Faction Purity and "Using the tools you have access to"

[Octavius_Maximus]

Ive noticed recently that, as a piggyback from the Cygnar using mercenaries discussion there has come a small phrase which has become memetic (as in, people use the phrase almost like a word in a specific context to convey cultural information).

The term is, roughly, "use the tools you have access too" and it is aimed at people, usually, who express that they don't like to use mercenaries or certain models within their faction (currently one thread in the Cryx forum is like this, and the response about using the tools appears).

I think there is a small point of clarification which is important for certain people to understand.

Whenever you are creating a list, you generally bring a small list of your own contextual "morals" into the equation. These morals are constructed not just out of your own individual views, but also out of a consideration about your own personal meta, the things people take and the kinds of people that they are.

These morals have an actual huge range. I mean consider the actual term "Using the tools you have access too". Technically this term refers that you can, and should, attempt to cheat. because they are tools that you have access too. You should tool up your list against your opponent, you should fudge dice rolls and many other things which could all be considered "tools that you have access to."

Of course, though, in reality none of you (i hope) consider this to be true. Because there is cheating and there is morality, and it isnt all written in the rulebooks, its usually consensual. Ie. Nowhere in the rulebook does it say you cant use weighted dice. It refers to 6 sided dice and uses the vague term "standard".

So we have a consensual morality rulesset that we can all agree on. There are rules which are written which you follow, and there are rules that are unwritten which you also follow.

So Faction purity or Model Avoidance is an evolution of this, there are models and units which you dont take because they violate your own personal morality within this setting. I personally don't like using mercenaries, not owning any, but I am considering using Wyshnallyr, but because taking that model violates my personal morality, i am considering using Valachev as a *proxy* for him, since the model suits the position that Wyshnallyr takes and is "in faction."

So i'm not trying to condemn, all I am trying to do is explain that every single one of you has a variant gaming morality, and we all have a different conception of what is normal, so try to understand when someone constructs their lists and plays their games with a gaming morality which is different than yours, and if you wish to help them just try to work with their opinions, rather than imply that they are "wrong"

Thanks for reading.

[MagnustheJust]

It is a game meant for fun...

Let people play what they want to play in their army list.


If the vocal parties continue to have an issue with it, simply do not play that individual anymore.

[Lanz]

I don't think anyone is wrong for choosing not to use options available to them.

Choosing not to use options then complaining about them not being there in their favorite shade of blue is another matter. I'd probably use a different word than 'wrong', though. Silly, maybe. Perhaps self-defeating.

I also don't think anyone would say "use the tools you have access to" and imply by that to 'cheat', as cheating is against the rules, therefor is no more a "tool you have access to" than flipping over the table and claiming you've won is a "tool you have access to".

[psichotykwyrm]

What do taking the models you like or avoiding ones you do not, no matter the specific reason, have to do with morality?


Furthermore, did the OP just compare optimizing a list to cheating? (Maybe unintentionally, but still...)


I'm in agreement with Lanz here. It's looks particularly silly to willingly avoid certain pieces, but then complain about not having the options those pieces provide. It's like buying a huge pickup truck just for driving to work, then complaining about gas prices.

So play what you want, just please don't give other players grief over your own choices. I highly doubt other players will make light of those choices as long as you own them.

[Octavius_Maximus]

I also don't think anyone would say "use the tools available to you" and imply by that to 'cheat', as cheating is against the rules, therefor is no more a "tool at your disposal" than flipping over the table and claiming you've won is.

That was exactly my point. There is a consensual morality that we all assume that we understand. Cheating is a tool, but it goes against the spirit of the game, that you should follow the rules.

This gaming morality in Warmachine is begun in Page 5, but doesnt end there.

Also, people who dont use mercenaries and then complain that they dont have access to something which mercenaries could provide are using a different perception of life.

To them (and me, since i do this too) since it is a mercenary, then they dont "have access" to it, because of their own morality. So just try to understand their point of view, rather than declaring that they are just whining.

What do taking the models you like or avoiding ones you do not, no matter the specific reason, have to do with morality?

Morality is a word describing the internalised cultural rules of what you do and do not do. What is right, what is wrong. Morality isnt just to do with murder, stealing and laws.

Furthermore, did the OP just compare optimizing a list to cheating? (Maybe unintentionally, but still...)

...no I didnt think I did. Could you please expand?

[psichotykwyrm]

You should tool up your list against your opponent, you should fudge dice rolls and many other things which could all be considered "tools that you have access to."

That right there.


You're pulling quite a stretch with the morality bit. Personal taste yes, morality... Not so much. It has much more to do with personal likes/dislikes than any code of behavior.

