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 wrote:

ImAGeek wrote:I disagree. I think if you're going to bring up the 'people are starving' argument, you need to not buy anything non essential and donate all that money to charity, otherwise it's a very hypocritical thing to say. It's not the person who bought the Knights fault that people are starving. It's not as if that £95 would have made any measurable difference and they just bought a model instead. For all you know, they might donate £95 to charity for every Knight they buy. Get off your high horse.

I'm just saying. If you have have $140 to waste on a plastic toy just because it looks cool, there's something seriously wrong here.

There really isn't. Value of things is different to everyone. Get over it.

First of all, 2 Revenant Titans would be your entire army in a normal sized game. If he has 2 Revenants scatterbikes and wraithknights... he won't have anyone to play with in pickup games, because people don't bring 4000 points of models to stores for PUGs.

Traditio wrote:

I'm just saying. If you have have $140 to waste on a plastic toy just because it looks cool, there's something seriously wrong here.

Dude, every dollar I blow on plastic toys is because it looks cool. I mean, it's the top reason I love 40k and miniatures in general. It certainly isn't because tabletop wargames and miniatures make the world a better place. And it isn't to have the winningest army either, because 2/3 of my models are unplayable if you want to actually win Like my 100+ and growing terminators, 20+ and growing dreadnoughts. Will I ever play that 7th or 8th Furioso? NO! lol. And I need another Razorback or Drop Pod for my army like I need more fillings -- yet I keep adding them!

RULE #1 REMINDER - avoid personal attacks, or really even the hint of a personal attack.

ImAGeek wrote: There really isn't. Value of things is different to everyone. Get over it.

Again, to the bolded: what's your point? This doesn't prove anything.

I'm not trying to prove anything. I'm stating that to someone else, that £95 imperial knight might be worth it. And if it is to them, then that's fine. There's nothing wrong with that person because they're okay with spending that much money on something.

Traditio wrote:I'm just saying. If you have have $140 to waste on a plastic toy just because it looks cool, there's something seriously wrong here.

Just to be clear: in the above, the referent of "you" wasn't ImAGeek. The "you" was the general use of the word "you." No offense intended to ImAGeek.

People can spend their money as they please. If you're going to judge people based on what they spend their own money, there might be something wrong with you.

I know. I've already said I don't think it is worth it. But I'm not going around saying there's something wrong with people if they do.

 ImAGeek wrote:
I'm not trying to prove anything. I'm stating that to someone else, that £95 imperial knight might be worth it. And if it is to them, then that's fine. There's nothing wrong with that person because they're okay with spending that much money on something.

It very well might, at least, depending on the person's specific circumstances. There are virtues which govern these things. Consider, for example, the virtue of liberality, and the opposed vices of meanness/niggardliness/stinginess and prodality (see Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics).

 Mumblez wrote:
People can spend their money as they please. If you're going to judge people based on what they spend their own money, there might be something wrong with you.

Precisely. It's not like they're buying nuclear weapons or child porn.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Traditio wrote:

 ImAGeek wrote:
I'm not trying to prove anything. I'm stating that to someone else, that £95 imperial knight might be worth it. And if it is to them, then that's fine. There's nothing wrong with that person because they're okay with spending that much money on something.

It very well might, at least, depending on the person's specific circumstances. There are virtues which govern these things. Consider, for example, the virtue of liberality, and the opposed vices of meanness/niggardliness/stinginess and prodality (see Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics).

What?

ImAGeek wrote:What?

There are virtues which deal with matters of monetary exchange. An act which is opposed to an act of virtue is an act of vice.

Traditio wrote:

ImAGeek wrote:What?

There are virtues which deal with matters of monetary exchange. An act which is opposed to an act of virtue is an act of vice.

I know what vice and virtue are, I just don't see how they have anything to do with buying a bloody GW model.

ImAGeek wrote:I know what vice and virtue are, I just don't see how they have anything to do with buying a bloody GW model.

Is the purchase of a $140 plastic toy a circumstance in which the subject is either going to be acting prodigally, liberally or stingily?

It's sad that people didn't want to attempt to defeat the dude's tournament Eldar list. they could have learned something...

