Worried about powerful codexs? Just agree to be decent human beings.

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.

**Traditio**

Martel732 wrote:It's hard to compare, because most sports are about $$ rewards. You do what you have to to get the $$.

It really isn't. Let's assume that steroids are technically permitted. You are using steroids. Nobody else is. You win.

Congrats. It's like winning the special olympics even though you are perfectly able-bodied. Do you really feel that special because you won?

**Peregrine**

Traditio wrote:
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.

1) There is no such thing as a "standard" troops choice. Some troops are infantry, some are vehicles (whether it's LRBTs in an armored company or just token scoring units in Wave Serpents), some are jetbikes, some are jump/jetpack infantry, some are cavalry, etc.

2) The CAD still allows you to take 1 HQ, 2 troops, and then 3 each of fast attack and heavy support. For example, IG can take Pask, two veteran squads in Chimeras, three Hellhound squadrons and three LRBT squadrons. That's a pure vehicle army with token infantry squads to fill a FOC requirement, not a "mostly infantry" army like you seem to think the CAD FOC demands.

3) You've moved the goalposts. What you originally said was that the CAD pushes you to have a mix of infantry/vehicles/MCs/etc, not that it makes you take infantry. A pure infantry army disproves your claim just as well as a pure vehicle army.

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."

Of course that's a random mix of units. That's a straightforward "take a little of everything" list with no coherent purpose behind it.

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

And yet over and over again you talk about it, even if you never explicitly say the word "fun". Your position is very clear: you play the game the "right" way, and everyone who doesn't play it your way is a WAAC TFG.

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

Nice job ignoring the rest of that argument, where I pointed out that what is "fair" in one metagame is "overpowered cheese" in another and "why are you wasting my time with such a weak list" in a third. Which means that, like I said, "fairness" depends on your point of view.

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?

No, because that's a stupid and irrelevant claim to make. See my other post about the bait and switch you're attempting to do.

**Martel732**

Traditio wrote:
Martel732 wrote:It's hard to compare, because most sports are about $$ rewards. You do what you have to to get the $$.

It really isn't. Let's assume that steroids are technically permitted. You are using steroids. Nobody else is. You win.

Congrats. It's like winning the special olympics even though you are perfectly able-bodied. Do you really feel that special because you won?

It's not about feeling special. It's about collecting the $$ for winning. If the others aren't willing to do what it takes, then they don't deserve the $$ in a competitive event. This is why steroids are illegal, because they cause long term harm in order to compete. Buying different toy soldiers doesn't cause long term harm.

**Akiasura**

Traditio wrote:
Martel732 wrote:It's hard to compare, because most sports are about $$ rewards. You do what you have to to get the $$.

It really isn't. Let's assume that steroids are technically permitted. You are using steroids. Nobody else is. You win.

Congrats. It's like winning the special olympics even though you are perfectly able-bodied. Do you really feel that special because you won?

If steroids were legal, everyone would be on them and the playing field would be level. I would be competing against other steroid users.

**Martel732**

Akiasura wrote:
Traditio wrote:
Martel732 wrote:It's hard to compare, because most sports are about $$ rewards. You do what you have to to get the $$.

It really isn't. Let's assume that steroids are technically permitted. You are using steroids. Nobody else is. You win.

Congrats. It's like winning the special olympics even though you are perfectly able-bodied. Do you really feel that special because you won?

If steroids were legal, everyone would be on them and the playing field would be level. I would be competing against other steroid users.

Steroids are more accessible than a good codex in 40K. LOL.

**EVIL INC**

Bharring wrote:
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.

Rude name calling is rude name calling. if you were to call them TFG even if they act that way and you feel that they are, you can BET they would be hammering on the report button.
We ALL need to follow the rules of the site not just a select few of us.
This is why you get the illusion of "the majority of players thinking the rules are broken". You have a select few who are able to ignore the rules of the site and run rampant until the actual majority of members just put them on ignore or cower down and let them have their way. In other times, the players who thought the rules were totally off kilter, were more polite about it.by not reporting them, you are condoning their actions and hurting those of us who actually do follow the rules of the site.

Personally, i think the rules have always been broken in one form or another since day one. All of the other games on the market are the same way. it is just a matter of opinion as to which is "worse" and who is more or less vocal about it. Along with who is more or less impolite and rude about it.
What it comes down to is that no matter how "unfair" or "fair" the rules are, it is up to the players themselves to determine whether or not they want to act like jerks in a game. yes, even if they were using the magical non-existant "perfect" ruled game.

**Peregrine**

Traditio wrote:
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.

