I've been reading some posts here and there stating they've 'had an interest in warhammer rekindled' due to the release of Age of Sigmar.

AoS is really nothing like WFB so how can one really say its rekindled when even the lore is completely different, let alone the ruleset? It's not 'rekindled' just 'kindled'.

It's as though people think they are jumping in an old looking, re-branded ship but it's actually new.

Well, it's more about using their old collection and playing again with the rules of AoS - since you have free rules to play almost every model producted by GW until now, it doesn't really cost them anything.

Old World may be destroyed, but not all players really care that much about the background...some just like the models, made their own stuff or just want to play with their friends.

 Sarouan wrote:
Well, it's more about using their old collection and playing again with the rules of AoS - since you have free rules to play almost every model producted by GW until now, it doesn't really cost them anything.

Old World may be destroyed, but not all players really care that much about the background...some just like the models, made their own stuff or just want to play with their friends.

True, it may not cost them anything, but why cater to those people who are jaded with the hobby? I don't see that making any real or lasting business impression with that demographic.

Heck, why even bother to remake the universe when you could just make a new one with similar elements? They could have just chosen some crazy bizarre worlds in the eye of terror so people could actually use space marines in their fantasy armies - since that's what GW thinks fantasy needs.

Just because some people don't care about the storyline doesn't mean that was the generality - with WFB. I sense more egocentric reasons as to the push for AoS - some people wanting to carve out a name in the company. I digress though.

I think its because it is a new way to play the old hobby that they stopped playing.

personally i think that Age of Sigmar is the best thing that could have ever happened to fantasy. i have had a fantasy army for sometime now but have never played a game of 8th edition fantasy. as soon as AOS came out i have been using it very frequently. AOS is a much easier and far more fun and easy going game. If you don't like it why bother complaining, just play 8th.

You basically quoted me, yes it rekindled my love for the "hobby" I simply felt that a new start in a new game is a great way to get back into things, I also love the idea of not being restricted by actual armies, I buy the models I love the look of instead of "how many points I got left".... Personally I would love to play Broms Dark Age as I love the models but its a niche within a niche... For me this hobby is all about building and painting, playing is just a bonus, the fact that there are 3 gw stores close to me is a great bonus...

 kveldulf wrote:

True, it may not cost them anything, but why cater to those people who are jaded with the hobby? I don't see that making any real or lasting business impression with that demographic.

Why not? Because GW, anyway.

Some of them may be tempted since they can try the new game easily with their old collection and a few pages of free pdf downloaded from the website. Actually, it sounds like a good marketing move here. Really.

And if some old players agree to give this a new chance, they can start collecting again...new models, new armies or just additions to what they have. Whatever they want, like they want.

Heck, why even bother to remake the universe when you could just make a new one with similar elements? They could have just chosen some crazy bizarre worlds in the eye of terror so people could actually use space marines in their fantasy armies - since that's what GW thinks fantasy needs.

Actually, that's exactly what they did. If you look at the "maps" of the realms, they have nothing to do with usual worlds. It feel a lot more like true demon worlds/realms of Chaos. A lot of things are complete fantasy (with skulls sometimes ), other are strange or weird like living floating tree-things or tentacled monsters who look like a mountain or something.

The new background is irrelevant, the rules can be used for games set in the old world just as much as the realms, in fact the rules suggest this. For me, it has a lot of the appeal of the old days about it, a dozen or so models, and buying what I like, rather than armies, is the rule of the day. The lack of points has returned the game to being more about the fun. I don't know anyone who spends a whole evening before a game of AoS pondering over their list.

I'll probably keep playing old world games using AoS rules, as don't want to have to spend £45 every couple of months to keep up to date with a background that doesn't really grab me. However, I will continue to build the army I've started for it. I think my nurgle army could do with an arachnorok covered in nurglings...

A lot of people never played any wargames except Warhammer and they regard Warhammer and Teh HHHobby as Wargaming.

If they got bored with that a couple of years ago, and now AoS has attracted them back, then they are back into Wargaming/Warhammer.

The plus points of AoS are it is very simple and you can use your old WHFB army figures. This makes it very easy and cheap to start playing if you are a lapsed WHFB player.

Hated fantasy. It was dead long before gw pulled the trigger. AoS on the other hand has made fantasy relevant. Actually has me involved in gw again and never had more fun. If it wasn't for AoS fantasy would still be one id not go near

It rekindled my interest. AoS is very similar to WFB. It's still Warhammer in my opinion. Doesn't feel like that crazy of a change, just a new version, and I like what they've done.

I grew up with 5th/6th, played some of 7th and then only played a couple of games of 8th. I found it got too clunky for me. I never thought the Old World lore was very good and I'm far more excited about the new lore.

I mean, the only reason I'm remotely interested is because my Tomb Kings are actually playable now. So, yeah. There's that...

Yup,

AoS brought me back to the GW side of the hobby, I left 10+ years ago and sold everything.

I'm now starting a new gaming system and building new armies from scratch, the system and fluff has got me pretty excited, i see it as a good direction to take a stale IP and refresh it.

AoS is a style of game I like, mid sized skirmish, fast paced and doesn't need a massive table to play. I like the new look, more mythology inspired than historical, far more open ended that WFB and now introduced more interesting match ups as you no longer get the strength/toughness issue of never being able to hurt anything.

I've never stopped gaming and play around 10 different wargaming systems and probably at least 20-30 boardgames with sufficient knowledge of the rules I could pick up and walk someone through a game without much reference to the rules.

I am a serious gamer, by which I mean I take gaming seriously and enjoy the challenges it brings alongside the collecting, painting and fluff aspects of the hobby. I actually pretty much detest beer and pretzels games and I do not consider AoS in this category.

I'm a great kind of customer for GW to target, I have available funds to pour into a new system with time to dedicate to both painting and gaming.

G

 krodarklorr wrote:
I mean, the only reason I'm remotely interested is because my Tomb Kings are actually playable now. So, yeah. There's that...

Tomb kings got seriously buffed

Well, Age of Sigmar is -still- Warhammer. And it's the fantasy version, so it's Warhammer Fantasy. Sure, it's not WFB, but to most the semantic difference doesn't matter.

I, too, came back to WARHAMMER FANTASY (or the fantasy Warhammer if you prefer it that way) with the release of AoS. I didn't like 8th ed that much, mostly because of how regiments worked and how the balance was almost non-existant and my armies were outright bad and I couldn't play a nice, even game with my friends just because I liked those more than others. I was literally being punished for my preferences.

Now AoS brought a couple things to the table that made me want to try it out and which I enjoy despite somewhat sceptikal approach. I am now dusting my old models that I haven't used for about two years and I am having casual fun with it, especially that now centrepiece models such as monsters are playable and offer unique experience.

So, yeah, while I get why someone can get unreasonably offended after seeing people phrase it like that, it's pretty much true, including me. Warhammer universe didn't cease to exist, it moved on, and so did I. AoS is continuation of the setting, not the previous game, but it's still a Warhammer Fantasy game.

The only version of Warhammer Fantasy I ever played was Warhammer Fantasy role-play (a 3 year campaign!!), but I do own perhaps 100 painted Warhammer Fantasy models (random) collected over the years. AoS gave me the chance to kind of randomly play with those, and I suppose it was fun (but not enjoyable enough to unseat 40k).

So... I suppose.. "rekindled" is not a bad verb to use...

Yup, it rekindled my interest, Played since version 4, lost interest when they kept overlooking my army, Wood Elves..got sick of waiting years for an update.

But I still bought the models...3 boxes of Skull Pass plus Island of Blood..all sitting around since I did not want to buy the Army books. Now I am building up bits and pieces of whatever appeals to me.

I plan on gaming with the kids...very easy to play, easy for them to get into. Will essentially give them a Hero, then let them pick whatever entourage they like.

"Rekindled" works for me.

Over the years I've had and on again/off again interest in WFB. First it was the cool looking art or just the idea of a fantasy wargame. Years ago a friend and I were making plans to start armies.
Lately it's been more actually wanting to get into the game as I still had yet to start playing. I don't have the long histories that others do and got into 40k first all those years ago so that took up
my time/money. Now that AoS is here the same friend and many from my FLGS are picking armies and discussing it during game nights. For me personally it went from once in awhile
to a "here to stay" way of thinking.

Meh, it just seems like people are jumping back into something that they were already whimsical about.

I have my seasons and reasons for doing things too, but jumping into something new for the sake of it being something new (not just warhammer) sounds akin to swallowing your own tail - if you had a tail.

Warhammer begun its appeal with mainly 15th 16 century german/french renaissance vibes. Now, that synthesis of mythology, scale and history is replaced with Heman and the Masters of the Universe & a Barney style rule system. I don't mind a setting in a nigh ethereal place, but the sense of wonder/mystery isn't there because everything sounds too fantastical - too defined. It's a lot like other fantasy settings in that regard - nothing new there.

Many qualities in what made warhammer interesting have been eroded since 4th edition - not just with the advent of 8th edition. However, AoS is nothing like Warhammer in general, and to say your interest has been rekindled still remains an enigma to me.

 kveldulf wrote:
Meh, it just seems like people are jumping back into something that they were already whimsical about.

I have my seasons and reasons for doing things too, but jumping into something new for the sake of it being something new (not just warhammer) sounds akin to swallowing your own tail - if you had a tail.

Warhammer begun its appeal with mainly 15th 16 century german/french renaissance vibes. Now, that synthesis of mythology, scale and history is replaced with Heman and the Masters of the Universe & a Barney style rule system. I don't mind a setting in a nigh ethereal place, but the sense of wonder/mystery isn't there because everything sounds too fantastical - too defined. It's a lot like other fantasy settings in that regard - nothing new there.

Many qualities in what made warhammer interesting have been eroded since 4th edition - not just with the advent of 8th edition. However, AoS is nothing like Warhammer in general, and to say your interest has been rekindled still remains an enigma to me.

can you sound anymore condescending? AoS seems to be inspired by ancient heroism lore like Greece or Ramayana (and heman is bloody awesome)etc and rules are simplified not barneyfied, people are saying it has rekindled their hobby love, warhammer is just a setting a lot of people very much love and nothing wrong with that, no matter what style or theme warhammer takes... AoS is new, its a fresh start, its a great place to start from the beginning...

I agree, how can people come back only to play the worst miniatures game I have ever seen in my time is beyond me too.

I feel like there is some exaggeration on their part or something. I am very certain unless the game changes over the next year that very few people will play this.

I agree OP, how can anyone be rekindled by this? At best maybe they mean they are giving it a try because it is free? No idea, can't understand personally.

 Swastakowey wrote:
I agree, how can people come back only to play the worst miniatures game I have ever seen in my time is beyond me too.

I feel like there is some exaggeration on their part or something. I am very certain unless the game changes over the next year that very few people will play this.

I agree OP, how can anyone be rekindled by this? At best maybe they mean they are giving it a try because it is free? No idea, can't understand personally.

or maybe its not the worst gaming system and people are not exaggerating their stated opinions? And they have every right to enjoy something even if you do not like it or play it.

 bitethythumb wrote:

 kveldulf wrote:
Meh, it just seems like people are jumping back into something that they were already whimsical about.

I have my seasons and reasons for doing things too, but jumping into something new for the sake of it being something new (not just warhammer) sounds akin to swallowing your own tail - if you had a tail.

Warhammer begun its appeal with mainly 15th 16 century german/french renaissance vibes. Now, that synthesis of mythology, scale and history is replaced with Heman and the Masters of the Universe & a Barney style rule system. I don't mind a setting in a nigh ethereal place, but the sense of wonder/mystery isn't there because everything sounds too fantastical - too defined. It's a lot like other fantasy settings in that regard - nothing new there.

Many qualities in what made warhammer interesting have been eroded since 4th edition - not just with the advent of 8th edition. However, AoS is nothing like Warhammer in general, and to say your interest has been rekindled still remains an enigma to me.

can you sound anymore condescending?

Why are you turning this around to a more personal thing? If you don't think I have a valid point, please correct me. Whats so bad about finding holes in peoples reasoning?

It's better to hear criticism than none at all.

 bitethythumb wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:
I agree, how can people come back only to play the worst miniatures game I have ever seen in my time is beyond me too.

I feel like there is some exaggeration on their part or something. I am very certain unless the game changes over the next year that very few people will play this.

I agree OP, how can anyone be rekindled by this? At best maybe they mean they are giving it a try because it is free? No idea, can't understand personally.

or maybe its not the worst gaming system and people are not exaggerating their stated opinions? And they have every right to enjoy something even if you do not like it or play it.

Am I removing anyone's right? Or doing anything bad?

The game is objectively the worst game around, you may enjoy it... but that does not stop it from being a bad game. I would be shocked to find someone who does not house rule this game to make it playable.

How about not getting upset that people think its odd you play a certain game?

 Swastakowey wrote:

 bitethythumb wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:
I agree, how can people come back only to play the worst miniatures game I have ever seen in my time is beyond me too.

I feel like there is some exaggeration on their part or something. I am very certain unless the game changes over the next year that very few people will play this.

I agree OP, how can anyone be rekindled by this? At best maybe they mean they are giving it a try because it is free? No idea, can't understand personally.

or maybe its not the worst gaming system and people are not exaggerating their stated opinions? And they have every right to enjoy something even if you do not like it or play it.

Am I removing anyone's right? Or doing anything bad?

The game is objectively the worst game around, you may enjoy it... but that does not stop it from being a bad game. I would be shocked to find someone who does not house rule this game to make it playable.

How about not getting upset that people think its odd you play a certain game?

hows about not stating your subjective opinion as an objective fact?

 bitethythumb wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:

 bitethythumb wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:
I agree, how can people come back only to play the worst miniatures game I have ever seen in my time is beyond me too.

I feel like there is some exaggeration on their part or something. I am very certain unless the game changes over the next year that very few people will play this.

I agree OP, how can anyone be rekindled by this? At best maybe they mean they are giving it a try because it is free? No idea, can't understand personally.

or maybe its not the worst gaming system and people are not exaggerating their stated opinions? And they have every right to enjoy something even if you do not like it or play it.

Am I removing anyone's right? Or doing anything bad?

The game is objectively the worst game around, you may enjoy it... but that does not stop it from being a bad game. I would be shocked to find someone who does not house rule this game to make it playable.

How about not getting upset that people think its odd you play a certain game?

hows about not stating your subjective opinion as an objective fact?

It is not Opinion that this game is the worst rule set out there. "I like a game" is not proof a game is not bad.

 Swastakowey wrote:

 bitethythumb wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:

 bitethythumb wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:
I agree, how can people come back only to play the worst miniatures game I have ever seen in my time is beyond me too.

I feel like there is some exaggeration on their part or something. I am very certain unless the game changes over the next year that very few people will play this.

I agree OP, how can anyone be rekindled by this? At best maybe they mean they are giving it a try because it is free? No idea, can't understand personally.

or maybe its not the worst gaming system and people are not exaggerating their stated opinions? And they have every right to enjoy something even if you do not like it or play it.

Am I removing anyone's right? Or doing anything bad?

The game is objectively the worst game around, you may enjoy it... but that does not stop it from being a bad game. I would be shocked to find someone who does not house rule this game to make it playable.

How about not getting upset that people think its odd you play a certain game?

hows about not stating your subjective opinion as an objective fact?

It is not Opinion that this game is the worst rule set out there. "I like a game" is not proof a game is not bad.

but saying "this game is the worst gaming system because I do not like it" is evidence, gotcha... You clearly went full CSI and proved me wrong.

 bitethythumb wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:

 bitethythumb wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:

 bitethythumb wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:
I agree, how can people come back only to play the worst miniatures game I have ever seen in my time is beyond me too.

I feel like there is some exaggeration on their part or something. I am very certain unless the game changes over the next year that very few people will play this.

I agree OP, how can anyone be rekindled by this? At best maybe they mean they are giving it a try because it is free? No idea, can't understand personally.

or maybe its not the worst gaming system and people are not exaggerating their stated opinions? And they have every right to enjoy something even if you do not like it or play it.

Am I removing anyone's right? Or doing anything bad?

The game is objectively the worst game around, you may enjoy it... but that does not stop it from being a bad game. I would be shocked to find someone who does not house rule this game to make it playable.

How about not getting upset that people think its odd you play a certain game?

hows about not stating your subjective opinion as an objective fact?

It is not Opinion that this game is the worst rule set out there. "I like a game" is not proof a game is not bad.

but saying "this game is the worst gaming system because I do not like it" is evidence, gotcha... You clearly went full CSI and proved me wrong.

No structure
No Balance
Unclear Rules
Rules entirely dependent on models from the type of models owned, to the space they take up right up to the size of the model. Need I bring up spear tips again?

Crossbow men firing cross bows in combat THEN fighting the enemies they shot in combat is also a sign of bad rules.

The only positive is: easy to learn (ignoring the broken rules or unclear rules) but thats because the rules are the bear minimum needed to use their models.

But even poisons have positives.

What makes this game not the worst game out there? No other game fails at so much.

