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.

Centurian99 wrote:I've never criticized you personally...just pointed out that your ideas are silly, inherently biased, full of logical inconsistencies, and generally self-righteous.

Look Cent. I get that you disagree. Fine.

But your continued passive-aggressive attacks to get around Rule 1 (politeness) isn't going to cut it.

It is a fact that calling someone's "ideas" silly / whatever *is* an indirect attack on that person.

We're done, and I won't be dealing with you anymore on this.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

Centurian99 wrote:I've never criticized you personally...just pointed out that your ideas are silly, inherently biased, full of logical inconsistencies, and generally self-righteous.

Look Cent. I get that you disagree. Fine.

But your continued passive-aggressive attacks to get around Rule 1 (politeness) isn't going to cut it.

It is a fact that calling someone's "ideas" silly / whatever *is* an indirect attack on that person.

We're done, and I won't be dealing with you anymore on this.

Odd, I thought ad hominem was attacking the person (rule #1) like calling them a dork, not calling a person's ideas silly.

I guess after being on dakka for a decade, I don't know anything.

Mephistoles1 wrote:Comp requirements are usually unfair, but can sometimes result in a different game than your pcik up games becasue the composition changes(duh).

that just creates new imbalances resulting in what's the point?

The point is simply to create new imbalances for variety's sake, such that the new mix is notionally "better" than the old mix.
____

dietrich wrote:

GW is a lot smarter than that. They *allow* more variety than that, but what is allowed isn't the same as what is desired.

What is desired is irrelevant. What is allowed is important.

That statement is only true in a no-comp environment, if one ignores all of the Fluff and background that has been presented to date. If one looks at 40k as a pseudo-simulation, then what is allowed should be shaped by desired, and vice-versa.

dietrich wrote:GW wants to allow variety in army builds.

Agreed. I cut a bunch of stuff, because we're basically agreed on the other points here. And I'm glad that GW isn't using some sort of ham-fisted "mainstay" approach to army building (like in 2E Guard)

As far as I can tell, the only fundamental disagreement is that I think that some form comp scoring / weighting is desirable, and you don't. It's OK for us to disagree..

Hellfury wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:

Centurian99 wrote:I've never criticized you personally...just pointed out that your ideas are silly, inherently biased, full of logical inconsistencies, and generally self-righteous.

Look Cent. I get that you disagree. Fine.

But your continued passive-aggressive attacks to get around Rule 1 (politeness) isn't going to cut it.

It is a fact that calling someone's "ideas" silly / whatever *is* an indirect attack on that person.

We're done, and I won't be dealing with you anymore on this.

Odd, I thought ad hominem was attacking the person (rule #1) like calling them a dork, not calling a person's ideas silly.

I guess after being on dakka for a decade, I don't know anything.

Well, Hellfury, I'm sure that you're a fantaaastically great person, but what you just wrote there is utterly inexcusably stupid, and the kind of mindless drivel that one would expect of a half-wit inbred sub-functional slow.

See how that works?

You can work in all sorts of indirect attacks by pretending to attack someone's "ideas" or "actions" instead of the person. That is why I label it as an indirect attack, because it is just as loaded as calling the person stupid / whatever.

If there is an issue with the argument, then one can address the argument rather than resorting to veiled name-calling. For example, if I were to argue that 2+2=5, then addressing the argument is as simple as showing that 2+2=4. But at no point does it ever become necessary to use loaded words as above.

Now if this is the sort of behavior that Dakka encourages, I'm more than happy to play that game. But based on actions I've seen, I don't think that is really how Rule 1 is supposed to work.

Perhaps a couple Mods can weigh in here to clarify? I'm now going to Alert so I can get clarification on the matter.

Yeah I know the difference, but from where I am standing, its simply the pot calling a kettle black.

Also as far as you being willing to play the game, dont even try and come off like you are innocent and you dont use such tactics on a more than regular basis yourself.

Your posts are often worded quite carefully to avoid the banhammer, but yet still instill venom from your readers.

Like I said, its the pot calling the kettle black, so don't act so innocent. But its none of my business, oh wait it is because you spill your vitriol all over a public fora for all to read. You gotta problem with a poster, take it to PM, and leave your laundry in your hamper where it belongs. It gets really tiring watching you have wrecking crew penis envy.

