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

[Octavius_Maximus]

I don't agree that morality is only used for legal matters.

A lot of things are legal and immoral or illegal and not immoral.

Yes, i know. I should have added a qualifier of "usually" i thought I did, but I was unclear and using a "only used really" as a speech act, which in my context has more of a loose speech meaning than its textual meaning.

[HeadHunter]

But morality is just the psychic core of our values (thank you whomever said that, btw) and it goes all the way down to our perceptions of everyday life.

And moralities of others are something you really do need to understand, otherwise you can be quite insulting to them.

I have little use for morality. Morality is other people's definition of what's right and wrong - and just because it's collectively accepted, doesn't make it so. It's foolish to confuse popularity with quality or correctness - and anyone who lives in our modern culture should be able to think of many examples as to why.

Furthermore, morality has little to do with actual "right" and "wrong". It was once "immoral" for a woman to wear a swimsuit that exposed anything beyond her wrists and ankles (there are people still alive today who can remember such a time). We can look at that now, and see how ridiculous and irrelevant it was.

So, I reject the notion that others can tell me what is right and what is wrong. I'm an intelligent and sensible individual, and I'm capable of determining that for myself. So I value ethics far more than morals. I never do anything because someone tells me I "have to" or "should". I still lead a pretty righteous life and most people would say I'm one of the "good guys" even if I'm not necessarily one of the "nice guys" as to how I go about it.

And, again, I reject the notion that I must grant others' "morality" equal footing with my own values. I can defend my values and beliefs - most people cannot satisfactorily explain why they believe what they value, because they have not discovered it for themselves. They were merely told what to believe, but they don't understand why. Knowledge that is not earned is not valued, nor can it be properly employed. It's not "insensitive" to ask people to support their own opinions.

[Octavius_Maximus]

I have little use for morality. Morality is other people's definition of what's right and wrong - and just because it's collectively accepted, doesn't make it so. It's foolish to confuse popularity with quality or correctness - and anyone who lives in our modern culture should be able to think of many examples as to why.

Furthermore, morality has little to do with actual "right" and "wrong". It was once "immoral" for a woman to wear a swimsuit that exposed anything beyond her wrists and ankles (there are people still alive today who can remember such a time). We can look at that now, and see how ridiculous and irrelevant it was.


So, I reject the notion that others can tell me what is right and what is wrong. I'm an intelligent and sensible individual, and I'm capable of determining that for myself. So I value ethics far more than morals. I never do anything because someone tells me I "have to" or "should". I still lead a pretty righteous life and most people would say I'm one of the "good guys" even if I'm not necessarily one of the "nice guys" as to how I go about it.

Foucalt's panopticon principle actually says that other people do tell you what is right and wrong, or rather, give you the cultural tools to understand notions of rightness and wrongness. This is because over time you are encultured into the culture you are in and you internalise their values and concepts. You didn't create the idea of right and wrong yourself, if was told to you, and it is always being told to you, and you are interpreting it.

And, again, I reject the notion that I must grant others' "morality" equal footing with my own values. I can defend my values and beliefs - most people cannot satisfactorily explain why they believe what they value, because they have not discovered it for themselves. They were merely told what to believe, but they don't understand why. Knowledge that is not earned is not valued, nor can it be properly employed. It's not "insensitive" to ask people to support their own opinions.

Of course you cant always satisfactorily explain why they believe what they value. Because values arent things that you *have* as such, they are things that you *are*.

It isn't insensitive to ask people to support their own opinions. So support yourself now, please. Why do you seem to not want to allow people to have a variant idea of how to play Warmachine? You seem to be attacking my notion of variation between players perception of their list-building morality. Why do you feel justified in that?

[HeadHunter]

Well, when you try to impose morality onto the matter, expect to be ridiculed. For one thing, it's a game. Also, I believe I've already adequately explained why "morality" (as you have defined it) is inapplicable to this environment. You've taken it beyond the realm of fair and sporting play, into some nebulous zone where we have to play how other people feel we should.

Sorry, but I'm not telling you how to build your list or play the game, and I won't abide anyone presuming to do the same to me. We follow the rules in the book. If you're allowed to use a Merc in your list - use it, I don't care. And if my list follows the rules, I couldn't care less if you "like" my army or feel I "shouldn't" include something. Your only choice in that respect is whether or not you wish to play against me.

[The Sentinel]

I did quote it. You said

Which is insulting and dismissive. Rather than coming up with an argument to support your point of view, you simply claim that mine does not match reality.

You said I said something I didn't say.

I don't need a supporting argument for that. It's an indisputable fact.