Serious question: Can you play this game without house ruling it? Would the game without house rules be fun? The answer to those questions will show you how bad this game is.

 Swastakowey wrote:

 bitethythumb wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:

 bitethythumb wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:

 bitethythumb wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:
I agree, how can people come back only to play the worst miniatures game I have ever seen in my time is beyond me too.

I feel like there is some exaggeration on their part or something. I am very certain unless the game changes over the next year that very few people will play this.

I agree OP, how can anyone be rekindled by this? At best maybe they mean they are giving it a try because it is free? No idea, can't understand personally.

or maybe its not the worst gaming system and people are not exaggerating their stated opinions? And they have every right to enjoy something even if you do not like it or play it.

Am I removing anyone's right? Or doing anything bad?

The game is objectively the worst game around, you may enjoy it... but that does not stop it from being a bad game. I would be shocked to find someone who does not house rule this game to make it playable.

How about not getting upset that people think its odd you play a certain game?

hows about not stating your subjective opinion as an objective fact?

It is not Opinion that this game is the worst rule set out there. "I like a game" is not proof a game is not bad.

but saying "this game is the worst gaming system because I do not like it" is evidence, gotcha... You clearly went full CSI and proved me wrong.

No structure
No Balance
Unclear Rules
Rules entirely dependent on models from the type of models owned, to the space they take up right up to the size of the model. Need I bring up spear tips again?

Crossbow men firing cross bows in combat THEN fighting the enemies they shot in combat is also a sign of bad rules.

The only positive is: easy to learn (ignoring the broken rules or unclear rules) but thats because the rules are the bear minimum needed to use their models.

But even poisons have positives.

What makes this game not the worst game out there? No other game fails at so much.

Serious question: Can you play this game without house ruling it? Would the game without house rules be fun? The answer to those questions will show you how bad this game is.

clearly you made up your mind but I disagree with every one of your points a d plenty of other people would and I do not think trying to change a stubborn opinion is going to help anyone, enjoy whatever goblins and dragons game you want, they deserve you.

No I have heard your replies on another thread. ALL of them boil down to using house rules and trying not to break the game.

As I said to you many times, feel free to like it. It would just be nice if those people admitted they had to fix the game themselves.

 bitethythumb wrote:


AoS seems to be inspired by ancient heroism lore like Greece or Ramayana (and heman is bloody awesome)etc and rules are simplified not barneyfied, people are saying it has rekindled their hobby love, warhammer is just a setting a lot of people very much love and nothing wrong with that, no matter what style or theme warhammer takes... AoS is new, its a fresh start, its a great place to start from the beginning...

Whatever mythos it is inspired from, Greek hero etc, has as much substance as Heman, which is to say, not very much.

The rules have been oversimplified due to some over polished idea - in the pursuit of simplifying things. A good ruleset has enough going on to appease many types of players, not just the finding the lowest common denominator. Simple to play, and complex in design have been fouled up in AoS, to where its now simple and simple. That makes for a very shallow set of rules.

I understand a lot of people like the warhammer world, but again, they are not coming back to it with AoS; they're not even looking at the same substance that was Warhammer, other than the miniatures themselves. It's the equivalent of using Warhammer miniatures to play in a different universe (a very common thing). It's a fresh start I guess, but it isn't a fresh start within the Warhammer Fantasy World - its even a different name now.

 kveldulf wrote:

 bitethythumb wrote:


AoS seems to be inspired by ancient heroism lore like Greece or Ramayana (and heman is bloody awesome)etc and rules are simplified not barneyfied, people are saying it has rekindled their hobby love, warhammer is just a setting a lot of people very much love and nothing wrong with that, no matter what style or theme warhammer takes... AoS is new, its a fresh start, its a great place to start from the beginning...

Whatever mythos it is inspired from, Greek hero etc, has as much substance as Heman, which is to say, not very much.

The rules have been oversimplified due to some over polished idea - in the pursuit of simplifying things. A good ruleset has enough going on to appease many types of players, not just the finding the lowest common denominator. Simple to play, and complex in design have been fouled up in AoS, to where its now simple and simple. That makes for a very shallow set of rules.

I understand a lot of people like the warhammer world, but again, they are not coming back to it with AoS; they're not even looking at the same substance that was Warhammer, other than the miniatures themselves. It's the equivalent of using Warhammer miniatures to play in a different universe (a very common thing). It's a fresh start I guess, but it isn't a fresh start within the Warhammer Fantasy World - its even a different name now.

of course its a whole different game and I expect more people to realise that, heck I expect the legacy armies to be phased out for more balanced release's, if you simply use the starter box stuff you get a very balanced scenario based game that is pretty good and fair... The only problem right now for AoS is the older armies... Still has not stopped me buying the minis I love the look off..like a steamtank or hellpit.... Some legacy armies fit in rather well like sylvaneth but they are rather small and easy to work with.... Slow and steady wins the race AoS will start getting into its theme sooner or later especially when they release more things that are designed for it specifically because I maintain that the legacy armies were not designed for AoS and cause most of weird experiences... Age of sigmar, age of heroism.. and everyone is invited to grow with it free of charge.


Heck I am not even that much of a sigmsrine fan but I am thinking of just taking the plunge with them... I am holding back right now just to see what's coming next, a tzeentch update would be wonderful.

 bitethythumb wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:

 bitethythumb wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:

 bitethythumb wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:
I agree, how can people come back only to play the worst miniatures game I have ever seen in my time is beyond me too.

I feel like there is some exaggeration on their part or something. I am very certain unless the game changes over the next year that very few people will play this.

I agree OP, how can anyone be rekindled by this? At best maybe they mean they are giving it a try because it is free? No idea, can't understand personally.

or maybe its not the worst gaming system and people are not exaggerating their stated opinions? And they have every right to enjoy something even if you do not like it or play it.

Am I removing anyone's right? Or doing anything bad?

The game is objectively the worst game around, you may enjoy it... but that does not stop it from being a bad game. I would be shocked to find someone who does not house rule this game to make it playable.

How about not getting upset that people think its odd you play a certain game?

hows about not stating your subjective opinion as an objective fact?

It is not Opinion that this game is the worst rule set out there. "I like a game" is not proof a game is not bad.

but saying "this game is the worst gaming system because I do not like it" is evidence, gotcha... You clearly went full CSI and proved me wrong.

Everything is not a matter of opinion, thus some things are actually bad/suck. For example, if you play a miniature game that ignores the principle of its own definition - it goes off the reservation of being the idea of a miniature game. In the case of AoS, it has gone in that direction - being more deluded to its own sense of existence. Sure people can say its fun/great but in relation to what? A miniature game has a certain level of objective meaning that isn't purely tied to the notion of subjective thought (otherwise it would be a contradiction).

People who want to play a miniature game do so not for any reason that sounds good to them, but for mutual understanding in an objective sense - they are playing an external game, not solely an internal/mental one. This implies a certain expectation of rules and the adherence to follow these rules before you become destructive to the reason why everyone is there in the first place. Naturally, playing a miniature game logically infers detail at different degrees, and to find a level of this that can meet brevity and complexity is the balance every miniature game ought to strive for. AoS abandoned this notion, and went toward the mantra of selling an innovation in essence, than selling a miniature game.

Um... f you actually read the game, AoS does have complexity - found largely in the rules on the battlescrolls, their interaction with the base rules, and the fact that the base rules allows for a wide breadth of army composition, unit formation, and the like.

Your post actually didn't say very much, but you wrote it like a college essay to help obscure the lack of content. I actually can't figure out what you're even trying to say at points, except 'some things are demonstrably bad', which itself is a disprovable statement.

overtninja wrote:
Um... f you actually read the game, AoS does have complexity - found largely in the rules on the battlescrolls, their interaction with the base rules, and the fact that the base rules allows for a wide breadth of army composition, unit formation, and the like.

Your post actually didn't say very much, but you wrote it like a college essay to help obscure the lack of content. I actually can't figure out what you're even trying to say at points, except 'some things are demonstrably bad', which itself is a disprovable statement.

I'm sorry you don't understand my sentiments. I can clarify it for you:

A 4 page rulebook that looks nothing like warhammer, and has gone off in a direction that I question is at all congruent with mini wargaming - particularly a ruleset once classically known for rank and file.

As far as the content in my message, I think its clear, and apparently other people understood my statement as well due to their responses.

And please, instruct me how disprovable the bad is in whatever statement you are referencing.

I sense your angle is a bit on the passive aggressive side here. If you're referencing my previous post, please understand, there is a context there. If you have a question about a certain statement I made, then please, quote me and point it out what doesn't make sense.

My interest has most certainly been kindled.

I can pick a few models, take them straight to the battlefield and learn to play on the fly. I don't need to sit down for days learning a hundred pages of complex rules, then flipping between army books.

I don't care what other people say, GW makes by far the best miniatures. Other companies can produce epic quality stuff, but I guess any halfway talented company can produce something brilliant and then charge sixty quid for it. I'd be more impressed if they were half the price of GW models. Now I get to actually USE my models instead of leaving them in my cupboard because the complexity of Warhammer has put me off.

The sheer number of special rules involved in using a Daemons of Chaos army in Warhammer and (especially) 40K is just ridiculous. Look at the rules for Bloodthirsters and Great Unclean Ones in 40K - not only do they have Codex-specific rules, they use universal rules and the GUO can also chuck grenades (or their mouldy equivalents). I'm flipping between three sections of the 40K rulebook for the GUO (monstrous creatures, universal rules, wargear). I actually wrote the rules for Nurgle daemons down and filled a page of my notebook.

With AoS I've got everything I need in front of me, clearly explained, I don't need to rank units up and build or buy movement trays, I don't need eighty daemons plus four bigger monsters, I don't need to worry about the masses and masses of text.

It's just me and my daemons against the enemy, with nothing to stop our armies from ripping each other to shreds.

 NoPoet wrote:
My interest has most certainly been kindled.

I can pick a few models, take them straight to the battlefield and learn to play on the fly. I don't need to sit down for days learning a hundred pages of complex rules, then flipping between army books.

I don't care what other people say, GW makes by far the best miniatures. Other companies can produce epic quality stuff, but I guess any halfway talented company can produce something brilliant and then charge sixty quid for it. I'd be more impressed if they were half the price of GW models. Now I get to actually USE my models instead of leaving them in my cupboard because the complexity of Warhammer has put me off.

The sheer number of special rules involved in using a Daemons of Chaos army in Warhammer and (especially) 40K is just ridiculous. Look at the rules for Bloodthirsters and Great Unclean Ones in 40K - not only do they have Codex-specific rules, they use universal rules and the GUO can also chuck grenades (or their mouldy equivalents). I'm flipping between three sections of the 40K rulebook for the GUO (monstrous creatures, universal rules, wargear). I actually wrote the rules for Nurgle daemons down and filled a page of my notebook.

With AoS I've got everything I need in front of me, clearly explained, I don't need to rank units up and build or buy movement trays, I don't need eighty daemons plus four bigger monsters, I don't need to worry about the masses and masses of text.

It's just me and my daemons against the enemy, with nothing to stop our armies from ripping each other to shreds.

I agree, GW is perhaps the best miniature company in my book as well - there are some smaller companies that make some good stuff, but quality control can be iffy imo.

I understand the issue with the bloating in the rules for WFB/40k - its pretty ridiculous compared to what it use to be. I'm looking to play around with 3rd edition WFB myself. My copy will be coming in later this month

 Swastakowey wrote:
The game is objectively the worst game around, you may enjoy it...

Good to know that your opinion is an objective truth, bro..!

Seriously, go check what "objectively" means, mate. :-)

Edit: I'm sorry, I know I was douchey with this, but I really, really hate when people toss their opinion and act like it's a fact. Assessing the value of anything is purely subjective and no amount of arguing is going to change that. Of course if enough people think that it becomes socially accepted that this opinion is official, but it's still not a fact, so I try to discourage spewing gak like that.

I understand why people may be disgruntled by the fact that their beloved rank&file game was replaced with something outright different, though. People invested and now are not interested in playing it anymore, that's understandable. Same goes for transition to no point system... system. All in all it's a matter of preferences.

 Klerych wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:
The game is objectively the worst game around, you may enjoy it...

Good to know that your opinion is an objective truth, bro..!

Seriously, go check what "objectively" means, mate. :-)

You are saying the game is good from a design point of view...?

Because I am very certain it is not. How does summoning work? All measurements from models for both line of site and movement is definitely not a good rule. What about how to even get summoning spells?

There are a lot more issues as well. How come single models are immune to battle shock? One rat with 2 wounds can beat 200 men as long as the rat only suffers 1 wound.

No real Scenarios, nothing to promote any sort of game. The rules are barely adequate for 2 people to plomp down models and attempt to play the game. I wonder how many people even play the game by the book?... probably no one. Especially since some rules NEED you to make up rules (summoning).

The rules ARE bad.

 Swastakowey wrote:

 Klerych wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:
The game is objectively the worst game around, you may enjoy it...

Good to know that your opinion is an objective truth, bro..!

Seriously, go check what "objectively" means, mate. :-)

You are saying the game is good from a design point of view...?

Because I am very certain it is not. How does summoning work? All measurements from models for both line of site and movement is definitely not a good rule. What about how to even get summoning spells?

There are a lot more issues as well. How come single models are immune to battle shock? One rat with 2 wounds can beat 200 men as long as the rat only suffers 1 wound.

No real Scenarios, nothing to promote any sort of game. The rules are barely adequate for 2 people to plomp down models and attempt to play the game. I wonder how many people even play the game by the book?... probably no one. Especially since some rules NEED you to make up rules (summoning).

The rules ARE bad.

Really it sounds more like a card game the more I think about it

 kveldulf wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:

 Klerych wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:
The game is objectively the worst game around, you may enjoy it...

Good to know that your opinion is an objective truth, bro..!

Seriously, go check what "objectively" means, mate. :-)

You are saying the game is good from a design point of view...?

Because I am very certain it is not. How does summoning work? All measurements from models for both line of site and movement is definitely not a good rule. What about how to even get summoning spells?

There are a lot more issues as well. How come single models are immune to battle shock? One rat with 2 wounds can beat 200 men as long as the rat only suffers 1 wound.

No real Scenarios, nothing to promote any sort of game. The rules are barely adequate for 2 people to plomp down models and attempt to play the game. I wonder how many people even play the game by the book?... probably no one. Especially since some rules NEED you to make up rules (summoning).

The rules ARE bad.

Really it sounds more like a card game the more I think about it

Yea, like Last card except even last card has more structure and balance, there are only so many cards in a card game, players can add another deck if needed, but ultimately there is more structure and the rules are more clear in your average card game than in Age of Sigmar.

I would say most card games are more well thought out and fair than Age of Sigmar is without players finishing the rules.

 Swastakowey wrote:

 Klerych wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:
The game is objectively the worst game around, you may enjoy it...

Good to know that your opinion is an objective truth, bro..!

Seriously, go check what "objectively" means, mate. :-)

You are saying the game is good from a design point of view...?

Because I am very certain it is not. How does summoning work? All measurements from models for both line of site and movement is definitely not a good rule. What about how to even get summoning spells?

There are a lot more issues as well. How come single models are immune to battle shock? One rat with 2 wounds can beat 200 men as long as the rat only suffers 1 wound.

No real Scenarios, nothing to promote any sort of game. The rules are barely adequate for 2 people to plomp down models and attempt to play the game. I wonder how many people even play the game by the book?... probably no one. Especially since some rules NEED you to make up rules (summoning).

The rules ARE bad.

I've edited my earlier post to amend for sounding too douchy, just wanted to put it out.

I did not say the game is good from a design point of view - this is the very example of lazy designing and I never disagreed with that. I am a part of a studio that's currently developing a tabletop game and I can easily list all the terrible choices that GW has made. That being said I understand what they did. I see what they were aiming for and I have no problem saying that they achieved that. Obviously AoS is aimed at particular type of players, not everyone, and apparently those people -do- enjoy it, so they have achieved their odd goal. Could they have made a better system? Of course! If they read forums and took the best ideas to improve it, they'd be gold. But it's their decision not to.

In some interview or letter or article they said that they only gave basic, raw rules because they want people to adjust them to their own liking. Dubious, unusual, weird idea, but understandable. Again - could've just better designed the game, but this is still understandable. I personally play only using the store tournament comp and I must admit that with it the game seems to do what they wanted it to be. The only houserule we might ever -need- to come up with is how summoning works (preferably all models summoned at the end of the game count as dead and that you can't summon over 50% more than your starting size or something).

And yes, battleshock is not combat resolution - it can clearly be seen as the shock that comes with seeing guys in your squad die around you. If noone dies, noone panics. As simple as that. You may not agree with how they designed this rule, you may think it's bad, but, again it's your opinion.

Read the edit, makes more sense But still...

Are you ok with models having long pole arms and then getting shot at because archers can see the pole arm? So the soldiers die from being shot in the spear?

Or a a lone model that is fluff wise average defeating 200 men because only 1 of those 200 men could fight the one model?