Gotto step in here, 'cause comments like this can't go on without being torn into:

Redbeard wrote:For one thing, it's an opinion, which inherently cannot be right or wrong.

People so often confuse being entitled to an opinion with an opinion being right/wrong.

Opinions can be wrong. There are no inherent safeguards or implied laws that make all opinions neither right nor wrong. You can have an opinion about something ("I think the world is flat!") and be dead wrong. You're certainly entitled to that opinion ("Don't care what the proof says, I still think the world is flat!") but you'll still be wrong. Furthermore you used this laughable line of thinking as a giant Straw-Filled Red Herring. Doctor Thunder tells you that you're wrong, so you immediately go into the "Do you feel superior for being right about everything - Everyone can have an opinion" defence. Hell you even try to blame the English language.

Sorry, but one of the biggest parts about a debate or a discussion (or even an argument) is remaining coherent. John has problems with this, but I'm sure that the rest of us can manage to do it. You stick to your guns and make your points and when someone calls you and you have nothing (as is what just happened to you), you admit defeat. You don't back-pedal. And when you're caught back-pedaling, you don't come up with lame-ass arguments like "Everyone's opinion is valid!" which is nonsense.

The only common thing that applies to all opinions is that everyone can have one. They can be very wrong, and often are. When you make statements like this:

"I said it's wrong to copy lists from the internet"

You are not stating fact, you are stating opinion. Worse, you're stating opinion as fact. This statement should read:

"I said that it is my opinion that it is wrong to copy lists from the internet"

And that would be fine. You would be entitled to that opinion, but it isn't a 'Get out of argument free' card. Opinions are not immune to scrutiny, so please stop thinking that way. If people disagree with your opinion (as they have) and can prove that it's wrong, then guess what, you'd be wrong. If you have an opinion great, but state it as such, not as a fact, and don't back-pedal and try to claim you were saying something different. That's the wrong way to have a discussion - the Hwang way. Don't you be like him.

BYE

Moderator note:

An alert has asked for clarification of Dakka rule no.1.

Rule no.1, “Be polite”, is necessarily a piece of guidance. It cannot be expressed as a definitive list of words or phrases that are acceptable or otherwise.

Much depends on context, and the spirit in which people make their posts, and the way people react to them.

Everyone gets annoyed occasionally, which is completely understandable, and it leads to the temptation to lash out verbally. Any time the argument becomes, “In my opinion, your idea is stupid,” rather than, “In my opinion, your idea is wrong,” we are straying into rule no.1 territory. Certain words -- stupid, silly, and so on -- are triggers to anger and should be avoided.

Of course the Mods will always clamp down on blatant racism, sexism, profanity.

We will always read alerts and consider the complaints seriously, even if our conclusion may be that nothing needs to be done. (In such cases, I PM the complainer to explain my thinking, and offer them a second opinion from another Mod.)

If Dakka, like any forum or community, needs the good will and co-operation of the members. It cannot work by diktat. More and more Mods would be needed to police a forum where people are not trying to be polite. Also, and importantly, a heavily policed forum would be less interesting and useful for the participants. The way forward is for users to be self-policing, by editing their own posts, and by warning each other when they see someone going over the line.

In this thread, some people are needling each other without resorting to obvious "Durrr!! G4ey Fail!!11!!One11" kind of language. I am not going to come in, do textual analysis on your posts, say someone is right and someone else is wrong, and start editing or handing out warnings. I’ve got better things to do on a lovely sunny Saturday.

I want people to think about what they write and consider whether they shouldn’t phrase their posts in more neutral language.

Thank you for reading.

JohnHwangDD wrote:But your continued passive-aggressive attacks to get around Rule 1 (politeness) isn't going to cut it.

IRONY!!!!!!!!!

JohnHwangDD wrote:It is a fact that calling someone's "ideas" silly / whatever *is* an indirect attack on that person.

N... no.

Let's go into the differences here:

Example 1: You're very silly, therefore you're wrong.
Example 2: You're wrong, and you're very silly.
Example 3: Your idea is wrong and your idea is silly.