That's where your perception didn't match reality. Also a fact.

Any time that happens to me, I find it interesting and I look into why I made the false assumption.

I didn't mean to offend you but I'm not concerned that it did because I don't consider your offense justified.

And if the article had anything to do with the argument I would see some relevence. The issue is not whether you should take the best stuff to win. That's a given so linking to people who discuss it serves no purpose. The issues are should a faction need to take Mercs to be competative, and if some do not, why should others be expected to do so?

I disagree that it's a given that one should take the best stuff to win. That's only true if winning is all that matters, which isn't true for a lot of people, including me.

It's also not necessarily true that taking the best stuff is always the best way to win. If your opponents are less familiar with a slightly worse choice, it can be advantageous to use what they're less prepared for even if something else may be "objectively" better. This is true in chess, magic, etc.

Should a faction have to take mercs to win? You can't get ought from is. In other words, how things should be is subjective. It's a matter of preference and nothing else. I haven't seen a good argument that Cygnar can't win without using a lot of mercs and I doubt it's true. I also haven't seen a logical argument why it would be a bad thing even if true.

My point in linking that article wasn't to say that people who don't take mercs are scrubs. That's completely missing the point. The point is that people who arbitrarily restrict themselves are not playing to win.

And those issues you mentioned are not the issues brought up in the OP. They're the issues you want to talk about. I don't mind talking about them, but the OP was about personal preferences regarding unit choices varying from player to player.

[Tyr852]

Interesting post , it's like the thesis summary version of what I was asking ^_^. Although I would say that once you brought up the analogy of cheating you crossed from morals (which is a personal belief) to ethics in which morals are decided by a group, in our case "gamers" who believe cheating is bad. Anyhow , interesting read from all the responses

[Rabid Bunny]

My opinion on the matter is use what you like within the rules of the game. Using the Cryx example the OP referenced, if you want to run pDenny pirate heavy, go for it! I chose Cryx for the models and the pirate models aren't my cuppa tea, so I won't use them. The moment you say someone shouldn't use alot of mercs in their force is the moment you tell someone that they aren't playing the game according to your self set criteria, which is wrong.

[HeadHunter]

Also, consider that some people may wish to play an all-Merc army. If all Mercs were less effective than their faction equivalents, who'd want to do that?

I have a small Searforge army, and it's all Dwarves. It's a personal choice - I don't want to play pirates (especially in my Dwarf army) and I'm still not even sure about including Ogres, Trolls or Goblins. I don't know if it will be as effective as other armies, and I don't really care. If someone else wants to do otherwise, I'm fine with that. I don't tell others how they "should" play.

[The Sentinel]

My opinion on the matter is use what you like within the rules of the game. Using the Cryx example the OP referenced, if you want to run pDenny pirate heavy, go for it! I chose Cryx for the models and the pirate models aren't my cuppa tea, so I won't use them. The moment you say someone shouldn't use alot of mercs in their force is the moment you tell someone that they aren't playing the game according to your self set criteria, which is wrong.

As I understand it, the gripe people have isn't with other people playing mercs, it's with not wanting to use them for some reason and feeling that that puts them at an insurmountable disadvantage.

Basically, they're saying they don't like Cygnar how it is and they want it to be different.

A more sensible approach would be to learn how to use the units you do like, or to just pick a faction that you do like.

I plan on doing the former.

[DoctorEvil]

I believe a scrub is a guy that can't get no love from me.

.......what if he's hangin' on the passenger side of best friend's ride trying to holla at you?

[The Sentinel]

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?

if you don't like your faction (no matter the reasons), why is it your faction?

And trenchers aren't even supposed to be a tarpit unit so comparing them to boomhowlers makes no sense

I don't see how what you're "expected" to take is even a relevant concept. You take what you want.

[MagnustheJust]

Also, consider that some people may wish to play an all-Merc army. If all Mercs were less effective than their faction equivalents, who'd want to do that?

<--- THIS GUY!!!

I have been a Mercenary player for over seven years now - 7 YEARS !!

There have been ups & downs, but I have loved every second of it since that very first battle box game with Magnus the Traitor way back when...

[Defenstrator]

if you don't like your faction (no matter the reasons), why is it your faction?

Who said I don't? After all, if I didn't like something I'd hardly play it would I, or be concerned about how it does. Besides, I play several factions, Cygnar, Mercs, and Legion.

And trenchers aren't even supposed to be a tarpit unit so comparing them to boomhowlers makes no sense.

