Darkwynn's leafblower post

[booma]

Hats off to the man.

He may have had a truly soul destroying army, but the man has heart and knows where the hobby is at.

Its nice to see how he feels about this list and his intentions and that he is a believer in skill/ideas and true ability over, filth list, spam list band wagon point and click lunacy.:confused:

Just because you can does not mean you should and its nice to see some out there still feel that way and play in the spirit, even at high level comps :D

I love competative play,Ii could take a lash spam or a LEAF BLOWER or some such other and win most games hugely. but why.

hows that test my abiltiy? It tested his, he came up with it, but even that can be double edged sometimes as he proves he had no fun, there was no soul to it.

Hopefully more will play like this and get over the "must win at any cost" attitude cos being best at toy soldiers is all I live for...

Winning is great and smashing the enemy is great, but its a socisl thing and should be fun and a challange against each other not against bent lists and rules taken advantage of :D

I would; with his attitude be happy to play him any time and players like him. We all make nasty "what if" lists
but is that really going to be the standard way of things. if so, sad times.

I am moving to Memphis in summer and will love to play any and all events, but this style of gaming is very disapointing. Lets hope theres some hobby heart out there.:D

[Dingareth]

Let me put it out there that your post is as misguided as it comes.

He used a tournament quality list in a tournament.

He (and the majority of players out there) aren't WAAC players- that just a label given to "us" by the fluff bunnies out there that can't/won't compete or change their lists to the evolving standard of the game. Using a competitive list doesn't make you an *** or WAAC, it means you understand the game. Hell, take a look at Reece's lastest post even! Redundancy, (even spamming), focus, and efficiency are all part of understand the game just as much as painting your Salamanders green or knowing that Iron Warriors and Iron Hands are two different things- which judging by the comments on the Chaos Book blog post, some posters don't.

Also, do you think athletes, who know that a certain shoe helps them run faster choose not to wear it because it's not "fair?" Of course not, look to the controversy surrounding the bodysuits that swimmers wore in China for all the evidence you need. Or steroid use in Baseball, or Biking, or Weightlifting... There is no reason a gamer should not take the best list he can in a competitive environment. Now things like money, and time to paint factor in obviously, but some over-arching moral code? No, of course not. To limit one's self in this game is to rob your opponent of a competitive game. If I break out my Mechanized Iron Warriors- a list that I consider to be pretty well optimized- at a tournament, I expect to see Mech Guard/Space Wolves/Mech Vampires across from me to give me a challenge. If I'm going to be beating down on a battleforce army, than my opponent has just taken all the thought and fun out of the game- regardless of whether or not he's the nicest guy in the world.

Lastly, Darkwynn no more invented the "leafblower" any more than I invented a Preadspam army. Mech Guard was around before the internet made it popular, and just because it was posted on BoLS doesn't make it the gospel. You say that you make "nasty what if" list, but don't use them. Why not? I use them, and it's the standard in my area. Are we all terrible people? Are we a scourge upon the hobby because we don't agree with you? Is it really that sad that we all play games for different reason?

I hope your answer is no.

So next time you stand up and applaud one person giving up one build of one competitive army, and decry so called "WAAC" players and the system they play in. Think for a second how foolish it makes you look to judge such a large swatch of this hobby based off of your arbitrary standards. Now I take no offense because it's easy to see how naive you are based on your post- someone gave you a soapbox (the internet) and you stood up on it and gave your speech. Well, I like to do that too. The only difference between us is that my speech isn't based on marginalizing and putting down people that game, hobby, and enjoy a little competition now and again.

So, Darkynn gave up Guard because he wasn't having fun. We'll that's too bad and I wish him luck in his next army. However, don't damn the rest of us as "point and click, copy paste morons" because we didn't.

[robertsjf]

He (and the majority of players out there) aren't WAAC players- that just a label given to "us" by the fluff bunnies out there

But actually using the label "fluff bunny" to describe other players does potentially qualify you as a "WAAC" player as much as a player using the label "WAAC" to describe other players could qualify as a "fluff bunny".

[Dingareth]

But actually using the label "fluff bunny" to describe other players does potentially qualify you as a "WAAC" player as much as a player using the label "WAAC" to describe other players could qualify as a "fluff bunny".

Not in the least. I simply meant that as far as "factions" go, they are much more insular and much less compromising or understanding. I don't see how labeling a group of people could automatically mean that I was part of the opposite group. Use of a label has nothing to do with membership to any labeled group.

Or as George Clooney so eloquently put it, "I stereotype, it saves time."

[Bean]

I would be inclined to say that neither of those assertions are true, robertsjf.

Dubbing someone a "WAAC-er" doesn't really indicate that you're a "fluff-bunny," and calling someone a "fluff bunny" doesn't really indicate that you're a "WAAC-er."

Still--despite the fact that the part of Dingareth's post which talks about fluff bunnies is both rhetorical and poor rhetoric--the message of his post is basically spot on.

It's certainly fine for someone to stop playing an army because it isn't fun, but congratulating that person for doing so in a manner which condemns others for failing to do so is just not acceptable at all.

[robertsjf]

I simply meant that as far as "factions" go, they are much more insular and much less compromising or understanding.





Think for a second how foolish it makes you look to judge such a large swatch of this hobby based off of your arbitrary standards.