In the first example, we have what is called an Ad Hominem attack, as Hellfury stated. As he said "I thought ad hominem was attacking the person" and this is 100% accurate as Ad Hominem is Latin for 'To the Man', ie. you are making your arguments to the person making the argument, rather than to the argument itself. This would violate Rule #1 as it is not polite. It's also a bad way to make arguments as all it does is prove one's ignorance.

In the second example, it is not an Ad Hominem attack, as the person is attacking the idea as well as the person (rather than attacking the person in place of the idea). However it still breaks Rule #1, as calling a spade a spade... sorry... calling someone silly at Dakka is not polite.

In the final example, the person is attacking the idea and mocking the idea. The person making the idea never comes into it - they are kept apart from the other person's statements. Killkrazy has said that calling an argument 'silly' rather than wrong is bad. Well... sorry KK but that's a silly point of view (and I say that in the most polite fashion possible). Just like opinions can be wrong, opinions can also be silly. Pointing an argument out as silly might annoy someone, but it doesn't make it suddenly not polite. I'm being quite polite here, and I can still call your notion silly without attacking you or being impolite.

But hey, while we're talking about direct attacks, not being polite and ad hominems, let's look at a few from this very thread:

"Wow, you need to call stuff "crap" to feel superior? Are you really that small- and petty-minded?"
"Ultimately, I don't think we really have anything else to say to each other. You want to powergame with no-comp WAAC lists... End of discussion." (This would be the 'passive-agressive' comments John was talking about... but Cent99 didn't say 'em!)
"In that case... *holds up a mirror for you*"
"That is a fool's argument."
"In your case, Comp is the difference between spamming 3 units of TH/SS Termies and Theming them with boobs."
"The difference is that I at least understand what you're saying and disagree. You're the dork who's got his fingers in his ears and not even listening."

Guess who said all of the above? The same person who said this:

"So ultimately, either, we agree to disagree like gentlemen, or someone just gives up and walks away."

So I go back to my original statement:

IRONY!!!!!!!

BYE

JohnHwangDD, can you give some examples of battle-point spread? Like so-and-so-many points per battle, so-and-so-many battles, so-and-so-many points for a primary objective (defined by XXX)?

Gentlemen, this thread has been reported. Poltieness is required after this point in the thread or disciplinary action will be taken.

Modquisition off.

The policeman has spoketh so I must finally arrive from the grave...

* spits out clump of earth *

Ah better now, much better.

If I am playing in a tournament where bringing a weak list is important to do well overall you better believe I will. After all that is what my converted Captain Tycho model was made for... These exact type of situations when the TOs feel they must impose their own set of standards how we should build our armies. There was one TO that after the event was over I thanked him and asked him what could I do to decrement my army. He gave me a few suggestions then I asked him if he would be willing to fund the costs to make these changes. Needless to say he was flabberghasted. I have found that those who adopt this type policy don't last long on the gaming scene.

* belches, rubs belly and crawls back into the void *

Yes, but to those types of people, you should have made your list to thier specs instead of your specs so you wouldn't have had the problem of needing to buy stuff to change it.

It was said as a way to make fun. Harmless fun.

G

H.B.M.C. wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:But your continued passive-aggressive attacks to get around Rule 1 (politeness) isn't going to cut it.

IRONY!!!!!!!!!

JohnHwangDD wrote:It is a fact that calling someone's "ideas" silly / whatever *is* an indirect attack on that person.

N... no.

Let's go into the differences here:

Example 1: You're very silly, therefore you're wrong.
Example 2: You're wrong, and you're very silly.
Example 3: Your idea is wrong and your idea is silly.

In the first example, we have what is called an Ad Hominem attack, as Hellfury stated. As he said "I thought ad hominem was attacking the person" and this is 100% accurate as Ad Hominem is Latin for 'To the Man', ie. you are making your arguments to the person making the argument, rather than to the argument itself. This would violate Rule #1 as it is not polite. It's also a bad way to make arguments as all it does is prove one's ignorance.

In the second example, it is not an Ad Hominem attack, as the person is attacking the idea as well as the person (rather than attacking the person in place of the idea). However it still breaks Rule #1, as calling a spade a spade... sorry... calling someone silly at Dakka is not polite.

