Perception shapes reality

[KaptinDregzag]

So, I've been thinking about how the 40K blogs and the like are always bringing up different ways players view wargaming. This gives us those eternal arguments of "powergamer" vs. "fluffbunny" or the recent "realist" vs. "theorist". The truth is, I see all of these as illustrating how our world views can change the percieved
"reality" out there.

Example 1: "powergamer" vs. "fluffbunny"

Take the example of a Space Marine Devastator Squad with 5 guys and 4 Missile Launchers vs. a Space Wolf Long Fang Squad equipped the same. Now it is obvious that the Long Fangs are better for cheaper. The "powergamer" sees this and says "Those Devastators are way too overcosted." while the "fluffbunny" says "Those Long Fangs are way to undercosted." Whose right? Both? Neither? Will they ever see things the same way?

Example 2: "realist" vs. "theorist"

Take for example a 33% of success on an action in 40K, which in many cases is the best that can be hoped for. The "theorist" is actually just an optimist so he sees this as a good chance of success and counts on it. If he fails he forgets it or writes it off as bad luck, and only really remembers the times it worked. The "realist" on the other hand is a pessimist and so sees this 33% as a bad chance of success. So, he either takes the chance and remembers every failure (writing off the successes as luck), or doesn't even bother trying (which of course gives a 0% chance of success). Now, both sides are seeing the same thing, but both sides will never agree on its nature.

For the record, I tend to be a "realist" "fluffbunny". I build armies that I "know" will not work (Shooty Orkz with Flash Gitz, Adeptus Arbites [from the Witch Hunter Codex], Necrons, Kroot centered Tau, etc...) because I like the feel of the army and enjoy an uphill fight.

Anyways, just my 2 creds on these never-ending arguments. Hopefully, it'll help people see from different perspectives a bit.

[Bean]

So, I've been thinking about how the 40K blogs and the like are always bringing up different ways players view wargaming. This gives us those eternal arguments of "powergamer" vs. "fluffbunny" or the recent "realist" vs. "theorist". The truth is, I see all of these as illustrating how our world views can change the percieved
"reality" out there.

Example 1: "powergamer" vs. "fluffbunny"

Take the example of a Space Marine Devastator Squad with 5 guys and 4 Missile Launchers vs. a Space Wolf Long Fang Squad equipped the same. Now it is obvious that the Long Fangs are better for cheaper. The "powergamer" sees this and says "Those Devastators are way too overcosted." while the "fluffbunny" says "Those Long Fangs are way to undercosted." Whose right? Both? Neither? Will they ever see things the same way?

Example 2: "realist" vs. "theorist"

Take for example a 33% of success on an action in 40K, which in many cases is the best that can be hoped for. The "theorist" is actually just an optimist so he sees this as a good chance of success and counts on it. If he fails he forgets it or writes it off as bad luck, and only really remembers the times it worked. The "realist" on the other hand is a pessimist and so sees this 33% as a bad chance of success. So, he either takes the chance and remembers every failure (writing off the successes as luck), or doesn't even bother trying (which of course gives a 0% chance of success). Now, both sides are seeing the same thing, but both sides will never agree on its nature.

For the record, I tend to be a "realist" "fluffbunny". I build armies that I "know" will not work (Shooty Orkz with Flash Gitz, Adeptus Arbites [from the Witch Hunter Codex], Necrons, Kroot centered Tau, etc...) because I like the feel of the army and enjoy an uphill fight.

Anyways, just my 2 creds on these never-ending arguments. Hopefully, it'll help people see from different perspectives a bit.


This is basically bollocks. I don't think it's accurate to say that fluff-oriented players are more likely to say that a better unit is undercosted than to say that a worse unit is overcosted, and I don't think a powergamer can be relied on to take either stance, either.

In fact, any marginally intelligent individual knows that, while comparing the units in isolation, it is both true that the long-fangs are under-costed and that the devastators are over-costed, but that to really determine whether either is under or over costed, we really need to be looking at internal balance--their opportunity cost in terms of other options from their own codex that you could take instead. The across-codex overcosted/undercosted evaluation is largely meaningless.

Similarly, it is just wrong to say that a "theorist" is an optimist or a "realist" is a pessimist. A theorist who isn't approaching the theory realistically is an idiot--as is any other player. Both unwarranted optimism and unwarranted pessimism are mistakes, and any good theorist, or realist, or player will shape his or her expectations reasonably based on probabilities.


