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.

Peregrine wrote:Yes, I do. Because, unlike you, I can understand that not everyone builds their armies the way I do and give them the benefit of the doubt.

What do you suppose is statistically probable?

Yes, because I object to your ridiculous bait and switch. You talk about how everyone agrees that their are "unfair" rules as defined by "rules that don't have the appropriate point cost", but then once you get that agreement you start talking about "rules that should not be used". So instead of letting you get away with switching definitions of "unfair" I'm going to call unbalanced rules "powerful", not "unfair".

Peregrine, be more of a Thomist, and set aside such univocal conceptions. Think more analogically!

At any rate:

Just = fair = proportionally equal.

If something does not have an appropriate points cost, then it is not proportionately equal. If it is not proportionally equally, then it is not fair.

Will you now tell me that it is fair or just to take advantage of something which is not fair? Presumably, you will. But I'm afraid that I'll have to pity you for being bound by such contradictory conceptions.

And I disagree with your premise that it's unfair to play a 295 point wraithknight. I also disagree with your premise that a game where I have a lower point total than you is "fair". A fair game is one where we both have the same resources. So if we agree to play a 1500 point game we both get to take 1500 points worth of models. The fact that you choose to make a badly designed army list and take units that are not as point-efficient as mine does not mean that you're entitled to spend extra points to make up for your strategic mistakes.

If the wraithknight is undercosted (which, I assume, you admit) by 50 points, then if we are both running 1500 points lists, and I'm not running under costed models, then we do not have the same resources. I have, de facto, 50 points less than you. We have the "same" resources if and only if our armies would be equivalent if only they were appropriately priced in terms of their points values. Consider, furthermore, what Aristotle says about equity (Nicomachean Ethics). In fact, just read the Nicomachean Ethics. For difficult passages, consult St. Thomas Aquinas' commentary.

And again, I can't help but think that the reason that you are refusing to concede to such obvious and clear reasoning is the overwhelming probability that you have a really big horse in this race. You probably spam OP units, am I right? Why don't you play Orks for a while and come back to me?

Traditio wrote:
What do you suppose is statistically probable?

I don't care what is statistically probable because individuals are not statistics. Unlike you I don't feel any obligation to question a player's motives for taking something based on what other people have done.

If something does not have an appropriate points cost, then it is not proportionately equal. If it is not proportionally equally, then it is not fair.

But those things aren't the same. You're assuming that a fair game is one in which both players have the same total value of stuff in their lists, when in reality that's just your personal preference. Another player might define a "fair" game as one where each player has the same point total to spend, regardless of how intelligently they spend their points. You're certainly entitled to play the game that way and try to find other people who share your goals, but please stop assuming that your personal opinions are universal truth.

If the wraithknight is undercosted (which, I assume, you admit) by 50 points, then if we are both running 1500 points lists, and I'm not running under costed models, then we do not have the same resources.

Except we do have the same resources. We both had 1500 points to spend. The fact that you wasted some of your points on weaker choices is not my problem.

We have the "same" resources if and only if our armies would be equivalent if only they were appropriately costed in terms of their points values.

Why do you keep ignoring the fact that army construction is part of the game? The game starts when you start writing your list, not when you finish it and put models on the table. You're doing the equivalent of arguing that the game is "unfair" and I'm "taking advantage of unfair things" because on turn 3 I have 900 of my 1500 points still alive against your 600 points, and that I should give you an extra 300 points to make up for the "unfairness".

You probably spam OP units, am I right?

It really says a lot about you that this is the only reason you can think of for disagreeing with you.

Traditio wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Akiasura wrote:
Websites claim all kinds of things. Link it, I'd like to read someone suggesting the defiler is a good choice.

1d4chan is one website, but they get LOTS of stuff wrong. In the same Defiler section they said to COMPARE IT TO A DOOMSDAY ARK. AND they say Chaos Space Marines excel at large numbers. It's all bassackwards over there.

That's the site that I had in mind.

