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.

Ok, let's make this nice and simple:

You prefer a game where list construction is a fairly minor element and everyone brings lists that are roughly the same power level as the ones you like to play.

Other people prefer a game where list construction is a competitive element and everyone tries to gain an advantage in that part of the game just like they try to gain an advantage in the movement phase.

The correct response to this disagreement: "Well, I guess we just like different things, I'll make sure I only play with people who share my opinions."

The wrong response to this disagreement: "ALL OF YOU ARE WAAC TFGS WHO HAVE NO SKILL YOU NEED TO HAVE FUN THE WAY THAT I HAVE FUN!!!!!!!"

Unfortunately you've stubbornly insisted on taking the second option.

Traditio wrote:

You might not be. What I said, admittedly, was a bit extreme and offputting. What I intended is something more like the following:

I suppose this is the closest I'll get to an apology from you.

If you are not a terrible player (you, let us note, in general, not you in particular), then why the need to spam units? Why not dazzle us with your tactics after the game begins with a fair match-up?

Spam is also a poor word choice. Why can't I take 3 Russes in my list, and call it redundancy or synergy? Supporting them with 5 chimeras with vets inside, backed by 2 or 3 vendettas is fluffy, cohesive, lends itself to a certain playstyle where I can dazzle you with my strategic and tactical genius. However, according to your guidelines, I'd be breaking rule 1 of spamming. In order to avoid breaking that rule, I'd have to drop a russ for...something else, like an arty piece or hellhound that do not in any way jive with my list or my intended style of play.

Then what's the problem?

You're restricting players based on nothing more than some buzzwords and vague notions 'the internet has spoken!'. Again, how do you define is something is overpowered enough to warrant being on rules 2? Does enough of the internet have to agree? Is there a standard? How good must the unit be? Do support/force multipliers affect this power level? What about weapon choices? What if an IC joins the unit? Is it overpowered then? Are you talking about units, or combinations?

There are too many variables to nail down to make it practical in application, thus making it an empty guideline.

You keep claiming this, but you have yet to give any actual reasons for it in concreto (thus my pot/kettle comment). Again, I repeat my challenge:

Show me this in concreto. Provide examples.

If you can't, you have no case.

No, I have a strong case, because your guidelines are not strong enough or make enough sense to even be used as a demonstration. Again, why do I have to consider how my list would fare against another list that contained a random hodge-podge of unit types? Of what codex even? Why is spam bad? Why can't it be redundancy, theme, or synergy instead? Can you, beyond a shadow of a doubt, lay out in explicit detail every unit that is considered 'popularly overpowered or undercosted', and all of the combinations and wargear choices each of those units could take that would make them less or more so?

My counter challenge to you is to provide a complete and detailed list of units that would fall under guideline 2.

 Peregrine wrote:
Ok, let's make this nice and simple:

You prefer a game where list construction is a fairly minor element and everyone brings lists that are roughly the same power level as the ones you like to play.

Except, not really. You can have two WAAC TFGS play against each other who spam the most broken unit in their respective codices (for simplicity, let us suppose that they both use the same Eldar internet list).

They're evenly matched, but they're still playing unfair lists.

Unfortunately you've stubbornly insisted on taking the second option.

Until you confront the trilemma I presented earlier head on, without changing the terms of the discussion, my "second option" is the only reasonable one.

Traditio wrote:
They're evenly matched, but they're still playing unfair lists.

How exactly is it unfair if both players have an equal chance of winning?

(And yes, I know the answer. It's pretty clear that your definition of "fair" is "my list can beat this", not "both players have the same chance of winning".)

Until you confront the trilemma I presented earlier head on, without changing the terms of the discussion, my "second option" is the only reasonable one.

I'm sorry, did you seriously just say that yelling at people and calling them WAAC TFGs is the "only reasonable option"?

Peregrine wrote:How exactly is it unfair if both players have an equal chance of winning?

In concreto, it's not unfair. Abstractly, the lists themselves are unfair (because full of OP and undercosted units). Again, you can talk about how "list building is part of the game" all you want. But that doesn't address the fact that there are such things as OP and undercosted units. You've been dodging this point the entire thread.

I'm sorry, did you seriously just say that yelling at people and calling them WAAC TFGs is the "only reasonable option"?

I was referring to the position of which your description was a caricature.

Traditio wrote:
In concreto, it's not unfair. Abstractly, the lists themselves are unfair (because full of OP and undercosted units). Again, you can talk about how "list building is part of the game" all you want. But that doesn't address the fact that there are such things as OP and undercosted units. You've been dodging this point the entire thread.