If anything, the "theorist" vs "realist" schism should be represented as people who calculate mathematically the probability that an event will produce a particular result mathematically opposed to people to who rely on their memories of the results produced by similar events in the past.

Here, at least, we see a schism that actually exists within the 40k player base (as opposed to the nonsense you opted to make up) and we can also see that the "realist" category is obviously utilizing worse data, which allows one to make an actually useful evaluation about the impact of this split.

[isotope99]

For me:


I would say a power gamer would look at undercosted long fangs and say, yes please, I'll have three. Whereas the fluff bunny would make up a story for why their space wolf army would have three long fang squads :p.

The theorist looks at the math of penetrating vehicles by crunching the numbers and targeting the one most likely to be destroyed, whereas the realist will look at the whole board and consider what happens if they hit one vehicle rather than another, is it better to glance two separate vehicles or be sure of wrecking one etc. Basically theoryhammer is useful but will only get you so far.

[MaltonNecromancer]

The "powergamer" sees this and says "Those Devastators are way too overcosted." while the "fluffbunny" says "Those Long Fangs are way to undercosted." Whose right? Both? Neither? Will they ever see things the same way?

Both these assessments are fallacious, because they assume that all other things in the armies are equal and the same. Which they aren't. Long Fangs are significantly less survivable due to the lack of ablative wounds that a Devastator Squad has. They also can't combat squad, providing fire support from multiple positions. Space Wolves also lack access to heavy weapons in the other parts of their army - tactical squads can only take special weapons. Yes, the meltagun seems a better option than any Heavy Weapon in the current metagame, but as armies like Dark Eldar and Grey Knights (as well as all the remaining codicies) come along, the meta has shifted, and will shift. The inability to take more Heavy Weapons may not be a crippling weakness... but it is a difference which contributes to the points cost of the armies.

Also remember: a lot of the people who play 40K are very young, and thus by nature inexperienced (and often prone to making vastly generalised statements about life, the universe and everything. Oh, and yes, I am aware this is a vastly generalised statement about young people. Consider it one of life's entertaining ironies.)

As a result, you get a lot of strong statements online which present opinion as though it were fact... which it isn't. 'Nids can beat Marines. Dark Eldar can beat Grey Knights. Any army can potentially beat any other army through tactics and planning, and it's not that some armies are "weaker", it's generally that either they require a thorough understanding of unit synergy to work very effectively, or else they just don't play like Marines.

I always think of it along the lines of Soul Calibur. Voldo is a weird character to play with, with strange attacks and seemingly random moves that combo in odd ways. As a result he's very hard to learn to play with. I've spent ten years playing with him, and I'm confident I could bash the snot out of a newbie to the game, even if they used someone like Kilik (who is simple, efficient, and brutal.) Skill trumps ease of use.

I just think that as a community, we need to be more wary of people who make comments which deal in absolutes; they're so often wrong and even more often, they smack of the childish arguments made about game consoles ("My Megadrive is better than your SNES!" "No it's not!") brought about by the fear you invested your money in the "wrong" system, rather than just enjoying the fun your current system can bring.

[KaptinDregzag]

This is a great conversation guys.

Yes, I realize my argument made some sweeping generalizations, it's unfortunately the nature of the beast. I was attempting to illustrate a general sense that defines the two so-called sides. An impression that is built in their minds, in a way. I was not creating two absolutes that define everybody perfectly. In fact, I don't think there are just two camps, but as many as there are people who play. The examples were intended as just that, not a critique on certain players, their army choices, or how they play.

I wanted to see if bridges could be built. Establish that maybe these arguments might never come to an answer despite how many times they come up because there really isn't one. Just how we each and all percieve the exact same stats, numbers, models, and worlds.

[HsojVvad]

The only sides I really see lately on the forums is the people who are GW sticklers or like is like it MUST be WYSIWYG, 3 or more colours, bases flocked and based, and if you play with just primied black or even grey minis, you are not a real human being and you Should never be allowed to play a 40K game the way You like it.

It has to be there way or now way and you are an evil person. That is what is wrong with the hobby and almost all fourms the way I see it.

[DarkLink]

That's why I can't stand soft scores.