See objectively the rules are bad. Doesn't matter the intention, it's still a bad ruleset. To me, it sounds like they are trying to be like Black Powder (which is not popular among a lot of serious players, but among casual gamers it's pretty popular). I too can see what GW tried to do, but with so many examples around of good casual open rules they seemed to have missed the mark hugely.

I understand entirely where you are coming from, I know exactly what GW tried to do, however I think it is very clear they failed (did they try hard? probably not. Look at the beard rules for example) and frankly it doesn't look like they cared.

I am sure people enjoy it, I struggle to think of things people don't enjoy. I mean there is a fetish for being pooped on... yet most people would find that distasteful. The same with AOS.

In short, yes I agree with what you say, but I still stand by my comment about it being objectively bad rules from a design perspective.

How can one model beat unit of 200 in AoS? That was something that happened more in 8th with the overrun rule. I remember one game where my single outrider mowed down 40 Night Goblins when they fled. That wouldn't happen in AoS.

 Bottle wrote:
How can one model beat unit of 200 in AoS? That was something that happened more in 8th with the overrun rule. I remember one game where my single outrider mowed down 40 Night Goblins when they fled. That wouldn't happen in AoS.

If one model fights one model from a 200 man unit (because the other had to chase after the closest enemy models elsewhere or got shot) then the one model in combat was killed, that means the one model fighting the 200 strong unit won and inflicts battle shock yes?

I am not comparing it to fantasy but to games I have played (I played fantasy maybe 4-8 times over the last decade), and in most games this would never happen.

If the above is wrong let me know...

 Swastakowey wrote:

Everything is not a matter of opinion, thus some things are actually bad/suck. For example, if you play a miniature game that ignores the principle of its own definition - it goes off the reservation of being the idea of a miniature game. In the case of AoS, it has gone in that direction - being more deluded to its own sense of existence. Sure people can say its fun/great but in relation to what? A miniature game has a certain level of objective meaning that isn't purely tied to the notion of subjective thought (otherwise it would be a contradiction). WHAT DOES THIS MEAN??

People who want to play a miniature game do so not for any reason that sounds good to them, but for mutual understanding in an objective sense - they are playing an external game, not solely an internal/mental one. This implies a certain expectation of rules and the adherence to follow these rules before you become destructive to the reason why everyone is there in the first place. Naturally, playing a miniature game logically infers detail at different degrees, and to find a level of this that can meet brevity and complexity is the balance every miniature game ought to strive for. AoS abandoned this notion, and went toward the mantra of selling an innovation in essence, than selling a miniature game.

I don't know if you know the meaning of objective meaning but this is not it. Nobody can agree about whether objective meaning exists but a basic example might be that 1+1=2.
A miniature game has no level of objective meaning. And a certain level of objective meaning is a meaningless statement. If I said miniature game to an alien or a remote tribe and then explained it and then showed them AoS then they'd probably say it was a miniature game. If you can provide me with an objective definition, sourced from outside of human experience, that exists separate to any degree of subjectivity and will always hold true in any given hypothetical situation, and everyone agrees on it, then you can talk about objectivity. After you have proven that objectivity exists. So you might want to rephrase this. Its the same thing as humour or morality, try talking about objectives in there with some people that know what they're talking about and they will tear you to pieces over evidential flaws, logical jumps etc.

And what do you mean by purely tied to subjective thought meaning a contradiction?

By this statement do you mean that there are subjective (ie cultural) values that wargamers associate with miniature games. Because our partners clearly don't have the same view of what we do as we do. There might be an expectation of rules etc. but that isn't objective and it is not unimaginable that a certain percentage of gamers do not expect rules to be present all of the time. Just as not all gamers now think that points are necessary.

I shall leave this here to demonstrate what I mean about there being no objectivity.

 IGtR= wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:

Everything is not a matter of opinion, thus some things are actually bad/suck. For example, if you play a miniature game that ignores the principle of its own definition - it goes off the reservation of being the idea of a miniature game. In the case of AoS, it has gone in that direction - being more deluded to its own sense of existence. Sure people can say its fun/great but in relation to what? A miniature game has a certain level of objective meaning that isn't purely tied to the notion of subjective thought (otherwise it would be a contradiction). WHAT DOES THIS MEAN??

People who want to play a miniature game do so not for any reason that sounds good to them, but for mutual understanding in an objective sense - they are playing an external game, not solely an internal/mental one. This implies a certain expectation of rules and the adherence to follow these rules before you become destructive to the reason why everyone is there in the first place. Naturally, playing a miniature game logically infers detail at different degrees, and to find a level of this that can meet brevity and complexity is the balance every miniature game ought to strive for. AoS abandoned this notion, and went toward the mantra of selling an innovation in essence, than selling a miniature game.

I don't know if you know the meaning of objective meaning but this is not it. Nobody can agree about whether objective meaning exists but a basic example might be that 1+1=2.
A miniature game has no level of objective meaning. And a certain level of objective meaning is a meaningless statement. If I said miniature game to an alien or a remote tribe and then explained it and then showed them AoS then they'd probably say it was a miniature game. If you can provide me with an objective definition, sourced from outside of human experience, that exists separate to any degree of subjectivity and will always hold true in any given hypothetical situation, and everyone agrees on it, then you can talk about objectivity. After you have proven that objectivity exists. So you might want to rephrase this. Its the same thing as humour or morality, try talking about objectives in there with some people that know what they're talking about and they will tear you to pieces over evidential flaws, logical jumps etc.

And what do you mean by purely tied to subjective thought meaning a contradiction?

By this statement do you mean that there are subjective (ie cultural) values that wargamers associate with miniature games. Because our partners clearly don't have the same view of what we do as we do. There might be an expectation of rules etc. but that isn't objective and it is not unimaginable that a certain percentage of gamers do not expect rules to be present all of the time. Just as not all gamers now think that points are necessary.

I shall leave this here to demonstrate what I mean about there being no objectivity.

1: I think you misquoted me.
2: the rules for a game are a method of play? If so AOS fails because (easy example) summoning alone. What does this mean? You have incomplete rules. Does this mean the rules are objectively bad? Well I say yes because they aren't a full set of rules really.

not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion. intent upon or dealing with things external to the mind rather than with thoughts or feelings, as a person or a book.

I am fairly sure a set of rules that are said to be a complete set of rules is objectively bad if it is not a complete set of rules. I am not being biased I think.

I am however being biased when it comes to the beard rules or measuring from the models. But as for a complete set of rules, they are objectively bad I think yes?

Points are not, nor have ever been necessary either. I play many games with no points, but they are still full rule sets.

 Swastakowey wrote:

 Bottle wrote:
How can one model beat unit of 200 in AoS? That was something that happened more in 8th with the overrun rule. I remember one game where my single outrider mowed down 40 Night Goblins when they fled. That wouldn't happen in AoS.

If one model fights one model from a 200 man unit (because the other had to chase after the closest enemy models elsewhere or got shot) then the one model in combat was killed, that means the one model fighting the 200 strong unit won and inflicts battle shock yes?

I am not comparing it to fantasy but to games I have played (I played fantasy maybe 4-8 times over the last decade), and in most games this would never happen.

If the above is wrong let me know...

Yeah it's a litte wrong.

The 200+ strong unit would receive atleast +20 to their bravery. So standard humans (State Troops) would have 25. Meaning the unit would have to lose 20 models and roll a 6 on their bravery before a single one fled (and it would only be 1 that would flee).

In 8th you only had to win the combat and there was a chance you could break the enemy and then run them down killing every single one.

A chance in 8th. Impossible with AoS.

I agree the LoS rules are bad and houserule them.

 Bottle wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:

 Bottle wrote:
How can one model beat unit of 200 in AoS? That was something that happened more in 8th with the overrun rule. I remember one game where my single outrider mowed down 40 Night Goblins when they fled. That wouldn't happen in AoS.

If one model fights one model from a 200 man unit (because the other had to chase after the closest enemy models elsewhere or got shot) then the one model in combat was killed, that means the one model fighting the 200 strong unit won and inflicts battle shock yes?

I am not comparing it to fantasy but to games I have played (I played fantasy maybe 4-8 times over the last decade), and in most games this would never happen.

If the above is wrong let me know...

Yeah it's a litte wrong.

The 200+ strong unit would receive atleast +20 to their bravery. So standard humans (State Troops) would have 25. Meaning the unit would have to lose 20 models and roll a 6 on their bravery before a single one fled (and it would only be 1 that would flee).

In 8th you only had to win the combat and there was a chance you could break the enemy and then run them down killing every single one.

A chance in 8th. Impossible with AoS.

I agree the LoS rules are bad and houserule them.

I see, fair enough... then reduce the unit of 200 (never played the game with 200 units, I didn't want to play all day), I you can still get many silly situations with battle shock where it scratches your head. But yes you are correct.

Thing is abolut the 'popularity' of AoS is that it is directly and more than matched by its unpopularity, which is never a good thing. The only thing going for it is that in some eyes it compares favourably to 8th. This doesn't say a lot on AoS but says a huge amount about 8th.

In 8th balance was so bad that doing away with balance entirely is considered an improvement.
Rules were so haphazardly written that minimalisation is an improvement.
Magic was so random and overpowered that nerfing it to near non existence is an improvement.

Nice to see that some are enjoying AoS but in reality it just polishes the GW Design turd differently.

 Swastakowey wrote:

 Bottle wrote:
How can one model beat unit of 200 in AoS? That was something that happened more in 8th with the overrun rule. I remember one game where my single outrider mowed down 40 Night Goblins when they fled. That wouldn't happen in AoS.

If one model fights one model from a 200 man unit (because the other had to chase after the closest enemy models elsewhere or got shot) then the one model in combat was killed, that means the one model fighting the 200 strong unit won and inflicts battle shock yes?

If the above is wrong let me know...

If I understand your hypothetical, yes you're wrong. For a start, the 200 man unit gets +19 to its Bravery when the one guy out front dies. I'm pretty sure that even if the BS test roll is a 6, it will pass the Battleshock test.

Edit: Sorry, someone else was responding as I typed

So far I have really liked how battleshock works. Just to clarify from your above post, every unit that loses a model anywhere in the turn takes a battleshock test. So it's usually the case that both units takes battleshock after combat.

The only army that really breaks battleshock are the Stormcast Eternals as you can field every model as a single unit if you wanted to.

Yea my example was exaggerated waaaaaay to much and was wrong from the start. I still stand by my other points though.

Also technically couldn't all armies break battle shock by simply taking all the biggest monsters they can? Like Lizardmen taking a giant cool herd of Stegadons? Technically any army with single model units breaks battle shock.

 Swastakowey wrote:
Yea my example was exaggerated waaaaaay to much and was wrong from the start. I still stand by my other points though.

Also technically couldn't all armies break battle shock by simply taking all the biggest monsters they can? Like Lizardmen taking a giant cool herd of Stegadons? Technically any army with single model units breaks battle shock.

Yep, that's right. Breaking AoS isn't hard to do and that is just one of the many ways! :-)

In general I don't think it needs to be houseruled though. Only LoS and base to base measuring are needed. Everything else works fine for a quick casual game so far for me.

 Swastakowey wrote:
Yea my example was exaggerated waaaaaay to much and was wrong from the start. I still stand by my other points though.

Also technically couldn't all armies break battle shock by simply taking all the biggest monsters they can? Like Lizardmen taking a giant cool herd of Stegadons? Technically any army with single model units breaks battle shock.

Even if they could, who owns a herd of Stegadons? This goes back to one of my points that I keep having to make about AoS: people assume everyone possesses a ridiculous number of expensive models, or will automatically go out and buy them just to win a game. "I'm just off out love, I've got three hundred quid burning a hole in my pocket so I'm gonna buy ten Great Tauruses."

I think I'm one of the "brought me back to play" people, so I could comment here.

I've been into GW since the 1990s, with my first purchase being the 2nd edition 40k starter set. I was more into sci-fi than fantasy back then, but I couldn't deny there was something aesthetically very appealing about Warhammer Fantasy.

As years went by I was bit by the fantasy bug, and bought into Warhammer Fantasy Battles with the purchase of two copies of Battle of Skull Pass, which at the time could be had for $40 each for what looked like two huge armies, complete with terrain and scenario bits. Seriously, one of the best starter boxes of all time there.

But, in the time it took me to assemble those giant forces, I was sucked back into 40k, and my time and money remained there for awhile. Friends who had intended to play Fantasy with me foundered on their armies too, as the sheer volume of painting so many undead or state troops seemed daunting.

By the time I had assembled and begun painting my Night Goblins, an edition had rolled by, and a new, more expensive starter set was on store shelves. I wanted a better idea of what I needed to finish my army in this edition, so I began looking at other people's Night Goblins online. There, I discovered that my "army" would barely constitute two good sized units, and to bring my Goblins to a "playable" level I needed to invest another three or four hundred dollars and spend a lot longer getting them all assembled and painted.

By then, stories abounded of demons and magic being overpowered, and of giant units that were nothing but ablative wounds for heroes, and the allure of the game just seemed to wear off. You never saw anyone playing it in stores, and the Fantasy Battles shelves of those stores became dusty and ignored over time.

Flash forward to now - AoS is out, the forums are alive with the gnashing of teeth and torment of 8th edition fans who have had the rug pulled out from under them. But, for people like me, who already have numerous boxes in the basement of our old miniatures, we just got told "No need to paint 120 goblins sir, just break out what ever you got painted and try out this new ruleset. And get out the Mordheim terrain, because this time infantry can interact with it, rather than slide around it in formation. Oh, and hold on to your wallet, the rules are free."

And, for the first time in five years, Fantasy has my attention even more than 40k. Models I bought just because I liked them, like the Beastmen Minotaurs, I can now stick on round bases and field with those two boxes of Savage Orcs I bought, because they're both from the Destruction Faction. And, best of all from GW's perspective, I'm on their website going "Huh, what else do they make for Warhammer?" and I'm discovering things like the Empire Celestial Hurricanum and going "That's so cool, I'd love to make that!" and contemplating building a small Empire army around the Steam Tank, to play against those generic Khorne forces rampaging across the realms.

I don't care for a number of things in AoS. I currently prefer the old world to the new, as the old one has style and 30 years of history while the new is so vague and massive in scale as to make victory or failure meaningless in the infinite expanse. I find certain parts of the rules unplayable, like measuring models instead of bases. (A decision GW clearly made so people wouldn't panic about re-basing those swollen 8th edition armies) But, the core game, the idea of a "smirmish Fantasy" where you can field small versions of Warhammer armies, with rules so short and instantly understood that I can teach friends to play in a matter of minutes, all of that is pure gold.

Sorry it doesn't work for you though, OP. For what its worth, I'm sure a lot of veterans will feel the same, and there will be opportunities to play old-style mass battles under older rules or in new ones that cater to GW's abandoned player base. Just, please, leave those who are enjoying themselves to their fun. I love sushi, and my wife hates it - but she doesn't waste her dinner trying to convince me that seaweed and raw fish is "objectively bad." All I can say is, it tastes good to me.

 NoPoet wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:
Yea my example was exaggerated waaaaaay to much and was wrong from the start. I still stand by my other points though.

Also technically couldn't all armies break battle shock by simply taking all the biggest monsters they can? Like Lizardmen taking a giant cool herd of Stegadons? Technically any army with single model units breaks battle shock.

Even if they could, who owns a herd of Stegadons? This goes back to one of my points that I keep having to make about AoS: people assume everyone possesses a ridiculous number of expensive models, or will automatically go out and buy them just to win a game. "I'm just off out love, I've got three hundred quid burning a hole in my pocket so I'm gonna buy ten Great Tauruses."

I play 6mm, I have 4 Triceratops and 6 Ankylosaurus (or in warhammer terms stegadon and bastilidon) all with their lizard howdahs etc. I could field a huge army in AOS or fantasy if I wanted. See you don't need to play with GW models if you don't want to. Most games understand other models are around and so make games that work with any models the players may have available. Hence why measuring from the model is a rare thing in most games. I mean asides from the fact GW prices are a rip off no matter how rich you are, 10 Stegadons aren't that expensive. Especially at British prices on discount.

Also I think you under estimate how wealthy a lot of gamers are... have you seen how many warlord Titans sold...

I mean is it hard to imagine someone buying 5 Stegosaurus? In comparison to buying an army it isn't that bad. I will admit that model is one of the cooler GW models I have owned. If I liked AOS and it was a proper rule set focused on scenarios I would buy a stegadon herd and have a cool stampede scenario game. Or even play a variation of it with Tusk rules. Lizardmen Dino hunt.

 IGtR= wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:

Everything is not a matter of opinion, thus some things are actually bad/suck. For example, if you play a miniature game that ignores the principle of its own definition - it goes off the reservation of being the idea of a miniature game. In the case of AoS, it has gone in that direction - being more deluded to its own sense of existence. Sure people can say its fun/great but in relation to what? A miniature game has a certain level of objective meaning that isn't purely tied to the notion of subjective thought (otherwise it would be a contradiction). WHAT DOES THIS MEAN??

