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.

the_scotsman wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I'd be fine with ITC putting out its own point values. And its own core rules, actually. Take the rules away from gw.

Honestly, I am amazed they have not yet. They've fundamentally changed the way terrain and scoring work in 8th, yet all the big ITC fanboys I know just CONSTANTLY bitch about how gakky GW is at points balancing/rules writing...

Like, how hard is it for you guys to just put out a PDF with points?

I basically can't comment on how good ITC rules vs GW rules, since every game I've played under ITC rules is using optimized, competitive lists, so they just end turn 3 (and are basically over but for the crying turn 2 most of the time). I guess I'd make the complaint that there's a lot of decision making before the game starts that you could just, like, skip because it's gonna go to who tables who?

I dunno. Maybe I'm just not bringing the right hyper durability-skew lists to get to actually try out ITC missions. But GSC and Drukhari have been my two most competitive collections for most of 8th.

And expose themselves to another layer of bs from the internet? No way.

They'd push points and a new GW codex would pop out and they'd either have to clamor to address that codex or adhere to a schedule to not overwork themselves, but accept the constant whine from the player base.

And then when they don't get the points right? No sane person would ever take on such a project.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I'd be fine with ITC putting out its own point values. And its own core rules, actually. Take the rules away from gw.

Honestly, I am amazed they have not yet. They've fundamentally changed the way terrain and scoring work in 8th, yet all the big ITC fanboys I know just CONSTANTLY bitch about how gakky GW is at points balancing/rules writing...

Like, how hard is it for you guys to just put out a PDF with points?

I basically can't comment on how good ITC rules vs GW rules, since every game I've played under ITC rules is using optimized, competitive lists, so they just end turn 3 (and are basically over but for the crying turn 2 most of the time). I guess I'd make the complaint that there's a lot of decision making before the game starts that you could just, like, skip because it's gonna go to who tables who?

I dunno. Maybe I'm just not bringing the right hyper durability-skew lists to get to actually try out ITC missions. But GSC and Drukhari have been my two most competitive collections for most of 8th.

And expose themselves to another layer of bs from the internet? No way.

They'd push points and a new GW codex would pop out and they'd either have to clamor to address that codex or adhere to a schedule to not overwork themselves, but accept the constant whine from the player base.

And then when they don't get the points right? No sane person would ever take on such a project.

Look how many people in this thread have claimed to know GW are doing a poor job, then failed to provide a solution themselves and instead keep using GW rules. Either people don't have the motivation to tackle something they perceive a problem, or can't do a better job than GW.

Dudeface wrote:
Look how many people in this thread have claimed to know GW are doing a poor job, then failed to provide a solution themselves and instead keep using GW rules. Either people don't have the motivation to tackle something they perceive a problem, or can't do a better job than GW.

Are you a professional baker? Because if not, I'm going to bake you a cake using salt instead of sugar. Clearly, unless you can do it perfectly, you can't complain, right? /sarcasm

GW is paid millions of dollars on rules alone. (If not millions, at least hundreds of thousands.) It's quite literally the JOB of the game designers to make good rules. In fact, if someone COULD just as a hobby make better rules than GW, that's really, REALLY damning of their quality.

 JNAProductions wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
Look how many people in this thread have claimed to know GW are doing a poor job, then failed to provide a solution themselves and instead keep using GW rules. Either people don't have the motivation to tackle something they perceive a problem, or can't do a better job than GW.

Are you a professional baker? Because if not, I'm going to bake you a cake using salt instead of sugar. Clearly, unless you can do it perfectly, you can't complain, right? /sarcasm

GW is paid millions of dollars on rules alone. (If not millions, at least hundreds of thousands.) It's quite literally the JOB of the game designers to make good rules. In fact, if someone COULD just as a hobby make better rules than GW, that's really, REALLY damning of their quality.

I can complain and I'd buy different bread. Likewise if the rules are so bad people hate them, either make their own or use a different game. Which again, nobody is seemingly able or willing to do.

Dudeface wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
Look how many people in this thread have claimed to know GW are doing a poor job, then failed to provide a solution themselves and instead keep using GW rules. Either people don't have the motivation to tackle something they perceive a problem, or can't do a better job than GW.

Are you a professional baker? Because if not, I'm going to bake you a cake using salt instead of sugar. Clearly, unless you can do it perfectly, you can't complain, right? /sarcasm

GW is paid millions of dollars on rules alone. (If not millions, at least hundreds of thousands.) It's quite literally the JOB of the game designers to make good rules. In fact, if someone COULD just as a hobby make better rules than GW, that's really, REALLY damning of their quality.