It's sad that the dude didn't bring an alternative list that would have been more appealing to a casual gamer. A mutually enjoyable game could have taken place...

It's even more sad that his alternate list had 2 Revenant Titans in it. That's kinda like asking "Hey, would you liked to be slapped in the face? No? Well, how about a sledgehammer to the crotch instead?" The fact that this was his alternative idea for a game DOES lean heavily towards him being somewhat of a D-bag, but if I was to give him an out, it would be to say that it sucks that everyone in the world suddenly hates his army to the point of not wanting to play the game against it. I'm sure it sucks, especially considering Eldar had just went through a few years of being one of the least popular armies to play against.

Traditio wrote:

ImAGeek wrote:I know what vice and virtue are, I just don't see how they have anything to do with buying a bloody GW model.

Is the purchase of a $140 plastic toy a circumstance in which the subject is either going to be acting prodigally, liberally or stingily?

Why does it matter?

 ImAGeek wrote:

Traditio wrote:Is the purchase of a $140 plastic toy a circumstance in which the subject is either going to be acting prodigally, liberally or stingily?

Why does it matter?

Because you have two options:

1. It is not. Therefore it is not a monetary exchange, which, of course, is false.

2. It is. Then the subject is either going to be acting well or poorly. His act will either be that of a virtue or of a vice.

There's no third option.

No they're not. They're just buying a model. Stop putting such a big moral question on things like spending your money and playing games, it's ridiculous.

 ImAGeek wrote:
No they're not. They're just buying a model. Stop putting such a big moral question on things like spending your money and playing games, it's ridiculous.

In concreto, there's no such thing as a morally neutral act. Whatever you do, you're going to be doing it well or poorly. You can tell me, of course, "but this is not the due matter for any of the virtues." But then I'll ask you whether there is a certain "area" of life which can be lived humanly, and yet does not require the rule of reason. If you say "yes," then you utter a contradiction (to perform a human action is to perform an act which proceeds from knowledge and will). If you say "no," then you grant my argument.

Traditio wrote:

ImAGeek wrote:What?

There are virtues which deal with matters of monetary exchange. An act which is opposed to an act of virtue is an act of vice.

I refuse to believe that you live your life in such a binary fashion that anything which is not inherently a social good you refuse to do. Unless I happen to be corresponding here with a religious hermit (who likes the Internet), that's just not the case. All that they are trying to explain to you is that different people ascribe different value to things. If you think someone spending $140 on something because they like how it looks absurd, you really don't want to know that I paid around $200 for a painting last year. It doesn't even do anything - it just hangs there!

People spend their money or time (which can be converted to money) on all sorts of things that don't have inherent purpose. They'll spend a $1,000 or more having their living room painted to a colour they like! What ImAGeek is pointing out to you, is that worth is subjective and whilst you may not consider something worth that much money, your opinion is no more valid than the person who does.

Anyway, as regards the poor player who no-one would give a game to, I feel sorry for them. They invested lots of time and money into building an army and then are not only barred from playing with other people because GW can't write balanced rules to save their lives, but they're mocked for it. If I took up a game as a hobby and then when I tried to challenge people they said they would only play if they were allowed to choose what models I could or could not use, I would not be happy with that either.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Traditio wrote:

 ImAGeek wrote:
No they're not. They're just buying a model. Stop putting such a big moral question on things like spending your money and playing games, it's ridiculous.

In concreto, there's no such thing as a morally neutral act. Whatever you do, you're going to be doing it well or poorly. You can tell me, of course, "but this is not the due matter for any of the virtues." But then I'll ask you whether there is a certain "area" of life which can be lived humanly, and yet does not require the rule of reason. If you say "yes," then you utter a contradiction (to perform a human action is to perform an act which proceeds from knowledge and will). If you say "no," then you grant my argument.

You are misapplying this argument because you have begun with an assumption that you have not proven. That assumption is that pleasing oneself is not a virtue. The person spent $140 dollar on something which made them happy (else they would not have done it). You can quote philosophers but unless you can show that someone spending $140 to make themselves happy is morally wrong, your argument is based on false proposition.

