Let's talk: What is "filth"

[EldritchX]

12 hours ago, Sleboda said:

"Filth" is the war cry of the sore loser.

+1

Calling it that is nothing more than another method of trying to get others to play the game your way - a way that's no more valid than any other.

I play moderately strong lists based first on personal preferences for flavour and aesthetics, and work within those restrictions to field the best lists I can. If I lose to someone more determined to field the best possible lists, then I accept that as part and parcel of my army choice and preferences.

Take responsibility for your choices and cry less over what others choose to do.

[polarbear]

I don't have an objective definition of it and think it all comes down to context. Some groups will love to push the limits to get the best lists they can and have fun with that. Others prefer a looser style. All that matters is you're having fun. 

It's like anything else. Some people play sports very competitively. Others just go for the socialization and beers during softball. You want to be aware of the context and not going against the grain of the group. No one likes the uber-competitor at casual softball, and no one likes the guy not taking it seriously in competitive league hockey.

[Thiagoma]

I may have a bit different on a perspective since i only play with my wife (barely any players in my country, no stores).

We try our best to have fun games. 

 

I would consider "filth" to use an army that requires a lot of coordination/proper list against a newcomer.

I consider that because it does hurt the hobby as a whole. Massacre a new player and it may just not even bother buying it.

 

I have only 3 games under my belt, using only the "Start Collecting" boxes. Lost all 3 , but still enjoyed the games, since they were really balanced.

 

[Bjarni St.]

10 hours ago, Nico said:

I think the completely out of line with fluff point is key. The idea of a Green Savage Orruk Gunline is so completely unfluffy that it hurts. Clan Skryre does suit the fluff, but the formation should be a campaign formation (so unusable in Matched Play) - it's almost as bad as Brotherhood of the Great Bolts.

I want to take issue with the Savage Orruk ranged units being unfluffy. They're Caveorcs out hunting monsters in big groups. Of course they have bows. If they're going to have bows, they might as well give them rules to use them effectively. They just happened to give them too many rules for doing that.

[Nico]

It's them being so ridiculously powerful that you would take the vast majority of your army as them which makes them anti-fluff.

If they were exorbitantly good at killing monsters that would be fine, but them plus a couple of hundred points of battalion and buffs makes them destroy multiple blocks of troops per turn.

[Sleboda]

2 hours ago, Nico said:

If they were exorbitantly good at killing monsters that would be fine, but them plus a couple of hundred points of battalion and buffs makes them destroy multiple blocks of troops per turn.

Well, lucky for us, in AoS all you have to do is deploy more stuff until you feel you have set up a fair match.

Oh, wait, competitive match play.  Nvm.

[Herald of Chaos]

In my local area and on our podcast we throw the term filth around very liberally almost as a joke or having a friendly go at someone, I don't think it is a uniquely Australian thing to give a mate a hard time as a sign of affection or respect and the poor guys we accuse most of bringing the filth we do so because we actually enjoy playing and hobbling with so much.

I have some strong opinions regarding the way I think Age of Sigmar works best and is most fun, but that will never be the same as everyone elses so I think you just have to be flexible and be willing to play different ways so that everyone can have a fair share of the types of games they enjoy most.  I generally prefer smaller games with a wider selection of different units, but I also have friends who prefer larger more cutthroat games, I play both and than everyone gets a chance at something they want.

 

 

[Stevewren]

I'm not a massive fan of this 'I'm responsible for my opponents enjoyment' thing when discussing a tournament game. I liken it to when I play basketball or football. My team tries it's best - we try and keep the ball. We try and stop our opponents from having it as often as we can. We try and score as many points/goals as possible. If we get in the lead then sure, ease off the gas a little, but we haven't turned up to have a close game. Sometimes the games are close, and that's great, but at other times it can be a blow out. 

I view Wargaming in the same way. 

This weekend is the Facehammer gt. I can guarantee that I'm going to face armies I can't deal with because the lists I've picked are not very strong. I could have chosen a much more competitive list, but I haven't. You have to know this going in. 