See, using a label makes you a label. You can deride people applying the "WAAC" label to tournament goers, but as soon as you turn around and apply your own label you weaken your argument. That's all I was pointing out.

[Melissia]

I hate both terms. My army lists are both fluffy AND hard hitting.

[Bean]

See, using a label makes you a label. You can deride people applying the "WAAC" label to tournament goers, but as soon as you turn around and apply your own label you weaken your argument. That's all I was pointing out.

He is behaving somewhat hypocritically, but that doesn't actually weaken his argument at all.

His assertion is basically correct: the standards which people use to define "WAAC" players are inherently arbitrary. It is basically foolish to use such a term in the manner in which the OP used it.

When you point out that Dingarath goes on to do the same thing, what you're doing is making an ad hominem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem)argument, and in this instance, the ad hominem is a fallacy. The fact that Dingarath turns around and applies a broad, critical, arbitrary label to a large group of players doesn't change the fact that applying a broad, critical, arbitrary label to a large group of players is not good practice.

[Dingareth]

He is behaving somewhat hypocritically, but that doesn't actually weaken his argument at all.

His assertion is basically correct: the standards which people use to define "WAAC" players are inherently arbitrary. It is basically foolish to use such a term in the manner in which the OP used it.

When you point out that Dingarath goes on to do the same thing, what you're doing is making an ad hominem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem)argument, and in this instance, the ad hominem is a fallacy. The fact that Dingarath turns around and applies a broad, critical, arbitrary label to a large group of players doesn't change the fact that applying a broad, critical, arbitrary label to a large group of players is not good practice.

Well, I was going to write out a response, but I'm pretty sure you cover everything I was going to say. Bravo!

[BuFFo]

Let me put it out there that your post is as misguided as it comes.

He used a tournament quality list in a tournament.

He (and the majority of players out there) aren't WAAC players- that just a label given to "us" by the fluff bunnies out there that can't/won't compete or change their lists to the evolving standard of the game. Using a competitive list doesn't make you an *** or WAAC, it means you understand the game. Hell, take a look at Reece's lastest post even! Redundancy, (even spamming), focus, and efficiency are all part of understand the game just as much as painting your Salamanders green or knowing that Iron Warriors and Iron Hands are two different things- which judging by the comments on the Chaos Book blog post, some posters don't.

Also, do you think athletes, who know that a certain shoe helps them run faster choose not to wear it because it's not "fair?" Of course not, look to the controversy surrounding the bodysuits that swimmers wore in China for all the evidence you need. Or steroid use in Baseball, or Biking, or Weightlifting... There is no reason a gamer should not take the best list he can in a competitive environment. Now things like money, and time to paint factor in obviously, but some over-arching moral code? No, of course not. To limit one's self in this game is to rob your opponent of a competitive game. If I break out my Mechanized Iron Warriors- a list that I consider to be pretty well optimized- at a tournament, I expect to see Mech Guard/Space Wolves/Mech Vampires across from me to give me a challenge. If I'm going to be beating down on a battleforce army, than my opponent has just taken all the thought and fun out of the game- regardless of whether or not he's the nicest guy in the world.

Lastly, Darkwynn no more invented the "leafblower" any more than I invented a Preadspam army. Mech Guard was around before the internet made it popular, and just because it was posted on BoLS doesn't make it the gospel. You say that you make "nasty what if" list, but don't use them. Why not? I use them, and it's the standard in my area. Are we all terrible people? Are we a scourge upon the hobby because we don't agree with you? Is it really that sad that we all play games for different reason?

I hope your answer is no.

So next time you stand up and applaud one person giving up one build of one competitive army, and decry so called "WAAC" players and the system they play in. Think for a second how foolish it makes you look to judge such a large swatch of this hobby based off of your arbitrary standards. Now I take no offense because it's easy to see how naive you are based on your post- someone gave you a soapbox (the internet) and you stood up on it and gave your speech. Well, I like to do that too. The only difference between us is that my speech isn't based on marginalizing and putting down people that game, hobby, and enjoy a little competition now and again.

So, Darkynn gave up Guard because he wasn't having fun. We'll that's too bad and I wish him luck in his next army. However, don't damn the rest of us as "point and click, copy paste morons" because we didn't.


Clap Clap Clap Clap Clap Clap Clap :o

[DarkLink]

The fact that Dingarath turns around and applies a broad, critical, arbitrary label to a large group of players doesn't change the fact that applying a broad, critical, arbitrary label to a large group of players is not good practice.

Remember, kids, all generalizations are false ;).

[Shagrath]

Remember, kids, all generalizations are true ;).
fixed that for ya

[Kahoolin]

Argh, wall of text time, sorry :o

Also, do you think athletes, who know that a certain shoe helps them run faster choose not to wear it because it's not "fair?" Of course not, look to the controversy surrounding the bodysuits that swimmers wore in China for all the evidence you need. Or steroid use in Baseball, or Biking, or Weightlifting... There is no reason a gamer should not take the best list he can in a competitive environment. Now things like money, and time to paint factor in obviously, but some over-arching moral code? No, of course not. To limit one's self in this game is to rob your opponent of a competitive game.OK, but those examples you listed are in fact controversial, as you even noted yourself. It may make sense in terms of ultimate victory to use steroids or whatever but to do so is expressly against the overarching moral code of sporting organizations and disqualifies the person who is caught doing it. Such overarching moral codes DO exist in every sport, usually literally, in the form of policies or codes of practice that competitors are contractually obliged to follow.