And if you do wish to argue that spending $140 to make oneself happy is morally wrong, how do you feel that you arrived at this value. Is the $20 you spent on models also morally wrong? If not, why not? If so, why condemn another for the same thing. Is it because $140 is a large sum to you? Perhaps it is not to them. Maybe they work hard all day and earn that money why should they not spend it on themself in some way? Perhaps you think it is a large sum for a single model but you also went to the movies several times last year, whilst they never did. Overall, they may have spent less than you on leisure. You do not know. Is something morally wrong when it is a lump sum but not morally wrong when it is multiple small items? Maybe you eat much more than they do and therefore they have more money to spend and are less of a burden on our ecosystem. How does your algebra of morality work in that instance? Without knowing, you cannot judge this person for their spend. Even then, it's unnecessary to go down this route to invalidate your argument. The burden of proof for a proposition is upon the proposer. How do you shouw us that spending $140 to make oneself happy is wrong. If I spent $200 to make someone else happy, that would surely be an even greater crime by your reasoning, because that is still just another person no different to myself and now the cost is even greater! If you wish to make the argument you are making, first prove your starting proposition because others of us do not accept that. It is, as another pointed out, ridiculous.

You're happy to toss off phrases such as In Concreto, but you haven't thought this through. You're merely parroting the arguments of others without examining if they apply.

Perhaps it's my mindset but "I don't want to tone down my army because I could lose" sounds the same as "I don't want to play if I can't win".

 Rismonite wrote:
Perhaps it's my mindset but "I don't want to tone down my army because I could lose" sounds the same as "I don't want to play if I can't win".

It isn't. I love a hard fought game whether that be a table-top wargame or a squash match or a football game. I don't particularly mind if I win or lose, but I enjoy the challenge and the striving. Seriously, you must be able to relate to the pleasure of matching wits against another person, whether that be sports, chess or a computer game. That pleasure vanishes if one is deliberately sabotaging oneself or your opponent is stopping you and saying "no, I want you to play differently so that I can win". People can play however they like, but I really dislike being told that if I enjoy a competitive game or sport it's because I am a bad / immature person who can't deal with losing. That's just offensive and no more accurate than if someone were to say that saying "the game should be casual" sounds the same as "I don't think I can win". Is that accurate? If not, then why should the inverse be accurate?

pretty sad that people didn't show up to play "because of Eldar". Nothing like buying into the hype. Why not play a few games (chances are you won't face Eldar every game) and then report back with actual experiences? Maybe even a simple."yep, they were as bad as I expected", but something.

 knas ser wrote:

 Rismonite wrote:
Perhaps it's my mindset but "I don't want to tone down my army because I could lose" sounds the same as "I don't want to play if I can't win".

It isn't. I love a hard fought game whether that be a table-top wargame or a squash match or a football game. I don't particularly mind if I win or lose, but I enjoy the challenge and the striving. Seriously, you must be able to relate to the pleasure of matching wits against another person, whether that be sports, chess or a computer game. That pleasure vanishes if one is deliberately sabotaging oneself or your opponent is stopping you and saying "no, I want you to play differently so that I can win". People can play however they like, but I really dislike being told that if I enjoy a competitive game or sport it's because I am a bad / immature person who can't deal with losing. That's just offensive and no more accurate than if someone were to say that saying "the game should be casual" sounds the same as "I don't think I can win". Is that accurate? If not, then why should the inverse be accurate?

I wasn't singling anyone out.

I'd like to point out that the OP's point was that a guy was TFG based on his list and his army of choice, that he brought to a tourney game.
Now I've been there before. I spent a week trying to fine tune a list to our tournaments small house rules and criteria and ended up with an army I was proud of. This is while finishing up the painting on my models that I had been working on (not requirement but I wanted to have a proud display on the tournament day).

Then the tournament gets canceled due to lack of participants. Happened a lot really. I played Tau and the games really died off near the end of 6th and I don't even think exists in my area for 7th now.

