Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
Darth Alec

Let's talk: What is "filth"

Recommended Posts

It was something that was mentioned by GW during their last tournament and the system does seem set up to allow updating 

Edited by Ollie Grimwood

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@buffalozap

Just one issue with your analysis, drakespawn knights do 2 damage with lances on charge. That probably isn't enough to change your findings significantly, but for completeness sake...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, buffalozap said:

Filth is when the many people out there who can do the same math as me build lists exploiting the poor points balance system. I'm by no means the only person on earth who can whip up a spreadsheet to figure this stuff out.

 

Would it surprise you to know that I rarely play games? And that the only armies I run are purely fluffy choice armies? However I am not so naïve as to seriously believe that others with my ability do not use this knowledge for less noble ends as to bring awareness to the community at large.

 

If my reward for not exploiting this evaluative fruit in selfish secret it to be ridiculed and insulted then this community will have the game it deserves.

Oh please. Get off your imaginary high horse already. Trying to smear the efforts of people who have a brain and prefer not to use suboptimal units as somehow ignoble isn't going to fool anyone. And trying not to optimise certainly doesn't make you noble.

Also, you don't need a spreadsheet to notice that not all units are costed fairly. In fact, it is likely not a very effective way of determining what is optimal, because, as others have noted, it cannot account properly for synergies.

Finally, your attempts to change your language to sound more educated are much less successful than you might imagine. It's downright cringeworthy in fact. Tip: you sound like someone dressing up poor arguments and logic with bluster and fancy words... because you are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Come on guys is all this attacking each other really necessary? If you wanna take filth, own it and take filth. Likewise if you wanna take a fluffy list. But it would be naive to take a fluff bunny list of just stuff you like to a competitive event and not expect to get the sigmarite stomped out of you by Bloodletter bombs, Bonesplitter shooting and other shenanigans. Personally I'm all being beaten by all sorts of filth because it will sharpen my list and show me some cool stuff that from the game that I might not know about. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@buffalozap I think the point about tone is quite important here. I had just left the most amusing moronic ravings over on Dakka Dakka's AoS thread and see the immediate new post and I was surprised, especially since it looked like you joined less than an hour before and this was your first post. It was late and I'm glad I let others chime in first. Basically, I was and am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt that it wasn't meant to be disrespectful. If you decide to stay with us here I look forward to fun discussions.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, buffalozap said:

Someone here earlier mentioned that it is hard to make a real mathematical model for determining points for balance.  I say to anyone with that opinion that they are very deeply mistaken.  It is very complex work but the true annoyance I have found is simply data entry for the hundreds of units and their myriad of flavors based on situational conditionality.  Once Transcribed to a well arranged data block the operations for analysis are not so daunting as to be insurmountable provided copious amounts of coffee, cigarettes, and late night house trance techno beats.  

This post have converted me from the feeling that someone should just ban you strait away to being really amused and interested in your wisdom and hard work.

This list is clearly one of the hardest around (being the winner of FHGT) please tell me why. Give me a number.

Leaders
Knight Azyros 
Lord Celestant On Dracoth 

Units
Judicators x 5 
- Skybolt Bows
Judicators x 5 
- Skybolt Bows
Liberators x 5 
- Warhammer & Shield
Liberators x 5 
- Warhammer & Shield
Liberators x 5 
- Warhammer & Shield
Paladin Retributors x 10 
Paladin Protectors x 10 
Prosecutors with Stormcall Javelins x 3 
warrior brotherhood

Regarding filth, my feeling is that it is a list that is spams one thing and is boring to play against. So this list above isn't even filthy IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, buffalozap said:

Christ you just cant win with some people.  Use big words and they say you're just trying to sound smart, use common parlance without bothering to elucidate and you're an inferior moron who doesn't know anything.  This is why I love me those internet peeps.

I believe it was in fact you who accused people of being morons.  No one else.  

Of course I'd love to see your mathematically perfect balance system. But as with all things pictures or it didn't happen ?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, buffalozap said:

This will take time but I intend to honor your request. It requires something I've been putting off, implementing an overlay for formation bonuses. May take a couple days in my spare time to crank it out but I will get back to you with what you asked. 

Great ?