Good things I didn't then. I compared them as a skirmish screen. Boomhowlers do it through being really tough medium bases while Trenchers are supposed to do with their smoke screen. They're not that good at it I'm afraid.

I don't see how what you're "expected" to take is even a relevant concept. You take what you want.

Some people have been arguing that mercs are supposed to be more intrinsic to Cygnar and that the faction was designed with this in mind. My feeling is that if this were true there would be more indication of it in the book.

[kolonelk]

<--- THIS GUY!!!

I have been a Mercenary player for over seven years now - 7 YEARS !!

There have been ups & downs, but I have loved every second of it since that very first battle box game with Magnus the Traitor way back when...

I have been running McBain a lot lately, he's the funnest caster I own. But is it moral for me to use Kayazy or Gun Mages with him?

[moorg]

As I understand it, the gripe people have isn't with other people playing mercs, it's with not wanting to use them for some reason and feeling that that puts them at an insurmountable disadvantage.

That may be the point, but that argument was invalidated the moment morals were brought into it.

[QUOTE]Basically, they're saying they don't like Cygnar how it is and they want it to be different.

A more sensible approach would be to learn how to use the units you do like, or to just pick a faction that you do like.

I plan on doing the former.

I agree. That is much more sensible.

If the army is not how they want it to be, then they're either playing the wrong army, or playing the army wrong.

If you're happy playing the army how you want to play it, that's what matters.

[Varius]

[QUOTE=moorg;1448536]That may be the point, but that argument was invalidated the moment morals were brought into it.

Basically, they're saying they don't like Cygnar how it is and they want it to be different.



I agree. That is much more sensible.

If the army is not how they want it to be, then they're either playing the wrong army, or playing the army wrong.

If you're happy playing the army how you want to play it, that's what matters.

Your point may be relevant if they didnt change the army in any significant way. But some of the stuff I bought in MK1, and I chose my faction then too. They changed the game and factions completely, making some units garbage while overpowering others. When I chose my faction I liked it, this isnt an uniformed decision. And I still like the Cygnar aesthetic, and units, but they are miles behind the merc counterparts. How is it more reasonable to you for me to spend hundreds of dollars on another faction because they changed the rules?

Especially when no one has brought up a good reason for Cygnar to have an army full of useless units. Its bad design, and bad business practices.

I want to be able to play Cygnar as a faction, not just its casters. Most Cygnar players do.

[The Sentinel]

Who said I don't? After all, if I didn't like something I'd hardly play it would I, or be concerned about how it does. Besides, I play several factions, Cygnar, Mercs, and Legion.

I get the impression you would like for some things to be different.

Good things I didn't then. I compared them as a skirmish screen. Boomhowlers do it through being really tough medium bases while Trenchers are supposed to do with their smoke screen. They're not that good at it I'm afraid.

Some people have been arguing that mercs are supposed to be more intrinsic to Cygnar and that the faction was designed with this in mind. My feeling is that if this were true there would be more indication of it in the book.

What does "supposed to" mean in this context? Cygnar has merc units available to it. That doesn't mean you're "supposed to" not use them or you're "supposed to" use a ton of them. It means the people who want to use them can. There's no "supposed to" about it.

Do you want PP to change the game to suit your tastes? What do you want them to change specifically? The cost of specific units? The stats of specific units? How do you want the game to be? What's Cygnar like in your ideal world?

[chrisBatson]

I am in before the Mod lock and have nothing to contribute!

[The Sentinel]

if World A is a world in which mercs are supposed to be more intrinsic to Cygnar, and World B is a world in which mercs are not supposed to be more intrinsic to Cygnar, how do I determine which world I'm in?

As far as I can tell, the only difference is whether I say they are or not. In other words, it has nothing to do with reality and everything to do with a subjective interpretation.

Am I missing something?

[HeadHunter]

[But some of the stuff I bought in MK1, and I chose my faction then too. They changed the game and factions completely, making some units garbage while overpowering others. When I chose my faction I liked it, this isnt an uniformed decision. And I still like the Cygnar aesthetic, and units, but they are miles behind the merc counterparts. How is it more reasonable to you for me to spend hundreds of dollars on another faction because they changed the rules?

That is unfortunate, but it doesn't chage the truth of what moorg said.

Regardless of the validity of your concern, it's still one or the other. If you're not playing the army wrong, then you're playing the wrong army. Perhaps someone who feels that way about their own army will trade with you, or you could eBay your army and buy whatever you think didn't suffer the fate of your army. Or you could just use the bloody Mercs, as it seems to be the allegation of your faction that this is their destiny.