I can complain and I'd buy different bread. Likewise if the rules are so bad people hate them, either make their own or use a different game. Which again, nobody is seemingly able or willing to do.

Great! Let me just go ahead and find a new gaming store, one that's not a GW, and find a new group of people who are interested in a new game!

It's a hell of a lot harder to get a new game going than it is to buy a new cake.

 JNAProductions wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
Look how many people in this thread have claimed to know GW are doing a poor job, then failed to provide a solution themselves and instead keep using GW rules. Either people don't have the motivation to tackle something they perceive a problem, or can't do a better job than GW.

Are you a professional baker? Because if not, I'm going to bake you a cake using salt instead of sugar. Clearly, unless you can do it perfectly, you can't complain, right? /sarcasm

GW is paid millions of dollars on rules alone. (If not millions, at least hundreds of thousands.) It's quite literally the JOB of the game designers to make good rules. In fact, if someone COULD just as a hobby make better rules than GW, that's really, REALLY damning of their quality.

I think you're misunderstanding one facet of capitalism: it is not the rules designers job to make good rules.

It is the rules designers' job to make rules that SELL.

Sorry, just real quick update me, what's currently the most profitable company in the UK?

the_scotsman wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
Look how many people in this thread have claimed to know GW are doing a poor job, then failed to provide a solution themselves and instead keep using GW rules. Either people don't have the motivation to tackle something they perceive a problem, or can't do a better job than GW.

Are you a professional baker? Because if not, I'm going to bake you a cake using salt instead of sugar. Clearly, unless you can do it perfectly, you can't complain, right? /sarcasm

GW is paid millions of dollars on rules alone. (If not millions, at least hundreds of thousands.) It's quite literally the JOB of the game designers to make good rules. In fact, if someone COULD just as a hobby make better rules than GW, that's really, REALLY damning of their quality.

I think you're misunderstanding one facet of capitalism: it is not the rules designers job to make good rules.

It is the rules designers' job to make rules that SELL.

Sorry, just real quick update me, what's currently the most profitable company in the UK?

That's fair, but at the same time, expecting me or other forum-goers to be able to slap out a superior ruleset is hogwash.

 JNAProductions wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
Look how many people in this thread have claimed to know GW are doing a poor job, then failed to provide a solution themselves and instead keep using GW rules. Either people don't have the motivation to tackle something they perceive a problem, or can't do a better job than GW.

Are you a professional baker? Because if not, I'm going to bake you a cake using salt instead of sugar. Clearly, unless you can do it perfectly, you can't complain, right? /sarcasm

GW is paid millions of dollars on rules alone. (If not millions, at least hundreds of thousands.) It's quite literally the JOB of the game designers to make good rules. In fact, if someone COULD just as a hobby make better rules than GW, that's really, REALLY damning of their quality.

I don't doubt the community could make better rules and balance relatively well...IF there were no new codexes, units, or expanded design space to worry about.

 JNAProductions wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
Look how many people in this thread have claimed to know GW are doing a poor job, then failed to provide a solution themselves and instead keep using GW rules. Either people don't have the motivation to tackle something they perceive a problem, or can't do a better job than GW.

Are you a professional baker? Because if not, I'm going to bake you a cake using salt instead of sugar. Clearly, unless you can do it perfectly, you can't complain, right? /sarcasm

GW is paid millions of dollars on rules alone. (If not millions, at least hundreds of thousands.) It's quite literally the JOB of the game designers to make good rules. In fact, if someone COULD just as a hobby make better rules than GW, that's really, REALLY damning of their quality.

I think you're misunderstanding one facet of capitalism: it is not the rules designers job to make good rules.

It is the rules designers' job to make rules that SELL.

Sorry, just real quick update me, what's currently the most profitable company in the UK?

That's fair, but at the same time, expecting me or other forum-goers to be able to slap out a superior ruleset is hogwash.

I don't. I'm just pointing out the problem with your statement. If you look at the most profitable movies, video games, TV shows, music, heck anything really...

is the general theme you recognize among these things that they're the BEST?

ITC exists now NOT because it is the best way to play but because it gives the people behind the ITC a significant measure of control over the game and narrative of the community.
The ITC missions were completely necessary at the start of 8th. Now they are redundant and an inferior way to play the game.