You should have realized that the site, for Chaos, is out of date. Go to Necrons or Eldar; they have updates for 7th edition, talk about how strong their options are, mention formations, and rate nearly every single choice.
The chaos section barely mentions psykers and clearly doesn't include the new psychic phase. The defiler page mentions it being a powerful beast, true, then has a large section mentioning its drawbacks. Nearly as large as its strengths.

The website isn't great, but claiming 1d4chan as a credible source is well....

Traditio, Evil Inc.,

These people are trolling you. You might as well stop responding. I am not sure why the mods don't shut this kind of thing down, but they don't. This thread was basically over 6 pages ago.

This is a somewhat religious argument anyhow.

To some people winning and playing at the highest level of competition is the most important part of a game. If you are not bringing your "A" game then don't bother and don't get mad when I beat you. You need to get better. That IS NOT TFG or WAAC, it is simply being an "elite" player.

To others the competition and "how you play the game" is more important and less emphasis is placed on winning. So to them, the first group IS TFG and WAAC. It is a sliding scale depending on where you are coming from.

This happens in all kind of competitive endeavours and I think is just part of human nature.

Just give up making the the argument for being a "decent human being" it is simply not something the other side on the argument in this thread even wants to hear about and they think they are being a "decent human being". They are playing within the rules given to them by GW, so how is playing within the rules not being a "decent human being"? They just have different expectations from the game and are looking to get something else out of it than someone who wants for the game to be more "fair".

Of course it is possible they are simply making the argument for arguments sake to illustrate how broken and imbalanced the GW rules are. They are playing/making lists within the rules > someone thinks they are "unfair" and calls for "fixing" them somehow > therefore GW makes bad/unbalanced rules > GW is a bad company.

Either way stop feeding the trolls in this thread. Which ever point they are trying to make (if they even have one.)

Wow.

I'm used to people who can't actually put forward a valid counter argument resorting to name calling, it's what frequently happens when the "apologists" have their points undermined by pesky things like facts and logic, but to dismiss a whole viewpoint as trolls? That's a first.

But yeah, why not? Much easier than actually tackling the points they're making or admitting to yourself that your view doesn't actually stand up to scrutiny I suppose.

How is dismissing one side with the "apologist" pejorative not the same thing as dismissing the other side with the "troll" pejorative?

The second may be harsher, but its the same logic.

Neither label is accurate. Oddly, the first one goes to length to try to explain the actions of the group as something completely non-offensive ("Elite" players), and does a good job. Shouldn't have ended in calling them trolls, though.

The second simply dismisses the other group.

It keeps going like this:
GroupA: "Be reasonable"
B: "That's a stupid idea. We shouldn't because the rules are dumb"
A: "Not arguing that the rules aren't dumb. Just saying things can be OK despite the rules."
B: "Apologist. Stop defending GW. Dumbass.
A: "Troll."

And it just keeps repeating for 12 pages.

"Just saying things can be OK despite the rules."

Many of us with 15+ years of experience have 15+ years of experience indicating that this is not true. I think that might be the objection. I'd rather not play the Eldar player or forfeit to him than beg him not to bring certain units. I'd rather go lose honestly somewhere else.

Bharring wrote:


It keeps going like this:
GroupA: "Be reasonable"
B: "That's a stupid idea. We shouldn't because the rules are dumb"
A: "Not arguing that the rules aren't dumb. Just saying things can be OK despite the rules."
B: "Apologist. Stop defending GW. Dumbass.
A: "Troll."

And it just keeps repeating for 12 pages.

Exactly. That is why the mods should have shut it down about 6 pages ago.

I'd also like to point out that I don't have to negotiate with, or BEG, in this case, my opponent in any other game system.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Loborocket wrote:

Bharring wrote:


It keeps going like this:
GroupA: "Be reasonable"
B: "That's a stupid idea. We shouldn't because the rules are dumb"
A: "Not arguing that the rules aren't dumb. Just saying things can be OK despite the rules."
B: "Apologist. Stop defending GW. Dumbass.
A: "Troll."

And it just keeps repeating for 12 pages.

Exactly. That is why the mods should have shut it down about 6 pages ago.

Maybe they aren't out of popcorn yet.

Bharring wrote:
How is dismissing one side with the "apologist" pejorative not the same thing as dismissing the other side with the "troll" pejorative?