You even admit that morality refers to "right and wrong", even if in a personal context. That makes it seem as though you are using morality to make yourself feel more "right" on the subject. In fact, it looks like your insistence on "cheating as a tool" is an attempt to shade the "use your tools" idea negatively through a far-fetched association.


What I think is that you should stick to using the models you genuinely like, as opposed to some convoluted moral code. (Or claiming some sort of morality in your choices.)

[darisus]

Also, people who dont use mercenaries and then complain that they dont have access to something which mercenaries could provide are using a different perception of life.

To them (and me, since i do this too) since it is a mercenary, then they dont "have access" to it, because of their own morality. So just try to understand their point of view, rather than declaring that they are just whining.

Here is where you get me on the subject. You make a choice based on your personal morality and decide you don't play with mercs. Then, complaints are made against someone else because they do use one that provides them with an advantage you could have, but because you find it objectionable it is unfair or bad form. Things like this seem to me to be people trying to enforce there personal morality on another by complaining or putting peer pressure on another for doing something they disagree with.


As you have said we are not talking murder or seroius crimes here, but what we are referencing is an obtuse form of bullying where those who opperate on a different "morality" then you are criticized for doing something completely normal to them and many others. Close-minded views are fine as long as you keep them to yourself, but when you start complaining or deriding others for something you are just being hypocritical, as you yourself want them to not judge you for your "faction purity".

[Wishing]

I think it's entirely fair and understandable to impose personal restrictions on yourself for reasons of personal preference. I think comparing list making restrictions with restrictions about not cheating or flipping over the table is a bit absurd, but it is a point nonetheless.

However, I think that when you impose personal restrictions on yourself, you have to accept the fact that you are the one being weird, rather than blaming the game for not catering to your tastes. For example, saying that you will only play with female models, then complaining every time a new warcaster is released that they are not female, as though they *should* be, is clearly unreasonable. Restrict yourself all you want, but then accept the limitations that comes with it rather than complain, and see those limitations as a fun challenge. Otherwise what is the point?

I guess the most common personal restriction we see is that people do not want to play with models that look bad. I certainly follow this restriction myself, and only buy models I think are attractive. The ones that look horrible, and cannot be converted otherwise, I just leave on the shelf. C'est la vie.

[HRM]

This thread is WAY too deep for Froot Loops and coffee.

[HeadHunter]

Mercenaries ARE a "Tool I have access to", so I see no reason why I shouldn't use them if desired.
I don't mind if someone chooses not to, but I absolutely cannot stand when someone tries to make me conform to "their way" of doing anything. Doesn't matter whether it'sgaming, religion, politics... when someone like that comes to my door, I tell them "not interested" and close it - why on Earth would I want to play a GAME against a narrow-minded twit like that?

[PG_Cloud-Gatherer]

I mean consider the actual term "Using the tools you have access too". Technically this term refers that you can, and should, attempt to cheat. because they are tools that you have access too. You should tool up your list against your opponent, you should fudge dice rolls and many other things which could all be considered "tools that you have access to."

I am curious how you decided that "use the tools at your disposal" technically means "cheat like a pirate." I have a large hammer; does this mean I should consider smashing my opponents' models a "tool I have access to?" Of course not. That's an absurd point. If something is against the rules (in this case, the rules that we have against destroying other people's property), you don't REALLY have access to it. That's the whole point of rules.

I personally don't like using mercenaries, not owning any, but I am considering using Wyshnallyr, but because taking that model violates my personal morality, i am considering using Valachev as a *proxy* for him, since the model suits the position that Wyshnallyr takes and is "in faction."

I don't understand - you want to use Wyshnalyr, but you won't because he's not in-faction, but you would proxy something else for those same rules? So your problem is not with the actual rules, but with the model? Am I understanding that correctly?

On the whole I think we end up in the same place - people should play the models they want to play if they're allowed by the rules - but I really don't understand why you felt that whole "point of clarification" was necessary. I don't think it helps anyone to imply that people who don't use mercs are somehow morally superior to those who do, even if you do so out of a desire to "clarify" why you don't use mercs. It's DEFINITELY not helpful to imply that people who advocate using mercs as "tools at your disposal" might as well just use loaded dice or whatever. It should be enough to say "I [like / don't like] to use mercenaries" and everyone involved in the discussion should just say "oh, okay," and leave it at that.

You like using mercs? Cool. You don't like using mercs? Also cool. They're your models; do what you like with them.
You think your opponent should use more mercs? Too bad. You don't think your opponent should use any mercs? Also too bad. Your opponent's models are not your models, and your difference of opinion - and that's ALL it is - does not have any bearing on anyone's moral standing.

