PDA

View Full Version : Favorite Logical Fallacy



Gustav Kohn
04-12-2013, 19:51
What is your favorite logical fallacy that you have seen (or posted if we are honest with ourselves) on warseer? Please avoid naming names or connecting this to a particular subject. Just tell us the name of the fallacy and how it was used.

Mine is...

Affirmative Conclusion from a Negative Premise

ex. Tournament players use competitive builds. You do not play in tournaments. You do not play competitive builds.

This one makes me laugh because people assume that imbalances in the game will only effect tournament players because only tournament players play competitive lists.

SteveW
04-12-2013, 22:31
Argument ad populum.

"This is how everyone plays it"

I get tired of hearing that as the only support for a rule being played wrong. It's like they're too lazy to even come up with a reason.

Archon of Death
05-12-2013, 01:05
Oh the old "This army doesn't do well in tournaments, so you may want to play another army." Popular for Beastmen and Brets. Meanwhile it's a self propagating fallacy.

Oh, yeah, and there is still "This unit does well, so consider it when you build your army," min/maxing, spamming units, etc just makes countering your list a priority in competitive environments. Which tends to lead to min/maxing against threats, which leads to effective counter armies and shifts in meta followed by that being the unit that does well... and meanwhile effective, balanced armies are still managing top ranks, along with the competitive meta counter armies.

IcedCrow
05-12-2013, 01:11
Straw man. Probably the biggest fallacy on the intrawebz.

Scammel
05-12-2013, 05:17
Oh the old "This army doesn't do well in tournaments, so you may want to play another army." Popular for Beastmen and Brets. Meanwhile it's a self propagating fallacy.

Oh, yeah, and there is still "This unit does well, so consider it when you build your army," min/maxing, spamming units, etc just makes countering your list a priority in competitive environments. Which tends to lead to min/maxing against threats, which leads to effective counter armies and shifts in meta followed by that being the unit that does well... and meanwhile effective, balanced armies are still managing top ranks, along with the competitive meta counter armies.

Can't say I'm seeing how either of those are really fallacies. An army that performs less-than-fantastically on the tabletop may well be frustrating to play with on occasion. A potent unit that you know you might encounter at some point might well warrant a bit of consideration in your own list.


Tournament players use competitive builds. You do not play in tournaments. You do not play competitive builds.

I agree wholeheartedly. There's this weird false dichotomy between 'competitive' and 'casual' going on that dictates that a tourney player would never use a themed list or that a garage player would never refine his own list to be as good as it can be. I think it's something that's been created by those eager to portray themselves as belonging to the latter group for street cred purposes.

Archon of Death
05-12-2013, 05:55
Can't say I'm seeing how either of those are really fallacies. An army that performs less-than-fantastically on the tabletop may well be frustrating to play with on occasion.

It's self perpetuating. Somewhere along the lines someone said don't play it, people don't play it, it doesn't get into the top places in tournaments. The reason it is "performing poorly" is because less people are playing it, so it doesn't occupy 87/100 slots anymore, and maybe gets 1 slot, even breaking the top 10 (I see this with Brets a lot). It's a fallacy to claim something isn't doing well in tournies BECAUSE you don't see it at tournies. If tournaments required people to play certain armies (so that 1/15th would be WoC, 1/15th Beastmen, etc) THEN one could look at how armies are placing and make claims like that. But when 9/10ths of the armies are Ogre Kingdoms, WoC, VC, you shouldn't make an assumption those armies are better because they take up 9/10ths of the top 10 places.


A potent unit that you know you might encounter at some point might well warrant a bit of consideration in your own list.

Mutating your army list to spam anti-spam units, which then become the new unit that people need to spam units against, that isn't a fallacy? While balanced lists will still manage to do well, despite not being full of spammed anti-spam and instead are balanced to deal with a variety of situations and units?

Mozzamanx
05-12-2013, 07:29
"I know unit A is poorly costed, underperforming and generally a very mediocre choice compared with it's alternatives, but that can actually work to my advantage! People will underestimate it and thus it will not be targetted / chaffed / killed and can be allowed to finish its job while a 'better' unit would simply be denied!"