Would IH still be too good outside of ITC? Yeah, they'll still probably be the best. Does that mean that the official GW missions should be ignored? No, it does not.

The CA missions in general are more varied, reward a more balanced list and encourage Tactical play far more beyond the list building stage.
The ITC has given us lots of great things, but I now believe they are taking away from the game.

If you are happy to play the one ITC mission (let's be honest it's just one mission with minor variation) where you chose what you score that's perfectly fine. Just don't go on to complain about the state of the game on top of that.

I say all this from the place of a former defender of the ITC. The FLG guys are great, a credit to the hobby. It's about time people expanded their horizons in terms of how they play. GW's missions have evolved and have been perfected over the last few years. They impact the game as much as the actual unit datasheets and faction rules.

the_scotsman wrote:


I think you're misunderstanding one facet of capitalism: it is not the rules designers job to make good rules.

It is the rules designers' job to make rules that SELL.

Sorry, just real quick update me, what's currently the most profitable company in the UK?

Rules that are good are rules that sell. Broken rules sell more. If it were GW's objective to purely make rules that sell on broken-ness : have they succeeded for all codexes? Why or why not?

 JNAProductions wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
Look how many people in this thread have claimed to know GW are doing a poor job, then failed to provide a solution themselves and instead keep using GW rules. Either people don't have the motivation to tackle something they perceive a problem, or can't do a better job than GW.

Are you a professional baker? Because if not, I'm going to bake you a cake using salt instead of sugar. Clearly, unless you can do it perfectly, you can't complain, right? /sarcasm

GW is paid millions of dollars on rules alone. (If not millions, at least hundreds of thousands.) It's quite literally the JOB of the game designers to make good rules. In fact, if someone COULD just as a hobby make better rules than GW, that's really, REALLY damning of their quality.

I can complain and I'd buy different bread. Likewise if the rules are so bad people hate them, either make their own or use a different game. Which again, nobody is seemingly able or willing to do.

Great! Let me just go ahead and find a new gaming store, one that's not a GW, and find a new group of people who are interested in a new game!

It's a hell of a lot harder to get a new game going than it is to buy a new cake.

Ofc it is, so your options are enjoy the game as it is and carry on, vote with your wallet and continue to play but not spend or thirdly to give up if it causes you enough misery.

I've realised while typing this out that if people are down or negative about the game but won't get out, then it's their choice to keep doing something that makes them miserable. Please note this is a thought train not directed.

If you're in that situation please just don't try to pass that negativity on, if someone's happy then leave them happy I guess. Again not aimed at anyone, just a thought.

 Ishagu wrote:
ITC exists now NOT because it is the best way to play but because it gives the people behind the ITC a significant measure of control over the game and narrative of the community.
The ITC missions were completely necessary at the start of 8th. Now they are redundant and an inferior way to play the game.

Would IH still be too good outside of ITC? Yeah, they'll still probably be the best. Does that mean that the official GW missions should be ignored? No, it does not.

The CA missions in general are more varied, reward a more balanced list and encourage Tactical play far more beyond the list building stage.
The ITC has given us lots of great things, but I now believe they are taking away from the game.

If you are happy to play the one ITC mission (let's be honest it's just one mission with minor variation) where you chose what you score that's perfectly fine. Just don't go on to complain about the state of the game on top of that.

I have disagreed strongly with this premise in the past. I might be willing to come around to it, but CA hasn't been out a month and I haven't had a chance to pay any games with it yet. I won't rehash old arguments. It will take data to convince me, which I understand is frustrating considering ITC controls a lot of that data.

The missions are very similar to the ones in CA18, just tweaked and changed in a few ways. They really do create significantly different scenarios where lists might excel or fail - hence a balanced list becomes necessary.

GW is clearly quite happy with how they play, and I agree. I will be doing further testing tomorrow, I have a full day set aside with 4 other players and we will make our way through all the missions testing multiple different factions.

-Astartes (Ultras and Raven Guard)
-Tau
-Astra Militarum
-Knights
-AdMech
-Chaos (Death Guard and mixed Daemons)
-Eldar

 Ishagu wrote:
The missions are very similar to the ones in CA18, just tweaked and changed in a few ways.

GW is clearly quite happy with how they play, and I agree. I will be doing further testing tomorrow, I have a full day set aside with 4 other players and we will make our way through all the missions testing multiple different factions.