I will make it easy for you. You can hold off calculating why this is better than the bloodletter bomb, skyre engincoven, bonespltter gunline etc. Just give me a matematical explanation why this is the best iteration of the warrior brotherhood (or not).

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Was enjoying this thread until it turned into insult sword fighting... Anyway! "Filth" is totally subjective and therefor meaningless. Personally, I find the spreadsheeting stuff fascinating, and I think GW need to be as on the ball with this stuff as e.g. Blizzard are with their game balancing. For me, it's about making sure that every model can be played competitively and have a role. There's nothing worse than your favourite model being completely useless due to over-pointing, which is sadly the case for a lot of stuff in 40k.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Iain said:

Blizzard are with their game balancing. For me, it's about making sure that every model can be played competitively and have a role.

Blizzard games have their own faults, not every character (Overwatch, HoTS) they designed has a spot in competitive scene. Although it's possible to have great success with them outside of tournaments. Blizzard stated they're fine with certain characters not seeing play time in that particular environment.

What I really enjoy with video games is how powerful tool the data mining is. When a character or a faction gets a general low pick rate or simply not doing well (or maybe doing a bit too well), then it's a good chance there will be an attempt to address this. It's much harder for designers to pretend an element is fine when you get more transparent data. It's possible to misinterpret it but it gives a reference point, something we can use to the ask designers what is going on with the game and what changes can we expect.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 23 September 2016 at 3:50 PM, Spiky Norman said:

@Sleboda it seems to boil down to the fact that you do not think that a player have a responsibility for the enjoyment of his opponents, where others, me included, think that you do have some degree of responsibility for that. That there have some be some sort of compromise or consideration between the players.

To me, this is just a hobby. A hobby that I want to share with other people, and that can include a competitive element, but ultimately it is still a shared experience, that should be a good one for both parties, if at all possible.

I think that depends greatly on what you're playing. If you're playing at a friendly club or a pick me up game then you should aim for both people to have a good game. If you're at a tournament then you should be aiming to win within the limits of the rules (no cheating, rules exploiting that makes a broken combo is fine).

The problem people have is they don't understand the social contract has tiers. At tier 1 it's "bring whatever silly model you like" where as tier 10 is "If you can't wipe me off the table turn 1 I will wipe you off the table and shake your hand afterwards". Which is fine, if both players understand their tier.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, buffalozap said:

This will take time but I intend to honor your request. It requires something I've been putting off, implementing an overlay for formation bonuses. May take a couple days in my spare time to crank it out but I will get back to you with what you asked. 

Please don't.

What you are missing is that lists don't play themselves. You cannot approach it from a pure maths standpoint. A lists power comes from how the player uses it and the scenario you're playing in, the opponents list - when to risk it and push for a double turn. What to attack and when, sometimes you may commit to a sub-optimal situation to force your opponent to play in a certain way to bait them. You build redundancy into the list and you play what's in front of you.

This game is chess, poker, dice rolls, generalship, cluedo, coin flips and rock paper scissors wrapped up in little gold men who starsoul your face off. And sometimes you don't get the double turn, don't pass go, don't collect $200.

Generalship > All else and playing the scenario and game in front of you.

 

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, TDK said:

Please don't.

What you are missing is that lists don't play themselves. You cannot approach it from a pure maths standpoint. A lists power comes from how the player uses it and the scenario you're playing in, the opponents list - when to risk it and push for a double turn. What to attack and when, sometimes you may commit to a sub-optimal situation to force your opponent to play in a certain way to bait them. You build redundancy into the list and you play what's in front of you.

This game is chess, poker, dice rolls, generalship, cluedo, coin flips and rock paper scissors wrapped up in little gold men who starsoul your face off. And sometimes you don't get the double turn, don't pass go, don't collect $200.

Generalship > All else and playing the scenario and game in front of you.

Well said champ. 

Doesn't that sound good? 

:)

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 23/09/2016 at 3:07 PM, Sleboda said:

I have no issue with the elements you listed up until "at all costs." That implies cheating, too.  "All costs" means all.

Isn't part of the fun of list-buulding the rest of the things you listed?  Finding synergies, applying what you have learned before, improving, etc.