In the final example, the person is attacking the idea and mocking the idea. The person making the idea never comes into it - they are kept apart from the other person's statements. Killkrazy has said that calling an argument 'silly' rather than wrong is bad. Well... sorry KK but that's a silly point of view (and I say that in the most polite fashion possible). Just like opinions can be wrong, opinions can also be silly. Pointing an argument out as silly might annoy someone, but it doesn't make it suddenly not polite. I'm being quite polite here, and I can still call your notion silly without attacking you or being impolite.

But hey, while we're talking about direct attacks, not being polite and ad hominems, let's look at a few from this very thread:

"Wow, you need to call stuff "crap" to feel superior? Are you really that small- and petty-minded?"
"Ultimately, I don't think we really have anything else to say to each other. You want to powergame with no-comp WAAC lists... End of discussion." (This would be the 'passive-agressive' comments John was talking about... but Cent99 didn't say 'em!)
"In that case... *holds up a mirror for you*"
"That is a fool's argument."
"In your case, Comp is the difference between spamming 3 units of TH/SS Termies and Theming them with boobs."
"The difference is that I at least understand what you're saying and disagree. You're the dork who's got his fingers in his ears and not even listening."

Guess who said all of the above? The same person who said this:

"So ultimately, either, we agree to disagree like gentlemen, or someone just gives up and walks away."

So I go back to my original statement:

IRONY!!!!!!!

BYE

Thanks for the support, HBMC (and Hellfury, and anyone else who understands the difference between criticizing an opinion and criticizing a person.

Everyone has the right to an opinion. And everyone else has the right to express their opinion of their opinion. If I wanted to say that someone was a silly little pissant, I'd say that. But that would be against the rules of this forum, so I don't do that.

If we can't critically assess other people's posts, based on the content within, than what's the fricking point of this forum. It's not rude to write a post critiquing someone's army list if they post it for discussion. It's not a personal attack to say that someone is misinterpreting the rules. And its not a personal attack to write a critical response to someone's suggestions on how a tournament should be run.

If you want to silence dissenting views, start your own blog and pontificate to your heart's desires. Then you can delete any contradictory opinions and one-sidedly blackguard your dissenters. That's what Beetlejuice's done.

Wow this thread went way off track since I first looked at it 3 days ago LOL.

Anyway, I have always felt that Star Fleet Battles got it right by making premade ships for tournament play. You could do something similar with 40K or Fantasy.

For example:
For space marines you could have several lists that were "tourney approved".

1: The Librarian list
2: The Chaplain list
3: The Chapter Master list
4: The Forgefather list
5: The shrike list
6: The Vulkan List
7: The raven wing list
8: The death wing list
9: The blood angel list
10: The space wolf list
11: The black templar list
etc,etc,etc.

It would take a lot of playtesting but it could be done. It worked for SFB. I don't see why it couldn't work for warhammer. Also this doesn't mean that you still couldn't run "open" tourneys where people brought their own lists.

My opinion comp doesn't work, so the only way to have a "fair and balanced" tourney is to have premade "fair & balanced" lists.

I doubt this will ever happen so we will just have to make due with what we have, trying to make it the best we can.

GG

On topic, I think that any comp system can be gamed. By that, I mean no matter what you hold up as "good comp," there will be a handful or so hard lists that can be built. People will figure out any comp system that is a check box. If you favor troops, than Orks and chaos rise to the top. If you favor no repition of any unit, than Chaos, Eldar, and Nids have a better chance. No matter what system you strap to 40k, there is no way to ensure that every army that shows up is interesting and roughly equal in power.

Honestly, I think that the approach of WotC is superior here. Simply restrict the top combinations, units, upgrades, etc. to balance things out. Even then, there will be a new top dog. Army list power scales are very fractal, no matter who close in you look, there is an infinity complex layering system.

I agree that with interesting and complex missions, more armies have a chance.

Off topic, I think it's important to realize that there are people that will never admit to being wrong. Hoping you can convince them of being wrong is like being the woman in the Lifetime Movie that really thinks she can get her abusive husband to quit drinking. After reading 6 pages of this thread, I think that it's pretty clear how has made better points and where a more nuanced look at the realities of modern tournament gaming can be found.

