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.

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.

 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.

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.

 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:


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.

 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.

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.

 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:

 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

 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.

 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?

 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

 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.

 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'.

 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.

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.

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.

 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.

 IGtR= wrote:
response below

Please try to PM me instead of derail this post anymore

Green is me


" I am not denying that you can code words to represent them, but you cannot assign mathematical precision to words I never said everyone is always precise with their meaning, but I essentially have been saying that does not equally make it utterly subjective either . 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 This is not proving anything other than stating you believe this to be true . Computer science is irrelevant in the field of philosophy as it is a physical representation, not philosophical reasoning. philosophy is the pursuit of ultimate meaning/reality? - I think that's textbook. Anything complimenting this objective furthers philosophical thought "


Okay if you can’t get this one I don’t know how to explain it more simply. Fair has no standardized meaning First of all, 'Fair' is better probably best referenced as justice. Furthermore, to say that there is no standardized fair is a very ambiguous statement - and that's assuming you're being figurative. If you're not, then you run into the problem as to what exactly your referencing when it comes to justice, as not all perceptions of justice can be true. . It can mean a variety of things to a variety of people in a variety of circumstances I agree people can have the view, but it doesn't make it true - since some peoples view counter each other. It would be like saying your view on meaning and mine are equal, when they are obviously not 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. this approach still applies objectivity to it



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 Logically it isn't self contained when its responding to your assertions. The factual situations have been revolving around your logical fallacies. Really, you're the one who objected to my use of objectivity over something that I was pointing out to be a gross move toward its antithesis. If you don't agree with it, then you could have gone a different path of discussion, but you chose the path of essentially saying 'I can't legitimately say that objectively because there is no such thing as objectivity in the first place" . 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. yes, I believe you call this a logical fallacy
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 You didn't really say anything with this other than assume and erroneously equivocate things in our arguments. I can also make accusations/examples too to cover things but I don't. You seem to do that a lot - by pointing out ad hominems and make statements that ignore the substance of what's being said. I guess you could call this an ad hominem too. It's not a very constructive practice either way, if your actually trying to be constructive yourself. Perhaps we could try to exercise a bit more social grace, eh?

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. Algebra is real. Mathematics is real. These are both in reality.

I see what you did there and it was wrong. Please consider my logic above




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. anything solvable is still associated with assumption - aka faith. The reason being is that there are certain instances where even laws become curious to us (expansion theory for example). We may think we have things figured out, but we are not omniscient.



[color=red] With regards to the first paragraph. More ad hominems? Really? Oh well I guess everyone who doesn’t believe your viewpoint is emotional. I do have see this a lot when I tell someone their belief system is false. What I have sensed in your words is something very emotionally charged, as certain words used and assertions that make it frustrating; its as though the sound of your words carry more weight than the words said 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 If you have, then how you arrived to your conclusions about its supposed contradictions I find, I guess, meaningless - without at least some way to convey your view.

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. You just called the Bible full of contradictions. That involves judgement somehow

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 I doubt you know all of the Christian thinkers of the world, so please stop with that level of pretense. I don't think that is adding anything here[color=green] . And your argument starts from a position of assuming God exists And yours start with the proposition he does not, right? . 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 No, I just put that in there because I thought it was an interesting observation not commonly said about the trinity - to give some credence from a different angle, granted, a little bit of a tangent. If you don't think so , ok. I understand these are sincere beliefs, but present them as such. Faith is an amazing force but it is not logic other than its logical recognition - which complicates things but yes, it is not the same thing - I agree . To present it as such does it a disservice. You believe in the Trinity as you are a Christian, not because it works Actually, yes, I believe in the trinity because I think it answer matters of the Divine more coherently than anything I'm aware of .
.


