Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

ShumaGorath wrote:
I can debate politely and without vociferous emotion. I do it rather often. I just can't do it when debating with other people that refuse to do the same because my reasoned opinions get lost in the shuffle. If I stoop to the level of HBMC, stelek, or abadabaononononfudsgidgj then I can debate with them. It simply changes the frame of the debate. If I don't then they trample all over my opinions and reinforce their own without what is in their mind meaningful disagreement to their points. I respond to your points specifically because I prefer reasoned and point driven debates. If you disagreed with HBMC I very much doubt you would receive the same deference that I or JohnHuang give (or at least that I give, john looks like he's getting mad).

As for being unable to frame my opinions reasonably, my last post, which was in its entirety a response to you was I think quite reasonable. Look at who I'm talking too, I usually mirror their debate style in my posts.

Fair enough, and it's your decision how you post. I guess I'd just point out that internet discussions don't exist to change mind between the participants, they exist to sway third party readers. And third parties don't' always know to whom your responding. All they see is you posting like a jerk, and they assume you're a jerk. Do you really think you can change John's mind through any posting method? Of course not, the man has never once been wrong. Post like a professional, post like a jerk, post in swahili: he won't change his mind. Responding in kind doesn't accomplish anything. If somebody is being a jerk, you simply restate your views and support them and move on. Getting into a mud fight makes you dirty too.

To use Warmachine as an example. Most of the units are solid, however some work better with certian compositions than others. The list I take with one style of Warcaster is going to be different than the list I take with another Warcaster. Irusk is troop heavy, while Karchev is jack heavy. Either way, I have solid options at all slots and with some rare exceptions (Sorsha & Haley), I can take any army have a good shot at winning.

Watch out how you frame the warmachine balance thing. Most players who were around at the start remember the serious and obvious power creep every time a new edition came out. When I quit the game most of the units in the base book were totally useless because the latter books had stepped up the power level significantly and seemingly without reason. I have not played in years though so they may well have fixed these issues.

Fair enough, and it's your decision how you post. I guess I'd just point out that internet discussions don't exist to change mind between the participants, they exist to sway third party readers. And third parties don't' always know to whom your responding. All they see is you posting like a jerk, and they assume you're a jerk. Do you really think you can change John's mind through any posting method? Of course not, the man has never once been wrong. Post like a professional, post like a jerk, post in swahili: he won't change his mind. Responding in kind doesn't accomplish anything. If somebody is being a jerk, you simply restate your views and support them and move on. Getting into a mud fight makes you dirty too

I post to debate with the people I am debating with in a format that is easy to keep track of and has third party moderation. I don't post to sway the masses. Maybe you do, but I genuinly believe that a discussion between parties should involve those parties specifically and should be designed to sway opinions. Also has anyone actually tried posting in swahili?

ShumaGorath wrote:
Actually it was a strong implication veiled in a rhetorical question. You didn't want an answer any more than I want one when I ask someone "have you stopped beating your wife?".

There is a difference between me not wanting an answer an you being unable to provide one because an over-aggrandized personal ego. Take the criticism that was intended and be better for it.

ShumaGorath wrote:
If that was what this argument was about then I would have seen it the last couple of times they had done this. But it's not and this is all new. This is games workshops modus operandi. They update incrementally between books with long staggered releases and treat each of the books as self contained and self balanced documents.

Yea? And? I'm saying that is a poor approach to game design because it leads to a lot of internal inconsistency that ends up as bad balance. Moreover, this is what HBMC has been advocating for some time. Your constant need to argue, and be 'proven' right, has prevented you from actually reading what is being written on this website.

ShumaGorath wrote:
When you buff one you don't have to carry that to the others because it can easily become ubalancing. 30 stormshield wielding assault termies in 12 man land raiders wouldn't make the dark Angel book passable. It would make it stupid to play against. These buffs come in because they are within a document that balances them in a pretext. Normal marines can't mix termy squads, their independant characters automatically pay for the 4+ inv they have and their land raiders don't get the dark angels supersmoke launchers any more.

Which is why standardizing cross-codex items would make the game easier to balance. You would have a better defined playing field on which new armies could be tested. You aren't even making an argument against my point here, just describing the way GW currently does things. Do you think what they do now is good policy? Or are you just arguing because it makes you feel smart?

ShumaGorath wrote:
When the IG codex gets updated they aren't going to make the witchunters stormtroopers or chimeras any cheaper, will we see this "discussion" pop up again? And when they update the space wolf books to reflect these newer rulings will we hear the same outcry?

There is a difference between changing the cost of an item, and the effect of an item. You're arguing that they can't do anything else given their current approach. I'm arguing that their current approach if foolish. I'm not going to argue your point, because I believe its self-fulfilling prophecy: "GW is what GW is, so let GW be what GW is." You're welcome to argue mine, but I doubt you will because you don't seem to have the desire, or capacity to think in original ways.

ShumaGorath wrote:
Actually I can post content and self aggrandize at the same time. It's not even hard. I've done it in every post I've made and I've been fairly consistent with it. What you could try and do is dedicate at least half of your posts to actually debating the topic at hand rather than commenting on other peoples poor debating styles while ironically implying your own superiority in doing so.

Maybe you can, but your last post was pure aggrandizement. Here's a better idea though. Why don't you take other people's view into consideration when forming your own, and admit you have changed perspective when you do. That way other people may actually feel it is worth their time to discuss the merit of your ideas. As opposed to laughing at the fact that you frequently utilize strawman arguments, and fluctuating personal definitions.

ShumaGorath wrote:

I post to debate with the people I am debating with in a format that is easy to keep track of and has third party moderation. I don't post to sway the masses. Maybe you do, but I genuinly believe that a discussion between parties should involve those parties specifically and should be designed to sway opinions. Also has anyone actually tried posting in swahili?

If that's your plan, then godspeed. I wonder why you wouldn't just PM the person at that point then. I also have to wonder how often you've seen a person say "yeah, I guess you're right" in an internet discussion. Even in minor matters, people tend to get pretty entrenched online. I envy you if you'd had productive discussions where people genuinely change their minds. I guess my parting question would be "how often are you the one that changes his mind?"

Mod mode:

Ok shutting down the thread. The personal attacks died off but are back and are not forwarding the point of the thread. If anyone wishes to re-open the thread please report or PM Yakface on the item.

Mod mode off.