Polonius wrote: I think it's important to realize that there are people that will never admit to being wrong. Hoping you can convince them of being wrong is like being the woman in the Lifetime Movie that really thinks she can get her abusive husband to quit drinking. After reading 6 pages of this thread, I think that it's pretty clear how has made better points and where a more nuanced look at the realities of modern tournament gaming can be found.

The point of the majority of internet arguments is not to convince the person that you are arguing against, but rather to influence the people who are lurking and watching the thread rather than participating in it.

skyth wrote:

Polonius wrote: I think it's important to realize that there are people that will never admit to being wrong. Hoping you can convince them of being wrong is like being the woman in the Lifetime Movie that really thinks she can get her abusive husband to quit drinking. After reading 6 pages of this thread, I think that it's pretty clear how has made better points and where a more nuanced look at the realities of modern tournament gaming can be found.

The point of the majority of internet arguments is not to convince the person that you are arguing against, but rather to influence the people who are lurking and watching the thread rather than participating in it.

I know that. I could have made it clearer in my final bit there, but I think that a lurker should know by know who has "won" the thread.

Kilkrazy wrote:Moderator note:

An alert has asked for clarification of Dakka rule no.1.

Rule no.1, “Be polite”, is necessarily a piece of guidance. It cannot be expressed as a definitive list of words or phrases that are acceptable or otherwise.

Much depends on context, and the spirit in which people make their posts, and the way people react to them.

Everyone gets annoyed occasionally, which is completely understandable, and it leads to the temptation to lash out verbally. Any time the argument becomes, “In my opinion, your idea is stupid,” rather than, “In my opinion, your idea is wrong,” we are straying into rule no.1 territory. Certain words -- stupid, silly, and so on -- are triggers to anger and should be avoided.

Of course the Mods will always clamp down on blatant racism, sexism, profanity.

We will always read alerts and consider the complaints seriously, even if our conclusion may be that nothing needs to be done. (In such cases, I PM the complainer to explain my thinking, and offer them a second opinion from another Mod.)

If Dakka, like any forum or community, needs the good will and co-operation of the members. It cannot work by diktat. More and more Mods would be needed to police a forum where people are not trying to be polite. Also, and importantly, a heavily policed forum would be less interesting and useful for the participants. The way forward is for users to be self-policing, by editing their own posts, and by warning each other when they see someone going over the line.

In this thread, some people are needling each other without resorting to obvious "Durrr!! G4ey Fail!!11!!One11" kind of language. I am not going to come in, do textual analysis on your posts, say someone is right and someone else is wrong, and start editing or handing out warnings. I’ve got better things to do on a lovely sunny Saturday.

I want people to think about what they write and consider whether they shouldn’t phrase their posts in more neutral language.

Thank you for reading.

tl;dr

Is it true that Warhammer Fantasy composition rules will ding people for not taking
standards, even if it makes absolutely no sense for a unit to have a standard? (Wood
Elf guerrilla tactics, in particular). I'm painting up some standard toting archers, but
I wanted clarification on this.

On this subject, I still say the most important score should be Sportsmanship.

I don't mind being slapped up and down the board left right and centre into the middle of next week, as long as my opponent isn't a gakker about it. You know, all TFG gloating etc.

Even if it's a beardy army it's the player who ruins my experience, rarely the list.

Thus, take away the distinction between a narrow win, a massacre etc, and just use the good old Footie scoring of 3 for a win, 1 for a draw, nowt for a loss.

Then, at the end, the players get to note which was their favoured opponent, in addition to the normal Sportsmanship score. Highest after that wins.

When you take the emphasis off the scale of the win, you should find people less inclined to be beardy in search of the higher points, meaning comp scoring becomes less and less necessary.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:On this subject, I still say the most important score should be Sportsmanship.

Why doesn't that surprise me.

I think that scores need to be separated out. If you're going to have comp, theme, generalship, painting and, yes, sportsmanship, then a result in one should not impact the result in another. If I have a good theme, having a bad painting score shouldn't affect that. I could be the nicest guy in the world, but be a bad general.

And if a tournament is going to have awards, then the 'Overall' reward should go to someone who scores highly in these areas. The others should be left to whoever scores highest in that category, not a combination of catagories.