Competition (friendly or otherwise) is not war: it has rules. That's what in fact differentiates competition from war. Hell, even war has rules, they just vary from player to player and don't count till it's over :D
But I digress - 40k is not war. It is even less of a serious competition than professional baseball for God's sake.

A 40k tournament is a community event. It is a participatory contest involving people of all different levels of dedication, and none of them have any more right than any other to dictate the rules of engagement. That is why general tournaments (not including such events as 'Ard Boyz for example) are a balancing act between hobby and generalship.

I really think people misunderstand the idea of restricting killer lists in tourneys. It's not to balance the game so the best general wins or any bollocks like that - that would be impossible, the game has too many variables. It's to balance the fun so that the casual player and the killer hammerhead can both have fun.

A dedicated general should of course always defeat a casual hobbyist, but by taking steps to ensure that the casual hobbyist is not utterly annihilated in one or two turns, everyone can still have fun. Sure the dedicated general may not be having quite as much fun as they may have had if they'd been allowed to go all out and stretch their game-breaking muscles to the limit, but their small loss is compensated for by the greater amount of fun the casual gamers get from not being tabled mercilessly. The dedicated general still gets to win. If they actually ARE a good general, then they should defeat a more casual player with a slightly below-optimal list. It's a give and take, see?

I think all that's happened here is that Darkwynn has noticed that too much fun for the killer generals reduces the fun of the casual players, and there are a hell of a lot more of them. It's a zero sum game, and so we must balance the fun because that's what we're all there for. To drum your heels and demand the whole damn system to cater to you is unrealistic, whiny and childish. Whether it's painting or list spam, every aspect has to be moderated and balanced against the others for the total fun of the community.

[Bean]

Remember, kids, all generalizations are false ;).

I'll presume you're being sarcastic, since it is certainly possible for a generalization to be true. =P

[booma]

Argh, wall of text time, sorry :o
OK, but those examples you listed are in fact controversial, as you even noted yourself. It may make sense in terms of ultimate victory to use steroids or whatever but to do so is expressly against the overarching moral code of sporting organizations and disqualifies the person who is caught doing it. Such overarching moral codes DO exist in every sport, usually literally, in the form of policies or codes of practice that competitors are contractually obliged to follow.

Competition (friendly or otherwise) is not war: it has rules. That's what in fact differentiates competition from war. Hell, even war has rules, they just vary from player to player and don't count till it's over :D
But I digress - 40k is not war. It is even less of a serious competition than professional baseball for God's sake.

A 40k tournament is a community event. It is a participatory contest involving people of all different levels of dedication, and none of them have any more right than any other to dictate the rules of engagement. That is why general tournaments (not including such events as 'Ard Boyz for example) are a balancing act between hobby and generalship.

I really think people misunderstand the idea of restricting killer lists in tourneys. It's not to balance the game so the best general wins or any bollocks like that - that would be impossible, the game has too many variables. It's to balance the fun so that the casual player and the killer hammerhead can both have fun.

A dedicated general should of course always defeat a casual hobbyist, but by taking steps to ensure that the casual hobbyist is not utterly annihilated in one or two turns, everyone can still have fun. Sure the dedicated general may not be having quite as much fun as they may have had if they'd been allowed to go all out and stretch their game-breaking muscles to the limit, but their small loss is compensated for by the greater amount of fun the casual gamers get from not being tabled mercilessly. The dedicated general still gets to win. If they actually ARE a good general, then they should defeat a more casual player with a slightly below-optimal list. It's a give and take, see?

I think all that's happened here is that Darkwynn has noticed that too much fun for the killer generals reduces the fun of the casual players, and there are a hell of a lot more of them. It's a zero sum game, and so we must balance the fun because that's what we're all there for. To drum your heels and demand the whole damn system to cater to you is unrealistic, whiny and childish. Whether it's painting or list spam, every aspect has to be moderated and balanced against the others for the total fun of the community.

I maybe should have thought and posrted it like this =) he knows the score.:);) I just ranted, but still maintain=)

And I used no terms. In my group we dont (we just aint that cool lol), so I am sat here after 25yrs of gaming annd been in the centre of the hobby not knowing the term WAAC lol, sorry but its true. Sorry if i called yo uthat or any out there, i guess it means something like beardy git, over the top, must kill all before me and destroy their love of the hobby lol or some such.

Fluff bunny though, i get.

I think somewhere in the middle is better. Maybe a Fluff b*stard! lol or some such.
I guess personally I like to pick alround balanced lists and then test my self against another gamer. As I said, we can all make killer, death ninja lists...but it takes some of the point out of it and becomes more of an exercise in writing and rerading, so at GT's etc you are testing your list righting and rules exploiting skills against anothers equally good writing skills more so than their actual gaming/gernalship skills. Not the same for everyone but you all know my point.

After all any type of commander can sit in a bunker and deploy a nuke very well, blam the enemy is gone.

But how would they fare on the ground with a gun and some grunts against some other grunts etc. You know what i mean,.And to agree with the quote. It is a game, just a game. Games are fun and challanging...for both not just one.

Would you feel more gratified winning with a tough alround, balanced list.....or with a uber death point and click list? Which is more a test and more a measure of your gaming ability.