But why do I care about some abstract philosophical point about "fairness" when both my opponent and I have a roughly equal chance of winning, and both of us enjoy the entire game? And why should I care about anything besides that?

I was referring to the position of which your description was a caricature.

Ok, so you admit that you believe that calling people WAAC TFGs is the "only reasonable option".

Traditio wrote:


Until you confront the trilemma I presented earlier head on, without changing the terms of the discussion, my "second option" is the only reasonable one.

So people not accepting your idea mean you can start being a dick, good to know. But, I don't think that is how grownup do things.

Yeah, plus we need that detailed list of units that are considered overpowered.

I mean, its all on the internet, it shouldn't be too hard for him to lay it all out.

Then I can go ahead and make some lists using the guidelines.

Traditio wrote:

Noir wrote:Or the simplest answer. Play a rules set where their is no reason to force (1) to get (2). GW is the reason for the fake divide between, with a good rule set Structured Play (Tournaments or Campaigns) and Pick-Up game would be no different as you could being what ever you wanted and have a 45-55% chance to win at the same skill level. It is a really simple concept.

Such a rule set does not exist in WH40k. Given that fact, the solution I've proposed is the best, fairest and most reasonable solution.

The only possible person who would disagree with this solution are powergamers who have pretty much nothing else going on in their lives, for whom winning a toy soldier game somehow compensates for their utter failure as human beings.

So, because my friends and I are competitive by nature and enjoy the challenge of building and facing the best possible lists, we are all utter failures as human beings? Makes perfect sense.

Blacksails wrote:Spam is also a poor word choice. Why can't I take 3 Russes in my list, and call it redundancy or synergy?

Redundancy = spam. You're quibbling over words.

Supporting them with 5 chimeras with vets inside, backed by 2 or 3 vendettas is fluffy, cohesive, lends itself to a certain playstyle where I can dazzle you with my strategic and tactical genius.

How would your list fare against a fluffy marine list of scout marines, assault marines, tactical marines, devastator marines, rhinos and maybe a dreadnought?

However, according to your guidelines, I'd be breaking rule 1 of spamming. In order to avoid breaking that rule, I'd have to drop a russ for...something else

Yes. That shouldn't be a problem.

You're restricting players based on nothing more than some buzzwords and vague notions 'the internet has spoken!'. Again, how do you define is something is overpowered enough to warrant being on rules 2? Does enough of the internet have to agree? Is there a standard? How good must the unit be? Do support/force multipliers affect this power level? What about weapon choices? What if an IC joins the unit? Is it overpowered then? Are you talking about units, or combinations?

Does dakka forums have a thread on it? Do most people in the thread (who aren't WAAC TFG) agree that there's a problem?

If you start a thread about it, what do people say about it?

There are too many variables to nail down to make it practical in application, thus making it an empty guideline.

It's really not. There's a clear way of applying it.

Can you, beyond a shadow of a doubt, lay out in explicit detail every unit that is considered 'popularly overpowered or undercosted', and all of the combinations and wargear choices each of those units could take that would make them less or more so?

No. But then again, I don't really have to. The fact that I can't come up with a list doesn't mean that, in concreto, you can't go on dakka forums, ask everyone what they think about x unit coupled with y wargear, and get a concensus.

So, are you going to come up with a couple of lists or not? Until you can do that, you'll have to pardon me if I remain unconvinced by you.

I'm sorry you had to learn this way, TooFast.

Don't worry, I'm a failure too.

Traditio wrote:
How would your list fare against a fluffy marine list of scout marines, assault marines, tactical marines, devastator marines, rhinos and maybe a dreadnought?

Who cares? Is that the list my opponent is bringing, or is it a hypothetical list you've created just to claim that my list is "unfair"? And why are we assuming that this random collection of marine units is "fluffy"? I don't see any coherent theme in that list, and certainly couldn't tell you what chapter or character it's supposed to represent.

Yes. That shouldn't be a problem.

It's a problem because it makes the list less fluffy. I thought we were supposed to care about fluff?

Does dakka forums have a thread on it? Do most people in the thread (who aren't WAAC TFG) agree that there's a problem?

Pretty much every unit has a thread where some people argue that it's too weak and some argue that it's the worst TFG cheese.

It's really not. There's a clear way of applying it.