So you think that a player who brings an unbound list consisting of a single squad of grots to a 5000 point game should have a roughly 50/50 chance of winning?

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

Ok, here's where you're going wrong with this. You're assuming everyone plays the game the way you do. So, here's the situation in your mind:

Everyone in the group agrees to bring lists with a diverse mix of vehicles/infantry/flyers/etc and refrain from taking "too many" copies of overpowered units. But since this is just an unwritten rule enforced by social pressure there's nothing preventing someone from taking advantage of the lack of explicit bans and bringing their best tournament list. This would be "unfair" because nobody else can match it, and the games wouldn't be much fun.

But here's your problem: you're confusing the balance issues with the exploitation of social norms. The player with the tournament list isn't behaving badly because they took a powerful list, they're behaving badly because they're exploiting the fact that you didn't explicitly say "don't do this" and taking advantage of a loophole in the group's rules. But that isn't the situation in other groups, so your assumption that powerful list = unfair doesn't apply.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Traditio wrote:
It really isn't. Let's assume that steroids are technically permitted. You are using steroids. Nobody else is. You win.

Congrats. It's like winning the special olympics even though you are perfectly able-bodied. Do you really feel that special because you won?

But that's not the case in 40k. Everyone has the same access to all of the rules, including the overpowered ones.

**Mozzyfuzzy**

EVIL INC wrote:
Bharring wrote:
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.

Rude name calling is rude name calling. if you were to call them TFG even if they act that way and you feel that they are, you can BET they would be hammering on the report button.
We ALL need to follow the rules of the site not just a select few of us.
This is why you get the illusion of "the majority of players thinking the rules are broken". You have a select few who are able to ignore the rules of the site and run rampant until the actual majority of members just put them on ignore or cower down and let them have their way. In other times, the players who thought the rules were totally off kilter, were more polite about it.by not reporting them, you are condoning their actions and hurting those of us who actually do follow the rules of the site.

Personally, i think the rules have always been broken in one form or another since day one. All of the other games on the market are the same way. it is just a matter of opinion as to which is "worse" and who is more or less vocal about it. Along with who is more or less impolite and rude about it.
What it comes down to is that no matter how "unfair" or "fair" the rules are, it is up to the players themselves to determine whether or not they want to act like jerks in a game. yes, even if they were using the magical non-existant "perfect" ruled game.

Could you provide some links to the bolded please?

And all the issues come down to GW not putting any effort into balancing their game, which people pay the premium to play, I personally don't see why I should spend so much and then fix the rules myself, when I could arguably spend less on a different system that is inherently balanced, and then tweak it for messing around.

There shouldn't be a comp vs "fluffy" player mindset, it should be "how can the rules designers make this game work for the majority?"

**EVIL INC**

"So you think that a player who brings an unbound list consisting of a single squad of grots to a 5000 point game should have a roughly 50/50 chance of winning? "
Absolutely not. That is an example of why being a competative player starts at list building. if you expect to only curbstomp your opponant, this grot list will more than likely not do it. If your looking to have fun where winning was not the object, you could likely find ways to do it in a funny characterful way. Most players will want somewhere in the middle and would likely not choose said army.

Mozzyfuzzy, for the bolded, read through this thread and the forums in general and you will find it aplenty. I only mentioned it as an aside in pointing out that players should treat one another with the same respect and dignity they want for themselves.
If you want a perfect game where there are no issues, you simply will not find one. It is only a matter of opinion as to which are "better" or "worse" and which game rules are preferred by the individual person. What it all boils down to is finding a set that you and the your group can agree on and go with that. Calling other's names and putting them down for having a different opinion does not fix what you (in general, not you in particular) think is wrong or broken in a game.

**Lanrak**

If there is a multimillion pound multinational company , that has an entire department of paid professional developers.
And this department of said company gives values and system instructions that are unclear and in some cases just totally incorrect.
And the customers of said company complain about the poor instruction set, and the inaccurate values.

And some other say 'its not the fault of the company they sell poor instructions and inaccurate values , the customers should be able to correct the mistakes themselves.'

Then by definition , does this not make these people apologists for that company?
I am sorry if I have got this wrong...

**Blacksails**

Don't forget that said company has had well over two decades of experience they should be drawing on to produce the best product by now.

**Bharring**

Lanrak,
Wouldn't "GW wrote some pretty bad rules" and "Maybe my opponent would rather I *didn't* bring a list full of WKs and Scatter Bikes" be compatible?

I, and others, are saying the second. You, and others, are taking exception with the first.

I don't believe we materially disagree on the first statement. The second, however, seems to be controversial.