I in no way think he created this list lol the idea is enough to make me fall of my chair laughing. That guard list has done the rounds over hear before and many like it. I simply liked how he came to realise its more about fun and a challange =)

[Lerra]

Even from a purely competitive standpoint, it probably makes sense to retire The Leafblower soon. He has already won a boatload of prizes, and Jwolf demonstrated that it's possible to score only a few points below Leafblower with an odd list that includes some "interesting" (some say suboptimal) units like Possessed and Chosen. Someday the IG codex will be old and decrepit, and Jwolf will still be able to make gold out of a few mediocre units. Darkwynn will have to switch to a new list eventually, and by switching early he avoids falling into a tactical rut or falling behind the players who are challenging themselves more.

[booma]

Amen

And heres to origonality lol. :D

Oh and Desspite Dingarath thinking i am insulting and labeling a lot of people, it was no personal assualt on people.

Just like he supports a way of playing does not make it right, just as the same applies for me =) We all have our own opinions.

But in a game and a community. THink of the others lol and make sure everyone has fun

[Docmani]

I almost never post on forums anymore but this recent post had me thinking and as someone outside the tourney scene, I thought I'd offer some thoughts. None are really aimed at anyone, I'm simply giving an outsider's perspective.

I play lots of 40k vs. friends, but not much in stores. I've thought about trying a tournament for a while, but I haven't decided if its for me. I play lots over other games (board games, miniature games, RPGs) and I consider myself rather competitive in general. I've played numerous games with balance issues. A great deal of the time my friends and I play them despite the balance issues - the goal is still to get a good game in.

With all that said, let me offer a few thoughts. 40k is filled with balance issues. Its unavoidable really. With a decent sized set of rules and a great number of fairly complex codexes it really isn't possible to catch everything with in-house playtesting. The expanded consciousness that is the Internet, however, catches everything. Instead of dozens of eyes on a new codex, you have thousands of eyes looking for an edge. A list like 'Leafblower' is inevitable in a great number of ways.

Then you have the whole tournament thing. Its competitive. The object is to win. Everyone is looking for an edge, there is a nice list available on the Internet, you build it and dozens of people show up at the tournament with the same list. Now, say what you want about finesse and creativity, in a given population of people, some people are going to take that list verbatim, some are going to take it modify it, others will ignore it and roll their own. Its their choice really.

Do I want to play that way? Not really. Does it make me less likely to play in a tournament? Probably. Is it anybody's fault? I doubt it.

I think in the end, it boils down to the collective consciousness of the Internet has discovered some broken rules in a very complex system. Its easy to argue "Well, just don't exploit it", but everyone has their own definition of that. The line is not that sharp (as people in this thread are finding out). In the end, we get to choose the people we play with. If you choose to play in a tournament, need to accept you are going to be playing against all ends of the spectrum.

[booma]

Nicely said =) Docmani



He is behaving somewhat hypocritically, but that doesn't actually weaken his argument at all.

His assertion is basically correct: the standards which people use to define "WAAC" players are inherently arbitrary. It is basically foolish to use such a term in the manner in which the OP used it.

When you point out that Dingarath goes on to do the same thing, what you're doing is making an ad hominem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem)argument, and in this instance, the ad hominem is a fallacy. The fact that Dingarath turns around and applies a broad, critical, arbitrary label to a large group of players doesn't change the fact that applying a broad, critical, arbitrary label to a large group of players is not good practice.



AGAIN, jus tto point out, i never called anyone WAAC or a WAACer...i have not a clue and care not what the made up (and apparently inflamitory term means) as i never used it =)

Also, i should point out that having reread my post, i want to make it clear, that i was not having a "dig" at the style of play in th US. It is the same in the UK and everywhere else. Not isolated to one area. And again its just down to what yo ulike and what yo uenjoy, we all have our opinions and are all entitled to them

[DarkLink]

I'll presume you're being sarcastic, since it is certainly possible for a generalization to be true. =P

Not sarcasm precisely. More like irony. Reread the statement carefully and you'll see the problem with it ;)

[Bean]

Hah, right. I honestly can't believe I missed that. I've actually used that exact same line in the exact same way, before.

Nice work.

What's interesting is that the fact that your statement is self-contradictory doesn't necessary imply that there are true generalizations--it just so happens to be the case that there are.

[Kahoolin]

What's interesting is that the fact that your statement is self-contradictory doesn't necessary imply that there are true generalizations--it just so happens to be the case that there are.That's because it's not really a statement. A statement makes a claim about some state of affairs that can be true or false. That paradox seems to make a claim, but actually it is just a meaningless self-cancellation. It looks like meaningful words but says absolutely nothing about anything but itself.

What's interesting to me is that we can even understand that paradox at all. You'd think words and reality would have to intersect at some point for us to make a mental picture, but apparently not :confused:

[Bean]

That's because it's not really a statement. A statement makes a claim about some state of affairs that can be true or false. That paradox seems to make a claim, but actually it is just a meaningless self-cancellation. It looks like meaningful words but says absolutely nothing about anything but itself.

What's interesting to me is that we can even understand that paradox at all. You'd think words and reality would have to intersect at some point for us to make a mental picture, but apparently not :confused:

Exactly!