Only if you don't care if the results are completely absurd. Your rules for army construction label the unbound ratling spam list "WAAC TFG cheese", so they're clearly not a sensible set of rules.

Peregrine wrote:But why do I care about some abstract philosophical point about "fairness" when both my opponent and I have a roughly equal chance of winning, and both of us enjoy the entire game? And why should I care about anything besides that?

In that particular case, you shouldn't. However, you should care for the following reasons:

1. How your game decisions affect other players (if you both buy the next, best broken thing, what does that say to GW?).

2. What if you plan on playing other people?

Ok, so you admit that you believe that calling people WAAC TFGs is the "only reasonable option".

No.

Traditio wrote:

You're restricting players based on nothing more than some buzzwords and vague notions 'the internet has spoken!'. Again, how do you define is something is overpowered enough to warrant being on rules 2? Does enough of the internet have to agree? Is there a standard? How good must the unit be? Do support/force multipliers affect this power level? What about weapon choices? What if an IC joins the unit? Is it overpowered then? Are you talking about units, or combinations?

Does dakka forums have a thread on it? Do most people in the thread (who aren't WAAC TFG) agree that there's a problem?

If you start a thread about it, what do people say about it?

Traditio wrote:
No. But then again, I don't really have to. The fact that I can't come up with a list doesn't mean that, in concreto, you can't go on dakka forums, ask everyone what they think about x unit coupled with y wargear, and get a concensus.

So, are you going to come up with a couple of lists or not? Until you can do that, you'll have to pardon me if I remain unconvinced by you.

I'm guessing you only count the people posting what works for you.

Traditio wrote:


Redundancy = spam. You're quibbling over words.

Maybe yes, maybe no. The fact is that you're viewing multiples of something as a negative to be punished, while I view it as a positive to be encouraged. At least in my usage, I'm not demeaning anyone for their list they choose.

How would your list fare against a fluffy marine list of scout marines, assault marines, tactical marines, devastator marines, rhinos and maybe a dreadnought?

How would it fare against a fluffy eldar list with wraith units, bikes and serpents?

What's your point?

Yes. That shouldn't be a problem.

It is a problem.

I don't own an arty piece. I own russes, and troops. It is very much a problem.

Does dakka forums have a thread on it? Do most people in the thread (who aren't WAAC TFG) agree that there's a problem?

If you start a thread about it, what do people say about it?

First, how would judge if someone is WAAC TFG on these forums? You continue to throw this around incorrectly and unfairly, which works against you.

Second, is a thread on dakka sufficient to declare a unit is overpowered? Is that what it takes?

It's really not. There's a clear way of applying it.

Then apply it generate a list. Further, for guideline 3, what codex am I comparing to? Any codex? The ork codex? The Eldar codex? Because they'll be two vastly different comparisons.

No. But then again, I don't really have to. The fact that I can't come up with a list doesn't mean that, in concreto, you can't go on dakka forums, ask everyone what they think about x unit coupled with y wargear, and get a concensus.

So, are you going to come up with a couple of lists or not? Until you can do that, you'll have to pardon me if I remain unconvinced by you.

I'm afraid you do if you want to convince myself, and anyone really, that your guidelines are indeed universal and simple. If they're as universal, straightforward, and simple as you claim, then generate a list and cut out the nonsense of quibbling over whether a unit is powerful enough or not to meet guideline 2. I refuse to create a list and then have you claim it breaks rule 2, because I can assure that is what will happen.

You get a list of units that would fall under rule 2, and I'll write a dozen lists.

Traditio wrote:
1. How your game decisions affect other players (if you both buy the next, best broken thing, what does that say to GW?).

Why do I care? My opponent and I are having fun. How our fun might impact some random person we'll never meet doesn't matter one bit to me.

2. What if you plan on playing other people?

Then maybe I'll reevaluate my approach to the game if I want to play against these hypothetical people. But think about what you're suggesting: that I change how I build my lists and have less fun right now against my real opponents because someday in the future I might play against other people that wouldn't share my approach to the game.

Ok, so you admit that you believe that calling people WAAC TFGs is the "only reasonable option".

No.

Then why did you say exactly that?

Peregrine wrote:Who cares? Is that the list my opponent is bringing, or is it a hypothetical list you've created just to claim that my list is "unfair"? And why are we assuming that this random collection of marine units is "fluffy"? I don't see any coherent theme in that list, and certainly couldn't tell you what chapter or character it's supposed to represent.