-Astartes (Ultras and Raven Guard)
-Tau
-Astra Militarum
-Knights
-AdMech
-Chaos (Death Guard and mixed Daemons)
-Eldar

I think if people really want to change minds you'd have to record some games. Get competent ITC players - one IH player against 3 opponents and record the results. Then those same player do missions in CA19 and record the results. Same terrain.

I'd do it, but my kids do not allow time for it so the burden falls on the younger un-yoked hobbyists.

 Ishagu wrote:
The missions are very similar to the ones in CA18, just tweaked and changed in a few ways. They really do create significantly different scenarios where lists might excel or fail - hence a balanced list becomes necessary.

GW is clearly quite happy with how they play, and I agree. I will be doing further testing tomorrow, I have a full day set aside with 4 other players and we will make our way through all the missions testing multiple different factions.

-Astartes (Ultras and Raven Guard)
-Tau
-Astra Militarum
-Knights
-AdMech
-Chaos (Death Guard and mixed Daemons)
-Eldar

Well, good luck to you getting to the end of the game without one side tabled!

AFAIK, all GW missions still do the "turn 5, roll a die, 1/3 chance game is over, turn 6, 2/3 chance, turn 7 it's over" thing, and that's just...too many turns, honestly. My last game was on this impossibly dense zone mortalis board with LOS blockers everywhere, first player literally took shots with 2 units turn 1, second player took shots with 3, and the game was still totally done by the end of turn 4 with everything just swept off the board.

Most of the games we play now use CA missions and few people are tabled before the end of turn 4, and they don't necessarily lose even if they are.

As for the Iron Hands, I think people really need to stop using them as a deciding factor. Yes, they are the best sub faction currently and their rules were tuned too aggressively. Will CA mission fix them? Provably not. Do ITC missions fix them? 100% Definitely not. Iron Hands do need to be addressed, and GW can do so at some point. (Funny enough the RG consistently beat the Iron Hands in CA missions)

For the last two or more years, prior to Astartes, people had to put up with Eldar flyers. Now the Tau gunline is rising again. These lists don't perform anywhere near as well in CA missions. It's simply better for the game.

Even if you don't think it's more balanced, it's definitely more varied. The ITC mission has become very, very boring at this stage.

I don't care if GW is happy with them. I wouldnt use anything from gw if i could avoid it. Their missions are still too horde friendly, imo.

Yes, they are more varied. Don't care. They are gw crap.

You've clearly not played them. And you've also been wrong about everything you've expressed an opinion on.

Here's a tip for you Martel: Stop talking in absolutes.

Remember when you said Astartes will never perform on the game? Or how about when you said that the Castellan is still the most powerful unit after it was nerfed? Lol

Martel732 wrote:
I don't care if GW is happy with them. I wouldnt use anything from gw if i could avoid it. Their missions are still too horde friendly, imo.

Yes, they are more varied. Don't care. They are gw crap.

What is your beef with hordes exactly? Your go-to reason why ITC is better is that non-ITC is too horde friendly, by which I suppose you mean has no secondary objectives you can pick that gives you bonus points for killing X models.

That seems to be the crux of your argument. That and "player agency" which again I assume means "I can pick how I get bonus points, thereby making list building even more important versus playing the mission"

So basically you prefer ITC missions because of secondary objectives.

Martel doesn't actually play the game, so I wouldn't be too concerned with his statements lol

 Ishagu wrote:
Martel doesn't actually play the game, so I wouldn't be too concerned with his statements lol

I guess if you consider ITC to be the game..

And there is a downside to cheap dispisable units and a real reason to not spam msu like in gw missions. That being the killed more units mechanic on top of secondaries. And yes, i like secondaries.

I still think gw couldnt figure out how to make marines viable in the race to the bottom without going overboard. Which they did.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ishagu wrote:
Martel doesn't actually play the game, so I wouldn't be too concerned with his statements lol

Baseless accusations. Check. Condescending attitude check. Sounds like a gw fanboi to me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I do wish itc had more variation, but gw missions are a non-solution atm. Maybe another tourney format needs to come along.

Deadnight wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

And a game with functional rules that allows complete novices to show up at a game store with an army and get a game against a stranger that at least kind of works rather than steamrolling/getting steamrolled because they bought the wrong minis...is more of a barrier to entering the game in your mind?

Firstly, let's be clear. Your original post was a very venomous one having a go at folks like us as though it's impossible to bring people into the hobby by playing differently. I answered that.