[Lachlan the Mad]

You have the right to put personal restrictions on the army you use.

You have the right to make these personal restrictions as arcane as you like.

You do not have the right to push these personal restrictions on others.

In other words, it's exactly like religion.

[HeadHunter]

Well spoken, Lachlan. That's my view on just about any aspect of life. It's a very libertarian way to live.

[Lachlan the Mad]

Well spoken, Lachlan. That's my view on just about any aspect of life. It's a very libertarian way to live.

As long as you don't compare me to Ron Paul I'm happy :P

[Devstro]

I'm confused. You want to use Valachev as a "counts as" Wyshnayler? You should be asking the folks you play against, not us. Although when asking, I would simply say that you like the model better instead of framing it as some sort of moral imperative regarding faction purity. I personally don't think the decision of whether or not to include Mercs falls anywhere on the spectrum of morality. I love dealing with first-world problems

[PG_Dino-Czar]

Lets go full on first world with this "morality" issue.

I'd argue that attempting to use mercenary rules on a non-mercenary model is a type of violence inflicted on your opponent. You are demanding that they submit to your aesthetic standards, essentially putting yourself above the rules of the game. By victimizing your opponent in this way you're denying them the full equality. Really, trying to justify a "proxy" is trying to justify your urge to dehumanize the people you play with.

(Woooo! Skirting Poe's law, I'm sure)

[Jinxies]

Pretty much all my lists have more out of faction models than in faction models so I don't really get the whole Faction Purity thing... just play with the cool models!

[HeadHunter]

As long as you don't compare me to Ron Paul I'm happy :P

He stopped being a Libertarian a while ago. That's all I'll say on that, don't really want to muck up our fun here.

I'm more a proponent of the underlying Libertarian ideal: "You have every right to swing your fist - but that right stops short of my chin." I think that's appliable to the topic.

[Lanz]

That was exactly my point. There is a consensual morality that we all assume that we understand. Cheating is a tool, but it goes against the spirit of the game, that you should follow the rules.

This gaming morality in Warmachine is begun in Page 5, but doesnt end there.

Also, people who dont use mercenaries and then complain that they dont have access to something which mercenaries could provide are using a different perception of life.

To them (and me, since i do this too) since it is a mercenary, then they dont "have access" to it, because of their own morality. So just try to understand their point of view, rather than declaring that they are just whining.

I don't think there is any more moral validity to the side that doesn't use mercs than there is to those who say they should use mercs. Pretty much all your logic on perspective and point of view could just as easily be applied to the very people who are saying "stop whining and just use mercs".

Myself, I see it as a personal restriction. If a player complains about being able to win, and their problem could be solved by using mercs that they, purely on their own, decide they won't use, then it's really their own fault. Their ideas of morality aside, they made the choice to play with a handicap. They can drop that handicap at any time. I can understand the perspective of playing themey lists. I do it all the time myself (moreso in video games than in something like this, as individual components of the game are far more expensive here and I want the best out of what I buy), but when I do, I accept that it's going to put me at a disadvantage and I'm prepared to either work harder than other players, or simply not perform as well. I would not, however, complain about these self-imposed restrictions.

My morality/perspective/point-of-view is that to complain about such things is selfish, unsportsmanlike and disrespectful to the players who aren't playing the same way.

So, in a way, not using mercs could be immoral to my point of view. Ultimately making all of this entirely subjective.

[Defenstrator]

Also, people who dont use mercenaries and then complain that they dont have access to something which mercenaries could provide are using a different perception of life.

To them (and me, since i do this too) since it is a mercenary, then they dont "have access" to it, because of their own morality. So just try to understand their point of view, rather than declaring that they are just whining.

First off, this is not a "moral" issue. Morality is

Noun:

Principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior. Behavior as it is affected by the observation of these principles.

Neither of these things apply. So we can drop that inflamatory part of your argument now since it simply isn't true.

I also do not think that it is the case that people object to using mercs in their army to fill a few whole in the occasional list.

What is true, in the Cygnar forum at least, is that there are complaints about needing to use mercs wholesale instead of the faction choices. There was a certain podcast that claimed the Cygnar forum was complaining too much, and that it was time to get out there a show that Cygnar didn't have it that bad. They then talked about how you shouldn't use that many Cygnar infnatry models becuase they're that bad. Cygnar won Adepticon, but the winning player had big chunks of mercs in all his lists.