It's like the old conundrum:

"Can a god who is all-powerful create a rock so large he (she, it, whatever) cannot (his-her-its-self) lift it?"

It's intended to be an argument against the rationality of believing in an all-powerful deity, but it fails because, once you start with the premise of an all powerful deity, the conception of a rock unliftable by that deity simply doesn't signify, even though it might appear, on its surface, to do so. Essentially, given the premise, it's nonsense rather than an actual, legitimate, mental concept.

The ability of our minds to entertain self-contradictory notions (or, to put it another way, nonsense) is actually pretty fascinating, I agree.

[MC Tic Tac]

Lets be honest here its not Darkwynns fault the "Leafblower" has become so popular. It's the wider communitys for copying him.

Darkwynn sat down and thought about his list, AV12 making lance weapons a point sink against him, getting the most templates in on crowded tables.

Darkwynn didn't make all the games vs any "leafblower" bad games to play. Every single copy cat made them poor games.

It's these faceless copy cats who should bury thier armies, not Darkwynn.

[booma]

good point

[Shavnir]

Lets be honest here its not Darkwynns fault the "Leafblower" has become so popular. It's the wider communitys for copying him.

Darkwynn sat down and thought about his list, AV12 making lance weapons a point sink against him, getting the most templates in on crowded tables.

Darkwynn didn't make all the games vs any "leafblower" bad games to play. Every single copy cat made them poor games.

It's these faceless copy cats who should bury thier armies, not Darkwynn.

Or its the logical conclusion from a broken game.

[Bean]

I'm inclined to agree with Shavnir.

I can't say how many people only played the leafblower because this guy posted it somewhere on the internet, but, honestly, I'd be very surprised if it were even a marginally significant portion of leafblower players.

I mean, no offense to Darkwynn, but the army is really very obvious. It took about five minutes of looking through a pdf made from photos of a preview copy for everyone I know to come to the conclusion that there are two effective ways to play guard, now: vets in vendettas (and valks) and what has been dubbed the leafblower.

I imagine that just about everyone looking at the codex came to the same conclusion in a similar amount of time.

I can't imagine that very many people really needed to see the list posted before they thought, "huh, lots of guys pulling a gunline out of the tops of chimaeras backed up by artillery would be a good list."

So, you may know a bunch of people who "copied" Darkwynn, but, frankly, I can't believe that copying of his list is really the problem. It is far more reasonable to believe that most people did or would have come to the same conclusion on their own.


Really, though, your conclusion is flawed even if your premise is correct.

Even if Darkwynnn were, in fact, the first person to think of the leafblower and every other leafblower player only borrowed his idea and would never have come up with it on his or her own, it doesn't make Darkwynn's army any more legitimate or fun to play against.

If there is something wrong with a list that is a copy of Darkwynn's list, then the same thing is wrong with Darkwynn's list.

Giving priority or legitimacy to the first person or first few people to play a list and then saying, to everyone else, "sorry, so and so beat you to this list, you can't play it now because that would be copy-catting and we don't want to see this list across the table too often," is just silly.

Darkwynn has no more right to play the list than anyone else--and everyone has every right to play the list if they want to.


So, no, MC Tic Tac. Your point was not good. It was, in fact, both ridiculous and likely based on a flawed premise. I don't play a leafblower, but, if I did, I know I would have found your suggestion to be insulting.

[MC Tic Tac]

I firmly believe that the players make the game.

I remember back in 3rd Edtion when (At least in the UK) where 4 Heavy support min/maxed Iron Warriors/CSM ruled the waves. It's the only time ever at any tournament where players have been boo'ed on stage for the army they used by a majority of the players as it was that unfun to play against.

Naturally with any codex any smart player will find the optimised build in due time, but when at massive a tournament like Adepitcon where its a case of an Attack of the Clones and players are actively telling 1 player that its his fault for publishing his list on the net (or any other media) then who's really to blame?

The Orginal player? (or who is seen as the creator) The copy cats? The game maker? The Codex Writer?

Vets in Valks/Vendettas is not leaf blower, the mass of AV12, mass fire power and pie plates is. Also it's Special Weapon squads in Valks that's leafblower if you want to really split hairs.


At the end of the day is is no diffrent to net decking in in card games like Magic/Yugio etc.


Also it's just a game, we can all read many things into other people's lists, ideas, tactics, even interpretaion of the rules. But we play for fun, if you're not having fun, then why play?

If you are offened then sorry, I'm just trying to point something out from my point of veiw on the parapet of the internet.

[DarkLink]

I firmly believe that the players make the game.

I remember back in 3rd Edtion when (At least in the UK) where 4 Heavy support min/maxed Iron Warriors/CSM ruled the waves. It's the only time ever at any tournament where players have been boo'ed on stage for the army they used by a majority of the players as it was that unfun to play against.

Naturally with any codex any smart player will find the optimised build in due time, but when at massive a tournament like Adepitcon where its a case of an Attack of the Clones and players are actively telling 1 player that its his fault for publishing his list on the net (or any other media) then who's really to blame?

The Orginal player? (or who is seen as the creator) The copy cats? The game maker? The Codex Writer?

Vets in Valks/Vendettas is not leaf blower, the mass of AV12, mass fire power and pie plates is. Also it's Special Weapon squads in Valks that's leafblower if you want to really split hairs.


At the end of the day is is no diffrent to net decking in in card games like Magic/Yugio etc.