Again you are mistaking USUALLY for ALWAYS or NECESSARILY. Price has no connection to anything it is entirely arbitrary price indicates value, and value is again referenced ultimately from an origin. It may be incompressible to us in its entirety, but we can still recognize its degrees . 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 this will go back to God/ No God argument & the school of grammar + logic proving you otherwise . 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. Actually, I think the mind of God has determined every value, of everything thing, everywhere, all the time, in all detail, and all possibilities of it.....




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. You are not using coherence correctly if you are referring to your own statements there. An incoherent answer is a play on words - you can't do it with it remaining an answer. Does that make sense?


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 I don't know why your bothering reiterating comments like this - it should stand for itself without saying things like that - just saying . Thus my logic works and your does not Again, this does nothing other than flex prowess . 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 Well, you might be right; Im not going to prove anything with that sort of attitude from you. I do know that there is a righteous Judge you'll answer to. Though, If you believe in Jesus - who is that Judge- your shame/guilt will be irrelevant to Him.

Communities can invent formulations of logic I fundamentally disagree , 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. Please tell me; please show me my error then

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

Because nature operates under a set of observable laws in action that we can deduce and reason.


[color=red] Again nice childish ad hominem but generally I would prefer to debate with adults who challenge me on philosophical terms I just really don't thinkers that have advocate some very dark things in human history - I apologize for my brash, hostile response . Nietzsche’s personal life is irrelevant This is true , in the same way yours and mine are . And the advocacy of atheism is unconnected to this debate Actually, I bet it isn't, unless you are saying that you're not an atheist? . In fact the sceptic can choose to hold whatever personal beliefs they choose, they must merely not their irrationality. And being perpetually skeptic I could argue is insane

Then you have more ad hominem and a rather childish view of socialism I personally hate the idea of might makes right /shrug . 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 because you say so? . 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 I believe satanisms only commandment is 'Do what that wilt': Here's a quick google reference:
"Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law" is the Satanic philosophy derived by the founder of modern Satanism Aleister Crowley. In fact, it is the law stated in the Satanic Bible."


And subjectivism is actually one of the biggest justifications this is an oxymoron for ethical liberalism and not interloping on other peoples freedom
Really? So making things subjective will cement the protection of liberty? I hope perfect beings are operating as your governmental agents - oh wait, you don't believe in those, right? . 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 again, yes people are imperfect; they are inherently flawed . 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 If you're talking about government, your right, because it won't sit there like that, it'll hop onto someones agenda for them to spin it like that - Communism, Socialism, Fascism, Theocracy - really any government is capable of it

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.




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 That sounds like it would lead to mere materialism. That asserts everything is in a box, and that's it. The problem with this is that there is no way to validate this 'truth' since it requires faith - which is not really in the box. . I also refer you to the Hart v Devlin debate, it’s a great introduction to this. I might check it out later

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. Yep, I believe that restitution should work in the most basic, fundamental way so that society can remain as consistent as possible because justice is consistent: if you steal - you pay it back with interest (due to time lost from the owner), if you murder someone, then your own life is taken. The principle is 'tooth and claw' or 'inviting the law' (more a new testament concept). It's the basis to secure life liberty property happiness - the role of government. S

We can generally subjectively justify law in terms of protections of self interest This will foster 'might makes right', or another way to put it, create categories of people with varying levels of rights - whether Machiavellian ideologues or overtly tyrannical demagogues . 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 I don't agree with them. I further don't even agree with things like building codes.... I think liability is the main theme I advocate - if something happens that causes damage, or you violate some manner of contract (redundant) - you then are subject to the court. ? Or countless other areas of law. Positive law is pretty convoluted from how it sounds They serve peoples self interests not a wider morality. You should consider reading 18th century colonial views about that Or are you claiming that all laws have some element of intrinsic morality Sorta, I believe laws are found not made. Laws of motion for example would be different in a way. ?
.