[Octavius_Maximus]

I am curious how you decided that "use the tools at your disposal" technically means "cheat like a pirate." I have a large hammer; does this mean I should consider smashing my opponents' models a "tool I have access to?" Of course not. That's an absurd point. If something is against the rules (in this case, the rules that we have against destroying other people's property), you don't REALLY have access to it. That's the whole point of rules.

Actually, its only absurd because you are part of this culture. That's what culture does, gives meaning to things.

"using tools at your disposal" in this context then has a hidden, assumed clause, "following the rules of the game as well as conventional gaming etiquette and ethics."

Rules against destroying other peoples property are culturally created and legally reinforced. There is actually NOTHING stopping you from physically doing that, its the social level above the purely physical, the social level that makes meaning out of plastic toy soldiers and creates such emotion, thought, time and energy into a small collection of metal and plastic.

So you don't cheat not because its in the rules, but because of the consensual reality that you subscribe to around the rules. That's why, when someone on the forums talks about a person in their gaming group who is acting in a way which is deemed unacceptable by themselves such as cheating, the most common response is to not play that individual, it seems like common sense, but it only is common sense because of the consensus.

I don't understand - you want to use Wyshnalyr, but you won't because he's not in-faction, but you would proxy something else for those same rules? So your problem is not with the actual rules, but with the model? Am I understanding that correctly?

Yes and no, I don't want to use Wyshnallyr because he isn't Khador the way I interpret them to be, Within my perception of what is a good looking Khador army that I would own, the Wyshnallyr model would be a blight on that, it would be wrong. Using a Khador model alleviates that somewhat, but I still have misgivings about it.

On the whole I think we end up in the same place - people should play the models they want to play if they're allowed by the rules - but I really don't understand why you felt that whole "point of clarification" was necessary. I don't think it helps anyone to imply that people who don't use mercs are somehow morally superior to those who do, even if you do so out of a desire to "clarify" why you don't use mercs. It's DEFINITELY not helpful to imply that people who advocate using mercs as "tools at your disposal" might as well just use loaded dice or whatever. It should be enough to say "I [like / don't like] to use mercenaries" and everyone involved in the discussion should just say "oh, okay," and leave it at that.

I didnt say morally superior, I said morally different.

I'm also not implying that people who use mercenaries may as well be cheaters at all. If that fits in their view of how they want to play the game, brilliant! Hooray for them! They are doing what they want and I cant fault them for it.

But you are implying that I am elevating one group above others, while I am actually doing the exact opposite. Faction purists are often seen as weird and the background noise of the forums about it has become so strong that a phrase (ie. Using the tools you have access too) has become memetic. Its not fair to label a single group as doing things wrong.

With my cheating example, all I was trying to demonstrate is that we all engage in an enculturation which leaves us with a semi-consensual view on how this game should be played, things which the rulebook does not say. And thus, is it really so much more of a stretch to believe that some people believe that there are different ways to approach army building and army visualisation?

If it was a world that if someone doesnt want to use mercenaries or other models in their factions and everyone said "oh, thats fine" it would be great, but you see such furor around it. Look at the Cygnar forums and the Cygnar Pwaaa thread, or the Cryxian forums and the "I dont use Banes" thread. Both of these people are taking issue with armies and army building which dont fit within their own personal construct.

You like using mercs? Cool. You don't like using mercs? Also cool. They're your models; do what you like with them.
You think your opponent should use more mercs? Too bad. You don't think your opponent should use any mercs? Also too bad. Your opponent's models are not your models, and your difference of opinion - and that's ALL it is - does not have any bearing on anyone's moral standing.

Of course, thats a simplified version of what ive been saying all along, but there are larger nuances at work which show that this view is not reality right now.

Also, when someone feels justified in calling another person wrong due to their opinion, thats a moral standing, the same mechanisms are at work here as any other moral problem.

You have the right to put personal restrictions on the army you use.

You have the right to make these personal restrictions as arcane as you like.

You do not have the right to push these personal restrictions on others.

In other words, it's exactly like religion.

Exactly, except the final clause should be that "you respect that others may have an opinion different to yours, and hopefully you can try to see things from their point of view."

I'm confused. You want to use Valachev as a "counts as" Wyshnayler? You should be asking the folks you play against, not us. Although when asking, I would simply say that you like the model better instead of framing it as some sort of moral imperative regarding faction purity. I personally don't think the decision of whether or not to include Mercs falls anywhere on the spectrum of morality. I love dealing with first-world problems

You start by saying you are confused, then make a veiled attack? Working from a position of ignorance isnt the best starting point.

Lets go full on first world with this "morality" issue.

