Public response to The 19th Hole - Blood Angels - Codicers Arm

[Melissia]

You probably do that in your off time anyway Denzark :P

Hehe.

[Kahoolin]

The problems with articles like that is they don't create conversation since he isn't seeking advice on how to make it more competitive, the only comments people can say about it is "looks fun" or "doesnt look fun" or "needs more flamers to be on theme" or "needs more flash gitz."

Yeah but how is that any different from "needs more blah to be more effective?" or "I'd drop these because they are not points efficient?"

Both are subjective judgements, it just that one set of judgements is based on theme and the other on effectiveness. There is nothing about judging and discussing a list based on thematic aspects that is any more subjective and pointless than judging a list on effectiveness. Both can be equally interesting if that's what you're interested in.

[gorepants]

The problems with articles like that is they don't create conversation since he isn't seeking advice on how to make it more competitive, the only comments people can say about it is "looks fun" or "doesnt look fun" or "needs more flamers to be on theme" or "needs more flash gitz."

That isn't an interesting dialogue, no one comes away from it having learned anything.

A second problem is no one will read an article about, say, a flash gitz list and run out and spend $500+ to make that army. So if no one is actually PLAYING these themed lists, whats the point?

To sum it up, posting fluff or fun lists is sorta like critiquing a child's artwork. People can't be critical of it, they just say "its nice, good job" and move along.

What if you switch it up a bit. A lot of list conversations are of the 'how to I make this more bad-arse?' variety. If you take the list as given, you can still discuss how do I use this possibly flawed list to its best advantage? What are its strengths and weaknesses? That sort of discussion is more useful in context, so you might need to add in an opposing army.

[Nikephoros]

Yeah but how is that any different from "needs more blah to be more effective?" or "I'd drop these because they are not points efficient?"

Both are subjective judgements, it just that one set of judgements is based on theme and the other on effectiveness. There is nothing about judging and discussing a list based on thematic aspects that is any more subjective and pointless than judging a list on effectiveness. Both can be equally interesting if that's what you're interested in.

Because unlike "fun," there is an objective truth for "better competitive" that can be discovered. Debating fun is beating your head into a wall talking about a quality that is totally subjective, and thus not worth arguing about. Debating whether a variation of a list will be more capable of winning a tournament than another variation is a very real thing that can be resolved through debate.

[Nikephoros]

What if you switch it up a bit. A lot of list conversations are of the 'how to I make this more bad-arse?' variety. If you take the list as given, you can still discuss how do I use this possibly flawed list to its best advantage? What are its strengths and weaknesses? That sort of discussion is more useful in context, so you might need to add in an opposing army.

Again, if no one is actually playing these lists, what is the point?

[Kahoolin]

Because unlike "fun," there is an objective truth for "better competitive" that can be discovered. Debating fun is beating your head into a wall talking about a quality that is totally subjective, and thus not worth arguing about. Debating whether a variation of a list will be more capable of winning a tournament than another variation is a very real thing that can be resolved through debate.

You don't understand what I'm saying. First of all, not every discussion is a debate. Secondly, just because something can't be resolved objectively one way or the other doesn't mean it isn't worth talking about. Do you ever discuss music with people? Movies? You will have reasons why you like or dislike something, and so will they, and none of them are objective. You can still discuss and debate.

And if the discussion is about how to make a list more accurate to the fluff, that can definitely be debated using sources, just like any historical discussion. And I defy you to give me one reason why a debate over the fluff for our toy soldiers is somehow more useful than a debate over how to use them effectively.

[Nikephoros]

And I defy you to give me one reason why a debate over the fluff for our toy soldiers is somehow more useful than a debate over how to use them effectively.

Because everyone who plays the game tries to use their models effectively, but only some of the people who play care about whether the the Old Ones did such and such. Therefore, a discussion about rules, tactics and strategy is always going to have a wider appeal than one about black library novels.

[gorepants]

Again, if no one is actually playing these lists, what is the point?

Well, yeah, if no one was playing them then there is no point, but people are (see Col Corbane's post). It's just a different way of playing the game - it says that list building optimisation isn't as important to me. This doesn't mean that you give up the idea of making competive lists (though you might for a story oriented campaign), or that you don't want to win. You're just shifting the emphasis in why you are choosing certain units, and if you're choosing sub-optimal units (or for some players a sub optimal army!), it's good to discuss how to use them best since they'll be harder to use.

And that's without the whole fluff aspect, though I think any depth of dsicusion ofthe fluffiness of an army is better suited to a forum than a blog post since you get a better to-and-fro for what is a lot less analytic. This is again, not a criticism of either camp.

The point I'm trying to make is that what's fun is down to the person playing, perhaps Bols should do a FromTheWarp collaborative style post and gather as many different perspectives on what's a fun game and then in future, actually state which perspective they're writing from.

Sums up nicely that it is just a different way of looking at it. It neither validates, nor invalidates list building critiques.

[ColCorbane]

ColCobane's post blew my mind with either its stupidity or how poorly written it was if it wasn't stupid (I still can't decide which). So instead I present a few factoids:

1: "Fun" can mean competitive lists.
2: "Competitive" lists can be fun to play and design.
3: "Non-competitive" lists can be (and often are) boring.

People are too damned stuck (and stuck up) on whining about competitive lists. It's stupid and moronic and douchey and douchebaggy and idiotic and... dear Emperor it annoys the frak out of me.

Sometimes I wonder why I even bother posting on forums ....

Melissia - you've obviously completely missed the point of my post. Once again, the point I was making is that what's fun is subjective. That means it's down to the person who's playing to decide what's fun about it. The Bols guys idea of fun is different to mine, and that's fine, I'm not whining about their lists, I don't have to play them, I'm just highlighting that people have different ideas about what's 'fun'.

With regards to my later comments regarding bios, since the articles are the subjective opinions of the writer, it makes sense that a bit of bio on the writer would help to understand the context on the article. For example, if the writer was a highly competitive player who plays in a highly competitive group, it stands to reason that their idea of a fun list would still be competitive. Without having the bio of the writer, it's difficult to understand why a competitive list would be classed as a fun list especially for someone who plays at the narrative end of the gaming spectrum.

The comment regarding other non competitive writers was simply to find out if there was any or whether the entire writing staff came from the same competitive culture.

On your factoids, which arn't facts, they're your subjective opinions, if that's what you want to believe, that's fine, just don't ask me to.

[whitestar333]

One more [quick] thing to add is that there's already a lot of serious discussion on this site and in the blog articles about building army lists which will kick the snot out of other armies on the table. I'm not suggesting that we remove said discussion, but instead provide the alternative for those of us who sometimes like the challenge of taking an old list and making it new and refreshing again. Why not present both perspectives? I'm just saying there is a section of the community that is underrepresented at this point and I don't see what's so wrong about having both.