It is not disgusting, it is wrong I was being figurative but the connotation is still the same with '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 Then the definition should change or the person clarify, or update my own language - if the dialect was that off. . Unless you are denying the evolution of language Nope . It is undeniable that the English language today is different to that of William Shakespeare, so which one is right for you I prefer the 1827 Websters as I think the definitions are more clear. If I have a difference in meaning with someone that's using a dictionary, as long as its a similar dialect, then reason can engage, and we can average/rule out discrepancies via other words to clarify. The essence of what is being said is the goal, not the literal substance. ? 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. I believe those are called idioms, and language is generally not composed of them; they're an exceptional thing within language
.



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. I'm not an expert in philosophy, but I don't see the error you're somewhat pointing out. I do apologize for patronizing though.

Nothing I have said is subject to this rule.
.


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. You need to clarify this, as there are too many negatives for me to understand what you're saying. I will state though, that every little detail in language involves some manner of math, logic, geometry; from the literal to the figurative. Drawing mental images in ones head and the describing it, or calculating something and then writing/saying it, is a process that I see shows that verbal, and written ability from human beings (neuro synapses patterns for example) are prime scientific examples. I won't digress in sentence structure or meaning again - as I think that might be beating a dead horse... or something like that
.

I am saying drawing on something that cannot be proved to try and support something that you have not demonstrated logically I've stated I don't know how many rhetorical questions, as well as statements, to indicate/illustrate that your mere sentence structures contradict, and in kind the figurative allusions they were trying to draw.? 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 I can invent something completely outrageous, but that doesn't make it true . And Russel’s teapot. Now I am winning as I have more authorities. See the flaw now? I can invoke xyz authorities on my side.... Do you see the flaw now? Doesn't really add credence does it?

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
So let me get this straight, you want me to first quantify the divine law giver, then refer to Him in an argument to say, 'prove' that He is not there???
Then on top of that, you're demanding me to provide proof when all you've told me is that there is no such thing as objective truth.... the burden of proof is on you, which you have not satisfied at all other than try to proclaim your it is so 'because' . One woud be a major achievement, both is likely impossible in a lifetime. Oh? and how likely is that? In how much time are we talking about and what is it relative to? You and me? or just you?

I do not claim absolute knowledge, only you contend that you are the expert, able to do what no philosopher has ever done. any yet every good/consistent philosopher alludes to absolute knowledge
.

For those 'looking on the bright side' that they got free rules, and get to dust off their models: That's almost like saying that you got a free surgery to take out one of your kidneys, even though it was really unnecessary.

Seriously, look at the lore, the world was barely elaborated upon in most regions. I mean there were large swathes of land/sea that were barely covered over, let alone areas in the empire that could have been really interesting to make, for example, skirmish games/scenarios for - 'Mutiny in Marienburg' anyone?. The potential GW could have had with this is enormous, and could have catered to both old and new - via AoS rule system & the 'old' version. It could have easily been catered to BOTH groups so that people could really have something rekindled there as well as something rule wise, 'feeling' new.

The appearance of forsaking something in business is simply not good practice - when you are irrationally ignoring profit possibilities. I'm not sure what statisticians were involved in figuring out the AoS/End Times demographic, but methinks they were led more by visionary grey hairs/neck-beards in the decision making than looking at the hobby itself.

Gamesworkshop could have been using the glorious interwebs to further the Warhammer Fantasy interest: making interactive scenarios, campaigns, registering names/history of units/armies, FORUMS, etc. Someone up there is more worried about blowback on their ego and cost from these - vs unseen profit from stirring things Granted AoS is arguably the same when it comes to stirring interest I suppose, but the difference is that you already have variety in one setting - to tap in as deep as you want. Why stop/start prospecting in another area when you still have veins yielding something in the current mine? Dig both areas if you really want, or dig better in the current.

I'm glad people are playing a game and having fun. But it is at the cost of potential - of something that could have been more for the average guy. Regardless, Age of Sigmar is now something entirely different than the stuff that defined WFB - other than the models you can use. Again anyone thinking they have renewed interest because of AoS, could have, I bet, just as easily been persuaded to do so with a significantly less bloated 8th edition, or simply a 3rd edition spin and fancy new artwork. Of course, there are those that prefer an over-the-top Heman universe, but I think they are the fringe, destructive outlook when it comes to the long-lasting outlook of the game.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
Why keep the old version if it didn't sell well?

