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.

Martel732 wrote:Why are the rules unfair to begin with?

I was speaking hypothetically. In the case of WH40k, we subsequently may ask: "Are the rules fair?" In point of fact, the general player consensus seems to be "no." The general concensus is that the rules are poorly written and that the game is horribly unbalanced.

If you disagree, then that's fine. But you're disagreeing, it seems, with what seems like a majority of WH40k players.

If you agree, on the other hand, and you still take advantage of the unfair rules (which, let us note, you think are unfair)...again, this speaks poorly about your character, in my view.

Traditio wrote:
It's a list which is obviously favored by 1. the CAD FOC chart and

No it isn't. The CAD FOC doesn't favor any particular mix of unit types (vehicles/infantry/etc). And really, who cares about the CAD? This isn't 5th edition, the CAD is just one possible detachment among many that are equally valid in a battle-forged army. And an unbound army is just as valid as any battle-forged army.

2. the fluff.

The fluff doesn't say anything about taking a random mix of units, that's just a concept that "casual at all costs" players have invented. CAAC players believe that the opposite of a powerful list is a fluffy list, so any list that is weak must automatically be fluffy. In reality that's not even close to true. My IG armored company list with nothing but tanks and aircraft (thank you GW for making my LRBTs scoring in 7th and removing the need to take infantry entirely) is also a very fluffy list.

That's just more of the WAAC TFG mindset, imho.

And there you go again, assuming that anyone who enjoys playing competitively has the "WAAC TFG mindset". Could you please stop stereotyping people and acting like your favorite way to play the game is the One True Way To Have Fun?

Again, I don't care about fun. I'm not talking about fun. This notion of "fun" should not even come up in this context.

It keeps coming up because that's the way you're treating your style of playing the game: you're doing it the right way, and everyone else is just WAAC TFGs even if they're playing in an environment where everyone enjoys competitive play and all of those "TFGs" are having lots of fun.

I'm talking about fairness.

And fairness, in this case, depends entirely on your point of view. In a competitive metagame (a concept you can't seem to understand) "fair" means taking the "cheesiest" possible list because that's what everyone else is doing. Alternatively, I could argue that the game is fair already since you and I both have access to the same "cheese"* and therefore your failure to build a good list is entirely your fault (just like we wouldn't complain about "fairness" if you charged a terminator squad with a single grot and the grot inevitably died).

*There is, however, the question about whether or not this "fair" game has a diverse and interesting metagame, but that's a subject that is entirely separate from fairness. "Flip a coin" is a perfectly fair game even though it isn't a very interesting one.

Evil - it doesn't seem reasonable to report someone who really thinks I am a GW apologist who posted so, prior to me asking them not to.

Bharring wrote:
I'm fairly sure its "legal" to wait until after the game begins to, say, put a call in to whoever that your opponent's car is illegally parked. Then call it a forfeit when he runs to pay the meter (or whatever). But I'm sure most wouldn't call that 'fair'.

Ummm, what?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Traditio wrote:

Martel732 wrote:Why are the rules unfair to begin with?

I was speaking hypothetically. In the case of WH40k, we subsequently may ask: "Are the rules fair?" In point of fact, the general player consensus seems to be "no." The general concensus is that the rules are poorly written and that the game is horribly unbalanced.

If you disagree, then that's fine. But you're disagreeing, it seems, with what seems like a majority of WH40k players.

If you agree, on the other hand, and you still take advantage of the unfair rules (which, let us note, you think are unfair)...again, this speaks poorly about your character, in my view.

But that assumes anyone cares about your judgments. My group is more likely to point and laugh about your ideas of character.

Martel732 wrote:But that assumes anyone cares about your judgments.

By no means. I'll let there be a vote of one and ask for your vote: does a person of good character take advantage of unfair rules?

If you say "no," then you've conceded my argument.

If you say "yes," then you make yourself ridiculous in the eyes of pretty much everyone (and of yourself, no doubt).

Traditio wrote:

Martel732 wrote:But that assumes anyone cares about your judgments.

By no means. I'll let there be a vote of one and ask for your vote: does a person of good character take advantage of unfair rules?