**EVIL INC**

calling someone an "apologist" merely because they disagree with you in thinking that a company should be torn asunder and the entire game and ip burnt to the ground and instead think that there are issues and serious ones at that but are only more respectful and follow the rules of the site it is discussed on does not make them an apologist. As a matter of fact it is insulting (intentionally and misrepresentative of their stance (also intentionally).
These people you are rudely insulting by calling them apologists actually feel the same way as you do in many ways.

**Blacksails**

As long as you and your opponent are happy with the lists, it shouldn't matter what it consists of.

If you or your opponent take issue with each other's lists, then the issue is either resolved through some sort of compromise in power, or by finding another more compatible player.

In the second scenario, its still a symptom of the issues with the game either way you cut it. If you expect your opponent to build a list a certain way with certain restrictions, expect the same in return.

There's no right or wrong way to build a list, or morally superior or inferior way, or more fluffy or less fluffy, or more legal or less legal way.

*Edit* Evil, go read the definition of apologist. Come back when you have something reasonable and rational to say.

**ImAGeek**

Apologist isn't an insult.

a·pol·o·gist (ə-pŏl′ə-jĭst)
n.
A person who argues in defense or justification of something, such as a doctrine, policy, or institution.

**Bharring**

If it truly is a symptom, isn't disparaging being more reasonable in list building a lot like stopping Chemo because you shouldn't have cancer?

**Blacksails**

Bharring wrote:
If it truly is a symptom, isn't disparaging being more reasonable in list building a lot like stopping Chemo because you shouldn't have cancer?

What? No.

List building is a choice, cancer is not. I can choose to play and build an army I like, just like you can. The incompatibilities between power levels are purely due to GW's incompetence. The symptom is that you either have to find a different player, or force both players into a likely less than satisfactory compromise.

*Edit* Words are hard.

**Peregrine**

Bharring wrote:
If it truly is a symptom, isn't disparaging being more reasonable in list building a lot like stopping Chemo because you shouldn't have cancer?

Define "reasonable" without any reference to your personal opinions about list strength.

**Bharring**

In the earlier context, it was clearly a pejorative, paired with dismissing the argument at hand while providing a strawman. Not insulting enough to report, but clearly an insult.

In Lanark's post above, it was a respectful debate about terms.

**Azreal13**

ImAGeek wrote:
Apologist isn't an insult.

a·pol·o·gist (ə-pŏl′ə-jĭst)
n.
A person who argues in defense or justification of something, such as a doctrine, policy, or institution.

Beat me to it.

Apologist isn't a detrimental term unless you choose to take it as such, in which case I'm afraid the problem is yours. What it is is a handy term to succinctly summarise a group with a certain POV that isn't actually an insult unless the concerned party doesn't actually know what it means and chooses to be offended.

Meanwhile, anyone who takes a more critical approach frequently get accused of being whiners, cry babies, scrubs etc etc and this frequently goes past unremarked.

EDIT
Alternatively, perhaps we can drop apologist and start using equivalent terms to those applied to the more critical, would people prefer that or would it damage their delicate sensibilities?

Perhaps we could get a ruling on the approved term? You know, like they do with religious and ethnic groups?

**EVIL INC**

a·pol·o·gist
əˈpäləjəst/
noun
a person who offers an argument in defense of something controversial.
"an enthusiastic apologist for fascism in the 1920s"
synonyms: defender, supporter, upholder, advocate, proponent, exponent, propagandist, champion, campaigner; informalcheerleader
"one of Eisenhower's better-known apologists"

Useding this definition, it is being intentionally used as an insult because it is intentionally misrepresentative of hat is being said andis using he age old politics method of propaganda to form an "us against them" stance where one side isseen as the "bad guy".
using the definition provided, it most definately does NOT represent the stance of those you are calling that.
calling me unreasonabe and irrational through inference is also a form of insult and name calling. Remember, i am advocating following the rules and getting along with one another while having a civil discussion. Allowing that we all have different opinions and that one's right to have an opinion is just as valid as the right of another to have theirs. Not everyone in this thread is doing so.

**Blacksails**

It'd get pretty tiring having to type out 'People who defend things GW does that are detrimental to the game and community' instead of just typing apologist.