But on the occasions I've gone I brought what models I needed for the tournament and found out it wasn't being held. I played Tau/Eldar in 6th and it was painful trying to get a pick up game when all you have is a fine tuned list and didn't want to just pack up and leave after a 30 minute trip. I often did badly in the tournaments, but it may be because we played with large amounts of LOS blocking terrain so melee armies could actually get into combat.
I remember one time I showed up with a standard 500 point army to a tournament only to find out that they changed the ENTIRE setup the day after all the other players had a discussion on it. I showed up blind to a tournament that was all kill points and no minimum FOC restrictions.

It really really kills me to see a thread start off like this. Where someone rants about someone, describing a position I've been in many times before. The guy could have been a jerk, but it honestly just sounds like he wanted to try out a list or two. Didn't seem like he was hiding this, apparently you all knew what his list was before you declined the games.

If you want to have a TFG thread, try actually starting off with a TFG story. I've had plenty that were just rude, lied about unit equipment, abusing rules and cheating, modeling for obvious advantage, list tailoring, and so on. He brought a legal list and had wysiwyg? Did he ever hide that it was competitive? There is an ever widening division in the community, or perhaps it's just more noticeable as the player base dwindles. But if you really want to complain about someone being TFG, then try starting it off with more than maybe just someone picking the wrong army.

 Rismonite wrote:

 knas ser wrote:

 Rismonite wrote:
Perhaps it's my mindset but "I don't want to tone down my army because I could lose" sounds the same as "I don't want to play if I can't win".

It isn't. I love a hard fought game whether that be a table-top wargame or a squash match or a football game. I don't particularly mind if I win or lose, but I enjoy the challenge and the striving. Seriously, you must be able to relate to the pleasure of matching wits against another person, whether that be sports, chess or a computer game. That pleasure vanishes if one is deliberately sabotaging oneself or your opponent is stopping you and saying "no, I want you to play differently so that I can win". People can play however they like, but I really dislike being told that if I enjoy a competitive game or sport it's because I am a bad / immature person who can't deal with losing. That's just offensive and no more accurate than if someone were to say that saying "the game should be casual" sounds the same as "I don't think I can win". Is that accurate? If not, then why should the inverse be accurate?

I wasn't singling anyone out.

Fair enough, but that's part of the problem. If you paint with broad strokes and say A is like B, you're going to catch everyone that falls into A, even when it's only some of A that actually match B. Hence you're going to get random people defending themselves because you're talking about a group, not an individual.

Is the guy a dick?

If not, you guy just blackballed a guy who's only crime is buy model from the company you lov and support. So for his crime of supporting GW and if you aren't buying the new hotness, then he is the only one helping GW bottom line. You guy not only don't play vs. him but basically talk smack to, that doesn't make him the TFG in this scene.

 Ghazkuul wrote:
Our local store had to cancel our months long anticipated Tournament because the Eldar dex got dropped and people started backing out of the tournament until we had less then 8 players (3 eldar).

I am very sad for you guys. Ghaz, I know you've been pretty vehement about the elf book, but really, things can be easily handled.

"Months long anticipated". I strongly urge you to reset and try again in two weeks. Tell all your buds to use a 'nerf set' of limitations. 2 weeks to go over them. So you don't have to re-invent anything, go ahead and use the ITC stuff. It was written with the purpose of tourney play.

I am wondering why did your TO not take a survey of the regulars in the beginning, and impose some agreed upon nerfs (like the ITC did) and keep the show running?

Common sense items:
LoW 0-1 or none at all
Reduce Destroyer on eldar to Distort (ITC Destroyers are stronger)
CAD limitations, 1 and 1.

That'll pretty much make your more timid players okay to show up.

As to the Revenant TFG, you and your buds handled him well. "Sorry, nope. No argument you present will sway me to play you, man. No SH walkers or SH anything. Have a nice day."

 knas ser wrote:

 Rismonite wrote:

 knas ser wrote:

 Rismonite wrote:
Perhaps it's my mindset but "I don't want to tone down my army because I could lose" sounds the same as "I don't want to play if I can't win".