If you say "no," then you've conceded my argument.

If you say "yes," then you make yourself ridiculous in the eyes of pretty much everyone (and of yourself, no doubt).

Unless, of course, one's goal is to make the best list possible, and does not consider oneself taking advantage of anything. Which is what most power gamers seem to think they are doing, not taking advantage of anything.

What's funny is I build my lists for WMH the same way and can have a fair game against anyone. My favorite list is an optimized shade3 cavalry build that's won multiple large tournaments. My friend got into trolls and wanted to see what my list could do. They're usually considered in the mid to low tier power level. Once he learned the game, he was able to get nearly 50% win rate against my best list. Nobody complains when I show up to play pick up games with shade3 and kraken. This is because the rules writers took care of the balance issue.

You keep ignoring the fact that everyone is going to have a different idea of what's fair. If you play 1k sons, you probably think any build I can come up with using eldar is "unfair". If you have a warhound titan, you probably don't have a problem with any of my lists. So, who determines what's "unfair"? You seem to see your opinion as the end all be all of what's fair and what isn't.

Traditio wrote:
"poll"

So, essentially this is what you think is a legitimate argument:

By no means. I'll let there be a vote of one and ask for your vote: does a person of good character agree with me or not?

If you say "no," then you've conceded my argument.

If you say "yes," then you make yourself ridiculous in the eyes of pretty much everyone (and of yourself, no doubt).

Martel732 wrote:Unless, of course, one's goal is to make the best list possible, and does not consider oneself taking advantage of anything. Which is what most power gamers seem to think they are doing, not taking advantage of anything.

You're dodging the question. Because, I can only assume, you agree with me. A person of good character does not take advantage of unfair advantages.

Will you now tell me that there are no such unfair advantages in WH40k?

Traditio wrote:
Will you now tell me that there are no such unfair advantages in WH40k?

Nice bait and switch. You start off with the statement most people will agree with, that there are "unfair advantages" in the sense that some options are more powerful than others and the game is not a fair 50/50 coin flip. But then you switch it for a new concept of "fairness", that a person of "good character" doesn't resort to dirty tricks and dishonestly rig the game in their favor. These two concepts are not at all the same.

I like that: "Taking advantage of unfair rules."
I fine pastime of every person trying to get a leg-up in life.

You ARE playing a game if you abide by the rules.
You don't like the rules; don't play it or change them with agreement by your opponent.

When competing in a game, how you play is not to be confused with your social behavior.

I am sorely tempted to get an Eldar army and dare people to try to beat me... just so we all know where we stand. Refusal to play should be based on me acting like a jerk, not by how aggressive my play/army list is (bunch of cowards...).

Traditio wrote:

Martel732 wrote:Unless, of course, one's goal is to make the best list possible, and does not consider oneself taking advantage of anything. Which is what most power gamers seem to think they are doing, not taking advantage of anything.

You're dodging the question. Because, I can only assume, you agree with me. A person of good character does not take advantage of unfair advantages.

Will you now tell me that there are no such unfair advantages in WH40k?

I'm not dodging anything. I actually don't judge people for making legal choices. I'm blaming those who wrote the rules. And, to be honest, if a very good BA codex were somehow published, I'd put the wood to Eldar and Tau players every chance I got. I think it's fine for competitors to use the legal tools at their disposal regardless of whether their opponent thinks it's fair or not.

Wait...is he honestly saying that playing a strong list makes you a dishonest person?

Could it be that maybe someone enjoys playing competitive lists and expects their opponents to bring their A-game?

The problem isn't there, its the fact that not all codicies' A-games are on the same level.

Funny how I don't see this argument coming up in nearly the same degree with the other three games I play if at all. Hmmm..... That is a puzzler.

Peregrine wrote:No it isn't. The CAD FOC doesn't favor any particular mix of unit types (vehicles/infantry/etc).

The CAD FOC permits up to 6 troop choices, up to 2 HQs, and 3 of each other unit type. The standard troop choices are infantry. I'll let you finish the reasoning for yourself.

The fluff doesn't say anything about taking a random mix of units, that's just a concept that "casual at all costs" players have invented.