The second may be harsher, but its the same logic.

Neither label is accurate. Oddly, the first one goes to length to try to explain the actions of the group as something completely non-offensive ("Elite" players), and does a good job. Shouldn't have ended in calling them trolls, though.

The second simply dismisses the other group.

It keeps going like this:
GroupA: "Be reasonable"
B: "That's a stupid idea. We shouldn't because the rules are dumb"
A: "Not arguing that the rules aren't dumb. Just saying things can be OK despite the rules."
B: "Apologist. Stop defending GW. Dumbass.
A: "Troll."

And it just keeps repeating for 12 pages.

Because one side seems to think that it's okay that the rules are dumb. The "apologist" term doesn't get thrown out until people start saying it's okay that the rules are dumb and it's not GW's fault that the rules are dumb, it's the players' fault for not discussing how to fix the dumb rules before playing the game.

One side consistently tries to argue that it's okay to ignore bad rules, that it's okay to have bad rules and pay a premium for them, that it's on the players to fix them instead of acknowledging that the rules are terrible, GW is at fault but X Y and Z are ways that you can overcome those flaws. Often, said side can't even acknowledge that there ARE flaws in the rules.

That's why.

Martel,
That may be a point that "Group A" (myself included) may be missing.

However, while the arguement would support "That doesn't work for me", it does not support "That doesn't work for many".

Bharring wrote:
Martel,
That may be a point that "Group A" (myself included) may be missing.

However, while the arguement would support "That doesn't work for me", it does not support "That doesn't work for many".

No, I think all the other posters protesting your "solution" does support it, however. Maybe I just know gamers better than you. They love their exploits and loopholes. And that's why tight rules sets get a lot more respect than crappy ones. Because then gamers can't trivialize the situation.

Wayne,
From what I've seen in this thread, it has been rare to see someone defending GW much at all.

The comments about it being OK were about it being feasible for the bad rules to not prevent us from having fun. Which is where the whole "be reasonable" thing comes into play.

Fault in one party doesn't materially negate the ability of another party to mitigate/fix the problem. Not sure what you do professionally, but has it ever been acceptable to say "Jim Bob screwed up. I'm not gonna do nothin!"? I still have to make the apps work. Doesn't matter if some contractor doesn't know what he's doing.

My point being, trying to solve a problem, or recognizing the capacity to do so does not absolve the source of the problem (GW's crappy rules).

Some have pointed out that other systems have problems too (how many players preferred I didn't take eHaley? His much of my collection did practically nothing to Collasals once they came out?) Pointing these out doesn't mean GW isn't worse than PP or whoever. Its just an attempt to show that even better systems aren't perfect.

Perhaps if we stopped assigning beliefs to others that haven't expressed said beliefs, this thread might come to a cordial conclusion naturally.

My issue with the supposed group A is either the labelling of people as WAAC TFG for a list, or the vague, nebulous concept of 'reasonable', which can't in any be nailed down or defined, making it an empty statement.

As far as I'm concerned, every player should be able to build a list with whatever they want and not be judged or labelled for it.

Your order of operations for playing a game with someone would go like this;

1. Find opponent;
2. Exchange pleasantries, offer to court their sister, exchange lists;
3. a)If lists are deemed to be on the same general power level, or the players are happy to carry on regardless, then play starts and everyone is happy (end here if that's the case, carry on courting sister after);
b)If lists are deemed to be too different, then two further options present themselves (go to 4, skip courting sister);
4. a)Compromise on lists, where each player tones up or down their own list to match the other better, which allows the players to carry on;
b)Don't compromise on lists and find a different player as your two ideas of what constitutes fun are too different and the game wouldn't be too enjoyable;
5. At no point should any player assume their list or style of play is superior to the other, or assume any player should change for them without also offering to change.

Oh, and so long as we all agree GW's rule writing is borked.

Courting your opponent's sister is optional. Or brother I suppose.

the problem is... any GAME ... even ones where units are pre selected in controlled scenarios... someone will try to cheat...

even video games with lag switches and hacks.