People who want to play a miniature game do so not for any reason that sounds good to them, but for mutual understanding in an objective sense - they are playing an external game, not solely an internal/mental one. This implies a certain expectation of rules and the adherence to follow these rules before you become destructive to the reason why everyone is there in the first place. Naturally, playing a miniature game logically infers detail at different degrees, and to find a level of this that can meet brevity and complexity is the balance every miniature game ought to strive for. AoS abandoned this notion, and went toward the mantra of selling an innovation in essence, than selling a miniature game.

I don't know if you know the meaning of objective meaning but this is not it. Nobody can agree about whether objective meaning exists but a basic example might be that 1+1=2.
A miniature game has no level of objective meaning. And a certain level of objective meaning is a meaningless statement. If I said miniature game to an alien or a remote tribe and then explained it and then showed them AoS then they'd probably say it was a miniature game. If you can provide me with an objective definition, sourced from outside of human experience, that exists separate to any degree of subjectivity and will always hold true in any given hypothetical situation, and everyone agrees on it, then you can talk about objectivity. After you have proven that objectivity exists. So you might want to rephrase this. Its the same thing as humour or morality, try talking about objectives in there with some people that know what they're talking about and they will tear you to pieces over evidential flaws, logical jumps etc.

And what do you mean by purely tied to subjective thought meaning a contradiction?

By this statement do you mean that there are subjective (ie cultural) values that wargamers associate with miniature games. Because our partners clearly don't have the same view of what we do as we do. There might be an expectation of rules etc. but that isn't objective and it is not unimaginable that a certain percentage of gamers do not expect rules to be present all of the time. Just as not all gamers now think that points are necessary.

I shall leave this here to demonstrate what I mean about there being no objectivity.

"Nobody can agree about whether objective meaning exists but a basic example might be that 1+1=2"

Just FYI, that is an objective statement Just look at what you're saying, and wait for it. It'll emerge.

"A miniature game has no level of objective meaning"

other than the meaning that it has no objective meaning?

"a certain level of objective meaning is a meaningless statement"

And how much would that be? If you are attempting to quantify, there needs to be some sort of measurement.... oh wait

"If you can provide me with an objective definition, sourced from outside of human experience, that exists separate to any degree of subjectivity and will always hold true in any given hypothetical situation, and everyone agrees on it, then you can talk about objectivity"

And what's the purpose of this statement? are you attempting to negate meaning with meaning? That's a tough battle FYI. Meaning is a matter of reference in which the logical course of its ultimate origination is a matter of the Divine, Unmoved Mover, Prime Mover, God, The Lord (and yea, I believe & follow Jesus).

"There might be an expectation of rules etc. but that isn't objective and it is not unimaginable that a certain percentage of gamers do not expect rules to be present all of the time. Just as not all gamers now think that points are necessary."

Every game has rules. Points are not really gone I presume, just converted and made more abstract - which I reckon is more confusing in some ways to play a fair game


I imagine from your relativistic POV you have me plotted/figured somehow? Please just really think about the truth of what I've said.

Another failed summoning example, summon as many models as you want they all count as dead end game and I win.. And regarding mass units of crazy stuff, yes please... the more variety the better we will just use some sudden death rule to make it fairer like kill stegadon prime

Personally, I'm finding the argument against the LOS rules so weak. I get why it might, on the surface, seem dumb that you can fire at someone when all you can see is their spears or something. But most missile weapons are bows in this game. You don't tend to just aim straight with a bow.

Unlike guns, you can arc shots (granted, this doesn't explain pistoleers or whatever, but yeah. This is what happens when you give guns to a race in a setting where it doesn't work so well, outside of warmachines)

I know this explanation doesn't fit every single scenario. I know the rule isn't the best written. But whatever. We get it. The rule is badly written. Harp on it some more please. Because seriously, that seems to be your near repeated complaint about the rules, or at least the one I recall seeing you near copy paste in every AOS thread you've been posting in thus far (Swastakowey).

*yawn* Off to bed. Lurking these threads is really tiring and highly depressing.

Melevolence wrote:
Personally, I'm finding the argument against the LOS rules so weak. I get why it might, on the surface, seem dumb that you can fire at someone when all you can see is their spears or something. But most missile weapons are bows in this game. You don't tend to just aim straight with a bow.

Unlike guns, you can arc shots (granted, this doesn't explain pistoleers or whatever, but yeah. This is what happens when you give guns to a race in a setting where it doesn't work so well, outside of warmachines)

I know this explanation doesn't fit every single scenario. I know the rule isn't the best written. But whatever. We get it. The rule is badly written. Harp on it some more please. Because seriously, that seems to be your near repeated complaint about the rules, or at least the one I recall seeing you near copy paste in every AOS thread you've been posting in thus far (Swastakowey).

*yawn* Off to bed. Lurking these threads is really tiring and highly depressing.

Yep, and I am sick of the people repeating the same stuff about why the rules are good. People repeat the same thing, they generally get the same answer.

See, what I like about your response is that you admit it's bad rules writing, but then you say why it doesn't bother you. That's awesome. Same with bottle. That is what I call reasonable. HOWEVER the people who defend the game like its perfect bother me because, well it is incorrect.

Lets take the spears (I use it because it bothered me a lot in my games), cool you can see how the rule is bad. But then you can still find the fun in it despite the fact it's a bad rule (lets say the spear is acting like a lightning catcher for our lightening of sigmar etc as you said. That's cool. But what gets me is when people say "the rules are great for X reason" when x reason is wrong. However when people say "I like the game despite its flaws" then that's great. And I have said that a lot. After all I do the same with 40k...

There is more to the rules against AOS, Summoning (how do I get spells, is that rules discussion still going?) and so on. All of which have been listed.

Liike I say, enjoy the game, but don't try play it off like it's some streak of genius. Because it isn't. I am sure with the right players and some imagination + effort the game can be fun. But isn't this true with all games?

 kveldulf wrote:

 IGtR= wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:

Everything is not a matter of opinion, thus some things are actually bad/suck. For example, if you play a miniature game that ignores the principle of its own definition - it goes off the reservation of being the idea of a miniature game. In the case of AoS, it has gone in that direction - being more deluded to its own sense of existence. Sure people can say its fun/great but in relation to what? A miniature game has a certain level of objective meaning that isn't purely tied to the notion of subjective thought (otherwise it would be a contradiction). WHAT DOES THIS MEAN??

People who want to play a miniature game do so not for any reason that sounds good to them, but for mutual understanding in an objective sense - they are playing an external game, not solely an internal/mental one. This implies a certain expectation of rules and the adherence to follow these rules before you become destructive to the reason why everyone is there in the first place. Naturally, playing a miniature game logically infers detail at different degrees, and to find a level of this that can meet brevity and complexity is the balance every miniature game ought to strive for. AoS abandoned this notion, and went toward the mantra of selling an innovation in essence, than selling a miniature game.

I don't know if you know the meaning of objective meaning but this is not it. Nobody can agree about whether objective meaning exists but a basic example might be that 1+1=2.
A miniature game has no level of objective meaning. And a certain level of objective meaning is a meaningless statement. If I said miniature game to an alien or a remote tribe and then explained it and then showed them AoS then they'd probably say it was a miniature game. If you can provide me with an objective definition, sourced from outside of human experience, that exists separate to any degree of subjectivity and will always hold true in any given hypothetical situation, and everyone agrees on it, then you can talk about objectivity. After you have proven that objectivity exists. So you might want to rephrase this. Its the same thing as humour or morality, try talking about objectives in there with some people that know what they're talking about and they will tear you to pieces over evidential flaws, logical jumps etc.

And what do you mean by purely tied to subjective thought meaning a contradiction?

By this statement do you mean that there are subjective (ie cultural) values that wargamers associate with miniature games. Because our partners clearly don't have the same view of what we do as we do. There might be an expectation of rules etc. but that isn't objective and it is not unimaginable that a certain percentage of gamers do not expect rules to be present all of the time. Just as not all gamers now think that points are necessary.

I shall leave this here to demonstrate what I mean about there being no objectivity.

"Nobody can agree about whether objective meaning exists but a basic example might be that 1+1=2"

Just FYI, that is an objective statement Just look at what you're saying, and wait for it. It'll emerge.

"A miniature game has no level of objective meaning"

other than the meaning that it has no objective meaning?

Okay in the same sense that you can make a frankly pathetic argument for anything based on that but then your original premise is destroyed.

"a certain level of objective meaning is a meaningless statement"

And how much would that be? If you are attempting to quantify, there needs to be some sort of measurement.... oh wait

Certain level of objectivity is meaningless if you
a) Can't prove objectivity and so it is based upon a supposition
b) Are having an indeterminate "certain" level of objectivity
c) Are not attempting to quantify
d) Cannot really quantify objectivity. It either is or is not. They are mutually exclusive.

As an alternative I could suggest that you measure the prevalence of certain subjective beliefs and attempt to quantify them. For example you could not say that the Space Marine Tactical Box has a certain level of objective value for money but you could say that many, or a majority of people thought that it was. And then cite a source. So you could say that 80% or respondents thought that AoS was bad but introducing objectivity is just laughable really.


"If you can provide me with an objective definition, sourced from outside of human experience, that exists separate to any degree of subjectivity and will always hold true in any given hypothetical situation, and everyone agrees on it, then you can talk about objectivity"

And what's the purpose of this statement? are you attempting to negate meaning with meaning? That's a tough battle FYI. Meaning is a matter of reference in which the logical course of its ultimate origination is a matter of the Divine, Unmoved Mover, Prime Mover, God, The Lord (and yea, I believe & follow Jesus).

Okay. Just saying don't just wang around philosophical language with no ability to back it up, or seemingly no understanding of how to use it. And FYI I know it is a tough battle and that was my point. Some words are highly loaded and so need to be used with care. By saying objective you are claiming that your opinion is right all the time in any conceivable scenario. That is demonstrably wrong, unless you can pass my test. So that is why it is hard.

And FYI meaning is not a matter of reference that has automatic recourse to God, any God, let alone the Christian God, whom may or may not be the Prime Mover depending entirely upon a subjective belief. There are many alternatives to this so don't present that contention as a fact.

"There might be an expectation of rules etc. but that isn't objective and it is not unimaginable that a certain percentage of gamers do not expect rules to be present all of the time. Just as not all gamers now think that points are necessary."

Every game has rules. Points are not really gone I presume, just converted and made more abstract - which I reckon is more confusing in some ways to play a fair game

Not every game has rules. That is an objective statement that you cannot prove. All games are games maybe, but all games have rules you're never going to prove to anybody. It is conceivable that some games do not have rules and entirely possible that there are games in existence with no rules. Followed by another presumption followed by your definition of fair which again is entirely subjective and has no impact on the rest of the community.

I imagine from your relativistic POV you have me plotted/figured somehow? Please just really think about the truth of what I've said.

There was no truth in what you said. Unless you believe that truth is a relativist social construct like I do. Ah lol the irony! As you have previously referenced a Christian viewpoint, the only truth that you can sincerely believe in must come from God himself and be lectio devina. Unless you have an inconsistent definition of objective with regards to truth?

And a nice attack on my "relativist POV". I was actually attempting to introduce some linguistic precision into the debate and perhaps demonstrate to you that your suppositions were false. I do not suppose to have you figured, I am merely responding to a demonstrably flawed argument. The connection that has to your person is of no interest to me.

I'm also puzzled as to how someone can be brought back by something that is basicaly an excrement put on the previous game and world. It has close to nothing of the tone, scale, depth, mood and creative spark of wh but it has space marines. What it has in common is a few names and a forced backstory, where's the grit the grim and the gothic horror.

 Swastakowey wrote:

No structure
No Balance
Unclear Rules
Rules entirely dependent on models from the type of models owned, to the space they take up right up to the size of the model. Need I bring up spear tips again?

Crossbow men firing cross bows in combat THEN fighting the enemies they shot in combat is also a sign of bad rules.

I'm not actually going to argue with you whether the game is good or not, but not everyone wants the same thing from a system as you.

No structure could be seen as less restrictive
No balance could be seen as more options to represent the most thrilling battles - Agincourt, Thermopylae, or even iconic moments such as Rorke's Drift and The Alamo.
Unclear rules could be seen as having trust in players to work with each other to come up with sensible solutions
Rules dependent on models owned could be seen as freedom from having to spend thousands on new models
Rules dependent on the space taken up could be seen as more realistic than base size by some people!

I actually don't think that AoS is a game I will love, to be honest, but your absolute inability to see that what YOU want from a game is not the only correct option is... well... to put it politely, not coming across as very mature.

Dunno. If you dust off your old Warhammer models, get them onto the table again after long periods of disuse and roll some dice, it would qualify as being "brought back" IMO.

Rules and Background might be different, true, but those are just different seasoning on a steak that is still a steak.

 IGtR= wrote:
see below

You Said:
Certain level of objectivity is meaningless if you
a) Can't prove objectivity and so it is based upon a supposition
b) Are having an indeterminate "certain" level of objectivity
c) Are not attempting to quantify
d) Cannot really quantify objectivity. It either is or is not. They are mutually exclusive.

So you are telling me that you must first use objectivity to then disprove it? You do see the problem with this?

You Said:
As an alternative I could suggest that you measure the prevalence of certain subjective beliefs and attempt to quantify them. For example you could not say that the Space Marine Tactical Box has a certain level of objective value for money but you could say that many, or a majority of people thought that it was. And then cite a source. So you could say that 80% or respondents thought that AoS was bad but introducing objectivity is just laughable really.


Subjective beliefs, please tell me as to what they are subject to? You are grouping them all, and using an absolute statement. If you were going to ask me to prove objective meaning you would first need to be consistent with your line of questioning and not ask me to prove objective meaning. You see how your position is not saying anything logically?

You Said:
Okay. Just saying don't just wang around philosophical language with no ability to back it up, or seemingly no understanding of how to use it. And FYI I know it is a tough battle and that was my point. Some words are highly loaded and so need to be used with care. By saying objective you are claiming that your opinion is right all the time in any conceivable scenario. That is demonstrably wrong, unless you can pass my test. So that is why it is hard.

I said it was a tough battle because it violates the law of non-contradiction - look that one up. It may shed some light.

You Said:
And FYI meaning is not a matter of reference that has automatic recourse to God, any God, let alone the Christian God, whom may or may not be the Prime Mover depending entirely upon a subjective belief. There are many alternatives to this so don't present that contention as a fact.[/b]

Oh, and how did you arrive to this conclusion? Are you saying that you are a god? A moral law giver is not something there can be multiples of - the idea of justice would collapse.

You Said:
Not every game has rules. That is an objective statement that you cannot prove. All games are games maybe, but all games have rules you're never going to prove to anybody. It is conceivable that some games do not have rules and entirely possible that there are games in existence with no rules. Followed by another presumption followed by your definition of fair which again is entirely subjective and has no impact on the rest of the community.

Words mean something. If you don't like that then invent a language where words/constructs have no meaning, then talk to me - that might be tough to do.

You Said:
There was no [i]truth in what you said. Unless you believe that truth is a relativist social construct like I do. Ah lol the irony! As you have previously referenced a Christian viewpoint, the only truth that you can sincerely believe in must come from God himself and be lectio devina. Unless you have an inconsistent definition of objective with regards to truth?

And a nice attack on my "relativist POV". I was actually attempting to introduce some linguistic precision into the debate and perhaps demonstrate to you that your suppositions were false. I do not suppose to have you figured, I am merely responding to a demonstrably flawed argument. The connection that has to your person is of no interest to me. [/i]

I know you were trying to assert what you think are brilliant ideas, but I don't think you're being consistent with your own words. You've essentially affirmed nothing to me other than there is no meaning that exists outside of what we make of it - and that very statement contradicts; it confirms then denies itself. 1-1=0 so what are you trying to say?

 Fifty wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:

No structure
No Balance
Unclear Rules
Rules entirely dependent on models from the type of models owned, to the space they take up right up to the size of the model. Need I bring up spear tips again?

Crossbow men firing cross bows in combat THEN fighting the enemies they shot in combat is also a sign of bad rules.

I'm not actually going to argue with you whether the game is good or not, but not everyone wants the same thing from a system as you.

No structure could be seen as less restrictive
No balance could be seen as more options to represent the most thrilling battles - Agincourt, Thermopylae, or even iconic moments such as Rorke's Drift and The Alamo.
Unclear rules could be seen as having trust in players to work with each other to come up with sensible solutions
Rules dependent on models owned could be seen as freedom from having to spend thousands on new models
Rules dependent on the space taken up could be seen as more realistic than base size by some people!

I actually don't think that AoS is a game I will love, to be honest, but your absolute inability to see that what YOU want from a game is not the only correct option is... well... to put it politely, not coming across as very mature.

Sigh,

Point 1: What is easier, to have points then remove them if you don't feel like, or not have points and add points if you want balance? To make your own scenario entirely from scratch or to have cool set scenarios (like all games with no points) and then be able to tweak the scenarios to fit what you want or ignore them. So actually you are wrong... no structure is more LIMITING because it restricts most play styles by not having the structure to remove if needed.