Now it's mutated to snarky implications about something I didn't say.

But to answer, and firstly, I have no general issues with pick up game culture as a 'thing'. I've said it before - it has a viable and valuable niche. My problem is with people insisting this is the 'right' or 'proper' or 'only' way to play and outright dismissing the validity or value of other approaches. do I have a problem with a game with functioning rules that allows complete novices to show up at a game store with an army, and get a game against a stranger that at least kind of works rather than being a steamrolling because they had the wrong minis? In principle, no i dont. I've never come across this game though. I've never come across any game that didn't have issues, go to builds etc. I would say I have more of an issue with the base idea that you should firstly be playing against a stranger, (and that this should be the first consideration) instead of building a community and making friends with your peers.
While I don't need think it's a barrier to entering the game, I think an over-insistence of pick-up-game culture, an overvaluing of its value, and a dismissal of other alternatives/approaches and the narrowness of thought that can emerge from this, as well as an insistence on adhering to the 'tyranny of officialdom' in all circumstances (and claiming personal helplessness with issues in the rules), likewise, is problematic and damaging to the hobby in the long term. I think these can feed into a devaluing of communication and community building and it can therefore be detrimental and ultimately toxic in the long term.

I've burned out twice from pick up game and tournament game culture. I value it, for sure. I just don't see it as the be all and end all or the ultimate expression of the game. Ymmv.

I apologize. It was not my intention to dismiss the validity of your approach to the game.

The problem I have with this whole argument is that if the game were better-balanced for pick-up games and not loaded with trap options that punish players for liking the 'wrong models' it wouldn't hurt anything. It wouldn't make the game worse for casual players or for tournament players if models/units were consistently useful instead of making units massively powerful auto-win buttons and then six months later nerfing them into unplayability. I don't understand who it harms to have one arbitrary thousand-point army list having a reasonable chance of having a close game against another arbitrary thousand-point army list. The reason I lose my temper is that I then get told that this opinion makes me a tournament-rules fascist trying to impose my approach to the game on everyone else and 'pick-up game culture' is somehow harmful to people who don't want to play that way.

My problem with your argument specifically is that I'm not asking for an over-reliance on pick-up games as the only format of relevance. I'm asking for the pick-up game format and the new player experience to exist in the consciousness of GW's writers on any non-zero level at all, because I'm tired of seeing people walk into a game store with the awesome new cool minis they bought and painted and want to try playing a game and then walk out discouraged because they didn't exhaustively research the local meta or establish themselves the negotiating position in the community to get themselves a real game instead of getting wiped off the table in two turns. Maybe you shouldn't need tyrannical officials to dictate how you have fun with your toy soldiers. Sure. I'm happy to accept that. But GW has chosen to position themselves as having some official control over the game by publishing rulebooks, and I think that means they have some responsibility to officiate in a competent manner. And if they can't even be bothered to make the points system they give you to 'balance' pick-up games have any relation to the real world I don't think they've succeeded in doing that and I don't understand why people think telling me "we know the game is going to suck, now bury your head in the sand and stop caring or go rewrite it yourself" makes it suck less or the experience of trying to start playing 40k any less full of traps, pitfalls, and toxicity.

 Sim-Life wrote:
I'm surprised this thread hasn't been locked. It's not productive and is just becoming a thread full of accusations and snide remarks.

Maybe we're making accusations and snide remarks in a calm and civilized tone of voice.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Holy gak, as someone with a philosophy degree in undergrad I am embarrassed to be even in the same category as Ozymoto.

I can't wait for the solipsism argument to come out (which he has bordered on already with the "balance is subjective" thing). Something like "balance is a construct of the human mind and doesn't objectively exist."

Well yes it does mother . You can measure it, juggle it, you could get a grant to write research papers on it.

How important balance is to someone is subjective, but that is a tautology. "That rock is/isn't important" is subjective. "That rock exists" is not.

40k is objectively, measurably, mathematically less balanced than Chess.

How important that is to you is subjective.

It is the height of stupidity, though, to come into a subjective discussion leading with "I disagree that your concerns should be discussed because I don't find them important." Like, okay, some people *do* find them important, and should be allowed to discuss them. Saying "it is okay that 40k is imbalanced as it is" is not the argument being made anyways...

...urg, sorry.

Solipsism doesn't go far enough. I could never, with certainty, have knowledge my own mind exists.

The void that is the skeptic always wins.