Some people enjoy abuse and see cheating or abuse as fun. I dont think that can ever change.

" Its just an attempt to show that even better systems aren't perfect. "

There's no reason to say this. No one is asking for perfection. For example, I think that zerglings and marines are somewhat better than zealots in Starcraft. These are all base units, so in theory, they should all be equal. But it's okay if they aren't as long as everything else balances.

Martel,
I am quite aware that the "Elite Players" subgroup of this hobby is, in fact, quite large.

However, it is not the only subgroup. I'm quite confident it isn't the majority, but I wouldn't be surprised if it were a plurality.

Be aware that the several more casual subgroups also exist. These are the groups that 'be reasonable' is meant for (note - a less loaded label would probably be helpful).

What makes you think non-elite players want to beg their opponents to go easy on them? In fact, elite players are more likely to agree to this, I think, because they already know what turning it up to 11 looks like.

Martel732 wrote:
" Its just an attempt to show that even better systems aren't perfect. "

There's no reason to say this. No one is asking for perfection. For example, I think that zerglings and marines are somewhat better than zealots in Starcraft. These are all base units, so in theory, they should all be equal. But it's okay if they aren't as long as everything else balances.

Late game zelot spam can win games. I'd just say the late game usefulness of a zelot is higher than a marine or a zergling after a huge engagement where both players lost a huge chunk of an army. Plus warpgates need to be considered - a good toss is deploying the zelot exactly where he wants it to be once he has those flying pylons. Still though - Zerglings beat zelots straight up and critical mass marines kill zelots with ease. This is why high Templar exist.

BlackSails,
Group A calling Group B a TFG is about the same as Group B calling Group A apologists.

Neither is accurate. Both beat a strawman. We just keep talking past each other.

WAAC is also loaded. But what do you think of using the term "Elite Player"?

"Reasonable" could also be considered loaded, as it presupposes "Elite Players" are unreasonable. Which is an unreasonable assumption.

The "reasonable" label can't be nailed down. But neither can 'fun', or 'love', or 'unreasonable'. That doesn't make the concepts useless. "I know it when I see it" is unacceptable in a legal framework. However, it can be quite useful in a social construct.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
" Its just an attempt to show that even better systems aren't perfect. "

There's no reason to say this. No one is asking for perfection. For example, I think that zerglings and marines are somewhat better than zealots in Starcraft. These are all base units, so in theory, they should all be equal. But it's okay if they aren't as long as everything else balances.

Late game zelot spam can win games. I'd just say the late game usefulness of a zelot is higher than a marine or a zergling after a huge engagement where both players lost a huge chunk of an army. Plus warpgates need to be considered - a good toss is deploying the zelot exactly where he wants it to be once he has those flying pylons. Still though - Zerglings beat zelots straight up and critical mass marines kill zelots with ease. This is why high Templar exist.

At any rate, it's much closer to balanced than anything GW has vomited up. Because there's actually a question of how good the thing is. GW makes it trivial usually to make such comparisons.

IIRC, in SC1, Zelots that bottleneck Zerglings eat their lunch money. You aren't going to push them, because if you get surrounded you lose, but you can hold at a fraction of the investment.

I shouldn't have to expect that a human being be decent to expect a fair game. In fact, I kinda expect my opponents to be dicks and self serving - as this is actually human nature.

Bharring wrote:
IIRC, in SC1, Zelots that bottleneck Zerglings eat their lunch money. You aren't going to push them, because if you get surrounded you lose, but you can hold at a fraction of the investment.

Only if there's a bottleneck. On most SC2 maps, this involves sentries for force fields or for you to be defending your base. It's a personal preference. My biggest problem is that in early game, zealots can't defend reapers, so I usually go stalker first against terran.

 Xenomancers wrote:
I shouldn't have to expect that a human being be decent to expect a fair game. In fact, I kinda expect my opponents to be dicks and self serving - as this is actually human nature.

Yeah. I mean yeah be reasonable and use common sense, but you absolutely cannot rely on people doing the same, and you most certainly cannot write a rules set for people who are reasonable and use common sense. Rules should be written so you don't need common sense and to be reasonable to play the game, otherwise people will break them.