I'd argue that attempting to use mercenary rules on a non-mercenary model is a type of violence inflicted on your opponent. You are demanding that they submit to your aesthetic standards, essentially putting yourself above the rules of the game. By victimizing your opponent in this way you're denying them the full equality. Really, trying to justify a "proxy" is trying to justify your urge to dehumanize the people you play with.

(Woooo! Skirting Poe's law, I'm sure)

Actually, avoiding the legallese, I am asking my opponent to understand that my perspective and aesthetic culture is different to theirs. Going as extreme as you, could i not argue that by denying me my cultural rights you are committing an act of Hate? Worse, if it isnt allowed at a tournament that it is an act of segregation if alternate venues are allowed, or of culturecide if there are not? :P

Not exactly my intention in the thread, but nice legallese :P

[Octavius_Maximus]

First off, this is not a "moral" issue. Morality is

Noun:

Principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior. Behavior as it is affected by the observation of these principles.

Neither of these things apply. So we can drop that inflamatory part of your argument now since it simply isn't true.

I also do not think that it is the case that people object to using mercs in their army to fill a few whole in the occasional list.

What is true, in the Cygnar forum at least, is that there are complaints about needing to use mercs wholesale instead of the faction choices. There was a certain podcast that claimed the Cygnar forum was complaining too much, and that it was time to get out there a show that Cygnar didn't have it that bad. They then talked about how you shouldn't use that many Cygnar infnatry models becuase they're that bad. Cygnar won Adepticon, but the winning player had big chunks of mercs in all his lists.

1. My definition of Morality is just, because the crux of the matter is whether there is a clear distinction about what is right and wrong about the use or non use of mercenaries or other models in your faction.

And so it is true, and its not inflammatory, that is against forum rules.

And yes, there is no rules definition about how many mercenaries in a Cygnar force is right (not allowed, but how much is right. Where is the line where it becomes "too much"?)

Because people are acting with a moral standing that there were "too many mercenaries" in those lists, an emotional reaction because it isnt really built on any existing rules, then it *is* a moral standpoint.

If it isn't moral, then what is it other than cultural (which is, in this case, closely linked to morality)?

[moorg]

Technically this term refers that you can, and should, attempt to cheat. because they are tools that you have access too. You should tool up your list against your opponent, you should fudge dice rolls and many other things which could all be considered "tools that you have access to."

Uhhh..... No. It does not refer to that.

There's a difference between using your tools, and being one.

Whenever you are creating a list, you generally bring a small list of your own contextual "morals" into the equation.

Interesting word choice for a game. "Morals".

Using that word, in that context, insinuates that anyone who doesn't make lists just as you do, to be immoral. Which is harsh and completely unjustified.

I personally don't like using mercenaries, not owning any, but I am considering using Wyshnallyr, but because taking that model violates my personal morality, i am considering using Valachev as a *proxy* for him, since the model suits the position that Wyshnallyr takes and is "in faction."

Or you can just convert the model until it looks like it fits into your army. Which is what you should be doing if aesthetics are the only thing stopping you.

1. My definition of Morality is just, because the crux of the matter is whether there is a clear distinction about what is right and wrong about the use or non use of mercenaries or other models in your faction.

The correct use of Mercenaries is listed on their card. There is no morality, only rules.

[bouncymischa]

I have to agree with Defenstrator that framing the idea at hand in terms of "morals" is a problematic one. That said, I agree with the OP to a large extent about the idea he's putting forth -- personally, I think much the same way, although I prefer to frame it in terms of a "hierarchy of values". While most people can agree that certain actions (such as cheating) shouldn't be done, there's a broad grey area where there's no distinctive "correct answer", and different people express different preferences about which values should be more important.

Take the periodic discussions about sportsmanship, for example. Often, issues such as "how much information should I provide my opponent?" or "should I allow take-backs?" come up, and people weigh in on different sides of the issue, each putting forth their personal viewpoints as the correct ones. On one said, you may have people who go "players should figure out information for themselves, it's part of the skill of the game", "making mistakes and learning from them is part of the game" and "the rules should be strictly adhered to". On the other, you have people who argue that "I want the satisfaction of knowing it was my skill that won the game, not someone else's ignorance" and "having a positive gaming experience is important". I'm fairly certain there's no objective evidence that the values on one side should trump those of the other, and that it ultimately comes down to a subjective preference. There's no real right or wrong with these kinds of issues.

A lot of aspects of the game can be like this, whether its issues of "faction purity" vs. "using the full range of models available to you", "casual" vs. "competitive", "proxies" vs. "purchased models", or "fully painted armies on tabletops with proper terrain" vs. "unpainted armies on tables using felt shapes", it's all a matter of personal preferences, and there's no real reason anyone should be going around and insulting someone else who happens to have different preferences than they do.

