A more sensible definition of playing "justly" might be something like "respecting your opponent as a person and not sacrificing their enjoyment of the game just to ensure that you win".

That certainly can be part of it.

Why?

Linguistic acts are per se ordered to the expression of mental acts/judgments of the mind. To speak is to express what is "on your mind," so to speak. When you tell a lie, you use a linguistic act in a way which is subversive to its natural ordering.

 Azreal13 wrote:
Or, as an alternative, he doesn't really think that at all and is just enjoying the attention.

No, I think he's being entirely sincere. His list of philosophers makes it very clear where he's coming from and the argument is at least consistent with itself. He's still laughably wrong, of course, but that doesn't make it trolling.

Now I'm worried I'm a bad person because I'm travelling several hundred miles to surprise my 4 year old niece on her birthday this weekend.

We haven't told her I'm coming, and omission is a form of lying right?

I mean, making a little girl happy on her birthday by surprising her is just wrong right?

I'm bringing her granny with me too, she isn't expecting to see her either.

Christ, I'm going to hell!

 Azreal13 wrote:
Now I'm worried I'm a bad person because I'm travelling several hundred miles to surprise my 4 year old niece on her birthday this weekend.

We haven't told her I'm coming, and omission is a form of lying right?

I mean, making a little girl happy on her birthday by surprising her is just wrong right?

I'm bringing her granny with me too, she isn't expecting to see her either.

Christ, I'm going to hell!

You're subverting the natural order, heathen!

 Peregrine wrote:

Traditio wrote:
There is no such obligation to have fun.

Then why are you playing a game?

40k is not a game where you can make money or win fame, if you aren't having fun then the game is a failure. It's just amazing to me that you think that abstract philosophical concepts about "fairness" are more important than this.

Peregrine, I fully admit that you should play warhammer to have fun. If you are not having fun in a game of warhammer, then something has gone horribly, horribly wrong. My only point is that considerations of fairness supervene considerations of fun. You should have fun within the constraints of fairness.

Traditio wrote:
"Proportional equality." That is what justice is.'

As we've established, there is equality. Both players start with the same point total to build their armies and have access to the same options. Anything you add on to this basic definition of equality is nothing more than your personal preferences about how you want to play the game.

And what's so frustrating is that your personal preferences aren't that unreasonable, if you just accept that they aren't universal truth. You've constructed some army lists that you enjoy, and you want to be able to use them without feeling like you have no hope of winning. It would be perfectly fine if you said "this is how I like to play the game" and looked for opponents who share your views on army construction. But instead you can't be satisfied with leaving it as just your personal preference, you have to add on this ridiculous "fairness" argument to portray your opinions as universal truth. It's not enough for your army to be fun for you, it has to be the One True Way To Play A Fair Game, and anyone who doesn't match the power level of your lists has to be a WAAC TFG.

Linguistic acts are per se ordered to the expression of mental acts/judgments of the mind. To speak is to express what is "on your mind," so to speak. When you tell a lie, you use a linguistic act in a way which is subversive to its natural ordering.

So let me guess, you're a philosophy PhD? Or did you just minor in it?

Meanwhile, out in the real world away from abstract philosophical arguments, anyone with a bit of common sense understands the difference between "lying" in a game where everyone playing the game has agreed (whether implicitly or explicitly) that lying is within the rules and lying in a context where honesty is expected.

Traditio wrote:

Noir wrote:Then there is no way I believe what you said about how you should never lie.

This is the teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Augustine, a whole host of church fathers, Immanuel Kant, and probably a bunch of other people as well.

Lying for the sake of fun, humor or leisure is not seriously wrong. But it's still wrong.

Say that all you want is does change the fact it is not true. This thread is my proof or you would follow the don't judge other part.

Traditio wrote:
My only point is that considerations of fairness supervene considerations of fun. You should have fun within the constraints of fairness.

And this is completely ing absurd. "Fairness" is nothing more than a tool for ensuring that both people have fun. Everyone enjoys winning (or at least feeling like they have a chance), so paying attention to game balance helps create fun games. But you go off into incoherent nonsense once you make the claim that a game where both players have fun is somehow morally wrong because they're having fun the wrong way. You're treating fairness as the end goal of the game instead of just a means to achieve the real end goal. And your argument becomes nothing more than "STOP HAVING THE WRONG KIND OF FUN!!!!".

Traditio wrote:
Peregrine, I fully admit that you should play warhammer to have fun. If you are not having fun in a game of warhammer, then something has gone horribly, horribly wrong. My only point is that considerations of fairness supervene considerations of fun. You should have fun within the constraints of fairness.

But simulating war IS unfair!
It should have never reached that point.
The reasoning for conflict is unfair.
The entire game is a fabrication.
To plot against your opponent to gain the upper hand is unethical, we should work together.

Please explain where you draw the line to have fun?

I understand things better now, you have decided to enter a more inflexible standard of behavior and have attempted to evangelize it to the barbarians.
You did not see the pitchforks and torches?
You have decided to martyr yourself in this thread?

Oh my.

Traditio wrote:

Noir wrote:How old are you?

Old enough to be working on a Ph.D. program.

Now THAT scares me.

 Peregrine wrote:

Traditio wrote:


Linguistic acts are per se ordered to the expression of mental acts/judgments of the mind. To speak is to express what is "on your mind," so to speak. When you tell a lie, you use a linguistic act in a way which is subversive to its natural ordering.

So let me guess, you're a philosophy PhD? Or did you just minor in it?

Meanwhile, out in the real world away from abstract philosophical arguments, anyone with a bit of common sense understands the difference between "lying" in a game where everyone playing the game has agreed (whether implicitly or explicitly) that lying is within the rules and lying in a context where honesty is expected.

Why Peregrine, is that distaste?
Did we just become best friends?

Edit
Toofast, I wouldn't worry about it. I just helped a 19 year old get into a PhD program at an ivy league school for chemistry, which is arguably tougher than most majors. More time consuming too.
Kids as young as 16 get a Bachelor's in the easier majors.

Mozzyfuzzy wrote:

I came back to the thread too late, I have the quote somewhere around here but I think I used it earlier on in this very thread

Next time I won't be watching a movie Blacksails

I was going to call Geek a nerd again just for you.

You're lucky this time, ImaGeek.

Traditio wrote:
I wasn't trying to misrepresent you. At any rate, you're wrong. Fun and fairness are not equally important. The obligation to act fairly obtains universally. There is no such obligation to have fun.

Is...is this serious?

You are aware we're talking about a game, where the primary concern with playing a game is to have fun, right? I mean, I don't know how or why you play games, but I'd suggest you're doing it wrong. Games are quite literally made to have fun. Its their purpose. Everything else is secondary or a means to that end.

All the rest of this philosophical nonsense is irrelevant to this topic.

Well, that settles that.

17 pages, and nobody can agree to be decent human beings.

"Fairness" is not a requirement of something being fun per se. I have played many scenarios and campaigns in which game are intentionally unbalanced as befits the scene that is trying to be set or as a result of how a campaign has progressed. I have played any number of games like this in which I had little to no chance to win with my respective force but still had tons of fun because their was no expectation of true balance and nothing was being sprung.

Ive even had fun losing to powergamers that are good natured and fun people.

The problem comes when you are expecting fair and balanced and you run into that guy who takes pride and sometimes even sadistic satisfaction from jumping you unexpectedly with something. The guy that thinks warhammer is a sport and that he owes you no respect of civility. He's the guy that says "get better" as if aspiring to be a tool like him is a worthy goal...

Luckily you can usually spot those guys a mile away and simply avoid them...