You're putting words in my mouth. What I described earlier is an army with mostly infantry, some vehicles, up to 1 or 2 MCs and up to 1 or 2 fliers. That's not the same thing as "a random mix of units."

And there you go again, assuming that anyone who enjoys playing competitively has the "WAAC TFG mindset". Could you please stop stereotyping people and acting like your favorite way to play the game is the One True Way To Have Fun?

You keep talking about fun. I've made myself perfectly clear: I'm not concerned with fun.

And fairness, in this case, depends entirely on your point of view.

Aristotle disagrees. Fairness = justice = proportional equality. Which is, let us note, what the points system is supposed to effect.

In a competitive metagame (a concept you can't seem to understand) "fair" means taking the "cheesiest" possible list because that's what everyone else is doing. Alternatively, I could argue that the game is fair already since you and I both have access to the same "cheese"* and therefore your failure to build a good list is entirely your fault (just like we wouldn't complain about "fairness" if you charged a terminator squad with a single grot and the grot inevitably died).

Simple question: Do you think that a wraithknight should cost 295 points? If you say "no," then what you are saying is that the current points cost of the wraithknight is unfair. In order for you to claim that the game is fair, you have to tell me that there are no undercosted, overcosted or broken units, unit combinations or rules.

Are you willing to make that claim?

So anyone who does what they can (within the rules) to win at an inherently competitive game has bad character? I have no words...

 Peregrine wrote:

Traditio wrote:
Will you now tell me that there are no such unfair advantages in WH40k?

Nice bait and switch. You start off with the statement most people will agree with, that there are "unfair advantages" in the sense that some options are more powerful than others and the game is not a fair 50/50 coin flip.

You keep putting words in my mouth. Is that what I said? Yes, I (and other people) think that apart from skill, actual dice results, etc., each player, regardless of the list that they bring, should have roughly a 50/50 chance of winning. That's not the same thing as saying that the game should be a 50/50 coin flip.

But then you switch it for a new concept of "fairness", that a person of "good character" doesn't resort to dirty tricks and dishonestly rig the game in their favor. These two concepts are not at all the same.

Not what I said. What I said is that a person of good character doesn't take advantage of unfair advantages.

Do you agree or disagree with this?

I'm following a CAD without any allies or FW super heavies.
jetseer
spiritseer
WG, D scythe, serpent, scatter lasers
30 scatter bikes divided into 6 units
hornet
crimson hunter, pulse lasers
wraithknight, D cannons, scatter laser

That's 1850 exactly. I've taken a mix of bikes, regular infantry, a fast attack, a flyer and 1 MC. By your standard above, I've made a fair list, right?

 Toofast wrote:
So anyone who does what they can (within the rules) to win at an inherently competitive game has bad character? I have no words...

Absolutely not. You have a bad character if you take advantage of unfair advantages or rules. That's what I said. By all means, try to win. But if trying to win means taking advantage of unfair rules...

"What I said is that a person of good character doesn't take advantage of unfair advantages. "

Based on this discussion, I'd have to disagree with you. Someone's character is independent of a low-stakes competitive war game. You can call me ridiculous, but you are back to your judgments meaning anything to me. Which they don't.

I maintain calling the metermaid when your opponent's meter ran out - especially if you slow play to make it happen - doesn't break the rules, but few, if any, would consider that fair.

 Toofast wrote:
I'm following a CAD without any allies or FW super heavies.
jetseer
spiritseer
WG, D scythe, serpent, scatter lasers
30 scatter bikes divided into 6 units
hornet
crimson hunter, pulse lasers
wraithknight, D cannons, scatter laser

That's 1850 exactly. I've taken a mix of bikes, regular infantry, a fast attack, a flyer and 1 MC. By your standard above, I've made a fair list, right?

No. It's pretty much universally accepted that a wraithknight should be 50 points more expensive, and that each of your scatter bikes should be at least 5 points more expensive. Just for starters. Based solely on those two considerations, by my count, you have at least 200 more points in your list than you reasonably should (had only GW written the codex in a more equitable way).