I suspect part of the problem, though, is when people go around and start agitating that the game should be oriented to cater to their personal preferences. Whether it's scrubs wanting people to avoid powerful models, "A-game" players who insist everyone should be bringing their A-game to the match and browbeat people with "Page 5", people who hate gunlines for being effective and want to mandate scenario play, or faction purists who insist that the models in their factions should be buffed so they don't have to take mercenaries, it's all just a variation on trying to force Privateer and the community to cater to an individual's personal preferences.

In the end, I think the OP's goal is to encourage people to accept that, in a diverse playerbase like this one, there will always be people who have their own ideas for how the game should be played, and that there's no real sense in trying to force them to change, whether it's by insulting and mocking them directly over the tabletop, or by agitating for Privateer to change aspects of the game they happen to disapprove of.

[komodokeeper]

additional clarification required I feel:

A tool you have access to is something that helps you do the job. For demonstrative purposes, it is using a drill instead of a screwdriver. You have access to it use it.

Cheating is not a tool. Cheating is finding a way around using the tools you have and/or using them incorrectly. Such as drilling a hole to hang a nail. . .it'll work, for a while.. .but you will be sorry...

[Devstro]

Perhaps it is all just a matter of semantics, but if you substituted the word "values" for "morals," it would make more sense to me. In that context, I have often held that I have more fun playing with others who share the same gaming values that I do. Maybe that is what is afoot here. Some folks value purity of faction, others do not, and it seems to be creating some dissonance on the forums.

Edit: looks like I was ninja'd (considerably more eloquently) by Bouncymisha.

[HeadHunter]

That's what culture does, gives meaning to things.

Actually, words mean things. That's the whole point of communication. The speaker is not responsible for the filters the listener may apply.

There is actually NOTHING stopping you from physically doing that, its the social level above the purely physical,

There's one thing stopping an opponent from physically destroying my models. It's not cultural, it's not social - it's their fear of the considerable pain that they know I will surely cause them. Perhaps that's "uncivilized" of me, but I do not believe that a civil response is required to an un-civil action. I do, however, know that pain teaches lessons that words often cannot.

That's why, when someone on the forums talks about a person in their gaming group who is acting in a way which is deemed unacceptable by themselves such as cheating, the most common response is to not play that individual, it seems like common sense, but it only is common sense because of the consensus.

Inapplicable. When someone cheats against me, my refusal to play against them anymore has NOTHING to do with consensus - it has to do with my own common sense. I'd be a fool to play against someone who doesn't play fair; I don't need someone else to tell me that. Perhaps you don't fully understand what you're trying to say.

I don't want to use Wyshnallyr because he isn't Khador the way I interpret them to be, Within my perception of what is a good looking Khador army that I would own, the Wyshnallyr model would be a blight on that, it would be wrong. Using a Khador model alleviates that somewhat, but I still have misgivings about it.

You want to have your cake and eat it too. You want to say you play "pure" but the only difference is cosmetic. You want the advantages of other armies, without playing those units. That's not a purist mentality.

With my cheating example, all I was trying to demonstrate is that we all engage in an enculturation which leaves us with a semi-consensual view on how this game should be played, things which the rulebook does not say.

Certain rules do not need to be in every book, because they are part of what defines something as a "game" (remember that words have certain inherent meanings, regardless of our filters). So unless cheating is an explicit rule (and it is in some rare instances), it is implicitly against the rules of any game.

Also, when someone feels justified in calling another person wrong due to their opinion, thats a moral standing, the same mechanisms are at work here as any other moral problem.

While I'm against labelling things, I'll reiterate that everything is, and can be, fairly and properly defined in certain terms. Your attempt to defend your position by asserting that nothing has any inherent meaning or value of its own seems awfully close to equivocation.

the final clause should be that "you respect that others may have an opinion different to yours, and hopefully you can try to see things from their point of view."

Personally, I accept that others may have a different opinion, but I do not "respect" the concept that all opinions are of equal value. I do not consider an opinion to be sacrosanct, especially when some opinions are informed by fact and others are based on misconceptions, incorrect information, or even lies. Remember, for centuries many had the "opinion" that the world was flat and that it was the center of the universe. This does not, in any way, make that opinion of equal value to those that believe that the world is a sphere that orbits the Sun.

I am asking my opponent to understand that my perspective and aesthetic culture is different to theirs.

And your opponents are asking you to use the proper model if you wish to employ its benefits. Your opponent is under no obligation to permit your "counts as" model, and you already know why.