Check out the relevent sections in the codex on those units. That's pretty much standard, according to the fluff.

It's a problem because it makes the list less fluffy. I thought we were supposed to care about fluff?

Fairness, then fun, then fluff, then winning.

In that order. But only the first is absolutely important.

Pretty much every unit has a thread where some people argue that it's too weak and some argue that it's the worst TFG cheese.

Then if it's a 50/50 coin toss between one group of people (who are not WAAC TFG) crying about how weak something is, on the other hand, and another group saying that it's broken, you can safely discount both opinions. In other cases, you can't. Most people agree, it seems, that the wraithknight is broken.

Only if you don't care if the results are completely absurd. Your rules for army construction label the unbound ratling spam list "WAAC TFG cheese", so they're clearly not a sensible set of rules.

What FOC slot do ratlings fill?

Traditio wrote:

What FOC slot do ratlings fill?

And you want to set guidelines to fair and balanced play but don't know this.

Come on.

Is it really that hard to understand that some people (gasp!) have fun playing with/against "cheese spam WAAC TFG" lists?

Traditio wrote:

Peregrine wrote:Who cares? Is that the list my opponent is bringing, or is it a hypothetical list you've created just to claim that my list is "unfair"? And why are we assuming that this random collection of marine units is "fluffy"? I don't see any coherent theme in that list, and certainly couldn't tell you what chapter or character it's supposed to represent.

Check out the relevent sections in the codex on those units. That's pretty much standard, according to the fluff.

It's a problem because it makes the list less fluffy. I thought we were supposed to care about fluff?

Fairness, then fun, then fluff, then winning.

In that order. But only the first is absolutely important.

Wait what.... only FUN is important this is a game something done to have FUN.

Traditio wrote:


Fairness, then fun, then fluff, then winning.

In that order. But only the first is absolutely important.

You just rated something in a game above fun.

You lack the knowledge of said game sufficiently to know any detail about a well known and well established unit.

I'd just leave the thread if I were you.

Traditio wrote:
Check out the relevent sections in the codex on those units. That's pretty much standard, according to the fluff.

I haven't exactly studied the marine codex, but I don't remember anything saying that a marine army should have one of each type of unit. That might be the composition of a full company, but a 40k battle does not involve a full company.

Fairness, then fun, then fluff, then winning.

In that order. But only the first is absolutely important.

And that's just your personal opinion. Other people might disagree about the order of those things.

Also, the game is automatically fair because both players have access to the same rules and decisions. Please stop using "fair" to mean "my lists can win" and be honest about the fact that the latter is what you're talking about.

Then if it's a 50/50 coin toss between one group of people (who are not WAAC TFG) crying about how weak something is, on the other hand, and another group saying that it's broken, you can safely discount both opinions. In other cases, you can't. Most people agree, it seems, that the wraithknight is broken.

I see, so a 50/50 coin toss means throw out both opinions, but "most people" is sufficient to conclude that the wraithknight is broken despite having some people say that it isn't. Could you quantify exactly what percentage of posts in a thread about a unit need to be "this is overpowered" for that to be the conclusion?

What FOC slot do ratlings fill?

Elites. So spamming them would fall under your "non-troops spam = revise your list" rule.

Azreal13 wrote:You just rated something in a game above fun.

Yes. Fairness. That's more important than fun. Whether we're talking about games or not.

You lack the knowledge of said game sufficiently to know any detail about a well known and well established unit.

I'd just leave the thread if I were you.

I'm offering general principles.

Traditio wrote:

Peregrine wrote:Who cares? Is that the list my opponent is bringing, or is it a hypothetical list you've created just to claim that my list is "unfair"? And why are we assuming that this random collection of marine units is "fluffy"? I don't see any coherent theme in that list, and certainly couldn't tell you what chapter or character it's supposed to represent.

Check out the relevent sections in the codex on those units. That's pretty much standard, according to the fluff.

It's a problem because it makes the list less fluffy. I thought we were supposed to care about fluff?

Fairness, then fun, then fluff, then winning.

In that order. But only the first is absolutely important.

Pretty much every unit has a thread where some people argue that it's too weak and some argue that it's the worst TFG cheese.

Then if it's a 50/50 coin toss between one group of people (who are not WAAC TFG) crying about how weak something is, on the other hand, and another group saying that it's broken, you can safely discount both opinions. In other cases, you can't. Most people agree, it seems, that the wraithknight is broken.