Also, you should NEVER fully develop a setting. It completely destroys the ability to make your own forces and iconography.

Every territory not touched upon is probably the basis for some out there's personal rebel kingdom/chaos stronghold/ undead lair. Telling them what is actually there does nothing but stifle creativity.

IF it didn't sell so well, maybe they should have looked at its own release record and level of content in the setting. Some ideas include: instead of stagnating on model selection for armies, and leaving rulebooks in the dust, (amongst many other holes they could have filled) they could have engaged in actually writing/engaging in WF things?

I am all for leaving mystery in the setting and leaving things open; essentially withholding the notion to categorize everything in it. I prefer it that way - to allude to things in varying degrees rather than spelling it all out.
There are still ways of keeping this feeling without going to far - if not add to the mysterious. At worst case scenario, WFB could have taken the ultra detailed approach, and that would have been a better option than blowing it all up.

I wonder if the lack of updating in the Warhammer content - prior and during EoT - wasn't almost intentional in the mind of some decision maker - to then save face with some 'new idea' and inflate the success. It would also reassure investors that they're innovating.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

burningstuff wrote:
I've always loved the model range and factions/creatures of Warhammer fantasy but never the Old World specifically. It felt small and cramped and limiting to my imagination.

I am glad they're taking this new direction in AoS with a wider universe.

They could have retconned the whole thing and started fresh. That would have warranted incredible fluff backlash from the old fans. Instead, not only did they do a whole campaign sending off the Old World, but they made sure everything (or just about) was still usable and made sense in the new setting.

There are so many companies that do invalidate everything before the newest version, and I think we should be thankful that GW did not do that. In my opinion, it is very clear that they care about their fans.

More like pretending to care, to take your money in anyway possible and insert ground marines to fix things.

Also, limiting your imagination because the Old World felt cramped and small falls short. I suppose I could look at the map of the world and say the same thing. I don't think any new universe is going to fix that problem for anyone thinking that.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
The Old World had every Dwarf Hall, Empire city or Elf kingdom of note listed, with at least a brief history and theme. I wanted to use a Dwarf Hall that wasn't some kind of doomed or stupid, but there wasn't one in the whole Old World! I had to make up my own Empire province and elf territory, too, to get some place that wasn't exhaustively catalogued in some RPG supplement. I love reading about the Old World, but for the purposes of creating my very own Warhammer armies, it was indeed small and cramped. The only place with room to expand for human civilizations was Asia, but that continent was purposefully left dark and inscrutable, even though it made no sense in the same world as Finubar the Seafarer.

On the other hand, I can make up dozens of planets for my space marines and never run into, "sorry, can't fit that there 'cause of the halflings."

See though, when there is too much freedom, to throw in anything in a universe, then you're asking for something that could end up being convoluted/tasteless. The restrictions to fantasy did limit things, but in a way that alluded to consistency in the mind.

So yea, you're in the Empire, its very Holy Roman Empire'ish with yes, some expectations as to what that should look like, and some variation. That's the context most readers/players should reference in their minds. You could still add-in a town, city or even write in a province ( perhaps just a different period in history). What Fantasy didn't jump in on was uniform diversity like d&d or in part like 40k. This i think is just the nature of medieval fantasy -its got the expectation to be medieval - in reference of historical expectation to a degree. The other universes could be somewhat more like a sandbox but that's the nature of high fantasy (or the realm of chaos)

 Talys wrote:

 kveldulf wrote:

See though, when there is too much freedom, to throw in anything in a universe, then you're asking for something that could end up being convoluted/tasteless. The restrictions to fantasy did limit things, but in a way that alluded to consistency in the mind.