For friendly games, you may find some sympathy and understanding. Personally, I don't particularly mind such things if the opponent isn't being a jerk about it. But let's not make it into a bigger issue than it really is. The long and short of it is that it's an aesthetic choice. Choices are voluntary, but they still have consequences. Abiding by the consequences of one's choices and decisions is basically the definition of adult behavior. But it's important to recognize that others are under no obligation to make the same choices, nor even to "respect" those choices.

Your opponent's prerogative is to permit or deny anything that does not explicitly abide by the rules of the game, and even to choose not to play against someone who does not do so. I'll go so far as to note that they can choose not to play you for any other reason as well, even if you're abiding by all rules. in a tournament, this may mean a forfeit, but again, that's a personal choice with a consequence.

I don't object to your point of view, I simply think it needs to be refined and presented more concisely.

[SchnauzerFace]

If you use models you truly do have at your disposal (i.e. bringing mercs that will play for your faction), then this is no more cheating than using in-faction models. Cheating would be using models you don't have access to (like bringing a Behemoth in a Doomshaper list).

Frankly, I don't get how there could be any gray area here.

And, if you're against using mercs, fine. But the idea that using a faction model as a proxy for a merc somehow changes things just doesn't make sense.

[Defenstrator]

1. My definition of Morality is just, because the crux of the matter is whether there is a clear distinction about what is right and wrong about the use or non use of mercenaries or other models in your faction.

First, the word you are looking for is "accurate" not "just". You are not taking a moral stand when declaring word usage, you are looking for the common definition so we are all talking about the same thing.

Second, no it isn't. This is an argument that one faction may not be viable competitively without large use of mercenaries. That is a discussion about game balance and piece usage. Morality is not involved.

[Syas]

I am faction pure with my Menoth - though I feel it necessary to point out that Reznik's NQ Tier List is merc happy; with Trolls I haven't brought in Mercs yet. At 35pts (where my meta tends to play) I rarely run into a point where I have the points. At 50 points I am hoping to bring in Alten, not only does it work fluffwise, but he brings a solid utility that I feel my collection of trolls lacks.

[Maou_Mint]

Faction purity is a choice, not a requirement. Choosing to say one's faction is under-powered when one is blatantly ignoring options available is very much the same as trying to claim that one shouldn't be considered late to their job when they showed up an hour late because they chose to walk instead of drive their car. One made a choice, one lives with the choice, it doesn't change that the options ARE there.

Put another way, it would be like if I chose to only play undead in Cryx and complained about the lack of speedy or accurate-ranged units despite having access to Satyxis and Raefell & Nyss. It's a personal choice, it doesn't mean the options are not there. Nor should the company be expected to produce a bunch of in-aesthetic/in-faction duplicates for something I already have access to.

So yeah, I'm fine with folks saying I should use the tools I have available to me. It's not as if I can't paint em to look like they fit with the rest of the army. I bring Mercs with my factions that can take them quite regularly if the mercs are useful to the list. I don't see why we need new models to duplicate stuff that's already there. To me that seems like a waste of resources that could be spent developing other new and more interesting models.

Cheers.

[PG_Feeple]

I'd ask someone hesitant about merc usage if they felt that this game is about choices and descisions, or about story. Mercs aren't blood and gold thristy men and women in this game. They are an army choice that can, unlike most other pieces, able to be chosen by more than one faction. For example, if someone didn't want to take Murdoc and the Ogrun Assault Corps because they're mercs and Cygnar would never hire them in their mind, ok, there's no problem I have with that, even if it's implied that in the fluff Cygnar would totally hire these guys. That's the player's call. If you object because they're Mercs and therefore green and green clashes with your shirt that day or something, well, ok, but that seems like a much more solveable problem. If you want the army to look cohesive, why not paint them or model them in such a manner? Heck, I remember a NQ article about modding up OAC to look more Cygnaran.

Point is, I want you to play what you want. I just ask the same courtesy.

[ShepMachine]

A couple quick things.

PP does a fantastic job in rewarding players who handicap themselves for the sake of an aesthetic. They created theme forces that actually give you bonus rules to combat your self imposed restrictions.

Secondly, is the OP aware that using valachev as sylys is a violation of the steamroller rules? In my opinion, there is a very good reason for that.

[Varius]

Im starting to think that people dont understand the argument. Its not about whether you want to use mercenaries or not, its about the fact that if you dont, you are handicapping yourself.

Everyone can agree Cygnar can do well enough with mercs. Its the question that should most of Cygnar's choices be trumped by Merc choices? How many holes should mercenaries fill, before the faction gets those problems solved themselves?

