Eldar Triumvirate

@BetrayTheWorld - my response would be long and ardurous to read. Simply put - I do not disagree. Nor do I agree. But it is subjective. I am perfectly happy with Comp groups houseruling like ITC does. You can have the comp elite chuck out changes in ruleset. Let people who want to play it that way. But out of that area - whatever. Ultimately - the problem is not the ruleset. The problem is that in discussions comp and non-comp meet trying to make the other see their POV. Which is doomed to failure as the goals of both sides SEEM different for most people. Each group feels threatened by the other for reasons too various to overcome.

Me - I like playing sub-par army. Really. I hate cookie-cutter builds in games. I would venture a guess that I have probably the same "love" for democracy and majority votes in general as you do, but I have just learned not to waste my energy on fighting it. Got better things to do. :-)

USF does not need Reborn Warhost to be dangerous. Its a spam list with precision and redundancy and possible reroll abuse. Easy mode for some players.

Heh. I am originally INTP purposefully evolved into ENTP in my 20s. But I just got a lot more to do than concentrate on Warhammer. :-) But still. WH is not science. Analysis and tactics and strategy is not a rocket science in its every application.

aurynn wrote:

Scatspam is dead. I have seen it beaten more times than not. Eldar days of power are gone. They may still have some "obviously better" choices over DE or Harlies, but actually they don't. Most obvious lists have very short lifespan. Now we will see multi USF lists, WK abuse of SfD and perhaps some double triumvirate lists when the next book comes out. Not much changes for us, who are stubborn about using DE. It will take a few months before we will be able to tell what is viable and what not since the next book might shift the meta as well. We might find out that while Revenant discipline is nice, abusing rerolls with Soulburst is mighty good way to lose friends. And then 8th will hit. If I start whining now, I wont have any tears left for 8th.

I guarantee we wont be seeing double Triumvirate lists, all 3 models are Unique.

Imateria wrote:

I guarantee we wont be seeing double Triumvirate lists, all 3 models are Unique.

You mistake my meaning. I mean the first imperial Triumvirate AND the second imperial Triumvirate that is coming. ;-)

You need troops on the ground to make use of the soulburst. Shat are you running the can "table" an opponent?

aurynn wrote:

Analysis and tactics and strategy is not a rocket science in its every application.

You're right. Not in every application, but...

In the top 10 list of most intelligent people of all time, there are 2 chess players and only 1 astrophysicist. Link

The thing about strategy and tactics is that it has a lower barrier to entry than rocket science, but quite possibly a higher skill ceiling. So it's easier to participate in a strategy game than to be a rocket scientist, but it's also easier to be a rocket scientist than to be among the top X% of strategists in the world.

One, in my estimation, is just more fun.

P.S. I was being slightly facetious, in that there IS only 1 astrophysicist, but there are also a couple mathematicians, physicists, a theoretical physicist, and Leonardo Da Vinci(who is in a class of his own) on the top 10. Basically, my point is that strategists and tacticians are actually well-represented among the most intelligent people in the history of mankind, because it DOES take that sort of intelligence to analyze beyond the cursory surface math. There are more variables in strategy than in most scientific pursuits, because things like gravity always acts exactly the same. Opponents do not.

I think trying to act like only one kind of intelligence exists is going to lead to some faulty conclusions. If we lump all intelligence into one category, then the reason tactical thinkers are well represented is because they possess high intelligence in a number of different categories. Most hard sciences only require advanced intelligence in one of the eight to ten categories Gardner lays out. Good tactical thinking requires at least three in chess, and probably four for Wh40k.

I sure as hell am no rocket scientist and I've managed to pull off consistent wins with DE in the past, a feat that I think we can all agree is not just plug and chug. Either my opponents are a bit simple or aurynn is right. That being said I've watched competitive players actually play and it seems there's 2 types. There's those that react and those that play what I call wizard chess. Those that react have a plan, and they react to their opponents moves to work within that plan. If things go too far out of spec though the plan falls apart, and they realize this only too late. Then you get the wizards who... I wouldn't even say they strategize so much as they see the Matrix. These people don't just play the game, they play their opponent. They know how to bait people, how to distract, how to make magic happen. You have to see this happen in person to get it too. If you're just watching a battle report you have no idea which of these types of players you're seeing because this is something you can only really observe while watching the people play. They're quiet, they have a look in their eyes, that's not to say they're not fun to play with or that they're unfriendly but when they're playing they... well, lemme just say I've never seen a man sober up faster than when a competitive player sets his mind to tabling his opponent.