Point 2: Well duh, all my hy history games that are not points based have unbalanced battles. But those rules also have a lot of pages devoted to helping me create these scenarios (again, structure) and also have a lot of methods to portray unfair fights but still have a great game. AOS has nothing to help people create unfair but playable battles. It literally says "put the models on the table until you can;t fit or feel like stopping, when you opponent has done the same you then fight". That is all this rule set does to help you create a game. Many rulesets do way more than this by giving players the tools for great battles like the ones you listed.

Point 3: Unclear rules are unneeded as having complete rules would mean even players who aren't on the same page can play a game AND then players on the same page can easily tweak the rules to fit. Again AOS is restricting in this regard too.

Point 4: Rules dependant on models owned is fine and normal, but with no limit or restriction for a standard scenario or game then this means a player with more models or better models has a huge advantage over another player as these are the people who will dictate the game. Plus who the hell feels forced to buy thousands of dollars on a game because there is structure? Like I said above just play smaller games like you would in AOS, because most games have a method of ensuring a smaller game without players having to force it upon themselves. Say a game requires at least 500 points, how hard is it to say lets only do 100 points? That seems easier than messing around with AOS rules to me...

Point 5: Rules dependant on the space allowed for you to deploy is silly. This means that horde armies will be disadvantaged because the enemy can fit (model size dependant) just as many models as you on the field. Potentially more depending on the model. Why not limit it by an actual scenario or points system instead of space? How is space in any way a decent method of measuring two forces even in an unbalanced Scenario? This could work in a thermopylae scenario... but you don't need a rule saying armies are limited only by space on the table for one off scenarios like that. Would it not be easier to limit armies by scenario or points then if the players want they can ignore those rules and limit armies by space instead?

It seems really clear to me here, that all these points you said make AOS ok, is actually done better by most games because most games allow players to do ALL of the above in a better way AND ALSO allow players to play it in other ways as well. What does AOS do that you can;t do with ANY OTHER GAME? Nothing. So no I am no immature... it is simple. So simple. Look at 40k... in 40k you have points. HOWEVER you can simply remove points and bam you have AOS. Just like that and you also have the option to say "hey lets do points". The rules are all there for players to do this. Don't like that tau Fire Warriors are limited to a squad of 12? Cool lets change that to a squad of 25. However with AOS you don't have these options, instead you have to put in a lot of time and effort to set up limits to create scenarios or a fair symmetrical game. Whereas 40k gives you all the tools needed for both. This is true for all games I play (and I play many).

So if someone wants what AOS offers, why not play a complete game and simply use AOS models and remove the structure from a better game? More than likely... because it has a GW logo on it. It has nothing to do with what people want in a game. Instead it has more to do with what GW says the game is about. It seems like people want to be told they have to do it a certain way, instead taking any ruleset and actually doing it themselves. See what people like you make the mistake of, is you assume I want something from AOS. Instead what I am saying is AOS offers nothing rules wise that can't be done by every other game out there. Everything people love about AOS so far is easily achievable in most games with a simple word or 2 before hand. The only thing different is AOS forces you to play a certain way, which is probably the only reason people think it is good for the make up your own rules style. Which is kind of funny, because these are the very people who claim not to like limits yet play a very limiting game when it comes to how you chose to play it.

Anyway, it has been said to death. If you like the game thats cool.

 kveldulf wrote:

 IGtR= wrote:
see below

You Said:
Certain level of objectivity is meaningless if you
a) Can't prove objectivity and so it is based upon a supposition
b) Are having an indeterminate "certain" level of objectivity
c) Are not attempting to quantify
d) Cannot really quantify objectivity. It either is or is not. They are mutually exclusive.

So you are telling me that you must first use objectivity to then disprove it? You do see the problem with this?

No. Comprehension is important here. I am saying IF you want to use the term objectivity you must prove it, and that this is unlikely as I can disprove it. Using my a-d criteria. As you cannot satisfy these criteria don't use the word objective. And you have entirely, spectacularly failed to do so, and so my point stands.

You Said:
As an alternative I could suggest that you measure the prevalence of certain subjective beliefs and attempt to quantify them. For example you could not say that the Space Marine Tactical Box has a certain level of objective value for money but you could say that many, or a majority of people thought that it was. And then cite a source. So you could say that 80% or respondents thought that AoS was bad but introducing objectivity is just laughable really.


Subjective beliefs, please tell me as to what they are subject to? You are grouping them all, and using an absolute statement. If you were going to ask me to prove objective meaning you would first need to be consistent with your line of questioning and not ask me to prove objective meaning. You see how your position is not saying anything logically?

Can you really not see this?? They are subject to a personal value of price. And a personal value of space marines. Two entirely relative values. Someone who hates wargaming may not pay £5 for them and a diehard fanboi might pay £40. Entirely subjective. If you don't understand this then I don't think we can continue to debate this as it is a fairly fundamental principle in the debate. You cannot genuinely contend that there is any element of objectivity in either the value of money or the monetary value of goods among any given population. My position is entirely grounded in logic.

You Said:
Okay. Just saying don't just wang around philosophical language with no ability to back it up, or seemingly no understanding of how to use it. And FYI I know it is a tough battle and that was my point. Some words are highly loaded and so need to be used with care. By saying objective you are claiming that your opinion is right all the time in any conceivable scenario. That is demonstrably wrong, unless you can pass my test. So that is why it is hard.

I said it was a tough battle because it violates the law of non-contradiction - look that one up. It may shed some light.

It doesn't and you are wrong about the principle. You might want to read up on these topics before you try and cite them as evidence.
That two propositions that are contradictory cannot both be objectively true is obvious logic. "A is B" "A cannot be B" fail the test. But my argument does not. Either objective morality exists and you can demonstrate it, or it does not. If objective morality, then can begin to use the word. If appropriate then you could use in that given context.

OR logically

If x is real then x can be used.
If x exists then x may be used in situation y where appropriate.

You cannot prove the existence of x and so the rest of your argument is meaningless. The logic of my attack is flawless. The supposition of your argument is large and the logical leaps are huge. Your argument currently functions like this

x is real coz
x can be used in situation y because AoS stupid.

You haven't proven x and the use of x even if we assume it is real doesn't seem appropriate in situation y. This is just logic

My argument is such
x cannot be demonstrated to be real
as x may/ may not be real we cannot use x. x therefore may be appropriate in some circumstances, subject to its proof
additionally x is not an appropriate term to describe situation y.



You Said:
And FYI meaning is not a matter of reference that has automatic recourse to God, any God, let alone the Christian God, whom may or may not be the Prime Mover depending entirely upon a subjective belief. There are many alternatives to this so don't present that contention as a fact.[/b]

Oh, and how did you arrive to this conclusion? Are you saying that you are a god? A moral law giver is not something there can be multiples of - the idea of justice would collapse.

It is entirely conceivable that there is a full pantheon of legislative Gods who delegate or collaborate on moral lawmaking. This is a logical possibility and so you cannot make the claim you make above. And I never said I was a God. And yes the idea of justice may collapse in a conceptual fashion, but that is Jurisprudence and it is generally held that the assumption of objective morality is a necessary fiction for law to operate. The above argument is very flawed and is entirely based upon your own worldview and has no grounding in philosophy or logic.


You Said:
Not every game has rules. That is an objective statement that you cannot prove. All games are games maybe, but all games have rules you're never going to prove to anybody. It is conceivable that some games do not have rules and entirely possible that there are games in existence with no rules. Followed by another presumption followed by your definition of fair which again is entirely subjective and has no impact on the rest of the community.

Words mean something. If you don't like that then invent a language where words/constructs have no meaning, then talk to me - that might be tough to do.

Words do mean something this is true, but the meaning is entirely subjective. Fair is a meaningless word. Like fun. Or tasty. Try saying that we all have the same view of them and you will appear a fool.

You Said:
There was no [i]truth in what you said. Unless you believe that truth is a relativist social construct like I do. Ah lol the irony! As you have previously referenced a Christian viewpoint, the only truth that you can sincerely believe in must come from God himself and be lectio devina. Unless you have an inconsistent definition of objective with regards to truth?

And a nice attack on my "relativist POV". I was actually attempting to introduce some linguistic precision into the debate and perhaps demonstrate to you that your suppositions were false. I do not suppose to have you figured, I am merely responding to a demonstrably flawed argument. The connection that has to your person is of no interest to me. [/i]

I know you were trying to assert what you think are brilliant ideas, but I don't think you're being consistent with your own words. You've essentially affirmed nothing to me other than there is no meaning that exists outside of what we make of it - and that very statement contradicts; it confirms then denies itself. 1-1=0 so what are you trying to say?

I am not asserting, I am dismantling your assertions with logic, that is something entirely different, namely arguing. I am being entirely consistent and my argument is that meaning exists subject to our own relative world view and that "meaning" is not shared. You find that distasteful I know but you have thus far failed to argue against it. The statement does not contradict. You can say 1+1+0 but I will not accept that as I can demonstrate it is false every time I perform the sum. Indeed mathematics is one of the few areas that I believe objectivity could exist, but this would have to be very tentative as who is to know what exists out there in a large universe (maybe multiverse). My statement does not confirm and then deny itself, and could you demonstrate that with logic please rather than an assertion? And the mild ad hominem attacks "what you think are brilliant ideas" also prove my point to a degree.

There is nothing objective.
Somebody disagrees with me.
I am supported.
Unless you can demonstrate that objectivity exists my argument stands.

Cheers

Ig

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-MzNpMD1K8

I felt that this summarizes my opinion well

 IGtR= wrote:
Response below

You Said:
No. Comprehension is important here. I am saying IF you want to use the term objectivity you must prove it, and that this is unlikely as I can disprove it. Using my a-d criteria. As you cannot satisfy these criteria don't use the word objective. And you have entirely, spectacularly failed to do so, and so my point stands.

Your criteria does nothing to satisfy your point, other than you've created a table of ideas to disprove the use of objectivity absolutely but at the same time prove absolutely that you used the idea of objectivity for its existence. If you think I need to prove objectivity, you first need to provide the evidence as to why I cant use it in the first place. If you got a problem with definitions meaning something, then take it up with a dictionary company. Words are mathematical in essence, and I don't think you're going to convince them that 1=0. Here look at this:

The Law of non-contradiction is one of the basic laws in classical logic. It states that something cannot be both true and not true at the same time when dealing with the same context. For example, the chair in my living room, right now, cannot be made of wood and not made of wood at the same time. In the law of non-contradiction, where we have a set of statements about a subject, we cannot have any of the statements in that set negate the truth of any other statement in that same set. For example, we have a set of two statements about Judas. 1) Judas hanged himself. 2) Judas fell down, and his bowels spilled out. Neither statement about Judas contradicts the other. That is, neither statement makes the other impossible because neither excludes the possibility of the other. The statements can be harmonized by stating: Judas hanged himself, and then his body fell down; and his bowels spilled out.
https://carm.org/dictionary-law-of-non-contradiction


You Said:
Can you really not see this?? They are subject to a personal value of price. And a personal value of space marines. Two entirely relative values. Someone who hates wargaming may not pay £5 for them and a diehard fanboi might pay £40. Entirely subjective. If you don't understand this then I don't think we can continue to debate this as it is a fairly fundamental principle in the debate. You cannot genuinely contend that there is any element of objectivity in either the value of money or the monetary value of goods among any given population. My position is entirely grounded in logic.

I agree, value in this context is relative among people, but it is still relative to something, not arbitrarily given value independently.

You Said:
It doesn't and you are wrong about the principle. You might want to read up on these topics before you try and cite them as evidence.
That two propositions that are contradictory cannot both be objectively true is obvious logic. "A is B" "A cannot be B" fail the test. But my argument does not. Either objective morality exists and you can demonstrate it, or it does not. If objective morality, then can begin to use the word. If appropriate then you could use in that given context.

OR logically

If x is real then x can be used.
If x exists then x may be used in situation y where appropriate.

You cannot prove the existence of x and so the rest of your argument is meaningless. The logic of my attack is flawless. The supposition of your argument is large and the logical leaps are huge. Your argument currently functions like this

x is real coz
x can be used in situation y because AoS stupid.

You haven't proven x and the use of x even if we assume it is real doesn't seem appropriate in situation y. This is just logic

My argument is such
x cannot be demonstrated to be real
as x may/ may not be real we cannot use x. x therefore may be appropriate in some circumstances, subject to its proof
additionally x is not an appropriate term to describe situation y.



You sound like you are trying to use a rulebook to convince me your logic, not logic, is correct. If, you believe there is no such thing as an objective way of thinking, then why are you referencing your logic as correct for both you and I? That's again, contradicting your OWN view and ignoring the fact that there are laws in logic, that are axiomatic; being objective when referenced to prove a point. Again please, please think about what I am saying. It sounds like you are trying to win, rather than think; I mean please look at your own words: "The logic of my attack is flawless". I don't know how I can put my response in words to describe my feelings about that statement.


You Said:
It is entirely conceivable that there is a full pantheon of legislative Gods who delegate or collaborate on moral lawmaking. This is a logical possibility and so you cannot make the claim you make above. And I never said I was a God. And yes the idea of justice may collapse in a conceptual fashion, but that is Jurisprudence and it is generally held that the assumption of objective morality is a necessary fiction for law to operate. The above argument is very flawed and is entirely based upon your own worldview and has no grounding in philosophy or logic.

I don't even know where to start with your statements other than. Your statement "it is generally held that the assumption of objective morality is a necessary fiction for law to operate" is yet again, a tangent stemmed from the ideology that there is no morality. Never mind the amazing minds that understood nature and natures God (natural law), you are holding a generality from a group of what, PhDs in socialist Europe somewhere - is that any surprise? The 20th century brought that way of thinking to its logical course - that death is the main hero of any society, and we should embrace it. That happened to be perhaps the most bloodiest time in human history. So, aside from the empirical perspective, please just consider that law may might be a matter of finding self evident truth than inventing it arbitrarily.

Furthermore, the reason for pursuing any meaning in anything, first comes from a world view..... and though philosophy/logic can compliment/affirm a view, it can also indicate that the evidence is counter to it.


You Said:
Words do mean something this is true, but the meaning is entirely subjective. Fair is a meaningless word. Like fun. Or tasty. Try saying that we all have the same view of them and you will appear a fool.

"but the meaning is entirely subjective"
hm.....
"but the meaning is entirely subjective"
hmmmmmmm....
"but the meaning is entirely subjective"
..................................................................

Please, please re read your words a few times. And really really think about it. You said they are entirely subjective. 'Entirely' is a word invoking an absolute thing. Then you're saying its subjective.... I mean, which is it?? You're saying its subjective, but yet your saying that absolutely...... you see the problem there right??????????? If it dawns on you, please take the same principle and apply it to the realm of meaning - surely then you'll see the bigger picture?


You Said:
I am not asserting, I am dismantling your assertions with logic, that is something entirely different, namely arguing. I am being entirely consistent and my argument is that meaning exists subject to our own relative world view and that "meaning" is not shared. You find that distasteful I know but you have thus far failed to argue against it. The statement does not contradict. You can say 1+1+0 but I will not accept that as I can demonstrate it is false every time I perform the sum. Indeed mathematics is one of the few areas that I believe objectivity could exist, but this would have to be very tentative as who is to know what exists out there in a large universe (maybe multiverse). My statement does not confirm and then deny itself, and could you demonstrate that with logic please rather than an assertion? And the mild ad hominem attacks "what you think are brilliant ideas" also prove my point to a degree.

You are not using logic, you're violating a law of logic. You can proclaim that you are being consistent, but that means little when your words show the opposite - you're not adding any credence by saying this, other than puffing your chest?

Language, of any form, is mathematical - inherently. Each word, syllable is some manner of logical meaning...... the compilation of various words - paragraphs, sentences - are complex mathematical values. But they also delineate two qualities indisputable, immutable: that there is substance, and that there is essence in things. You can never ever 'know' these two absolutely, but that does not mean you can not know of them.

Faith is an example of essence. Its a variable any scientist has to admit. The scientific method is actually based on skeptical approach - faith. However, being perpetually skeptical actually falls in on the observer if that's all he does; it's critical to maintain balance when it comes to they 'why' you are observing and the 'what'. I digress though.

and about your end:

You Said:
There is nothing objective except for that reason for stating that, and that sentence, and the words, and the letters, and the pixels, and the fingers typing it, and the ......
Somebody disagrees with me.
I am supported.
Unless you can demonstrate that objectivity exists my argument stands.

Cheers

Ig

Why don't you guys knock it off with them negative waves? Why don't you dig how beautiful it is out here? Why don't you say something righteous and hopeful for a change?