You have many misunderstanding's you might want to look into

That article covers 'some' and 'important' elements of balance. Calling it exhaustive or objective would be silly. The article lays out 8 or so fundamental requirements for a balanced game and then runs there monster game through it stating the program saved 20 real time balance phases of testing. It was, explicitly based on the criteria they initially laid out. Nothing about anything shows or argues those 8 or so criteria are an extensive and exhaustive method of producing objective balance in a complex game.

Skepticism of one's own mind requires skepticism of your own skepticism… I mean… it honestly makes zero sense, and can be refuted in a bajillion different ways. That's not skepticism, it's just sophomoric nonsense. It's like saying you're skeptical that 2 + 2 really equals 4.

nataliereed1984 wrote:
Skepticism of one's own mind requires skepticism of your own skepticism… I mean… it honestly makes zero sense, and can be refuted in a bajillion different ways. That's not skepticism, it's just sophomoric nonsense. It's like saying you're skeptical that 2 + 2 really equals 4.

You mistake two seperate statements of mine as one conjoined one. The first sentence isn't trying to prove any claims of skepticism.It is what it is, I don't have the capability to satisfactory argue my own mind exsits.

The second sentence acts as a narrative statement for commentary.

Infinite regression of things is a common issue. Would you like to state an argument as to why you are not allowed to argue you cannot have knowledge as one cannot navigate a justification through a regression that isn't just calling me a juvenile .

I have never never heard or seen anyone ever make a claim that was deductive, or if it what is was truly inductive as it existed in an artificial vaccum to make itself seemingly as such.

Perhaps this is my idiocy or misunderstandings, perhaps it is not. I will not be the the first or last to live and die and at the end say,"I know nothing". I may not be respected but calling that idea juvenile is a sleight agaisnt some of those that have lived before us that don't deserve it.

Pointed Stick wrote:
My best 40k experiences have been in a close-knit group of friends who all played the game. We made house rules, we imposed points handicaps, we made wacky lists and we generally had a blast. Even with my underpowered army (Orks), it was possible to have a decently balanced game full of fun by selectively modifying some of the basic rules or conditions accordingly. I loved playing this way.

Then I got older and moved away and found myself without a core group of friends to play with. I started playing pick-up games in gaming stores. And these are just... un-fun if you're not bringing a competitive list for a competitive army. I get stomped over and over again, because the game's poor internal balance is something that gets ruthlessly exploited in the casual pick-up game scene rather than fixed with gentleman's agreements. It almost seems as if the poor balance encourages jerks to tool up to destroy everyone with cheese, because they can and it's so obviously a winning strategy.

The former is the only way I have fun playing 40K over the years. Every time I watch some of the people (none of which I "know") nowadays at a local game store from the sidelines, most times they are all blasting cheese at each other. Even pick up games seem like it's for the fate of the world. I just wanna hang out and push models, and be happy when I win, but at the same time not be doomed by my Faction choice before the game starts unless I chase the meta vs. build toward my preferred play style.

Ozomoto wrote:

nataliereed1984 wrote:
Skepticism of one's own mind requires skepticism of your own skepticism… I mean… it honestly makes zero sense, and can be refuted in a bajillion different ways. That's not skepticism, it's just sophomoric nonsense. It's like saying you're skeptical that 2 + 2 really equals 4.

You mistake two seperate statements of mine as one conjoined one. The first sentence isn't trying to prove any claims of skepticism.It is what it is, I don't have the capability to satisfactory argue my own mind exsits.

The second sentence acts as a narrative statement for commentary.

Infinite regression of things is a common issue. Would you like to state an argument as to why you are not allowed to argue you cannot have knowledge as one cannot navigate a justification through a regression that isn't just calling me a juvenile .

I have never never heard or seen anyone ever make a claim that was deductive, or if it what is was truly inductive as it existed in an artificial vaccum to make itself seemingly as such.

Perhaps this is my idiocy or misunderstandings, perhaps it is not. I will not be the the first or last to live and die and at the end say,"I know nothing". I may not be respected but calling that idea juvenile is a sleight agaisnt some of those that have lived before us that don't deserve it.

Look, I don't wanna get in any more big arguments in this thread, so all I'm going to say is:

People generally sound a hell of a lot smarter when restricting themselves to topics they fully understand, even if those topics are considered "stupid" like sports or pop music, then they do when trying to speak about "intellectual" or academic topics that they don't understand.