Common sense is a total myth anyway. There are 7 billion different versions of common sense on the planet. One for every distinct human.

Bharring wrote:
BlackSails,
Group A calling Group B a TFG is about the same as Group B calling Group A apologists.

Neither is accurate. Both beat a strawman. We just keep talking past each other.

WAAC is also loaded. But what do you think of using the term "Elite Player"?

"Reasonable" could also be considered loaded, as it presupposes "Elite Players" are unreasonable. Which is an unreasonable assumption.

The "reasonable" label can't be nailed down. But neither can 'fun', or 'love', or 'unreasonable'. That doesn't make the concepts useless. "I know it when I see it" is unacceptable in a legal framework. However, it can be quite useful in a social construct.

Well, I'm basing that off one user who has stated and continually implied that people are TFG's for using units, but I get that's not everyone in the camp.

Regardless, do you agree or disagree with how I actually feel on the subject overall based on my post?

Bharring wrote:
IIRC, in SC1, Zelots that bottleneck Zerglings eat their lunch money. You aren't going to push them, because if you get surrounded you lose, but you can hold at a fraction of the investment.

Yeah and toss isn't going early pressure practically ever. It's quick expand and early tech rush. DT, Oracle, immortal sentry, or stalker harras. With proper micro though - 4 zerglings beats a zelot with 0-2 losses. This is why SC is a brilliantly balanced game. Even the maps are built with game balance in mind - so that protoss are able to run early expand by choke points being present at every base. Unlike a 40k game where there isn't even a standard for the terrain.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:

Bharring wrote:
IIRC, in SC1, Zelots that bottleneck Zerglings eat their lunch money. You aren't going to push them, because if you get surrounded you lose, but you can hold at a fraction of the investment.

Only if there's a bottleneck. On most SC2 maps, this involves sentries for force fields or for you to be defending your base. It's a personal preference. My biggest problem is that in early game, zealots can't defend reapers, so I usually go stalker first against terran.

toss vs terran early game is about vision. If unprepared for a reaper - you lose the game.

An interesting thing here comes up when you take into account David Sirlin's definition of "The Scrub" (from http://www.sirlin.net/ptw-book/introducingthe-scrub)

A scrub is a player who is handicapped by self-imposed rules that the game knows nothing about. A scrub does not play to win

The underlying problem here is that 40k is designed around self-imposed rules, in part because the rules are so imbalanced themselves, so in effect 40k almost requires one to be a "scrub" in order to play it otherwise everyone would only be playing the best units to try and win and the scrubs would be the ones trying to play a fluffy Space Marine army and getting steamrolled.

As a fan of Sirlin's book (I recently started reading it) I find this perplexing because by design a game should be played to win (IMHO of course) but 40k all but encourages the opposite due to how it's rules are. I wonder what Sirlin would have to say about 40k's design goals as it relates to his ideals.

Loborocket wrote:

Of course it is possible they are simply making the argument for arguments sake to illustrate how broken and imbalanced the GW rules are. They are playing/making lists within the rules > someone thinks they are "unfair" and calls for "fixing" them somehow > therefore GW makes bad/unbalanced rules > GW is a bad company.

Just on this bit....I don't know if it was intentional, but you are completely right. If adhering to the rules (that are sold at a premium price!) produces degenerate & unfun game, then the problem lies with the rules and the writers of those rules, rather than the players who simply do what the book says they can do.

Again, I understand the principle of "Don't exploit the underpriced stuff.", and think it's a good way for players to keep the unfun elements out of games. But such balancing shouldn't have been left to the players to decide with a vague, subjective, shame-based system.

 tenebre wrote:
the problem is... any GAME ... even ones where units are pre selected in controlled scenarios... someone will try to cheat...

even video games with lag switches and hacks.

Some people enjoy abuse and see cheating or abuse as fun. I dont think that can ever change.

But again, it's not cheating. By definition, if you use the rules as written in the book and never go outside of them, you're obeying the rules. You could argue that spamming the underpriced stuff is unsportsmanlike, certainly, but if the codex places silly prices on things and lets you take a lot of them, then doing that is not cheating.