That said new expansion for AOS rules WD number 12345 allows Feel No Pain for your army but you have to follow the rules and sing:

"We're knights of the Round Table, we dance whene'er we're able. We do routines and chorus scenes with footwork impec-cable, We dine well here in Camelot, we eat ham and jam and Spam a lot. / We're knights of the Round Table, our shows are for-mi-dable. But many times we're given rhymes that are quite un-sing-able, We're opera mad in Camelot, we sing from the diaphragm a lot. / In war we're tough and able, Quite in-de-fa-ti-gable. Between our quests we sequin vests and impersonate Clark Gable / It's a busy life in Camelot

[solo]

I have to push the pram a lot.... hitting last note just right allows +4FNP instead of +5FNP

 Spacewolfoddballz wrote:
Why don't you guys knock it off with them negative waves? Why don't you dig how beautiful it is out here? Why don't you say something righteous and hopeful for a change?

That said new expansion for AOS rules WD number 12345 allows Feel No Pain for your army but you have to follow the rules and sing:

"We're knights of the Round Table, we dance whene'er we're able. We do routines and chorus scenes with footwork impec-cable, We dine well here in Camelot, we eat ham and jam and Spam a lot. / We're knights of the Round Table, our shows are for-mi-dable. But many times we're given rhymes that are quite un-sing-able, We're opera mad in Camelot, we sing from the diaphragm a lot. / In war we're tough and able, Quite in-de-fa-ti-gable. Between our quests we sequin vests and impersonate Clark Gable / It's a busy life in Camelot

[solo]

I have to push the pram a lot.... hitting last note just right allows +4FNP instead of +5FNP

On second thought... let's not go.... It is a silly place.

Another thing I don't get is guys posting things like "finaly some optimism in wh instead of all the gloom and doom, good is winning etc". What's wrong with playing, watching or reading LotR if you need that or million other fantasy things full of hope and good and leaving good old wh to be last minute before apocalypse where your heroics are futile and your life is worthless.Wh was a place to come for doom and gloom for years, I don't know how you can be happy about optimism there unless you're a mum in the shop.

 Swastakowey wrote:

 Klerych wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:
The game is objectively the worst game around, you may enjoy it...

Good to know that your opinion is an objective truth, bro..!

Seriously, go check what "objectively" means, mate. :-)

You are saying the game is good from a design point of view...?

Because I am very certain it is not. How does summoning work? All measurements from models for both line of site and movement is definitely not a good rule. What about how to even get summoning spells?

There are a lot more issues as well. How come single models are immune to battle shock? One rat with 2 wounds can beat 200 men as long as the rat only suffers 1 wound.

No real Scenarios, nothing to promote any sort of game. The rules are barely adequate for 2 people to plomp down models and attempt to play the game. I wonder how many people even play the game by the book?... probably no one. Especially since some rules NEED you to make up rules (summoning). The rules ARE bad.

You are wrong. You don't need to make up rules, I haven't yet. And summoning works just fine, never had an issue...

 kveldulf wrote:

 IGtR= wrote:
Response below

You Said:
No. Comprehension is important here. I am saying IF you want to use the term objectivity you must prove it, and that this is unlikely as I can disprove it. Using my a-d criteria. As you cannot satisfy these criteria don't use the word objective. And you have entirely, spectacularly failed to do so, and so my point stands.

Your criteria does nothing to satisfy your point, other than you've created a table of ideas to disprove the use of objectivity absolutely but at the same time prove absolutely that you used the idea of objectivity for its existence. If you think I need to prove objectivity, you first need to provide the evidence as to why I cant use it in the first place. If you got a problem with definitions meaning something, then take it up with a dictionary company. Words are mathematical in essence, and I don't think you're going to convince them that 1=0. Here look at this:

I have not created a table of ideas I have created a cogent list of counter arguments. There is a difference. I am not trying to prove absolutely I am merely demonstrating that your argument is invalid. I am not denying that there may be another argument out there that actually works but yours does not work and that is my point. Absolutes do not come into it. And calling it a table of ideas is mislabelling my criticisms. They are not ideas they are logic.

Secondly I have no problem with definitions, I just would like people to understand the limitations of them. Words are not maths and that is a laughable statement. Anyone who has ever studied any literature will tell you the nuance and SUBJECTIVITY of language. Everyone who has tried to say that words are maths failed. Even the great Wittgenstein and he was a frakking genius so I doubt you have an argument that can back this up, and anthropologists following in the footsteps of Noam Chompsky have demonstrated that language is generally non-transferable to all cultures and languages. If you are interested you can read about many indigenous isolated populations with differing understandings of colour, an expression of directions using compass bearings rather than left or right, and even the incorrect statement that inuit have hundreds of names for snow demonstrates that languages are inherently different. Look at the indirect pronouns that the inuit have and try to find an english equivalent. You can't. Because langauge is not maths.


The Law of non-contradiction is one of the basic laws in classical logic. It states that something cannot be both true and not true at the same time when dealing with the same context. For example, the chair in my living room, right now, cannot be made of wood and not made of wood at the same time. In the law of non-contradiction, where we have a set of statements about a subject, we cannot have any of the statements in that set negate the truth of any other statement in that same set. For example, we have a set of two statements about Judas. 1) Judas hanged himself. 2) Judas fell down, and his bowels spilled out. Neither statement about Judas contradicts the other. That is, neither statement makes the other impossible because neither excludes the possibility of the other. The statements can be harmonized by stating: Judas hanged himself, and then his body fell down; and his bowels spilled out.
https://carm.org/dictionary-law-of-non-contradiction

It is a principle of logic, not of reality. So for maths this works (most of the time) and for logic this works. If x is y then y is always x. But that cannot exist outside of this sphere. In your own Christian tradition there are a vast number of contradictions that you must hold to be true if you are in any way sincere but are logical impossibilities, eg the existence of the Trinity and God's indivisibility as an omnipotent being. A more contemporary, and less controversial subject would be quantum mechanics. In the same way morality can be two things at once to two different people, and neither one be wrong. For a legalistic analysis I would recommend the latter work of Kelsen as he simply demonstrates that two conflicting laws can both exist and be equally valid.


You Said:
Can you really not see this?? They are subject to a personal value of price. And a personal value of space marines. Two entirely relative values. Someone who hates wargaming may not pay £5 for them and a diehard fanboi might pay £40. Entirely subjective. If you don't understand this then I don't think we can continue to debate this as it is a fairly fundamental principle in the debate. You cannot genuinely contend that there is any element of objectivity in either the value of money or the monetary value of goods among any given population. My position is entirely grounded in logic.

I agree, value in this context is relative among people, but it is still relative to something, not arbitrarily given value independently.

Value is the classic arbitrarily given value. Beyond personal consideration of the parties selling there is no external action necessary. And what would price be relative for example? I am curious as to your reasoning.


You Said:
It doesn't and you are wrong about the principle. You might want to read up on these topics before you try and cite them as evidence.
That two propositions that are contradictory cannot both be objectively true is obvious logic. "A is B" "A cannot be B" fail the test. But my argument does not. Either objective morality exists and you can demonstrate it, or it does not. If objective morality, then can begin to use the word. If appropriate then you could use in that given context.

OR logically

If x is real then x can be used.
If x exists then x may be used in situation y where appropriate.

You cannot prove the existence of x and so the rest of your argument is meaningless. The logic of my attack is flawless. The supposition of your argument is large and the logical leaps are huge. Your argument currently functions like this

x is real coz
x can be used in situation y because AoS stupid.

You haven't proven x and the use of x even if we assume it is real doesn't seem appropriate in situation y. This is just logic

My argument is such
x cannot be demonstrated to be real
as x may/ may not be real we cannot use x. x therefore may be appropriate in some circumstances, subject to its proof
additionally x is not an appropriate term to describe situation y.



You sound like you are trying to use a rulebook to convince me your logic, not logic, is correct. If, you believe there is no such thing as an objective way of thinking, then why are you referencing your logic as correct for both you and I? That's again, contradicting your OWN view and ignoring the fact that there are laws in logic, that are axiomatic; being objective when referenced to prove a point. Again please, please think about what I am saying. It sounds like you are trying to win, rather than think; I mean please look at your own words: "The logic of my attack is flawless". I don't know how I can put my response in words to describe my feelings about that statement.

I am demonstrating an element of shared ground that we subjectively hold. Your argument can be analysed by me as I understand it. That is not to give it any objective value and it is facile to suggest so. My logic is flawless in its analysis of your so called argument. I am following it and expressing it in another format in an attempt to show you its flaws. That it has failed to do so is a shame but do not attack me for expressing it in another way. I am not trying to win I am winning. Your failure to respond adequately to any of my counters thus far leads me to believe I am winning. I am using a generally accepted format to try and demonstrate the differences between our arguments; mine follows a logical flow of reasoning whilst yours is based on assertions and the incorrect application of terms.



You Said:
It is entirely conceivable that there is a full pantheon of legislative Gods who delegate or collaborate on moral lawmaking. This is a logical possibility and so you cannot make the claim you make above. And I never said I was a God. And yes the idea of justice may collapse in a conceptual fashion, but that is Jurisprudence and it is generally held that the assumption of objective morality is a necessary fiction for law to operate. The above argument is very flawed and is entirely based upon your own worldview and has no grounding in philosophy or logic.

I don't even know where to start with your statements other than. Your statement "it is generally held that the assumption of objective morality is a necessary fiction for law to operate" is yet again, a tangent stemmed from the ideology that there is no morality. Never mind the amazing minds that understood nature and natures God (natural law), you are holding a generality from a group of what, PhDs in socialist Europe somewhere - is that any surprise? The 20th century brought that way of thinking to its logical course - that death is the main hero of any society, and we should embrace it. That happened to be perhaps the most bloodiest time in human history. So, aside from the empirical perspective, please just consider that law may might be a matter of finding self evident truth than inventing it arbitrarily.

Furthermore, the reason for pursuing any meaning in anything, first comes from a world view..... and though philosophy/logic can compliment/affirm a view, it can also indicate that the evidence is counter to it.

My statement is not a tangent, it is the logical conclusion of the debate on morality, one of the most important debates in Jurisprudence, and a matter of extreme importance. Hart said that if solved the issue would be the most powerful conclusion we would find. o not really a tangent.

Never mind the "amazing minds" what they understood is fine but they could not prove it. And you cannot either. So please stop trying to argue this. Your central supposition is no more justified than when you first asserted that objectivity could be applied to a wargame.

Then nice ad hominem. Those socialist PhD students were actually some of the most gifted minds that we may have seen in philosophy, and not just in the modern era. Nietzsche, Wittgenstein, and all the boys in the band dared to challenge the lazy hegemony of the natural lawyers and force people to justify their beliefs. As this debate hasn’t been resolved over here your precious natural lawyers clearly haven’t done a great job of defeating the criticisms of objective morality. And Oxford, one of the centres of such thinking is a world renowned university of which I am proud to study at. To dismiss thinking that has come out of it is not only childish but akin to intellectual self-harm. Your lack of awareness of the importance of these counter argument does nothing to diminish them.

Then nice Godwin. Sorry but you don’t think that the elitism and justification for colonialism and imperialism that came from a natural law tradition was just as bad? Hmmmm. Good argument. This Godwin attack was not at all based in Empiricism and if you could establish any Empirical data I would suggest that more blood has been shed in the name of your God or any other than in the name of true cultural relativism and subjectivism.

Who is to say that there is any self- evident truth in law?
Why do we need self-evident truth in law? It should be enough for people to realise that law serves the subjective good of humanity, or that we should assume these values if we require such universal maxims. In addition I don’t believe that people follow the law because of terrible arguments made by natural law supporters who claim the existence of objectivity it generally tends to be because of social and economic pressures.

And can you please explain what you mean by this?
“Furthermore, the reason for pursuing any meaning in anything, first comes from a world view..... and though philosophy/logic can compliment/affirm a view, it can also indicate that the evidence is counter to it.”
.


You Said:
Words do mean something this is true, but the meaning is entirely subjective. Fair is a meaningless word. Like fun. Or tasty. Try saying that we all have the same view of them and you will appear a fool.

"but the meaning is entirely subjective"
hm.....
"but the meaning is entirely subjective"
hmmmmmmm....
"but the meaning is entirely subjective"
..................................................................

Please, please re read your words a few times. And really really think about it. You said they are entirely subjective. 'Entirely' is a word invoking an absolute thing. Then you're saying its subjective.... I mean, which is it?? You're saying its subjective, but yet your saying that absolutely...... you see the problem there right??????????? If it dawns on you, please take the same principle and apply it to the realm of meaning - surely then you'll see the bigger picture?

I am not evoking an absolute, perhaps it would be better to say “This has no basis in objectivity.” And you can use the word absolutely without referring to objectivity. Absolutely means entirely. I am entirely me. That is not to say that I will always be and always have been, and that me is an objective concept. You see the difference. This orange is absolutely disgusting has no objective meaning. The orange is not comprised of pure disgusting, and not all oranges are purely disgusting. See the subjectivity of language at work here? Or just your mistake.

And WTF is the “realm of meaning” and the “bigger picture”. Generally it is not great argument practice to wait for something to dawn on the opposition so I ask you to set out your claim please.
.



You Said:
I am not asserting, I am dismantling your assertions with logic, that is something entirely different, namely arguing. I am being entirely consistent and my argument is that meaning exists subject to our own relative world view and that "meaning" is not shared. You find that distasteful I know but you have thus far failed to argue against it. The statement does not contradict. You can say 1+1+0 but I will not accept that as I can demonstrate it is false every time I perform the sum. Indeed mathematics is one of the few areas that I believe objectivity could exist, but this would have to be very tentative as who is to know what exists out there in a large universe (maybe multiverse). My statement does not confirm and then deny itself, and could you demonstrate that with logic please rather than an assertion? And the mild ad hominem attacks "what you think are brilliant ideas" also prove my point to a degree.

You are not using logic, you're violating a law of logic. You can proclaim that you are being consistent, but that means little when your words show the opposite - you're not adding any credence by saying this, other than puffing your chest?

Language, of any form, is mathematical - inherently. Each word, syllable is some manner of logical meaning...... the compilation of various words - paragraphs, sentences - are complex mathematical values. But they also delineate two qualities indisputable, immutable: that there is substance, and that there is essence in things. You can never ever 'know' these two absolutely, but that does not mean you can not know of them.

Faith is an example of essence. Its a variable any scientist has to admit. The scientific method is actually based on skeptical approach - faith. However, being perpetually skeptical actually falls in on the observer if that's all he does; it's critical to maintain balance when it comes to they 'why' you are observing and the 'what'. I digress though.





and about your end:

[color=orange]You Said:
There is nothing objective except for that reason for stating that, and that sentence, and the words, and the letters, and the pixels, and the fingers typing it, and the ......
How do you know I am typing it? Or that I exist? Heard of Descartes? Your perception of objectivity is wrong I’m afraid.

Somebody disagrees with me.
I am supported.
Unless you can demonstrate that objectivity exists my argument stands.

Cheers

Ig

Oh lawdy, this thread is something else... Ha, the amount of vitriol for AoS and work into proving it's a "bad" game is staggering. I would have thought simply ignoring the game would be a more constructive sue of time.

Regarding the OP, AoS did get me back into the game. "Rekindled", if my use of the word pleases you. Prior to AoS my beastmen sat on the shelf collecting dust for ages. No real playerbase for Fantasy was in my area, and the games lost their appeal compared to 40K for me. AoS is much faster and loosey goosey, which I like.

Plumbumbarum wrote:
I'm also puzzled as to how someone can be brought back by something that is basicaly an excrement put on the previous game and world. It has close to nothing of the tone, scale, depth, mood and creative spark of wh but it has space marines. What it has in common is a few names and a forced backstory, where's the grit the grim and the gothic horror.

It's almost as if the people who like AOS didn't care for the previous game at all.........................



As for complaints about the background, all I can say is that I enjoy reading the Dresden Files even though they aren't like Mistborn at all. How dare something that's not trying to be the same be different. Dammit, when companies try something new, I want them to do it just like the last time they tried something new.

 NoPoet wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:
Yea my example was exaggerated waaaaaay to much and was wrong from the start. I still stand by my other points though.

Also technically couldn't all armies break battle shock by simply taking all the biggest monsters they can? Like Lizardmen taking a giant cool herd of Stegadons? Technically any army with single model units breaks battle shock.

Even if they could, who owns a herd of Stegadons?
...

A Stegadon is just a Triceratops with a platform on top with archers on it, like a Burmese elephant.

You can buy a Triceratops model ready painted for about £5. It wouldn't cost a lot of money and time to make a herd of them. It's the sort of thing someone might do just because someone else is saying the game is not broken because no-one owns a herd of Stegadons.

 IGtR= wrote:
Response below

You said:
I have not created a table of ideas I have created a cogent list of counter arguments. There is a difference. I am not trying to prove absolutely I am merely demonstrating that your argument is invalid. I am not denying that there may be another argument out there that actually works but yours does not work and that is my point. Absolutes do not come into it. And calling it a table of ideas is mislabelling my criticisms. They are not ideas they are logic.