When i turn up to a basketball game with a group of short, slightly out of shape 40 somethings I don't complain that the opposing captain is a filthy player because his team is younger, faster and taller. He's just got a better team and we do the best we can with what we've got. 

Next week I'll be sure to bring some taller players of my own if I want to win, or maybe I'll just bring my friends again and enjoy their company and the game experience  because I have realistic expectations. 

[Spiky Norman]

A very similar topic is being debated over on the AoS section of DakkaDakka, and WayneTheGame wrote a post, that I thought was worth copying (in parts) over here, as it attains to the debate about whether or not a competitive setting have room for considerations on what makes a good game for both parties.

The post it self is longer, but below is a link provided to the full post

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/150/702736.page#8921676

 

Quote

 

Quote

Many versions of Street Fighter have "secret characters" that are only accessible through a code. Sometimes these characters are good; sometimes they're not. Occasionally, the secret characters are the best in the game as in the game Marvel vs. Capcom 1. Big deal. That's the way that game is. Live with it. But Super Turbo was the first version of Street Fighter to ever have a secret character: the untouchably good Akuma. Most characters in that game cannot beat Akuma. I don't mean it's a tough match--I mean they cannot ever, ever, ever, ever win. Akuma is "broken" in that his air fireball move is something the game simply wasn't designed to handle. He is not merely the best character in the game, but is at least ten times better than other characters. This case is so extreme that all top players in America immediately realized that all tournaments would be Akuma vs. Akuma only, and so the character was banned with basically no debate and has been ever since. I believe this was the correct decision.

The above is a hard ban.  The equivalent would be something like no Lords of War or no Flyers allowed, in 40k.

This is an example of a soft ban, which is much more easily expressed in Warhammer and many other games:
 

Quote

 

The character in question is the mysteriously named "Old Sagat." Old Sagat is not a secret character like Akuma (or at least he's not as secret!). Old Sagat does not have any moves like Akuma's air fireball that the game was not designed to handle. Old Sagat is arguably the best character in the game (Akuma, of course, doesn't count), but even that is debated by top players! I think almost any expert player would rank him in the top three of all characters, but there isn't even universal agreement that he is the best! Why, then, would any reasonable person even consider banning him? Surely, it must be a group of scrubs who simply don't know how to beat him, and reflexively cry out for a ban.

But this is not the case. There seems to be a tacit agreement amongst top players in Japan--a soft ban--on playing Old Sagat. The reason is that many believe the game to have much more variety without Old Sagat. Even if he is only second best in the game by some measure, he flat out beats half the characters in the game with little effort. Half the cast can barely even fight him, let alone beat him. Other top characters in the game, good as they are, win by much more interaction and more "gameplay." Almost every character has a chance against the other best characters in the game. The result of allowing Old Sagat in tournaments is that several other characters, such as Chun Li and Ken, become basically unviable.

 

You can see how this can be enforced.  The equivalent would simply be not taking a Wraithknight just because you can, if you can see your opponent's list can't really deal with it.  Or not just taking the most powerful units because you know it will make for a poor game.  That's IMHO the kind of approach Warhammer needs to do.  Not outright bans, but a soft ban by basically agreeing not to take a particular thing because it's so good that it essentially makes swathes of your opponent's army unviable.

 

 

[Nico]

If Brotherhood of the Great Bolts had points, then it would be Akuma and would have to be unanimously banned. Nothing else is anywhere near that this level. (Or ultra boring - no moving, no measuring ranges, literally just picking enemy models to die. 

A lot of the other filth is a bit Rock Paper Scissors, great or unbeatable vs 70% of stuff then junk against a few things.

[BaldoBeardo]

My favourite way of putting it is that filth is the difference between 'background' and 'justification'. ?