So yea, you're in the Empire, its very Holy Roman Empire'ish with yes, some expectations as to what that should look like, and some variation. That's the context most readers/players should reference in their minds. You could still add-in a town, city or even write in a province ( perhaps just a different period in history). What Fantasy didn't jump in on was uniform diversity like d&d or in part like 40k. This i think is just the nature of medieval fantasy -its got the expectation to be medieval - in reference of historical expectation to a degree. The other universes could be somewhat more like a sandbox but that's the nature of high fantasy (or the realm of chaos)

The Old World was very much medieval fantasy - very much a parallel of Greyhawk, if you will, and very Tolkeinesque. The 8 Realms of the Age of Sigmar are much more of what I consider "modern fantasy". Just like popular fiction, the power levels are much higher -- the average warrior is endowed with magic, lead by great heroes and demigods.

Keep in mind, too, that AoS actually leapfrogs a HUGE gap of time -- thousands of years have passed between when the world blew up in End Times and AoS. In between, there was actually a whole cycle of Chaos reigning, a grand alliance of Gods, a time of peace, the disintegration of the alliance, Chaos prevailing, and then the time of great war in which AoS is set.

Should AoS be successful, GW could easily set new adventures during several prequel periods (a la 30k).

Hm, I'm not sure what the early greyhawk universe looked like, but the depictions of dress and armour of the human lands in Warhammer are lifted almost exclusively from history. I usually see D&D stuff being more 'inspired' than 'based' - usually.

Maybe Warhammer Forge (forgeworld) can make a split with its model range - much like 30k . I doubt it, but some FW updated bretonnians, estalians or tileans (that way its really similar to 30k balance... heheheh), would be very interesting to see. Unfortunately I heard warhammer forge is being phased out some time ago :(




Automatically Appended Next Post:

burningstuff wrote:

 kveldulf wrote:


More like pretending to care, to take your money in anyway possible and insert ground marines to fix things.

Also, limiting your imagination because the Old World felt cramped and small falls short. I suppose I could look at the map of the world and say the same thing. I don't think any new universe is going to fix that problem for anyone thinking that.

Yes, GW is in the business of profit, but my point is that they found Fantasy failing to achieve that (obviously), and they didn't have to even continue the product line. Many companies drop failing product lines altogether. Of course, they hope taking this path will increase profit. In the course of seeking profit, GW have also shown they love their child and care about their fans, in my opinion. AoS is an attempt to breathe life back into Fantasy.

Falls short of what? And yeah, coming up with my own lore of creatures to fit into the current real world would present the same problem.

It's one thing when the product fails, its another to let it fail. GW dropped the ball in many ways with Warhammer that yes, of course it failed. When you don't water a plant appropriately it tends to die.. I've stated some examples on this page about what they could have done differently (like the good arm-chair general I am) and stick by those.

As far as falling short, I thought what I said after that made my point obvious. In essence: Making a fictitious world feel bigger is a matter not generally restrained to imagined geography.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 kveldulf wrote:
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.

AoS has the same basic move-shoot-fight Igo-Ugo mechanics of WFB, at the same per-model skirmish game scale as 5E / 6E.

Further, AoS allows me to play my Dogs of War, whereas WFB8 does not.

I imagine that fundamentally, about every wargame has at least those basic mechanics. That doesn't make them the same.

I liked dogs of war too. They could have been updated during 'classical' warhammer. Instead, GW like many times during WFB's life, gave us the hand wave more than lists, lore & models.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 AegisGrimm wrote:
Really? I'm suddenly attacked as the bad guy if I give reasons I don't love AoS? Sheesh.

Excuse me, but how were you "attacked" as a "bad guy"?

You made all sorts of claims, but they don't appear to be based on any experience or effort, so I'm asking a few questions as to why AoS can't be something you'd even consider to try with your wife, given that you said you play KoW with her, and that you claimed to be willing to try AoS. You conditioned trying AoS on not having to deal with the churlish members tied to competitive play, so I asked whether you felt either of you were the churlish sort that would prevent you from trying AoS with your wife.