Secondly I have no problem with definitions, I just would like people to understand the limitations of them. Words are not maths and that is a laughable statement. Anyone who has ever studied any literature will tell you the nuance and SUBJECTIVITY of language. Everyone who has tried to say that words are maths failed. Even the great Wittgenstein and he was a frakking genius so I doubt you have an argument that can back this up, and anthropologists following in the footsteps of Noam Chompsky have demonstrated that language is generally non-transferable to all cultures and languages. If you are interested you can read about many indigenous isolated populations with differing understandings of colour, an expression of directions using compass bearings rather than left or right, and even the incorrect statement that inuit have hundreds of names for snow demonstrates that languages are inherently different. Look at the indirect pronouns that the inuit have and try to find an english equivalent. You can't. Because langauge is not maths.

Whatever. You created a cogent list of counter arguments. So.... if you want to call it that, instead of criteria, okay, but I think you're being pedantic & redundant.
"Words are not maths and that is a laughable statement"
Nevermind computer science has shown that language can be harnessed with 'maths' (binary) and that the watson system from IBM has shown that averaging symbols of letters, words is possible with 'maths'.

" Anyone who has ever studied any literature will tell you the nuance and SUBJECTIVITY of language"

Deconstructing meaning happens. How does this prove that language is absolutely subjective?


You said:
It is a principle of logic, not of reality. So for maths this works (most of the time) and for logic this works. If x is y then y is always x. But that cannot exist outside of this sphere. In your own Christian tradition there are a vast number of contradictions that you must hold to be true if you are in any way sincere but are logical impossibilities, eg the existence of the Trinity and God's indivisibility as an omnipotent being. A more contemporary, and less controversial subject would be quantum mechanics. In the same way morality can be two things at once to two different people, and neither one be wrong. For a legalistic analysis I would recommend the latter work of Kelsen as he simply demonstrates that two conflicting laws can both exist and be equally valid.

"It is a principle of logic, not of reality"

You do know they go hand in hand? Please try to describe reality for me without logic? Or another way of saying it: please give me an incoherent answer since that's what's your needing to provide. You see what I did there?

So for maths this works (most of the time)"

How much is that?

"In your own Christian tradition there are a vast number of contradictions that you must hold to be true if you are in any way sincere but are logical impossibilities, eg the existence of the Trinity and God's indivisibility as an omnipotent being."

Every time someone tries to label something in Christianity a contradiction, I've had the experience that it really isn't a contradiction come to find out, but rather sourced from a matter that's an ulterior motive - perpetually skeptic / emotional. Sometimes its as bad as the example of a person picking up a book, reading a few lines randomly in it, gloss over the ending and drawing a conclusion about what that book is about. Its really sad. Now then, as far as tradition goes in Christianity, there are some who put this above the essence of what the Bible is actually saying - which is very dangerous grounds. So please don't judge a religion by its abuse - rather the substance from its source (just a tangent bit of advice there). Regarding the Trinity - I understand that there are some who have a hard time digesting the concept - even muslims do it. I'm referencing them because its essentially the same problem the skeptic have - the arian heresy will most likely get surfaced too, and this is what I have to say to them:

Jesus Christ affirmed His place with words and deeds, as both God and Man, for the sake of a few logical requirements for a divine being - that He must be sovereign, and that if there are rational beings in His creation, He must logically relate with them - otherwise they are not rational (which would be a paradox). No one can ever know something absolutely, but they can know of it. Jesus Christ is the interface (Son) as to which we may relate with the unknowable aspect of God (the Father). The concept of the trinity is a multi leveled concept, that caters not just to the intellectual - and that's pretty amazing.

Value is the classic arbitrarily given value. Beyond personal consideration of the parties selling there is no external action necessary. And what would price be relative for example? I am curious as to your reasoning.


Price is relative to the cause and effects occurring - at every level. One values something due to a series of circumstances, though, we can recognize this, quantify it somewhat, we cannot absolutely know its entirety other than the incomprehensible nature of it. This does not mean it precludes us from assessing value in whatever way (it couldn't), rather, we use what is most valuable in context of a truth statement - which comes from a world view.

You said:
I am demonstrating an element of shared ground that we subjectively hold. Your argument can be analysed by me as I understand it. That is not to give it any objective value and it is facile to suggest so. My logic is flawless in its analysis of your so called argument. I am following it and expressing it in another format in an attempt to show you its flaws. That it has failed to do so is a shame but do not attack me for expressing it in another way. I am not trying to win I am winning. Your failure to respond adequately to any of my counters thus far leads me to believe I am winning. I am using a generally accepted format to try and demonstrate the differences between our arguments; mine follows a logical flow of reasoning whilst yours is based on assertions and the incorrect application of terms.

"I am demonstrating an element of shared ground that we subjectively hold" /color]

If everything is subjective, then we are not standing on shared ground

[color=red]"My logic is flawless in its analysis of your so called argument".

With using your logic I could say, what's logical for you isn't logical for me. You see the problem there right?

About being 'generally accepted' - You can say you have a generally accepted format, and that means nothing - a community doesn't invent what logic looks like - they recognize it; that it being consistent with nature (self evident truth). I have resorted to classical logic to show you, in a few ways, how you cannot reason away objectivity - at multiple levels.

You said:
My statement is not a tangent, it is the logical conclusion of the debate on morality, one of the most important debates in Jurisprudence, and a matter of extreme importance. Hart said that if solved the issue would be the most powerful conclusion we would find. o not really a tangent.

Never mind the "amazing minds" what they understood is fine but they could not prove it. And you cannot either. So please stop trying to argue this. Your central supposition is no more justified than when you first asserted that objectivity could be applied to a wargame.

Then nice ad hominem. Those socialist PhD students were actually some of the most gifted minds that we may have seen in philosophy, and not just in the modern era. Nietzsche, Wittgenstein, and all the boys in the band dared to challenge the lazy hegemony of the natural lawyers and force people to justify their beliefs. As this debate hasn’t been resolved over here your precious natural lawyers clearly haven’t done a great job of defeating the criticisms of objective morality. And Oxford, one of the centres of such thinking is a world renowned university of which I am proud to study at. To dismiss thinking that has come out of it is not only childish but akin to intellectual self-harm. Your lack of awareness of the importance of these counter argument does nothing to diminish them.

Then nice Godwin. Sorry but you don’t think that the elitism and justification for colonialism and imperialism that came from a natural law tradition was just as bad? Hmmmm. Good argument. This Godwin attack was not at all based in Empiricism and if you could establish any Empirical data I would suggest that more blood has been shed in the name of your God or any other than in the name of true cultural relativism and subjectivism.

Who is to say that there is any self- evident truth in law?
Why do we need self-evident truth in law? It should be enough for people to realize that law serves the subjective good of humanity, or that we should assume these values if we require such universal maxims. In addition I don’t believe that people follow the law because of terrible arguments made by natural law supporters who claim the existence of objectivity it generally tends to be because of social and economic pressures.

And can you please explain what you mean by this?
“Furthermore, the reason for pursuing any meaning in anything, first comes from a world view..... and though philosophy/logic can compliment/affirm a view, it can also indicate that the evidence is counter to it.”
.

Yes, those socialist minds were so amazing, they led fantastic lives, to better humanity Nietzsche went insane (though I guess sanity and insanity look the same to you?) but lets throw their personal lives aside. What did Nietzsche advocate, allude to most - atheism? Dude, that world view is based on being skeptical of everything which becomes problematic when the truth is, no one can ever know absolutely (faith), let alone that sort of skeptic cannot legitimize why he should be skeptical in the first place - just FYI. The essence of these 'socialist' thinkers, at their core, is to make themselves god (in the figurative sense to them) and become their own savior (mitigate shame/guilt) to get away with anything. Sanctity with this mindset is lost, because its subjective thus, 'do what thou wilt' (the mantra of satanism) is the way. Hmmmmm.... that's some ugly stuff there. I'll tell you this sobering thing, as sometimes words only convey so much: if you think you have the right to murder one of my children (or whom I understand to be innocent), then you'll have a bigger problem than just ideas in kind - with the force I will bear down on you (war). Your views interlope onto peoples liberty (self evident view) that don't be surprised when you practice it, that you will essentially be inviting bodily harm (strife) to yourself.

Regarding imperialism etc. Sure, I don't think people are perfect. So what? I think people are inherently evil, so its no surprise that they can say one thing and do another. The founding fathers of the United states understood this and separated powers as much as they thought appropriate - which was a fantastic idea in contrast to centralized power - unlike what socialism would have us jump on.

"Why do we need self-evident truth in law? It should be enough for people to realize that law serves the subjective good of humanity"

So, you are going to tell someone else that your idea of subjective good is better than theirs? What happens when they don't accept it? You're going to use bullets? Is that good? Is good subjective? What if that's really bad? Your platform in essence states this: What may be true for you is not true for me, so no one is more right than the other - so why, how can you even articulate that sentence with your view and it remain consistent?

You said:
I am not evoking an absolute, perhaps it would be better to say “This has no basis in objectivity.” And you can use the word absolutely without referring to objectivity. Absolutely means entirely. I am entirely me. That is not to say that I will always be and always have been, and that me is an objective concept. You see the difference. This orange is absolutely disgusting has no objective meaning. The orange is not comprised of pure disgusting, and not all oranges are purely disgusting. See the subjectivity of language at work here? Or just your mistake.

And WTF is the “realm of meaning” and the “bigger picture”. Generally it is not great argument practice to wait for something to dawn on the opposition so I ask you to set out your claim please.
.

“This has no basis in objectivity.” So you're essentially saying "Meaning has no basis in objectivity"? Uh methinks you are being too figurative with 'meaning' if so, or you need to come to terms with reality.

"This orange is absolutely disgusting has no objective meaning."

That's usually more an abuse of the word - a inferred meaning - in common language. Some things though, are absolutely disgusting - in context of one's world view. For example, anything I say that's 'proving objectivity is true', is really 'absolutely disgusting' to you. The underlying reason for that language being 'disgusting' directs back to the quality of it being the antithesis of your own worldview. If you thought my statement was the opposite of disgusting, like fantastic, you're either lying or you've changed your mind.

"And WTF is the “realm of meaning” and the “bigger picture”.
The bigger picture is realizing most of your truth statements are based upon a lie.

I am using logic. And which law am I violating? As you have not demonstrated this at all so far this is merely an assertion.
Please demonstrate to me my inconsistencies in my points. Also that last sentence is not a question. But that is by the by.

Language is not mathematical and for you to repeatedly use this I would have to ask you to cite a philosophical source.

As for the two qualities those are debateable. Read the hunting of the snark by Lewis Carrol and tell me what real things all those words indisputably, immutably refer to. Those attributes commonly follow language, but are not predicates of its existence.

And this tangent about faith is both irrelevant and wrong. I do not see why you included it. And does not appear to make grammatical sense. Could you please explain?
.

OKAY please google or reference 'Law of non-contradiction'.

Here's a few other links for you to digest on:

http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/articles/lawofcon.htm

a good video excerpt from Ravi Zacharias:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4e_AOqlllc

"Language is not mathematical and for you to repeatedly use this I would have to ask you to cite a philosophical source.

Do you want one, two, three, four, five different examples of how language is mathematical? Read between the lines in my question.

"And this tangent about faith is both irrelevant and wrong. I do not see why you included it. And does not appear to make grammatical sense. Could you please explain?"

Please provide me an answer as to how faith (&/or world view) does not relate in the context of value, objectivity, using logic, philosophy? Are you saying that you know these quantities entirely? I don't think you do. You're really going to assert or allude to some idea that you're omniscient? That would require faith on my part to believe you.


Regards,




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 NoPoet wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:
Yea my example was exaggerated waaaaaay to much and was wrong from the start. I still stand by my other points though.

Also technically couldn't all armies break battle shock by simply taking all the biggest monsters they can? Like Lizardmen taking a giant cool herd of Stegadons? Technically any army with single model units breaks battle shock.

Even if they could, who owns a herd of Stegadons?
...

A Stegadon is just a Triceratops with a platform on top with archers on it, like a Burmese elephant.

You can buy a Triceratops model ready painted for about £5. It wouldn't cost a lot of money and time to make a herd of them. It's the sort of thing someone might do just because someone else is saying the game is not broken because no-one owns a herd of Stegadons.

Honestly some of those prepainted dinosaurs (schleich?) are done pretty well. My son has a T-Rex that looks like about the right size, that could be glued to a base, painted with some of those classy wargamer highlights, and boom - it'd be hard to tell the difference that it was a 'toy'.

Do we really need to continue the definition debate? Maybe we could discuss the topic brought up in the original post?

AOS has indeed rekindled my interest in playing Fantasy. I found 7th and 8th editions an exercise in tedium with about 20 house rules necessary to discuss before a pick up game. Games boiled down to spending 2 hours of game time searching for an obscure rule that you just knew was in that giant tome somewhere. And unless you were really well versed in the rules playing a 2000 point game could last 5 hours.

AOS scratches the fantasy itch for me and my group. It's a fun, cooperative battle game with simple rules. And as long as you aren't a jerk and try to break the rules, they work just fine.I can finally use all these models I have been painting for years and the new rules have inspired me to expand my forces. The last time I painted a Fantasy model was probably early 7th edition. In the last two months I have finished 3 new units, 4 new heroes and a monster for my Slaanesh army.

So, if you don't enjoy the game, that's cool. It's not your cup of tea. Play Kings of War or 8th edition if it suits you. But please understand that some of us actually enjoy the game as it is now, warts and all.

 Todosi wrote:
Do we really need to continue the definition debate? Maybe we could discuss the topic brought up in the original post?

AOS has indeed rekindled my interest in playing Fantasy. I found 7th and 8th editions an exercise in tedium with about 20 house rules necessary to discuss before a pick up game. Games boiled down to spending 2 hours of game time searching for an obscure rule that you just knew was in that giant tome somewhere. And unless you were really well versed in the rules playing a 2000 point game could last 5 hours.

AOS scratches the fantasy itch for me and my group. It's a fun, cooperative battle game with simple rules. And as long as you aren't a jerk and try to break the rules, they work just fine.I can finally use all these models I have been painting for years and the new rules have inspired me to expand my forces. The last time I painted a Fantasy model was probably early 7th edition. In the last two months I have finished 3 new units, 4 new heroes and a monster for my Slaanesh army.

So, if you don't enjoy the game, that's cool. It's not your cup of tea. Play Kings of War or 8th edition if it suits you. But please understand that some of us actually enjoy the game as it is now, warts and all.

That's understood and I respect that. I apologize for the derailing. I'll keep my thread more on the railroad.

The main point in this thread is that no one is coming back to Warhammer via AoS (like what the term rekindled insinuates); they are going to a new game with practically none of the fluff or rules Warhammer had and using possibly old miniatures from a game called Warhammer. I won't dispute that people have rekindled an interest with GW miniatures though.

It feels like Warhammer to me, though. It's still called Warhammer. All of the fluff/models feel pretty intact to me, despite the setting advancing a few thousand years. It just feels like a fresher version of Warhammer.

burningstuff wrote:
It feels like Warhammer to me, though. It's still called Warhammer. All of the fluff/models feel pretty intact to me, despite the setting advancing a few thousand years. It just feels like a fresher version of Warhammer.

It may feel like it to you, but it actually isn't. It's practically nothing like 'Warhammer'. It's essentially Warhammer in name only . It would be like calling Space Hulk Warhammer (but that at least is consistent with current fluff).

Just because it feels like Warhammer, doesn't make it Warhammer. To reiterate, that would be like me saying D&D feels like Warhammer, or Malifaux feels like Warhammer. You might be able to draw similarities, but you could do that with any setting.

What made Warhammer, Warhammer, GW blew up. They should have just made a new separate name for the setting, at least that way, some of the people familiar with Warhammer wouldn't get confused.

 kveldulf wrote:

burningstuff wrote:
It feels like Warhammer to me, though. It's still called Warhammer. All of the fluff/models feel pretty intact to me, despite the setting advancing a few thousand years. It just feels like a fresher version of Warhammer.

It may feel like it to you, but it actually isn't. It's practically nothing like 'Warhammer'. It's essentially Warhammer in name only . It would be like calling Space Hulk Warhammer (but that at least is consistent with current fluff).

Just because it feels like Warhammer, doesn't make it Warhammer. To reiterate, that would be like me saying D&D feels like Warhammer, or Malifaux feels like Warhammer. You might be able to draw similarities, but you could do that with any setting.

What made Warhammer, Warhammer, GW blew up. They should have just made a new separate name for the setting, at least that way, some of the people familiar with Warhammer wouldn't get confused.

I understand that's how you see it, but it's not how I see it.

Still called Warhammer. Still uses the Warhammer model range. Advances the fluff of Warhammer (it's not a retcon, not deleting the old fluff, just advancing the story). Still feels like Warhammer to me, just with some changes to gameplay. It's Warhammer to me.

burningstuff wrote:

 kveldulf wrote:

burningstuff wrote:
It feels like Warhammer to me, though. It's still called Warhammer. All of the fluff/models feel pretty intact to me, despite the setting advancing a few thousand years. It just feels like a fresher version of Warhammer.

It may feel like it to you, but it actually isn't. It's practically nothing like 'Warhammer'. It's essentially Warhammer in name only . It would be like calling Space Hulk Warhammer (but that at least is consistent with current fluff).