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

[Ollie Grimwood]

Well if the next Edition of the Generals Handbook bans Waithlords and Flyers I'm selling my armies and playing KOW ?. Errugh even in jest saying that made me feel dirty, that game is a soulless abomination of badly formed restic*

On a more serious note, It's worth remembering that there's quite a lot of AoS content that was written with narrative games in mind that was never intended to be used in matched play. Formations such as the one Nico mentions and quite a few Battleplan for example.  It people are using them expecting a competition style game they are going to be sorely disappointed 

*other opinions may vary. 

[Nico]

They have been smart by excluding the campaign formations. It's a shame for some of them e.g. Beastmen and Death.

[Slaanesh]

I really dislike the unreasonable hate for some armies and combos. Even if you play themed armies that include an element percieved as filth or broken on the internet or in your local group, nothing else matters, no tactics or army composition you just won because of that filth unit. 

[Veterannoob]

OK, I faced skaven shooting again today (he didn't even have the heavy artillery and Thankquol but he did give me a game I wouldn't have otherwise had so I was grateful--plus he's a cool guy) and vs. 15 stormfriends, like 10 single artillery pieces and two formations (one starting all burrowed) I was thrilld to last into round 4. I called it cheese (haha pun) and we laughed and joked about the filth which brought this discussion to mind. It's just friendly riffing on other gaming buds, nothing malicious. I choose rather than whine about skaven shooting (seriously though...) and took solo Fyreslayers and those ward saves counted. That I made turn 4 was a huge moral victory for me. I killed 12 stormfiends! I could have countered some magic by taking GA (which I've still never done beyond misxing disposessed with ironweld) but I elect to play solo Fyreslayers cuz it's fun and I'm getting quite good at it. Had these two things not have happened: 2 crucial double turns on his side; and Grimwrath set to take objective leaps into the Realm gate round 1 and rolls a 1--into the warp with him I would have probably endured and won, we both agreed. 

Anyway, the point is filth seems to have much less meanness in friendly gaming communities and I agree with much of what's already been said above.

[Sleboda]

It would also go away if people would enjoy this more for the hobby, narrative play, and social interaction rather than focusing so heavily on matched play. 

I love the General's Handbook and I love points-based options, but posts like the one above were what I feared with the re-introduction of points.

[Dez]

2 hours ago, buffalozap said:

This problem of "filth" and "OP" would go away if gamesworkshop got off their ass and balanced unit points correctly instead of some drunk morons guessing what they think they should be. 

You mean like the owner/admin of the site, and the Facehammer and Heelanhammer guys?

Before the GBH and the 180 that GW has turned as of late, I'd have read your post and lol'd or been like iknowrite...but I don't think that's the case any longer. By having these gents in house to run things by them, taking an active part in the community, live streaming an event...I think they are going to start catching these things. I wouldn't be surprised to see a book like The General's Handbook updated yearly as well as faq/errata coming in fast and furious like it has been of late. I think they are throwing out the net to try and find these things as well as taking feedback from the community to make the game better, they have realized people are here for the game as well as the models.

Just saying (this is entire post is in friendly tone!) maybe GW deserve a bit of credit, a second chance. I know I'm giving them one, and I was feeling rather salty as well. I think they've seen the light.

[scrubyandwells]

10 minutes ago, buffalozap said:

This problem of "filth" and "OP" would go away if gamesworkshop got off their ass and balanced unit points correctly instead of some drunk morons guessing what they think they should be. So since I am paying money to make this stuff I feel like I bought the right to call a spade a spade when it comes to the obvious truth of things.

Edited to add that if my perspective isn't welcome then I guess that the powers that be can make it disappear.

The issue is tone. TGA is a place for thoughtful conversation among AoS fans. Telling GW to "get off their ass" and comparing them to drunk morons (and claiming to speak the "obvious truth of things") is rather clearly antithetical to the spirit of TGA. You've only made a few posts here, and that's how you decided to communicate in one of your initial posts? You'll find plenty of folks here who critique GW, the GH, etc.; but you almost never find them communicate in the manner you chose. In fact, I've never seen a post like yours until you posted it. On the whole, TGA has been a place for reasoned discussion and reasonable comments. It would be nice to see it stay that way.