**Azreal13**

EVIL INC wrote:
a·pol·o·gist
əˈpäləjəst/
noun
a person who offers an argument in defense of something controversial.
"an enthusiastic apologist for fascism in the 1920s"
synonyms: defender, supporter, upholder, advocate, proponent, exponent, propagandist, champion, campaigner; informalcheerleader
"one of Eisenhower's better-known apologists"

Useding this definition, it is being intentionally used as an insult because it is intentionally misrepresentative of hat is being said andis using he age old politics method of propaganda to form an "us against them" stance where one side isseen as the "bad guy".
using the definition provided, it most definately does NOT represent the stance of those you are calling that.
calling me unreasonabe and irrational through inference is also a form of insult and name calling. Remember, i am advocating following the rules and getting along with one another while having a civil discussion. Allowing that we all have different opinions and that one's right to have an opinion is just as valid as the right of another to have theirs. Not everyone in this thread is doing so.

I wouldn't presume to know other people's intentions, I'm not psychic.

Perhaps, if you're unsure as to their intent, you should ask for clarification before throwing accusations around?

**EVIL INC**

Blacksails wrote:
It'd get pretty tiring having to type out 'People who defend things GW does that are detrimental to the game and community' instead of just typing apologist.

Even typing all of that out would be insulting and telling a lie. No one is saying that GW is not doing anything detrimental to the game and often it is the exact same things that we feel are detrimental. Just because we feel that GW is not the only company doing so or that we are admitting that there is no such thing as a perfect game because no matter how much one person "likes" a rule, there will always be someone else who doesnt or because we feel that there are better ways to address than just going online and finding some "whipping boy" to "beat up on" (who often actually agrees with you) is not the way to address the issue does not make us apologists.
In my case, your preaching to the choir in many cases because i felt that way long before you did, I am only more polite in addressing it.

**Mozzyfuzzy**

Bharring wrote:
If it truly is a symptom, isn't disparaging being more reasonable in list building a lot like stopping Chemo because you shouldn't have cancer?

No it's like stopping chemo because the doctor fethed up and somehow .... gave you cancer while fixing a dislocated shoulder

I'm not really sure where to go with this analogy.

You shouldn't have to think about pulling punches when writing a list (exempting doing something for scenarios or whatever), you put together a reasonably "smart" TAC list, and you should be able to compete with any other "smart" TAC list from any other codex.

**TheNewBlood**

There's been a lot of discussion about what constitutes "fair" and "TFG" lately, both in this thread and others. I figured I'd offer my personal definitions.

"Fair" in the context of 40k (or, for that matter, most tabletop wargames) is bringing an army that your opponent would have a good chance at beating if they played well, without resorting to list tailoring. In a competitive environment, a lot more of what would be considered cheese in a more friendly/casual environment is fair play because in those circumstances both players are aiming to win using the best possible lists their armies allow them to utilize. In a more casual/friendly atmosphere, fair may mean not taking the most optimal units in a particular codex to allow for more varied, lore-friendly, or gimmicky lists where the main goal is having fun. In this atmosphere, losing can be just as much fun as winning because of the relatively equal power level of the armies.

"TFG" is not the player who brings the best units and list possible for their army. In certain contexts, this behavior is considered normal and perfectly acceptable.

"TFG" is someone who plays without any respect for their opponent's fun. In a friendly or casual game, TFG is someone who brings a tournament-level list for the sole purpose of tabling or crushing their less competitively minded opponent without their opponent's consent. In a competitive or tournament game, TFG is is someone who plays in an unsportsmanlike manner, who rules-lawyers their way through the game and exploits it to try to give themselves an undeserved advantage over their opponent.

I think the main point of the OP is that it's all a manner of sportsmanship, and knowing the environment that you play.

**Bharring**

Peregrine,
"Reasonable" is highly dependant on the personal opinions of both parties, one set of which is obviously unknowable, but usually easily approximateable. Clearly, it is not quantifiable. But that doesn't mean useless.

For example, a technical solution to your query is to define "Reasonable" based on "one's perception of list strength", as it isn't defined by *my* perception. However, we can all agree that would be unreasonable.

**Mozzyfuzzy**

Savageconvoy wrote:
Lot of posts to read, but I had to make a comment after reading a statement that someone made about Wraith spam and being TFG.

In 6th ed they came out with a Wraith army kit that I've been working on for a while. I picked up Eldar in 6th, was planning on picking them up for a while since I've played Tau back in 5th and wanted to run some fun allies when 6th dropped. Then when the 6th ed codex hit I feel like crap because here I am with a Tau/Eldar army.

I picked up one unit of jet bikes because I needed a mobile troop and Wraithguard. Now Wraithguard are slow, so I needed some way to get those short range weapons the enemy and of course the only real option is the WaveSerpent.