Mercs should add another layer, add more choice, not be the only choice.

This argument could swing the other way, if there were a caster that auto won every game they were in, people wouldnt be allowed to complain. I mean, its your choice not to use that caster.

This game is free right, its not like you can have hundreds of dollars and painting time invalidated by poor balance, is it? You just choose to use new stuff, and poof it is there.

[Kamahin]

When I build a list, for the sake of being useful. I don't see a line between in-faction and mercs, like some barrier saying that these models are not correct in some way. The only difference I draw between the two is that one can be affected by friendly faction spells and abilities, and the other cannot.

This is because that is the price you pay for taking a merc, and is something that should have them balanced around. I know in my trolls, I have to take that into account. Does this warlock play well with others, or does he only like other trolls?

[PG_Nemlock]

Lots of talking and noise meant to discourage the OP's opponent from using mercs because the OP doesn't like using mercs. But he only really doesn't like the merc models. Somehow proxying the merc model with an in faction option is ok.

That sum up the basic idea of the thread so far. So my question then is: What about partisans?
They're sort of in faction but not completely. The art on their card clearly doesn't match the art on faction card. Would the OP take issue with Eiryss or Wyshnayler in Ret? What about Kayazy in Khador?
Play what you like that is allowed in your lists. Do not judge others for doing the same. Steamroller 2012 has character restrictions. This in theory should help deal with your "moral" issue of not being happy your opponent isn't playing as a purist. Honestly this entire thread of discussion stemming from the Cygnar forums is getting tiresome as it's invading other forums. Players involved in or associated with podcasts are having success using a faction their own forums swear can't succeed. Being proven wrong is hard, so this new variable is introduced as proof that the success is somehow not valid.

[Defenstrator]

Everyone can agree Cygnar can do well enough with mercs. Its the question that should most of Cygnar's choices be trumped by Merc choices? How many holes should mercenaries fill, before the faction gets those problems solved themselves?

Mercs should add another layer, add more choice, not be the only choice.

I think this sums up the issue well. It is not an issue of not wanting to use the best tools for the job. It's that other factions don't seem to have to go outside for so many of their tools.

There's also the issue of expectations. You buy a unit of Trenchers with the idea that they're this solid skirmish screen. After all they're 10 points, that's elite infantry prices. Then you find that they aren't that good at it. You do some experimenting and discover Boobowlers are better in that role than Trenchers will ever be, and for a point less.

At this point you aren't interested in hearing how you're a scrub becuase you don't want to run Boomhowlers, what you want to know is if these are what you are expected to take, why weren't they in your faction book instead?

[Skylifter]

Im starting to think that people dont understand the argument. Its not about whether you want to use mercenaries or not, its about the fact that if you dont, you are handicapping yourself.

Everyone can agree Cygnar can do well enough with mercs. Its the question that should most of Cygnar's choices be trumped by Merc choices? How many holes should mercenaries fill, before the faction gets those problems solved themselves?

Mercs should add another layer, add more choice, not be the only choice.

This argument could swing the other way, if there were a caster that auto won every game they were in, people wouldnt be allowed to complain. I mean, its your choice not to use that caster.

This game is free right, its not like you can have hundreds of dollars and painting time invalidated by poor balance, is it? You just choose to use new stuff, and poof it is there.

That's the point of Mercs though, as some have already pointed out. They can do some things your faction models cannot. If Mercs didn't exist, every faction would have to have all the options. In the extreme, this would mean that all the factions would play the same way, with different models for the same rules. That is not what PP wanted to create, and I, for one, am very impressed by how they solved this.

The way it is, Khador for example doesn't have a lot of magical ranged attacks, so it needs a mercenary to do that. And since having a magical ranged attack isn't a victory condition in this game, Khador also doesn't become unplayable if you do not use Mercs.

[The Sentinel]

why is the garbage from the cygnar forum scrubs spilling into other areas?

[Varius]

That's the point of Mercs though, as some have already pointed out. They can do some things your faction models cannot. If Mercs didn't exist, every faction would have to have all the options. In the extreme, this would mean that all the factions would play the same way, with different models for the same rules. That is not what PP wanted to create, and I, for one, am very impressed by how they solved this.

The way it is, Khador for example doesn't have a lot of magical ranged attacks, so it needs a mercenary to do that. And since having a magical ranged attack isn't a victory condition in this game, Khador also doesn't become unplayable if you do not use Mercs.

Right, but when you go to mercs for armor cracking, tarpit, ranged, solo hunting and tech, what is left for your faction to do other than bring a caster and fill the WJ points?