To me, the issue is tournaments themselves and, to a lesser degree, the inherently competitive nature of games in general.  Games have winners and losers. They have victort conditions. I can't fault an opponent for wanting to do the best jib he can to compete in a competition. What is he supposed to do? Choose to do worse than he knows he can?  That's wrong on so many levels, not the least of which is the disregard it shows for your opponent's skill.

Also, I think that the tournament setting places some responsibility on the players to recognize what they are doing. It IS a tournament. It IS a competition well beyond even that of a normal one-off game.

Don't go to a fine restaurant and complain when the staff asks you to turn off your full volume YouTube porno ("but I like to watch these and I watch at home all the time...don't tell me I have to adapt to the setting, the expectations, and the desires of all the people here who came to the elegant eating place to eat in style and peace.").

Don't go to a tournament and complain when your Seahorse-themed grot army gets trounced by a finely honed, legally constructed army that is built to win the competition being conducted at the competey thingie.

Erm, think you've missed the point a little bit.  My opinion of "filth" is a list that is designed specifically to win and combining it with a win at all costs attitude - which includes not giving a monkies about if your opponent has a good time or not.  List building is an art form in it's own right and should take into account the fluff of the army, if you're not interested in fluff then go and play chess or some other game - AoS is ALL about the fluff and I don't want to be facing cookie cutter armies when I play.

I do think that if you have an army that keeps tabling your opponent you're doing it wrong, how is that competitive?  Tweak your list to match your the opponents you're likely to face and prove that you're actually a decent general rather than somebody who knows a handful of units inside out.

Also you don't know me so your examples don't apply at all and to be honest only apply to somebody with no social skills - I'd not go into a restaurant and watch anything on my phone, it's the height of rudeness.  Equally I'd not complain about playing anybody who beat me if I we both had an enjoyable game, yes I want to win and I'll try my best which may or may not be good enough.  Would I go away and examine what went wrong and how I could improve - of course I would but my a good game shouldn't require me to go out and add a new unit to my army.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, TDK said:

Please don't.

What you are missing is that lists don't play themselves. You cannot approach it from a pure maths standpoint. A lists power comes from how the player uses it and the scenario you're playing in, the opponents list - when to risk it and push for a double turn. What to attack and when, sometimes you may commit to a sub-optimal situation to force your opponent to play in a certain way to bait them. You build redundancy into the list and you play what's in front of you.

This game is chess, poker, dice rolls, generalship, cluedo, coin flips and rock paper scissors wrapped up in little gold men who starsoul your face off. And sometimes you don't get the double turn, don't pass go, don't collect $200.

Generalship > All else and playing the scenario and game in front of you.

And luck :P  It can be great having a 2+ for something but you know you're more likely to roll a 1!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Please don't.

What you are missing is that lists don't play themselves. You cannot approach it from a pure maths standpoint. A lists power comes from how the player uses it and the scenario you're playing in, the opponents list - when to risk it and push for a double turn. What to attack and when, sometimes you may commit to a sub-optimal situation to force your opponent to play in a certain way to bait them. You build redundancy into the list and you play what's in front of you.

This game is chess, poker, dice rolls, generalship, cluedo, coin flips and rock paper scissors wrapped up in little gold men who starsoul your face off. And sometimes you don't get the double turn, don't pass go, don't collect $200.

Generalship > All else and playing the scenario and game in front of you.

 

 

Whilst I agree with your general idea here you can't just discount unit stats/power/efficiency.

It's like saying in a rally car race the bhp/0-60/brakes/suspension don't matter it's all down to the driver skill using the car. Which it is to an extent, but you can only do as well as the tools you have will let you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, The Jabber Tzeentch said:

Whilst I agree with your general idea here you can't just discount unit stats/power/efficiency.

It's like saying in a rally car race the bhp/0-60/brakes/suspension don't matter it's all down to the driver skill using the car. Which it is to an extent, but you can only do as well as the tools you have will let you.