Also it's just a game, we can all read many things into other people's lists, ideas, tactics, even interpretaion of the rules. But we play for fun, if you're not having fun, then why play?

If you are offened then sorry, I'm just trying to point something out from my point of veiw on the parapet of the internet.

Honestly, I agree. The leafblower is the logical conclusion of a fairly straightforward analysis of the 5th ed meta and the Guard codex.

I can't really think of any way that this could be avoided in the Guard list design. The options just end up synergising so well, even though each individual option is pretty well balanced. The only thing I can think of is that some minor details about the codex should be changed, such as the fireports in a Chimera allowing you to fire heavy weapons rather than the mounted lasguns. A few fairly minor tweaks like that could help nerf the leafblower without hurting other types of guard lists too much. At least in theory.


Exactly!

It's like the old conundrum:

"Can a god who is all-powerful create a rock so large he (she, it, whatever) cannot (his-her-its-self) lift it?"

It's intended to be an argument against the rationality of believing in an all-powerful deity, but it fails because, once you start with the premise of an all powerful deity, the conception of a rock unliftable by that deity simply doesn't signify, even though it might appear, on its surface, to do so. Essentially, given the premise, it's nonsense rather than an actual, legitimate, mental concept.

The ability of our minds to entertain self-contradictory notions (or, to put it another way, nonsense) is actually pretty fascinating, I agree.

This one's really interesting, too. Especially when you have a good grasp of mathmatics.

We have 2 principles:
1. God can lift anything
2. God can create a rock of any size

The paradox appears to be that it is impossible for God to create a rock too big for himself to list. This is, actually, a misconception if you really think about it.

Let's say God creates a 1 ton rock. He can lift it. So he create a 2 ton rock. He can lift that. So he creates a 3 ton rock, which he can also lift. So on and so forth, 'till infinity and beyond.
God keeps making bigger and bigger rocks, all of which he can lift.

However, with an understanding of infinity, it quickly becomes apparent that this will go on forever, and that the paradox is really just a misconception.

See, weight is a property of a rock. Well, technically mass is a property of a rock, but whatever. God can create a rock of any mass.

But there is no such thing as a rock he cannont lift. "So heavy God cannot lift it" is not a property. It is a non-real concept that is entirely made up. Rationally, it does not exist. A rocks weight is determined by its mass, and even an infinite mass can be lifted by God. To think that there is some way to "make something so heavy nothing can lift it" is a misstatement of the laws of physics.

And if you ignore the laws of physics (which God presumably could), then it would be entirely possible that God could indeed make something so heavy he couldn't lift it, while at the same time still being able to lift it. 'cause that's what happens when the rules get thrown out the window.

[Bean]

Naturally with any codex any smart player will find the optimised build in due time, but when at massive a tournament like Adepitcon where its a case of an Attack of the Clones and players are actively telling 1 player that its his fault for publishing his list on the net (or any other media) then who's really to blame?


Well, I would certainly agree that it isn't Darkwynn's fault that Adepticon had a a ton of leafblower armies, and that blaming him would be an error.



Vets in Valks/Vendettas is not leaf blower, the mass of AV12, mass fire power and pie plates is. Also it's Special Weapon squads in Valks that's leafblower if you want to really split hairs.


I never suggested that valks and vendettas were a leafblower army. I think you may have misread my post.



At the end of the day is is no diffrent to net decking in in card games like Magic/Yugio etc.


It is if most of the people playing the list came up with it on their own. Most of the leafblower armies I saw at adepticon were not identical to each other. They had several variations. They were not, in fact, just copies of a list that was published somewhere online.

[Bean]

To DarkLink:

That's a good rundown of the issue I was trying to get at.

[Dingareth]

This one's really interesting, too. Especially when you have a good grasp of mathmatics.

We have 2 principles:
1. God can lift anything
2. God can create a rock of any size

The paradox appears to be that it is impossible for God to create a rock too big for himself to list. This is, actually, a misconception if you really think about it.

Let's say God creates a 1 ton rock. He can lift it. So he create a 2 ton rock. He can lift that. So he creates a 3 ton rock, which he can also lift. So on and so forth, 'till infinity and beyond.
God keeps making bigger and bigger rocks, all of which he can lift.

However, with an understanding of infinity, it quickly becomes apparent that this will go on forever, and that the paradox is really just a misconception.

See, weight is a property of a rock. Well, technically mass is a property of a rock, but whatever. God can create a rock of any mass.

But there is no such thing as a rock he cannont lift. "So heavy God cannot lift it" is not a property. It is a non-real concept that is entirely made up. Rationally, it does not exist. A rocks weight is determined by its mass, and even an infinite mass can be lifted by God. To think that there is some way to "make something so heavy nothing can lift it" is a misstatement of the laws of physics.

And if you ignore the laws of physics (which God presumably could), then it would be entirely possible that God could indeed make something so heavy he couldn't lift it, while at the same time still being able to lift it. 'cause that's what happens when the rules get thrown out the window.

You're missing half the point though... You've got the God is all powerful in the sense that he can create the biggest rock that we can't even imagine. However, if he cannot create a rock that he can't list, than he isn't all powerful then is he?

Also, I don't understand how people can say that playing against Mech Guard army is not fun. I could care less about the army, it's about the person running it. I've enjoyed games where I got my face smashed against Nob bikers right when that book came out more than playing something like a fluffy Nid army because of who I'm playing.