No one's tying your hands and forcing you to be a bad player. You have your choices, it's up to you to decide what to do. But if you're choosing to stick with the status quo, kindly accept the consequences of your decision. None of that is our fault in the least.

[The Sentinel]

Especially when no one has brought up a good reason for Cygnar to have an army full of useless units. Its bad design, and bad business practices.

I want to be able to play Cygnar as a faction, not just its casters. Most Cygnar players do.

Which units are useless?

Why can't you play Cygnar as a whole?

[ReaverQueen]

Trenchers have one of the coolest UAs ever though. So unique. I like Cygnar infantry for the most part... but rather have aspects of it in Magnus lists. Y'know, proper Cygnar. Obviously Vinter's Cygnar is better at war stuff than Leto's Cygnar, because Leto let Nemo spend the last 200 years spewing out one POW 10 after another.

Never really understood the hate on for Cygnar infantry though. Most of their stuff seems decent. Popular in Mercs.

[Varius]

That is unfortunate, but it doesn't chage the truth of what moorg said.

Regardless of the validity of your concern, it's still one or the other. If you're not playing the army wrong, then you're playing the wrong army. Perhaps someone who feels that way about their own army will trade with you, or you could eBay your army and buy whatever you think didn't suffer the fate of your army. Or you could just use the bloody Mercs, as it seems to be the allegation of your faction that this is their destiny.

No one's tying your hands and forcing you to be a bad player. You have your choices, it's up to you to decide what to do. But if you're choosing to stick with the status quo, kindly accept the consequences of your decision. None of that is our fault in the least.

Im not forcing anyone to not play mercs. I dont care how they do it, I dont like that it is required. I never said I dont use mercs. I own Nyss and Boomhowlers. But I also own Trenchers, Stormguard, stormblades etc. Which do you think sees more table time?

And I dont remember blaming you specifically for anything?

You seem to be having an argument with another person. Its not whether or not we do use mercs, is whether or not we should have to use them exclusively.

[MagnustheJust]

I have been running McBain a lot lately, he's the funnest caster I own. But is it moral for me to use Kayazy or Gun Mages with him?

Hell yeah!!

They are Mercenaries when you use them in the Mercenary list!!

I have the Kayazy Suite {max Assassins w/UA & 2x Eliminators} that I use regularly in my Four-Star Syndicate lists, especially in tourneys. And they are not going to be painted red... Mainly because it sucks the life right out of me to paint red for some reason.


And to whom ever {as I did not read every syllable of every post... } said Nyss Hunters are OP, you are wrong. DEAD WRONG!!

Nyss Hunters are not OP - Everything else just sucks!!

[The Sentinel]

Its not whether or not we do use mercs, is whether or not we should have to use them exclusively.

news flash: you don't

[kolonelk]

I can't wait to get me some Eliminators. I have a smallish Khador force now, and I'm plagued as to what colour to paint them. But, one of the first things I bought is Valachev because I'll sure as hell be using all the merc units I already own (and I think the Winterguard Deathstar is just flat out immoral anyway).

[MagnustheJust]

You seem to be having an argument with another person. Its not whether or not we do use mercs, is whether or not we should have to use them exclusively.

The only models you are required to use ever is a warlock or warcaster, army of choice depending. All else is just gravy on yer 'tatoes...

[Scottl1]

Nyss Hunters are not OP - Everything else just sucks!!

Hahaha

All I keep hearing in these threads is get you Mercs outta my cheerios!

Hell in the cryx and menoth forums they're getting all giggly over pirates! lol In the skorne and loe they're pakin the gators in as much as possible since they're better heavy infantry for the points then either factions has. We acknowledge it and deal. But the Cygnar forums do more whining then I have seen since the 40k threads.

There is no perfect faction are we'd see every caster ad model on the table. Guess how often drudges, teraphs, warmongers, revenant pirate crews etc make lists?

Cryx in faction infantry that get used a lot are the banes, mcthralls and raiders. THATS it. lol the other may get some love but all in all thats not many.

Loe uses mostly beasts can you guess why? Because the infantry is mostly fodder for the spawning vessel to make MORE beasts. lol

[CeltKhan]

I'm wondering how this thread got as far as it did. We opened with a rambling thesis which was not well outlined and came across, depending on PoV, as either esoterically philosophical or completely pretentious. Personally, I read it as both. Sorry, OP, you seem like a nice guy after three pages, but your word choice was really bad if you were attempting to reach the widest possible audience.

Then we got an argument from people who agreed with the op and didn't know it fighting with the semantics brigade and yet more people who agreed with the OP but just needed their say.