[Dez]

We're on a forum to get other people's perspective and it's appreciated, don't worry about that. Just don't forget to be careful of tone  I know how it can be hard when your favorite army seems like the red headed step child, I originally play CSM and Orks

[Spiky Norman]

2 hours ago, scrubyandwells said:

The issue is tone. TGA is a place for thoughtful conversation among AoS fans. Telling GW to "get off their ass" and comparing them to drunk morons (and claiming to speak the "obvious truth of things") is rather clearly antithetical to the spirit of TGA. You've only made a few posts here, and that's how you decided to communicate in one of your initial posts? You'll find plenty of folks here who critique GW, the GH, etc.; but you almost never find them communicate in the manner you chose. In fact, I've never seen a post like yours until you posted it. On the whole, TGA has been a place for reasoned discussion and reasonable comments. It would be nice to see it stay that way.

This is extremely important, I think.
TGA is a breath of fresh air with no toxicity of the community, but if efforts is not taken to keep it that way, there is a very real chance it will change for the worse as the community grows.
If that happens, it'll be a great loss I think.

[Ollie Grimwood]

3 hours ago, buffalozap said:

Don't get me wrong, I love the IP and am still throwing money at the company.  Just two days ago I bought two boxes of phoenix guard two boxes of Executioners and some other stuff even though I know full well how totally screwed up aelves are from a competitive perspective.  So since I am paying money to make this stuff I feel like I bought the right to call a spade a spade when it comes to the obvious truth of things.

 

Edited to add that if my perspective isn't welcome then I guess that the powers that be can make it disappear.

I'd say it's more of a case that your statement runs counter the information we have been provided with from a number of well respected members of the community on how the points were derived.  So forgive us if we don't see the "obvious" truth to your statements  

If you'd like a bit more discussion you're going to need to put a little more meat in your post. 

I'd also say that it's quite likely that quite a few people in these forums know the people you so casually insult so they might not be too keen for you to do it. 

[Andreas]

57 minutes ago, buffalozap said:

... even I can see that the system in its current incarnation is amateurish in its implementation.

This is very good information that will certainly enhance my enjoyment in my hobby.

I am all for inclusion but for me you are the pest of the gaming community please move on to another game to thrash.

By the way your analysis above is amateurish ... even I can see that it completely lacks context.

[Ollie Grimwood]

23 minutes ago, buffalozap said:

I trust my previous post will provide what you requested. Additionally I should hope these "respected" community people adapt what I have done here to their future balance passes for Age of Sigmar. I ask for no credit and only hope for a better game.

A much more involved post.  It still fails to show any evidence of any drunk morons. 

Finally how about you tell us what you think filth is? 

[Ollie Grimwood]

58 minutes ago, Andreas said:

This is very good information that will certainly enhance my enjoyment in my hobby.

I am all for inclusion but for me you are the pest of the gaming community please move on to another game to thrash.

By they way your analysis above is amateurish ... even I can see that it completly lack context.

Didn't the fella who divised a purely mathematical approach to calculating points values drop the project because he found it impossible to calculate for context, stuff like unit synergy and the like? I want to say SDK. 

Edit. Checked and it was SDK (and I believe something that GW looked at when calculating the points in the GH, along with a load of other approaches apparently. 

[Andreas]

26 minutes ago, Ollie Grimwood said:

Didn't the fella who divised a purely mathematical approach to calculating points values drop the project because he found it impossible to calculate for context, stuff like unit synergy and the like? I want to say SDK. 

Yes. I think the only way to do something close to balance is to have some guesses on points and then adjust the points based on data collected from actual games playing a variety of different battleplans and game sizes.

I dont know if this is the plan going forward but I hope.

Out of context spreadsheet analysis has some merit but not much I think.