I'm sorry that you somehow interpreted the questioning as some sort of "attack", and at no point did I say you needed to love AoS.

I do think that you should give AoS a fair shake, and I believe that you have completely failed to do so. To me, you're like the little kid who proclaims cheese and yogurt "bad" (because it's spoiled milk), but refuses to try either foodstuff.

I don't think its a matter of testing a theory that's the problem here (actually playing AoS). I haven't played AoS, but have listened to enough to simply know, its not my thing when it comes to rank & file infantry game. In other uses for it, I can see it being an introductory system, (though that's the maximum of its potential imo), and or, simply a beer & pretzels game. I've only heard KoW fitting the scale of fantasy better than AoS (like facilitating rank and file WFB maneuvering?). However, for me, I like the nuances and details within WFB, and would rather extend play to an extra hour if that meant the details were there.... I could always house rule things to trim, - that's easier than inventing rules for a system.


I'll quote something from the glorious movie 'Remo Williams' to convey a kind of similitude for my position:

Chiun: It would be better for you to eat this can than what is inside of it. Why must everything in this country be coated with monositi-... monosoti...

Remo Williams: Monosodium glutamate. You can't even say it.

Chiun: I can say "rat droppings." That does not mean I want to eat them.


Ultimately, I liked the system of WFB for its detail and brevity in die resolution. (thus at least some potential for RPGs with D6). The early point system calculation of 3rd edition was I think more true to the the real root reason for its popularity - it was more quantitative than merely theoretical army-balancing which 8th became very very problematic with. This excess in weighing things opposed to exclusively to lists became the fundamental problem with Warhammer. It arbitrarily (I think) created some fatigue/dislike progressively for the rules, and thus, something like AoS looks infinitely better even though AoS is built on a different premise that carved Warhammer out of the Immaterium. This is a very sad road, where progress was just degrees of streamlining things for the sake of legalizing an egocentric methodology around game play.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
And AoS is pretty smart about wound tracking for Monsters, whereby they lose effectiveness as they take wounds.

How is that smart?

 Mr Morden wrote:

 kveldulf wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
And AoS is pretty smart about wound tracking for Monsters, whereby they lose effectiveness as they take wounds.

How is that smart?

Because its fluffy and evocative as well as being a neat game mechanic.

I like having details in the mechanics, but then there's the question as to where you stop it. Simply having more wounds seems just fine.

It's like saying random terrain effects bring out evocative instances, when in reality, it was just a way to make things interesting by shoe-horning some complexity. The idea of having some bizarre terrain doing some 'warhammer like things' sounds very cool - if it wasn't expected/enumerated in the core rules. It should just be something supplemental.

ChazLikesCake wrote:

 kveldulf wrote:

I like having details in the mechanics, but then there's the question as to where you stop it. Simply having more wounds seems just fine.

It's like saying random terrain effects bring out evocative instances, when in reality, it was just a way to make things interesting by shoe-horning some complexity. The idea of having some bizarre terrain doing some 'warhammer like things' sounds very cool - if it wasn't expected/enumerated in the core rules. It should just be something supplemental.

I agree with you completely when it comes to the terrain rules. It's very difficult to imagine how a rock looks particularly "sinister". Surely just having it as an obstacle that blocks LoS and needs to be navigated is enough.

However the monster wound count is very evocative. It's not hard to imagine that the more the monster gets damaged the more it starts staggering around. When certain attacks get lost you could easily imagine limbs have been removed. And it doesn't add much more complexity as it's your's or your friend's model and they have the warscroll right in front of them. I'd personally like to add a similar wound count/HP removal system to my Pathfinder games.

Its not hard to imagine the grittiness by only adding wound counters either. If anything, it makes things simple yet polarized - to both players - that someone's purple people eater is about to die and he's going to perform like one until then.