Only if you don't care if the results are completely absurd. Your rules for army construction label the unbound ratling spam list "WAAC TFG cheese", so they're clearly not a sensible set of rules.

What FOC slot do ratlings fill?

This is a game right? The point of a game is to win.

By trying to put a sequential order on the purpose or purposes of the game you've added a completely subjective element. Fairness and fun might come befors winning for you but it won't for everyone.

Personally I put fairness, fun, and winning on equal footing in terms of importance, but I understand expecting others to feel the same would just be arrogance on my part.

Traditio wrote:
Yes. Fairness. That's more important than fun. Whether we're talking about games or not.

And that's just hilariously wrong. The reason we play games is to have fun, not to be fair. If both players are having fun then whether the game is "fair" (however you define the term) is irrelevant. But under your ranking a game that is perfectly 50/50 balanced but an exercise in masochism for both players is better than one which is completely unbalanced but both players have lots of fun.

I'm offering general principles.

You're offering general principles based on an incomplete understanding of the game. This is probably why your general principles fail so badly.

OverwatchCNC wrote:This is a game right? The point of a game is to win.

By trying to put a sequential order on the purpose or purposes of the game you've added a completely subjective element. Fairness and fun might come befors winning for you but it won't for everyone.

Having fun by doing unfair things makes you a bad person. That's a fact. I don't care if we're talking about a game or anything else.

Thus, you should never lie. Not even for the purposes of a game. If a game requires you to lie, then don't play that game. Period.

Traditio wrote:
Having fun by doing unfair things makes you a bad person. That's a fact. I don't care if we're talking about a game or anything else.

Why does the "fairness" of something matter more than whether or not both players are having fun? If both of us bring the "unfair" lists you hate and have lots of fun playing against each other then how exactly are we bad people?

Thus, you should never lie. Not even for the purposes of a game. If a game requires you to lie, then don't play that game. Period.

IOW, you don't think people should ever play games that involve bluffing or deception. I can't imagine living in such a boring and restricted world.

Traditio wrote:

OverwatchCNC wrote:This is a game right? The point of a game is to win.

By trying to put a sequential order on the purpose or purposes of the game you've added a completely subjective element. Fairness and fun might come befors winning for you but it won't for everyone.

Having fun by doing unfair things makes you a bad person. That's a fact. I don't care if we're talking about a game or anything else.

Thus, you should never lie. Not even for the purposes of a game. If a game requires you to lie, then don't play that game. Period.

How old are you?

Blacksails wrote:maybe yes, maybe no. The fact is that you're viewing multiples of something as a negative to be punished, while I view it as a positive to be encouraged. At least in my usage, I'm not demeaning anyone for their list they choose.

Google "warhammer spam." I'm not pulling my view from thin air.

How would it fare against a fluffy eldar list with wraith units, bikes and serpents?

What's your point?

Mech lists have always been a cheap way to win. They automatically shut down normal infantry weapons.

What's your point?

I don't own an arty piece. I own russes, and troops. It is very much a problem.

Bring more troops, then.

First, how would judge if someone is WAAC TFG on these forums? You continue to throw this around incorrectly and unfairly, which works against you.

It seems to me as though they're pretty easy to spot. They're the ones defending unfair rules and overpowered units, and are constantly screaming about how people should learn to adapt and play better every time a broken new codex comes out.

Second, is a thread on dakka sufficient to declare a unit is overpowered? Is that what it takes?

Potentially.

I'm afraid you do if you want to convince myself, and anyone really, that your guidelines are indeed universal and simple. If they're as universal, straightforward, and simple as you claim, then generate a list and cut out the nonsense of quibbling over whether a unit is powerful enough or not to meet guideline 2. I refuse to create a list and then have you claim it breaks rule 2, because I can assure that is what will happen.

You get a list of units that would fall under rule 2, and I'll write a dozen lists.

You're poking holes and raising doubts where there are none. In practice, things are not as complicated as you say. Again, I use the wraithknight as my example.

Noir wrote:

Traditio wrote:

OverwatchCNC wrote:This is a game right? The point of a game is to win.

By trying to put a sequential order on the purpose or purposes of the game you've added a completely subjective element. Fairness and fun might come befors winning for you but it won't for everyone.

Having fun by doing unfair things makes you a bad person. That's a fact. I don't care if we're talking about a game or anything else.

Thus, you should never lie. Not even for the purposes of a game. If a game requires you to lie, then don't play that game. Period.

How old are you?

I'm guessing 14, with a healthy dose of Red Bull.