If you're engaging and a nice guy, then I'm going to have a fun time. If you're muttering and pouting because your 900 point deathstar didn't work, then it probably won't be a fun game for either of us.

[Nabterayl]

You're missing half the point though... You've got the God is all powerful in the sense that he can create the biggest rock that we can't even imagine. However, if he cannot create a rock that he can't list, than he isn't all powerful then is he?
Sorry, I just had to jump in here ... you're suggesting that we think about a hypothetical where one of the critical entities is something "we can't even imagine?" :p

Also, I don't understand how people can say that playing against Mech Guard army is not fun. I could care less about the army, it's about the person running it. I've enjoyed games where I got my face smashed against Nob bikers right when that book came out more than playing something like a fluffy Nid army because of who I'm playing.

If you're engaging and a nice guy, then I'm going to have a fun time. If you're muttering and pouting because your 900 point deathstar didn't work, then it probably won't be a fun game for either of us.
Too right.

[Kahoolin]

Sorry, I just had to jump in here ... you're suggesting that we think about a hypothetical where one of the critical entities is something "we can't even imagine?" :pThat's a pretty good working defintion of what a paradox is, I reckon: A bunch of words that make us consider something we can't actually consider. That's why they're so freaking wierd :D

[DarkLink]

You're missing half the point though... You've got the God is all powerful in the sense that he can create the biggest rock that we can't even imagine. However, if he cannot create a rock that he can't list, than he isn't all powerful then is he?


The thing is, creating a rock that even he cannot lift isn't rational. Because of his abilities, it defies the very laws of nature to simply create something with a "more than infinite mass". The very concept isn't rational. To think or consider that it could even exist is to completely misunderstand the fundamental principles of physics.

However, God doesn't necessarily follow the laws of physics. And if he doesn't follow the traditional rules governing the universe, rules that we cannot understand, then it is entirely possible that he could indeed create something so heavy that he can't lift it, and yet at the same time lift it.

In the end, the paradox is something that only exists in the human mind, because we are incapable of comprehending the implications of omnipotence.

[Bean]

Dark Link, again, is right and right. The concept isn't rational, and, because it isn't rational, we can't even evaluate it for plausibility. An omnipotent entity may well be able to simultaneously create a rock it can't lift and be able to lift that very same rock, as long as it's unbounded by the rules we perceive in reality.

Or, it may not be.

Either way, the argument (when it is laid out as an argument) fails because paradoxes inherently lack the semantic content necessary to serve as arguments--which is what I was trying to point out in the first place.

[Darkwynn]

I am just wondering one thing where people get upset at me saying that I invited mech guard?

I am kind of lost how people think that. I have never said I invited mech guard and leafblower doesn't equal mech guard either.


Did I miss something here or as the general whole reading comprehension has failed across the internet?

[DarkLink]

Heh, I think some people get a little overzealous with nerdrage about "cheesy cut and paste broken internet lists".

[Levitas]

Its like Iron Man v Captain America!...

Yes, its that silly.

Why is there this huge divide growing between die hard fluff based players and those that enjoy leaf blowers.? Should we nominate a champion from each faction and let them do battle in a random location?

People are different and will always get different things from such a vast hobby. And yes you can change your mind about stuff or try and put the kraken back in the jar. You can even..gulp..walk the line.

Who cares, just enjoy what you do as its usually time away from demanding jobs/school whatever. Valuable time to unwind and enjoy something. Some people like to pick daisys, others like to create their own fight club with friends. Some like to go to clubs to dance and drink water, some like to get out there face and play hide the shot glass in the ladies powder room. Either way they are all in the same club, paying money to the same owners and enjoying the same environment - just in different ways.

Its a game. play it to crush or play it to enjoy the story, but you cant really criticize the other side when the game clearly can accommodate both.

Hit him with the shield cap! etc...

[Dingareth]

I am just wondering one thing where people get upset at me saying that I invited mech guard?

I am kind of lost how people think that. I have never said I invited mech guard and leafblower doesn't equal mech guard either.


Did I miss something here or as the general whole reading comprehension has failed across the internet?

From your article, the second point in, "The IG Mech list I designed was meant to min-max everything to the fullest extent and exploit the IG codex for what it could do"

The Mech IG list you designed was the "Leaf Blower." Your article writes about how you saw many copies of the "Leaf Blower" at Adepticon. So, you said it yourself actually. Now, the list you designed made use of Vets, the Chimera chassis, and alpha strike. Sounds like every other competitive Guard list out there- outside of those Catachan weirdos- that I've seen out there. It's not a hard jump of logic to make really. You said that you invented the square, and some people braodened that just a little bit in response to all the chest thumping that got done over here after Adepticon.

Although I'm glad that you understand that "Leaf Blower" and Mech Guard are a square/rectangle relationship, as some people on here obviously don't...

[Melissia]

Heh, I think some people get a little overzealous with nerdrage about "cheesy cut and paste broken internet lists".People have accused me of using cut and paste cheesy broken internet lists before with my Sisters.

To which I either respond "no, also shutup" or "I use these lists because that's all in the codex that's actually good in a competitive situation", depending on how rude the other person's been.