Just because it feels like Warhammer, doesn't make it Warhammer. To reiterate, that would be like me saying D&D feels like Warhammer, or Malifaux feels like Warhammer. You might be able to draw similarities, but you could do that with any setting.

What made Warhammer, Warhammer, GW blew up. They should have just made a new separate name for the setting, at least that way, some of the people familiar with Warhammer wouldn't get confused.

I understand that's how you see it, but it's not how I see it.

Still called Warhammer. Still uses the Warhammer model range. Advances the fluff of Warhammer (it's not a retcon, not deleting the old fluff, just advancing the story). Still feels like Warhammer to me, just with some changes to gameplay. It's Warhammer to me.

That's fine but the now 'classical' understanding of warhammer is not present anymore in the fiction or in play. You can say that this feels like 'Warhammer' to you but as to what you're referencing with that, is not (in essence) historically warhammer (from the point of history of 8th edition or prior). And yes you can use old models, - I'm not disputing your use/choice of the tokens in AoS

Yes they advanced the storyline, but that's a separate, tragic issue.

40K is actually called Warhammer 40,000. That does not make it the same game as Warhammer Fantasy Battle or Warhammer Age of Sigmar, even though there are similarities between the rules and the models.

If we cannot distinguish between 40K, WHFB and AoS, there is a no point in discussing them. In fact it would impossible because there are enough differences between the games to make them non-interoperable.

Therefore I suggest we stick with the terms 40K, WHFB and AoS, that are understood and used by most players.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
40K is actually called Warhammer 40,000. That does not make it the same game as Warhammer Fantasy Battle or Warhammer Age of Sigmar, even though there are similarities between the rules and the models.

If we cannot distinguish between 40K, WHFB and AoS, there is a no point in discussing them. In fact it would impossible because there are enough differences between the games to make them non-interoperable.

Therefore I suggest we stick with the terms 40K, WHFB and AoS, that are understood and used by most players.

/nod

I agree but since the word "WARHAMMER" is branded with Age of Sigmar, its now destined to be blurred with WFB for those initially coming in, or 'back' to the scene.

 kveldulf wrote:

 IGtR= wrote:
Response below

You said:
I have not created a table of ideas I have created a cogent list of counter arguments. There is a difference. I am not trying to prove absolutely I am merely demonstrating that your argument is invalid. I am not denying that there may be another argument out there that actually works but yours does not work and that is my point.
color]

Whatever. You created a cogent list of counter arguments. So.... if you want to call it that, instead of criteria, okay, but I think you're being pedantic & redundant.
"Words are not maths and that is a laughable statement"
Nevermind computer science has shown that language can be harnessed with 'maths' (binary) and that the watson system from IBM has shown that averaging symbols of letters, words is possible with 'maths'.

[color=red]" I am not denying that you can code words to represent them, but you cannot assign mathematical precision to words. There is a huge distinction between the two. Maths can describe the shapes of words and represent them on a screen in binary but it is like a child copying words that they don’t understand by merely tracing the shapes. Computer science is irrelevant in the field of philosophy as it is a physical representation, not philosophical reasoning. "



" Anyone who has ever studied any literature will tell you the nuance and SUBJECTIVITY of language"

Deconstructing meaning happens. How does this prove that language is absolutely subjective?

Okay if you can’t get this one I don’t know how to explain it more simply. Fair has no standardised meaning. It can mean a variety of things to a variety of people in a variety of circumstances. Thus your arbitrary use of it means nothing.

I am not seeking to prove absolutely that language is subjective I am merely demonstrating that a practical understanding of the functioning of language shows us that there are numerous situations where we cannot ascribe any objectivity to the phrase. A classic example is the word fair.





You said:
It is a principle of logic, not of reality. So for maths this works (most of the time) and for logic this works. If x is y then y is always x. But that cannot exist outside of this sphere. In your own Christian tradition there are a vast number of contradictions that you must hold to be true if you are in any way sincere but are logical impossibilities, eg the existence of the Trinity and God's indivisibility as an omnipotent being. A more contemporary, and less controversial subject would be quantum mechanics. In the same way morality can be two things at once to two different people, and neither one be wrong. For a legalistic analysis I would recommend the latter work of Kelsen as he simply demonstrates that two conflicting laws can both exist and be equally valid.

"It is a principle of logic, not of reality"

You do know they go hand in hand? Please try to describe reality for me without logic? Or another way of saying it: please give me an incoherent answer since that's what's your needing to provide. You see what I did there?

Logic is abstract thinking. Reality necessarily involves empirical observation. I am attacking your argument here based solely on its self-contained rationality without reference to any specific factual situations. This is the difference between challenging a theory of particle physics based upon mathematical mistake as opposed to your own experiments. They do not necessarily go hand in hand.

All dogs have mouths. I have a mouth. I am a dog.
The argument does not need to be defeated by me having to prove I am not a dog with genetic testing, photographs, witnesses etc.
I can merely demonstrate that the argument is flawed. Using logic.

Algebra is logic, maths is logic-based. These two need not be grounded in reality. My example expressing your argument in terms of x is not grounded in reality.

I see what you did there and it was wrong.




So for maths this works (most of the time)"

How much is that?

So far as we know and so far as we rely on central assumptions to create the numbers that we use. Ask a mathematician to prove that 1 is equal to -1, or get into the field of i or j numbers, or get into a deep discussion with theoretical mathematicians about zero. Maths works lots of the time but there are conceivable scenarios where there are unsolvable logical problems.


"In your own Christian tradition there are a vast number of contradictions that you must hold to be true if you are in any way sincere but are logical impossibilities, eg the existence of the Trinity and God's indivisibility as an omnipotent being."

Every time someone tries to label something in Christianity a contradiction, I've had the experience that it really isn't a contradiction come to find out, but rather sourced from a matter that's an ulterior motive - perpetually skeptic / emotional. Sometimes its as bad as the example of a person picking up a book, reading a few lines randomly in it, gloss over the ending and drawing a conclusion about what that book is about. Its really sad. Now then, as far as tradition goes in Christianity, there are some who put this above the essence of what the Bible is actually saying - which is very dangerous grounds. So please don't judge a religion by its abuse - rather the substance from its source (just a tangent bit of advice there). Regarding the Trinity - I understand that there are some who have a hard time digesting the concept - even muslims do it. I'm referencing them because its essentially the same problem the skeptic have - the arian heresy will most likely get surfaced too, and this is what I have to say to them:

Jesus Christ affirmed His place with words and deeds, as both God and Man, for the sake of a few logical requirements for a divine being - that He must be sovereign, and that if there are rational beings in His creation, He must logically relate with them - otherwise they are not rational (which would be a paradox). No one can ever know something absolutely, but they can know of it. Jesus Christ is the interface (Son) as to which we may relate with the unknowable aspect of God (the Father). The concept of the trinity is a multi leveled concept, that caters not just to the intellectual - and that's pretty amazing.

With regards to the first paragraph. More ad hominems? Really? Oh well I guess everyone who doesn’t believe your viewpoint is emotional. In fact the only appeals to emotion have been from you. Sorry. And I have not glossed over the Bible, I have read it critically.

I do not judge a religion by its abuse but your slander of some major philosophers required me to demonstrate that Christianity has been just as bad.

Then assumption assumption assumption from you. I know these are your beliefs but you cannot logically solve the contradiction of the Trinity. No Christian thinker has satisfactorily demonstrated it. And your argument starts from a position of assuming God exists. Indeed this “argument” is so flawed as to be useless and I will not evaluate.

As for it not just creating to the intellectual, that is fine. But it does not make the argument work. I understand these are sincere beliefs, but present them as such. Faith is an amazing force but it is not logic. To present it as such does it a disservice. You believe in the Trinity as you are a Christian, not because it works.
.


Value is the classic arbitrarily given value. Beyond personal consideration of the parties selling there is no external action necessary. And what would price be relative for example? I am curious as to your reasoning.


Price is relative to the cause and effects occurring - at every level. One values something due to a series of circumstances, though, we can recognize this, quantify it somewhat, we cannot absolutely know its entirety other than the incomprehensible nature of it. This does not mean it precludes us from assessing value in whatever way (it couldn't), rather, we use what is most valuable in context of a truth statement - which comes from a world view.

Again you are mistaking USUALLY for ALWAYS or NECESSARILY. Price has no connection to anything it is entirely arbitrary. And that last sentence is meaningless language that you think sounds clever. You can assess value but only empirically and subjectively. There is no objective basis for value. Do you honestly believe that out there somewhere an omnipotent being is determining the objective value of a box of space marines? No. so price is subjective.



You said:
"I am demonstrating an element of shared ground that we subjectively hold" /color]

If everything is subjective, then we are not standing on shared ground

[color=red] Or we are because factually that is our experience. It is subject to change but subjectively, we share enough in commonality to declare that we are sharing something. There is no coherence in that statement.



"My logic is flawless in its analysis of your so called argument".

With using your logic I could say, what's logical for you isn't logical for me. You see the problem there right?

About being 'generally accepted' - You can say you have a generally accepted format, and that means nothing - a community doesn't invent what logic looks like - they recognize it; that it being consistent with nature (self evident truth). I have resorted to classical logic to show you, in a few ways, how you cannot reason away objectivity - at multiple levels.

Logic= your argument as a rational construct.
Your argument does not make sense in relation to itself. I have demonstrated this. My analysis does not suffer from such faults. Thus my logic works and your does not. We do not need to share anything as understanding you “argument” means understanding that it is flawed. You can disagree with me, but you cannot prove me wrong or yourself right.

Communities can invent formulations of logic, and can understand them in context. You have not resorted to classical logic. You have tried to use some terms that you do not understand and you have failed to demonstrate anything save the failure of your own argument.

And can you tell me why logic has to follow from nature?



You said:
My statement is not a tangent, it is the logical conclusion of the debate on morality, one of the most important debates in Jurisprudence, and a matter of extreme importance…..
.

Yes, those socialist minds were so amazing, they led fantastic lives, to better humanity Nietzsche went insane (though I guess sanity and insanity look the same to you?) but lets throw their personal lives aside. What did Nietzsche advocate, allude to most - atheism? Dude, that world view is based on being skeptical of everything which becomes problematic when the truth is, no one can ever know absolutely (faith), let alone that sort of skeptic cannot legitimize why he should be skeptical in the first place - just FYI. The essence of these 'socialist' thinkers, at their core, is to make themselves god (in the figurative sense to them) and become their own savior (mitigate shame/guilt) to get away with anything. Sanctity with this mindset is lost, because its subjective thus, 'do what thou wilt' (the mantra of satanism) is the way. Hmmmmm.... that's some ugly stuff there. I'll tell you this sobering thing, as sometimes words only convey so much: if you think you have the right to murder one of my children (or whom I understand to be innocent), then you'll have a bigger problem than just ideas in kind - with the force I will bear down on you (war). Your views interlope onto peoples liberty (self evident view) that don't be surprised when you practice it, that you will essentially be inviting bodily harm (strife) to yourself.

Regarding imperialism etc. Sure, I don't think people are perfect. So what? I think people are inherently evil, so its no surprise that they can say one thing and do another. The founding fathers of the United states understood this and separated powers as much as they thought appropriate - which was a fantastic idea in contrast to centralized power - unlike what socialism would have us jump on.

Again nice childish ad hominem but generally I would prefer to debate with adults who challenge me on philosophical terms. Nietzsche’s personal life is irrelevant, in the same way yours and mine are. And the advocacy of atheism is unconnected to this debate. In fact the sceptic can choose to hold whatever personal beliefs they choose, they must merely not their irrationality.

Then you have more ad hominem and a rather childish view of socialism. But hey they were European socialists! I don’t suppose you actually bothered to read my other examples of Hart, Reuter, Wittgenstein, they weren’t socialists FYI. And then your Sunday school perception of atheism is wrong and clouding it with quasi-religious language doesn’t give it any credibility. And atheism is the mantra of Satanism!

“because its subjective thus, 'do what thou wilt' (the mantra of satanism) is the way”
Or not. Do what thou will is hedonism. Not Satanism. Satanism is the worship of satan. Which has nothing to do with seeking pleasure or doing what you want.

And subjectivism is actually one of the biggest justifications for ethical liberalism and not interloping on other peoples freedom. I think you are misguided and I am telling you this but it does not follow that I will interfere with you. This rant is highly illogical and has no place here.

And your justification of imperialism is flawed. My argument is that imperialism was done in the name of objective moral realism by many people. Nobody has, as far as I am aware ever killed someone in the name of there being no ethical reality and all opposing views being equally legitimate.

And when was this debate about centralised power? There are numerous criticisms of your precious founding fathers but this is not the place. You still haven’t salvaged your terrible argument.







"Why do we need self-evident truth in law? It should be enough for people to realize that law serves the subjective good of humanity"

So, you are going to tell someone else that your idea of subjective good is better than theirs? What happens when they don't accept it? You're going to use bullets? Is that good? Is good subjective? What if that's really bad? Your platform in essence states this: What may be true for you is not true for me, so no one is more right than the other - so why, how can you even articulate that sentence with your view and it remain consistent?

You don’t have to dictate to other people based upon a concept of good. I refer to Raz’s coordination thesis, that many laws exist to coordinate behaviour rather that to moralise about it. I also refer you to the Hart v Devlin debate, it’s a great introduction to this.

And if people don’t accept it, here in England we send people to prison rather than kill them, but your ideal society might be different I grant.

We can generally subjectively justify law in terms of protections of self interest. That is inherently subjective but most people like laws so nobody kills them or steals their stuff. Subjectively that is good for most people (barring those who might be better off in anarchy due to being cunning, strong, resource rich etc) and involves no morality. Where is the moral value in parking fines? Or countless other areas of law. They serve peoples self interests not a wider morality. Or are you claiming that all laws have some element of intrinsic morality?
.


You said:
I am not evoking an absolute, perhaps it would be better to say “This has no basis in objectivity.” …….
And WTF is the “realm of meaning” and the “bigger picture”. Generally it is not great argument practice to wait for something to dawn on the opposition so I ask you to set out your claim please.
.

“This has no basis in objectivity.” So you're essentially saying "Meaning has no basis in objectivity"? Uh methinks you are being too figurative with the word 'meaning', or you need to come to terms with reality.

"This orange is absolutely disgusting has no objective meaning."

That's usually more an abuse of the word - a inferred meaning - in common language. Some things though, are absolutely disgusting - in context of one's world view. For example, anything I say that's 'proving objectivity is true', is really 'absolutely disgusting' to you. The underlying reason for that language being 'disgusting' directs back to the quality of it being the antithesis of your own worldview. If you thought my statement was the opposite of disgusting, like fantastic, you're either lying or you've changed your mind.

It is not disgusting, it is wrong. See misunderstanding of language. And you cannot say that a word is an abuse of the word if it is commonly used as such. Unless you are denying the evolution of language. It is undeniable that the English language today is different to that of William Shakespeare, so which one is right for you? Is cool a temperature of an expression that something is nice?
Does nice mean perfect as it originally did, or just quite good? This is what the subjectivity of language is.
.


"And WTF is the “realm of meaning” and the “bigger picture”.
The bigger picture is realizing most of your truth statements are based upon a lie.

I am using logic. And which law am I violating? As you have not demonstrated this at all so far this is merely an assertion.
Please demonstrate to me my inconsistencies in my points. Also that last sentence is not a question. But that is by the by.
.

OKAY please google or reference 'Law of non-contradiction'.

Here's a few other links for you to digest on:

http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/articles/lawofcon.htm

a good video excerpt from Ravi Zacharias:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4e_AOqlllc

Thankyou for patronising me, you incorrectly cited that law so you might want to go back and read a bit more on this subject before you get too embarrassed.

Nothing I have said is subject to this rule.
.


"Language is not mathematical and for you to repeatedly use this I would have to ask you to cite a philosophical source.

Do you want one, two, three, four, five different examples of how language is mathematical? Read between the lines in my question.

I want examples beyond the verbal expression of maths. Because that is easy and a six year old could do that. You cannot demonstrate that any language that does not exist in mathematics can be mathematically expressed.
.


"And this tangent about faith is both irrelevant and wrong. I do not see why you included it. And does not appear to make grammatical sense. Could you please explain?"

Please provide me an answer as to how faith (&/or world view) does not relate in the context of value, objectivity, using logic, philosophy? Are you saying that you know these quantities entirely? I don't think you do. You're really going to assert or allude to some idea that you're omniscient? That would require faith on my part to believe you.


I am saying drawing on something that cannot be proved to try and support something that you have not demonstrated logically is not only an appeal to authority that shows you believe your argument to be weak but does not help your case. I cite the flying spaghetti monster to support my side. And Russel’s teapot. Now I am winning as I have more authorities. See the flaw now?

If you cannot prove objectivity without recourse to God, then you need to not only prove the validity of objectivity, but also prove the existence of God. One woud be a major achievement, both is likely impossible in a lifetime.

I do not claim absolute knowledge, only you contend that you are the expert, able to do what no philosopher has ever done.
.

Cheers

Ig