It isn't. I love a hard fought game whether that be a table-top wargame or a squash match or a football game. I don't particularly mind if I win or lose, but I enjoy the challenge and the striving. Seriously, you must be able to relate to the pleasure of matching wits against another person, whether that be sports, chess or a computer game. That pleasure vanishes if one is deliberately sabotaging oneself or your opponent is stopping you and saying "no, I want you to play differently so that I can win". People can play however they like, but I really dislike being told that if I enjoy a competitive game or sport it's because I am a bad / immature person who can't deal with losing. That's just offensive and no more accurate than if someone were to say that saying "the game should be casual" sounds the same as "I don't think I can win". Is that accurate? If not, then why should the inverse be accurate?

I wasn't singling anyone out.

Fair enough, but that's part of the problem. If you paint with broad strokes and say A is like B, you're going to catch everyone that falls into A, even when it's only some of A that actually match B. Hence you're going to get random people defending themselves because you're talking about a group, not an individual.

I was trying to disconnect myself from what you said because you put lots of words in my mouth and they seemed to have nothing to do with what I said.

 knas ser wrote:

 Rismonite wrote:
Perhaps it's my mindset but "I don't want to tone down my army because I could lose" sounds the same as "I don't want to play if I can't win".

It isn't. I love a hard fought game whether that be a table-top wargame or a squash match or a football game. I don't particularly mind if I win or lose, but I enjoy the challenge and the striving. Seriously, you must be able to relate to the pleasure of matching wits against another person, whether that be sports, chess or a computer game. That pleasure vanishes if one is deliberately sabotaging oneself or your opponent is stopping you and saying "no, I want you to play differently so that I can win". People can play however they like, but I really dislike being told that if I enjoy a competitive game or sport it's because I am a bad / immature person who can't deal with losing. That's just offensive and no more accurate than if someone were to say that saying "the game should be casual" sounds the same as "I don't think I can win". Is that accurate? If not, then why should the inverse be accurate?

What if there is no challange, if you know that on the tables and with the rules given you will not win. Where is a challange in that? Now of course eldar players may not know how it feels to have a bad army, because the worse they had for like a year was having a hard to play footslogger list. Unlike let say an orc player who had to go through 10 years of a bad codex. What can an IG player learn from playing eldar? That their army is slower, less resilient, less flexible, with fewer options of viable units and builds.

Makumba wrote:

 knas ser wrote:

 Rismonite wrote:
Perhaps it's my mindset but "I don't want to tone down my army because I could lose" sounds the same as "I don't want to play if I can't win".

It isn't. I love a hard fought game whether that be a table-top wargame or a squash match or a football game. I don't particularly mind if I win or lose, but I enjoy the challenge and the striving. Seriously, you must be able to relate to the pleasure of matching wits against another person, whether that be sports, chess or a computer game. That pleasure vanishes if one is deliberately sabotaging oneself or your opponent is stopping you and saying "no, I want you to play differently so that I can win". People can play however they like, but I really dislike being told that if I enjoy a competitive game or sport it's because I am a bad / immature person who can't deal with losing. That's just offensive and no more accurate than if someone were to say that saying "the game should be casual" sounds the same as "I don't think I can win". Is that accurate? If not, then why should the inverse be accurate?

What if there is no challange, if you know that on the tables and with the rules given you will not win. Where is a challange in that? Now of course eldar players may not know how it feels to have a bad army, because the worse they had for like a year was having a hard to play footslogger list. Unlike let say an orc player who had to go through 10 years of a bad codex. What can an IG player learn from playing eldar? That their army is slower, less resilient, less flexible, with fewer options of viable units and builds.

If there is no challenge because you cannot win even if you try, then similarly that is boring and nearly as pointless as a victory that comes without trying.

So I get what you're saying. But I still feel sorry for the person the OP talked about. They invested a lot of time and money into a hobby and then find that no-one will play with them because the game doesn't provide a balance itself. I'm not having a go at people for not playing with him if it's really that pointless. What I'm doing is defending him as I don't think he did anything wrong and I don't see a reason to mock him. There's a difference between defending someone and blaming / attacking other people. I blame the rules for the situation. I only blame the other players in so far as people calling him names / blaming him for not sharing their view on things. I don't think that's fair and I dislike people not being able to tell the difference between enjoying competition and not being able to handle losing.