Jimsolo wrote:

I think trying to act like only one kind of intelligence exists is going to lead to some faulty conclusions. If we lump all intelligence into one category, then the reason tactical thinkers are well represented is because they possess high intelligence in a number of different categories. Most hard sciences only require advanced intelligence in one of the eight to ten categories Gardner lays out. Good tactical thinking requires at least three in chess, and probably four for Wh40k.

Very true. Most important one is the bodily-kinesthetic. You cant be a top player without the ability to throw a proper victory dance. :-D

And for non-english speakers the Linguistic one. :-D

One of the biggest problems I've often encountered when it comes to any kind of custom-ruling on any level is that it tends to require a ruling body who is tactically competent enough to be able to deny personal bias and favouritism. And the worst part about this is finding someone who fits that description whilst avoiding the people who think they fit that description.

I remember some ETC rulings for 8th Ed Fantasy a while back not long after the Dark Elf book came out. Still completely focused on curbing the typical things - Nurgle Princes, Ogre Hellhearts, etc - but it completely ignored the latest High Elf book.

Went to a tournament using those rules and basically spent the entire time against High Elf lists with Banner of the World Dragon White Lion Deathstars.


Still, it's a lot better to have people vote on the people who should make the rulings, as opposed to voting on the rulings themselves. People just seem to want to turn up and complain on each ruling in a vacuum then offer an alternative, and then go into a huff if their ruling isn't taken on board as some kind of panacea for the game's imbalance...

TeenageAngst wrote:

I sure as hell am no rocket scientist and I've managed to pull off consistent wins with DE in the past, a feat that I think we can all agree is not just plug and chug. Either my opponents are a bit simple or aurynn is right. That being said I've watched competitive players actually play and it seems there's 2 types. There's those that react and those that play what I call wizard chess. Those that react have a plan, and they react to their opponents moves to work within that plan. If things go too far out of spec though the plan falls apart, and they realize this only too late. Then you get the wizards who... I wouldn't even say they strategize so much as they see the Matrix. These people don't just play the game, they play their opponent. They know how to bait people, how to distract, how to make magic happen. You have to see this happen in person to get it too. If you're just watching a battle report you have no idea which of these types of players you're seeing because this is something you can only really observe while watching the people play. They're quiet, they have a look in their eyes, that's not to say they're not fun to play with or that they're unfriendly but when they're playing they... well, lemme just say I've never seen a man sober up faster than when a competitive player sets his mind to tabling his opponent.

This is spot on.

Jimsolo wrote:

I think trying to act like only one kind of intelligence exists is going to lead to some faulty conclusions. If we lump all intelligence into one category, then the reason tactical thinkers are well represented is because they possess high intelligence in a number of different categories. Most hard sciences only require advanced intelligence in one of the eight to ten categories Gardner lays out. Good tactical thinking requires at least three in chess, and probably four for Wh40k.

I don't believe in Gardner's theory. That's just a way of trying to include additional groups who have their own descriptors as "intelligent", which detracts from the accomplishments of those who's pursuits are actually intelligence-based.

For instance, Artists have always been described as artistic, or even artistic geniuses, but to directly equate that to "intelligence" is to take away from people like Einstein, who's contributions are basically purely academic in nature, and for whom the only descriptors are words like "intelligent".

The same applies to athletes, who have always been described as "athletic", talented, or "dexterous".

Further, there is evidence to suggest that almost universally, the greatest examples of each category of "intelligence" as put forth by Gardner all share 1 unifying trait: A high IQ/General Intelligence. That's right, all the greatest examples of each category have basically been shown to be just generally intellectually gifted. What this means is that, when intellectually gifted, there are numerous fields in which one can focus their intelligence to accomplish great results. This doesn't make them different kinds of intelligence, just different ways to apply intelligence.