Traditio wrote:

 Toofast wrote:
I'm following a CAD without any allies or FW super heavies.
jetseer
spiritseer
WG, D scythe, serpent, scatter lasers
30 scatter bikes divided into 6 units
hornet
crimson hunter, pulse lasers
wraithknight, D cannons, scatter laser

That's 1850 exactly. I've taken a mix of bikes, regular infantry, a fast attack, a flyer and 1 MC. By your standard above, I've made a fair list, right?

No. It's pretty much universally accepted that a wraithknight should be 50 points more expensive, and that each of your scatter bikes should be at least 5 points more expensive. Just for starters. By my count, you have at least 200 more points in your list than you should.

But not by the legal count.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bharring wrote:
I maintain calling the metermaid when your opponent's meter ran out - especially if you slow play to make it happen - doesn't break the rules, but few, if any, would consider that fair.

Fortunately, GW is not in charge of parking enforcement.

Martel732 wrote:Based on this discussion, I'd have to disagree with you. Someone's character is independent of a low-stakes competitive war game. You can call me ridiculous, but you are back to your judgments meaning anything to me. Which they don't.

I'm not claiming that taking undue advantages at a game makes you a very bad person, or even a particularly bad person at all. It's, in the grand scheme of things, a fairly minor fault. It is a fault, though, and it does demonstrate an unjust character, at least in that minor respect and degree. A person of perfectly just character always tries to maintain equity.

Could you imagine if they were? $200 to park my Camry. Or $400, and they won't allow you to block me in when you park...

My point is trying to establish that there are behaviors designed to win that do not break the rules, but aren't reasonable.

Traditio wrote:

Martel732 wrote:Based on this discussion, I'd have to disagree with you. Someone's character is independent of a low-stakes competitive war game. You can call me ridiculous, but you are back to your judgments meaning anything to me. Which they don't.

I'm not claiming that taking undue advantages at a game makes you a very bad person, or even a particularly bad person at all. It's, in the grand scheme of things, a fairly minor fault. It is a fault, though, and it does demonstrate an unjust character, at least in that degree. A person of just character always tries to maintain equity.

I guess I'm faulty then, because I'll use what I can in a competitive game. Because it's a competition, not a group hug.

Martel732 wrote:I guess I'm faulty then, because I'll use what I can in a competitive game. Because it's a competition, not a group hug.

Well fine. But if you're running the race on steroids whereas everyone else isn't, don't pretend that you have anything to be proud of when you win the race.

Traditio wrote:

Martel732 wrote:I guess I'm faulty then, because I'll use what I can in a competitive game. Because it's a competition, not a group hug.

Well fine. But if you're running the race on steroids whereas everyone else isn't, don't pretend that you have anything to be proud of when you win the race.

Steroids aren't legal in most (any?) races. Scatbikes are. It's going to be hard to find another competitive game or sport where this kind of insanity is permitted within the rules. But hey, it's the rules.

Martel732 wrote:Steroids aren't legal in most (any?) races. Scatbikes are.

Even if they were, you still wouldn't have anything to be proud of if you win the race.

Traditio wrote:

Martel732 wrote:Steroids aren't legal in most (any?) races. Scatbikes are.

Even if they were, you still wouldn't have anything to be proud of if you win the race.

It's hard to compare, because most sports are about $$ rewards. You do what you have to to get the $$.

Traditio wrote:
What I said is that a person of good character

Stopping right here.
What is "good character"?
“to do the ethnical and virtuous thing without anyone watching” (William S. Cottinger)
I have a little trouble thinking this all applies in a game's framework other than your interactions on a social level with your opponent (no cheating!).

doesn't take advantage of unfair advantages.

"Unfair advantages" where to begin...
Can you pick the same army list as me and play the same way?
Yes.
Soooo... unfair advantage how?
I have my choices, you have yours.
We agree on the rules and play, at any point you have many choices including to use the poorly balanced GW rules.

Try watching "Survivor" where people are challenged on so many levels for a million dollars and it is all a game.
You see the constant "Are they REALLY that way or is it how they play the game?", few people ever know.

I play games to relax, I find it troubling to have my character judged by what I choose to play... it is rather a shallow means of evaluation.