Hell someone even tried to say my Green Tide Ork list was a cheesy broken list... without ever having faced it... all it was was a couple big meks with KFFs, six full Boyz squads, and some Killa Kan squadrons for screening. Even though Green Tide is actually one of the weaker Ork lists...

[therealjohnny5]

damn, mad respect just for painting that many boyz...

[Melissia]

I haven't yet. I intend to, but it is a lot of work.

That's why I said "without ever having faced it". I haven't completed it enough to actually justify taking it to the local stores. Someone saw my list and said it was cheesy just looking at the list. Whatever.

[DarkLink]

Should we nominate a champion from each faction and let them do battle in a random location?


A 40k battle? We all know which side would win that one;).

[Bean]

I am just wondering one thing where people get upset at me saying that I invited mech guard?

I am kind of lost how people think that. I have never said I invited mech guard and leafblower doesn't equal mech guard either.

Did I miss something here or as the general whole reading comprehension has failed across the internet?

For what it's worth, I don't think that you invented the mech guard, and I don't think that you claimed to have done so.

I also don't think that you were the only person to invent the leaf blower

I would, however, contend that the leaf blower is really nothing more than a fairly effective mech guard list, and that it does equal mech guard in any practical sense. It deviates from the point of a good mech guard list in no fundamental or substantial way.


When I made my earlier post, I was responding to someone else who claimed that you alone invented the leafblower, that every other leafblower player was simply copying you, and that such players should feel bad for doing so.

I don't have any particular reason to think that you, yourself, would agree with any of these claims, and I'm not inclined to believe that you do.

[Kahoolin]

Bean are you an analytic philosopher by any chance? You write like an AP textbook :D

[Bean]

No, though I did take a couple of philosophy courses in college. =P

[DarkLink]

I'd have to agree that the leafblower is a subset of mechanized guard. And while there are other types of mech guard lists, taken in the context of the tournament setting leads to a certain degree of interchangeability of the terms leafblower and mech guard.

[Vaktathi]

The problem is however, that "Leafblower" is a very specific list, and the term has now been applied to just about anything with a Chimera in it, even though most IG players won't have any clue what you mean if you mention the term "leafblower" to them. There are nastier and softer mech IG builds, however all getting labeled the same thing, this also leads to the problem where, despite Darkwynn's own statements, people seem to think anyone running mech IG is just copy/pasting a BoLS list following some mythical revelation found therein, especially after you've got Bigred talking about how a third of the Adepticon armies were "leafblower" lists, which would imply that everyone just copy/pasted Darkwynn's army despite wide differences in mech IG list construction present, and in turn makes paints any mech IG player with that brush, true or not.

[crazyredpraetorian]

The problem is however, that "Leafblower" is a very specific list, and the term has now been applied to just about anything with a Chimera in it, even though most IG players won't have any clue what you mean if you mention the term "leafblower" to them. There are nastier and softer mech IG builds, however all getting labeled the same thing, this also leads to the problem where, despite Darkwynn's own statements, people seem to think anyone running mech IG is just copy/pasting a BoLS list following some mythical revelation found therein, especially after you've got Bigred talking about how a third of the Adepticon armies were "leafblower" lists, which would imply that everyone just copy/pasted Darkwynn's army despite wide differences in mech IG list construction present, and in turn makes paints any mech IG player with that brush, true or not.

I keep hearing about these "nastier" Mech builds but I have yet to see anyone post one.

[Vaktathi]

I keep hearing about these "nastier" Mech builds but I have yet to see anyone post one.

There's all sorts of changes you could make to the list to squeeze in more units and more guns, dropping the powerfists and other expensive upgrades and doctrines etc. The list also has a couple issues with the HS units in that their capabilities are easily removed due to the squadron rules and each HS slot is providing a distinct capability that doesn't have redundancy elsewhere. It's got a lot of equipment in there to deal with threats that you won't run into every game and can often be countered just as well with simply more guns and dudes in most instances. I'm not saying it's a soft list, it's a great list, but you could make it a bit scarier if you wanted to, which apparently Darkwynn doesn't, as he sees no need to because of his playing experience, which is fine. That said, this isn't a tactica/army list thread so I'll leave it at that.

[BrotherMoses]

Don't suppose I could get a link to the post in question by Darkwynn. He's kind of a celebrity and I'd like to read what he said.

[synack]

Don't suppose I could get a link to the post in question by Darkwynn. He's kind of a celebrity and I'd like to read what he said.

Here you go (http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2010/04/end-of-the-leafblower-affair.html)

[BuFFo]

He's kind of a celebrity and I'd like to read what he said.

A King among nerds. ;)

[BrotherMoses]

An excellent article! You can see that this man cares for the hobby overall.

[Darkwynn]

I never really posted the true leafblower list.

But a lot of people have a speculation through the whole thing.

[Vaktathi]

I never really posted the true leafblower list.

But a lot of people have a speculation through the whole thing.Is it significantly different than the one you posted back in september? That one doesn't leave much speculation.

[Melissia]

An excellent article! You can see that this man cares for the hobby overall.

I thought it felt pretentious myself.

[Duke]

Yea it did seem a little pretentious... I think it is a bit easier to retire a power build when you have won all the major tournies with it.

Duke

[BuFFo]

Is it significantly different than the one you posted back in september? That one doesn't leave much speculation.

It's a mech IG list.

News at 11.