Can a football player be a genius? Certainly. That's likely why most "legendary" athletes were always pretty articulate and well-spoken, rather than blubbering idiots(exceptions exist). How a genius chooses to apply his/her genius doesn't change the definition of intelligence. They're a genius whether they're an astrophysicist or a ditch digger.

Here is support for my position, explaining the lack of evidence in support of Gardner's theory, and a study contradicting it, pulled from wikipedia:

People, but Americans in particular, don't like the idea that they could somehow be limited by genetic factors beyond their control, and dislike the idea that someone else could have been born with a level of intelligence that is impossible for them to ever achieve. It is simply anathema to their belief that "All men are created equal", and so that is the psychological standpoint that is pushing the existence of MI. MI is the participation trophy of the intelligence debate, appealing primarily to those who want to make people who aren't traditionally intelligent "feel good" that they can be "intelligent" in other ways, when it would be more appropriate to simply say what they are. Athletic, Artistic, Kind, Empathetic, etc. It's like people want to be able to use all positive descriptors for themselves, but you can't. You can't just steal other categories' words.

I'm intelligent, but that doesn't make me a "different kind of athletic". I'm not "mentally athletic". That's silly, and that is what MI theory is promoting.

Would any of you mind, putting this discussion in a new thread? Since I'm on my phone and clicking through 24 pages is kind of bothersome.
Pretty please?

Edit: that's an interesting discussion and I plan to participate when I got more time.

I think this deserves its own topic as well.

@BetrayTheWorld
I actually agree with what you said, but if you want to convince other people of your intelligence, you can only do so by action. Telling other people that you are intelligent just makes you come across as nothing more than arrogant.

Not to mention that for most people intelligence is not nearly as important than it is for us.
Trust me, I know. I'm intj too.

I used to be very passionate about such discussions as well, but I just don't think it is worth the effort anymore. Too much time and energy that could be used much more productively.

The Strange Dark One wrote:

@BetrayTheWorld
I actually agree with what you said, but if you want to convince other people of your intelligence, you can only do so by action. Telling other people that you are intelligent just makes you come across as nothing more than arrogant.

I was never trying to convince anyone of my intelligence. The entire point was that wargames like chess and 40k at the top levels of play are indicative of intelligence just as much, if not moreso than being a rocket scientist.

My specific intelligence isn't up for debate. I only said this to drive home a point:

"I'm intelligent, but that doesn't make me a "different kind of athletic". I'm not "mentally athletic". That's silly, and that is what MI theory is promoting."

You can literally replace the reference to me with ANYONE that we can all agree is intelligent. The fact that groups of people are so unwilling to agree that someone else in their midst is intelligent goes to show exactly how hesitant people are to accept that sort of thing. But I digress. Perhaps the point would have been better made if I said:

"Einstein was intelligent, but that doesn't mean he was a "different kind of athletic". He wasn't "mentally athletic". That's silly, and that is what MI theory is promoting."

Focusing on the fact that I used myself as the example completely misses the point.

Using yourself as an example occludes the point a great deal, because it brings the issue of personal bias into great relief: you take great pride in your identity as 'intelligent,' so when you argue against MI it raises the question of whether your opposition stems from actual potential problems with the theory, or instead from a perceived alteration to a label you consider central to your identity.

However, it's worth pointing out for the True Kin with no background in cognitive studies that MI isn't widely accepted due to a lack of any empirical evidence (or any great desire from any scientists to find any).  I only mention it because it provides a convenient explanation for the intelligence-in-relation-to-wargaming discussion.  (And is often useful in discussing intelligence in the 40k lore.)

However, this topic has gone pretty far afield from where it started.  Those wishing to discuss the Triumvirate further in a crunch capacity are referred to the rules/tactics subforums where threads are already underway; those wishing to discuss the Big Three in a fluff capacity should head to the Gen Discussion or Background areas where more lively discussion has already begun.  If someone wants to start a general intelligence vs multiple intelligences thread in the 40k Discussion section, they can feel free to do so, and I'll be happy to contribute!

-Jim