Then they release the Wraithhost kit and I ended up getting that since I love the wraith models. I'm still working on them now, kind of lost motivation once 7th dropped. But I have my WK built and painted, magnetized the model for all weapon options. I even magnetize the wraithguard to use all weapon options available if I wanted.

Now I read some posts on here and see how I'm apparently TFG because GW sold a whole box set and then changed the rules so every single model has weapons that used to only be found on super heavies.

Now I'm of limited funds, and even more limited motivation. I do try to make smart purchases and put my heart and soul into the modeling and painting, though my results won't win any prizes. When I go to make a purchase for Tau if I'm looking for something to add to the fast attack slot I'll generally use marker drones or Piranha. Drones come extra with everything and Piranha are relatively cheap and fun to build. I don't want to go purchase Vespid to use, because I don't like the models and I couldn't figure out how to use them as a game other than hoping they take shots instead of something I care about. This is a problem that is built into the game, not on purpose but it's there. It's not the players who made this problem. I have nothing to do with GW decisions. I just bought what they were selling and tried to make an army they allowed me to use on the table top.

If the simple game design can take a player making a fluffy list and make him almost indistinguishable from a TFG to you, then you may want to realize there is a major problem with the game design.

In fact I'll just quote this again and everyone can go home as this is /thread.

Also also

Spoiler:

**Azreal13**

EVIL INC wrote:
Blacksails wrote:
It'd get pretty tiring having to type out 'People who defend things GW does that are detrimental to the game and community' instead of just typing apologist.

Even typing all of that out would be insulting and telling a lie. No one is saying that GW is not doing anything detrimental to the game and often it is the exact same things that we feel are detrimental. Just because we feel that GW is not the only company doing so or that we are admitting that there is no such thing as a perfect game because no matter how much one person "likes" a rule, there will always be someone else who doesnt or because we feel that there are better ways to address than just going online and finding some "whipping boy" to "beat up on" (who often actually agrees with you) is not the way to address the issue does not make us apologists.
In my case, your preaching to the choir in many cases because i felt that way long before you did, I am only more polite in addressing it.

Passive aggressive =\= polite. Just saying.

Equally Evil, if you're saying you often agree with the more "anti" GW posters on here, I think you need to work on how you express your thoughts in your posts, because that's distinctly not the impression I frequently get.

Either way, if someone says "x is bad" and you come along and say "well, y isn't perfect either" you're going to come across as defending x, whether you mean to or not.

**EVIL INC**

Mozzyfuzzy wrote:
Bharring wrote:
If it truly is a symptom, isn't disparaging being more reasonable in list building a lot like stopping Chemo because you shouldn't have cancer?

No it's like stopping chemo because the doctor fethed up and somehow .... gave you cancer while fixing a dislocated shoulder I'm not really sure where to go with this analogy.

You shouldn't have to think about pulling punches when writing a list (exempting doing something for scenarios or whatever), you put together a reasonably "smart" TAC list, and you should be able to compete with any other "smart" TAC list from any other codex.

This I agree with. I feel that TAc lists have always been an issue because there hasalways been a "top codex". this has been around from the start and you find it in other games outside of the hobby like warmachine and such. At times, it has been better or worse. Currently, I feel that with the inclusion of super heavies, this has gone out the window. This from someone who has 3 knights so I can field a "knight army" who intends to get the new codex and at least 2 more of them. I feel that the battle brothers and wording in many codices also allows for many broken loopholes that can be abused.
Do i feel that I should go online and attack others, call them names (apologist in this case is an insult and ANY insult of this nature of name calling is reportable)?
No, i make a personal decision to not attend tournies and i refuse to play outside of my gaming group until the matter is addressed in a way I can 'live with" and thus during that time, buy far less models/books than I would otherwise thus "hitting them in their pocketbook" as my form of "protest". Much more polite than trying to bring harm to other players who actually agree with me.
I come into these threads not to disagree with you or cause drama but to try to propose peace among ourselves as players. WE arent the enemy of one another and we should show GW a united front. Until we do, nothing will change.

Edit: had to fix a few words. wireless keyboard doesnt get all I type.
Also, not that when someone says "x is bad" and i reply that "y is also bad", I am not say that the "x bad" is ok. i am only illustrating that there is a larger picture that extends outside of the hobby and to show that there are issues in every game because the person saying that "x is bad" is saying it in such a manner to make us think that it is the ONLY bad thing and thus "appearing to be an apologist" for the other game's issues.
this is why I stick with the fluff, imagery and "world" of 40k because I like it better than that of the other games despite the "x problems". S someone else has said in here "words are hard" and i apologize if i am unable to get my meaning across coherently.