That's not accounting for the obvious flamebaiters and the unrelated tangential discussion that got dragged in from umpteen other threads where it has been, is being, or will be hashed over. Again.

So, since I apparently have nothing on this particular topic to say, or more likely have something to say but have already addressed it elsewhere, why am I adding to this trainwreck? Mainly pointing out it is a trainwreck. Either we can get it back on the rails or, more likely, break out the popcorn and watch the pretty colors. I'm good either way until Godwin shows up.

[HeadHunter]

Its not whether or not we do use mercs, is whether or not we should have to use them exclusively.

As others have pointed out - you DON'T. But it bears repeating.
Couldn't have put it better than Magnus. The only model you have to use is your 'caster. Everything else is your choice.

[Tyr852]

I can't wait to get me some Eliminators. .

Only thing I'd recommened is get 2 of them as they get far better then just a single unit of them

[MagnustheJust]

Only thing I'd recommened is get 2 of them as they get far better then just a single unit of them

Indeed they are!!

[Defenstrator]

As others have pointed out - you DON'T. But it bears repeating.
Couldn't have put it better than Magnus. The only model you have to use is your 'caster. Everything else is your choice.

Yeah! Sure one of the choices might suck, but having one choice be way better than another doesn't mean they're not equally valid!

Unless you like winning. Then they might not. But, you know, choices!

[moorg]

Your point may be relevant if they didnt change the army in any significant way. But some of the stuff I bought in MK1, and I chose my faction then too. They changed the game and factions completely, making some units garbage while overpowering others. When I chose my faction I liked it, this isnt an uniformed decision. And I still like the Cygnar aesthetic, and units, but they are miles behind the merc counterparts. How is it more reasonable to you for me to spend hundreds of dollars on another faction because they changed the rules?

Especially when no one has brought up a good reason for Cygnar to have an army full of useless units. Its bad design, and bad business practices.

I want to be able to play Cygnar as a faction, not just its casters. Most Cygnar players do.

In that case my point is completely relevant.

I play Protectorate as my primary army, and what was the strongest Solo and units in MKI (Vilmon, Zealots and Idrians) have been sitting on the shelves gathering dust through most of MKII. I picked up extra stuff to get around that, changing the focus of my collection completely, and moved on.

And your faction is not full of useless units. I use a bunch of Cygnar stuff in my Merc armies (my secondary Faction). They work quite well. Funny how Mercs love using your units more than you do, when supposedly the Merc stuff is so much better.

[Crate123]

He said Nyss are OP, but otherwise he's down.

I suppose you're good to go then, use plenty of mercs but be weary of using the Nyss. They should only be used against opponents who push the envelope themselves, otherwise you might go to hell.

[Defenstrator]

But the Cygnar forums do more whining then I have seen since the 40k threads.

Loe uses mostly beasts can you guess why? Because the infantry is mostly fodder for the spawning vessel to make MORE beasts. lol

Funny, I play both. And you don't see many complaints from me about Legion infnatry. In fact, I regularly defend it against people who have the weird idea that it's bad. But I do give stick to a lot of Cygnar infantry. Know why? Becuase Legion, the beast focused faction, has less crap infantry than Cygnar, who needs them more.

And your faction is not full of useless units. I use a bunch of Cygnar stuff in my Merc armies (my secondary Faction). They work quite well. Funny how Mercs love using your units more than you do, when supposedly the Merc stuff is so much better.

Too be fair, the most commonly used unit are the ATGM+UA, which everyone agrees are really good.

[HeadHunter]

Yeah! Sure one of the choices might suck, but having one choice be way better than another doesn't mean their not equally valid!

Unless you like winning. Then they might not. But, you know, choices!

Well, if you want to win you use what will help you win.
If you want to cling to some idealistic notion of factional purity, I'm deaf to your cries when you lose due to your self-imposed limitations.

The whole point of this topic is people who refuse to use the tools available to them, and then blame others for their own failure.

[Scottl1]

Ineptitude is someone elses fault!!!

[Scottl1]

Funny, I play both. And you don't see many complaints from me about Legion infnatry. In fact, I regularly defend it against people who have the weird idea that it's bad. But I do give stick to a lot of Cygnar infantry. Know why? Becuase Legion, the beast focused faction, has less crap infantry than Cygnar, who needs them more.

That's a matter of opinion and one of the reasons people take the gatorman posse. It gets old that when your infantry just flail about at heavy arm. So no that actually cause them to have to play beast heavy due to gaps in the infantry's game. Thats why kallus has a weird niche.

[PG_jengland]

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.

Huge +1