BYE

The problem with sportsmanship is that unlike paint, comp, or battle, there's no reason to expect anything less than perfect sports from every player.

The main problem with sports is that the biggest tools will simply chipmunk their opponents by giving them all low scores.

I don't know if you've done much tournament gaming MDG, but the elimination of poor sportsmanship has more to do with judges ability and willingness to toss people that are cheating, stalling, being offensive, etc. rather than any score you can give them.

I kind of agree about the seperate scores.

Lets use the rather bizarre example of 'A Knights Tale' starring Heath Ledger.

In that, he is mainly concerned with the Joust, as the Champion in that field tends to win the most honour, and thus the Tourny overall. The Knights would pick and choose which competitions they entered as well.

Why not do the same? Sportsmanship and Game Results count towards the Gaming trophy. Painting Scores count toward the Painting Trophy, but you do not need to enter this if not.

Seperate scores independant of each other.

Polonius wrote:The problem with sportsmanship is that unlike paint, comp, or battle, there's no reason to expect anything less than perfect sports from every player.

The main problem with sports is that the biggest tools will simply chipmunk their opponents by giving them all low scores.

I don't know if you've done much tournament gaming MDG, but the elimination of poor sportsmanship has more to do with judges ability and willingness to toss people that are cheating, stalling, being offensive, etc. rather than any score you can give them.

How far do you think they can chipmunk in a ranking sports system?

Well, most bigger tournaments have a Best Overall (everything added together), Best General (most battle points), Best sports (highest sports with battle as the tie-breaker), best painted. They used to add Best Army, which was a combination of Paint and Theme.

H.B.M.C. wrote:

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:On this subject, I still say the most important score should be Sportsmanship.

Why doesn't that surprise me.

I think that scores need to be separated out. If you're going to have comp, theme, generalship, painting and, yes, sportsmanship, then a result in one should not impact the result in another. If I have a good theme, having a bad painting score shouldn't affect that. I could be the nicest guy in the world, but be a bad general.

And if a tournament is going to have awards, then the 'Overall' reward should go to someone who scores highly in these areas. The others should be left to whoever scores highest in that category, not a combination of catagories.

I have to disagree. As much as I hate soft scores, after playing in a few tournaments recently, I have to say that sportsmanship score is quite in important to the overall game.

I still beleive that comp is merely a way to chipmunk an opponent, but sportsmanship is needed to reign in the donkey-cave who cannot control his TFG urges from winning the tournament for being the overall winner.

Sure give him best general or whatever it is he needs to feel that his sad pathetic existence is worth living, but the overall score should reflect the overall attitude, painting, tactician that he brought to the tourney.

Hence why it is called the overall winner.

malfred wrote:

Polonius wrote:The problem with sportsmanship is that unlike paint, comp, or battle, there's no reason to expect anything less than perfect sports from every player.

The main problem with sports is that the biggest tools will simply chipmunk their opponents by giving them all low scores.

I don't know if you've done much tournament gaming MDG, but the elimination of poor sportsmanship has more to do with judges ability and willingness to toss people that are cheating, stalling, being offensive, etc. rather than any score you can give them.

How far do you think they can chipmunk in a ranking sports system?

That's a good question. Enough, I would think. If you rank your three opponents, and simply tag the guy you played that did the best gaming wise third, that hurts him more than it helps the guy you ranked highly.

As far as sportsmanship chipmunking, most tournies I have seen recognize that possibility and if they see someone turn in a card that scores the opponent very low, they are taken aside and need to explain why.

If it becomes apparent that the person is chipmunking over the course of the tourney, then they get zeroed on their own sportsmanship (appropriate, I think).

I dont go to enough tournaments to know if this is that commonly done, but any I have seen at least attempt to address the potential abuse this way.

Chipmunking? Que?

'Lowaballing' an opponent by scoring them low intentionally so that you, or others can benefit from a higher score.

Since you write down your scores of an opponent without knowledge of what they are scoring you, it is entirely possible that a person could receive a high score, while giving the other a low score.

I have seen a lot of tournies where a group of buddies come in to play, and they make a pact to 'lowball' or 'chipmunk' everyone else's scores so that one of them will come away with the highest standing, and thus the prize.