I didn't say you discount stats. I said you can't take it from a pure maths standpoint ;)

In the warrior brotherhood list I have 3 units of liberators, people consider them sub-optimal however their value increases depending on the game in front of me. Being able to drop on objectives, screen, tank chaff ect. You can't always account for that with "maths" and stats as you can't predict how I will use this tool. Layering formations and stuff make the calculating the mathematical value very difficult for it to become a meaningful assumption. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, TDK said:

I didn't say you discount stats. I said you can't take it from a pure maths standpoint ;)

In the warrior brotherhood list I have 3 units of liberators, people consider them sub-optimal however their value increases depending on the game in front of me. Being able to drop on objectives, screen, tank chaff ect. You can't always account for that with "maths" and stats as you can't predict how I will use this tool. Layering formations and stuff make the calculating the mathematical value very difficult for it to become a meaningful assumption. 

There's also a whole layer of soft stats as well that affect how a unit performs. Model and base size (depending or preference) for example. Also for a number of Matched play scenarios' Victroy conditions rely on number of models within a set distance of an object, it doesn't matter now optimal they are, it's number of bodies that matters for a win. Some units have objective stealing movement abilities (Tree Revenants for example) can be game winning but their combat stats aren't all that.  

Analysis of a units points optimisation is a tool and is something that people have been doing for a long time but I would agree it isn't the be all though. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

++ MOD HAT ON ++

I know this is a hot topic for a lot of people but can I ask you all to keep an eye on what you are saying? I have no issue with anybody expressing their point of view but please don't start being insulting to each other just because your opinions are different.

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Gaz Taylor said:

++ MOD HAT ON ++

I know this is a hot topic for a lot of people but can I ask you all to keep an eye on what you are saying? I have no issue with anybody expressing their point of view but please don't start being insulting to each other just because your opinions are different.

 

agreed. 

 

tbh i feel most valid points about the initial post have been discussed and nothing new or noteworthy will be produced any more out of this thread. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cool so since everyone thinks the game is totally balanced and its up to luck and smart decision making to decide the winner I'll just keep my work to myself and share it with my friends who appreciate the analytical approach. 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Filth" or "Bringing the cheese" is really bringing an army that your opponent can't do anything about. Teleporting Retributors are a "Filthy" way to play, but in a large game they matter less than if they were used in a 1,000 point game. a 2,400 point game, where about 2,000 of it are tunnelling under ground, can come up within 3" and every single unit that pops up gets to do at least d3 mortal wounds at range... is a filthy army or list. It's the kind of thing that becomes a point and click army. I played against the army described, by my second turn, I had 660 points left out of 2,400, and that's only because they were way off from all my other units, by my turn 3 I had 2 models left (1 Judicator and a Lord Castellant). The kind of armies that in order to beat them , you need to build a specific list, which might not be favourable in a tournament environment where you play against several armies.

There are combos that are simply "broken" as in allowing you to do things that shouldn't have been possible, and can be absolutely horrendous.

 

But here's the catch, "Filthy" lists can be fine, when used in games against equally "filthy" lists. But playing an army of tunneling stormfiends against a person in their first few games, is just cruel, and likely to push them away from the hobby. I know quite a few people that refuse to go to tournaments, events or even game days just because they don't want to be up against "broken" or "filthy" lists. It's all about knowing when to use it, I could have tons of teleporting Retributors, and combo them with other units that effect "Order" or "Stormcast Eternal" to absolutely obliterate my opponent, but unless my opponent has the right kind of army, neither of us are going to have a fun or exciting game, no games that come down to a single dice roll, or whether a lonely Liberator can hold back a monster while reinforcements arrive, etc...

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You guys have been giving some great imput!

 

It seems the community agrees on a few points, more or less. Armies that have an element of making the game unfun for the opponent, armies that are very cost-efficient or armies played with WAAC-attitudes are "filthier" than others. "Exploits" are a no-no, though the definition of that is vague. Nobody is talking about cheating, but "unintended", "against the spirit of" and similar words have been used. "unfluffy" is also a common term.

 

It also looks like a lot of you guys consider the points-efficiency argument to be moot. If the army is legal, then it's fair play. "Exploits" are also legal, so no issue there.

 

Just collating some points here. This thread has been very helpful.

 

Oh, and keep it cool guys. Gaz has already put on his mod hat, don't make me put on the horned helm of moderating madness.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Iain said:

There's nothing worse than your favourite model being completely useless due to

... due to anything, really.

It's why I hate comp with a passion and why I love the open approach of AoS.

Got a model you love? Bring it. End of story. Period. The end.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...