Rotgut
05-12-2013, 08:02
"I don't like a decision that GW has made, therefore they don't know what they're doing. Oh, and because things change, Warhammer is dying."

Vipoid
05-12-2013, 10:20
Not sure if it's my favourite (strangely, Logical Fallacies are one of the few things I don't think of in terms of picking favourites), but Straw Man is probably the one I see most often.


"I know unit A is poorly costed, underperforming and generally a very mediocre choice compared with it's alternatives, but that can actually work to my advantage! People will underestimate it and thus it will not be targetted / chaffed / killed and can be allowed to finish its job while a 'better' unit would simply be denied!"

Nevermind; I found one - this will do nicely as a favourite. :D

boli
05-12-2013, 11:26
Do not read this sentence.

Oh you mean warhammer one? ;)

Undercosted and Overcosted are logic fails - I mean unless you are cheating you cannot pay more or less points for the units as written down in the book.

"My Demigryphs are under-costed!" what you paid less for them than you should; that's cheating just pay what it tells you to in the book.
"My Wardancers are overcosted!" - Why on earth did you pay more points for it then? just pay what it tells you to in the book.

Vipoid
05-12-2013, 11:38
Undercosted and Overcosted are logic fails - I mean unless you are cheating you cannot pay more or less points for the units as written down in the book.

"My Demigryphs are under-costed!" what you paid less for them than you should; that's cheating just pay what it tells you to in the book.
"My Wardancers are overcosted!" - Why on earth did you pay more points for it then? just pay what it tells you to in the book.

I'm afraid I don't follow how those are logic fails, unless you're being deliberately obtuse.

If someone says that a unit is under-/over-costed, then they're referring to the fact that the designers have made it too cheap/expensive relative to it's stats and/or abilities.

Or, is it just the fact that they're using the word "my"? Because, ironically, I think you're the first person I've seen use "my" in that context. :p

boli
05-12-2013, 11:42
Its the open arguement aspect.

My demigryphs are undercosted - that is incorrect unless you cheat everything has a defined cost which you should pay.
My demigryphs are undercosted COMPARED to my Heavy Cavalry - that is a true statement and a complete argument

underscore
05-12-2013, 11:50
Ah, so deliberately obtuse it is.

Urgat
05-12-2013, 13:50
I'm afraid I don't follow how those are logic fails, unless you're being deliberately obtuse.

If someone says that a unit is under-/over-costed, then they're referring to the fact that the designers have made it too cheap/expensive relative to it's stats and/or abilities.

Or, is it just the fact that they're using the word "my"? Because, ironically, I think you're the first person I've seen use "my" in that context. :p

Ah, you helped me got mine:
"that unit isn't overpowered, it's just a tad undercosted".

An overpowered unit is a unit too good for its cost. An undercosted unit is a unit too cheap for what it does.
or
An overpowered unit is a unit too cheap for what it does. An undercosted unit is a unit too good for its cost.

It means the bloody same thing. Repeat after me: Bloody. Same. Thing (BST).

Vipoid
05-12-2013, 13:56
Ah, you helped me got mine:
"that unit isn't overpowered, it's just a tad undercosted".

An overpowered unit is a unit too good for its cost. An undercosted unit is a unit too cheap for what it does.
or
An overpowered unit is a unit too cheap for what it does. An undercosted unit is a unit too good for its cost.

It means the bloody same thing. Repeat after me: Bloody. Same. Thing (BST).

Heh, that one I've definitely seen.

In fact, I think there might even have been a thread a while ago discussing whether there was any meaningful difference between a unit being 'overpowered' or 'undercosted'. Anyone else remember that, or am I just imagining things?

SteveW
05-12-2013, 13:59
'Argument from authority' is another favorite of mine.

"I've been playing this game now for twenty years and have run a GT. I think my opinion trumps yours"

Not realizing that none of that matters when it comes to if you actually know how to play the game.

DeathGlam
05-12-2013, 14:03
When players (nearly always super competative/tournament players) claim a unit is useless or GW has invalidated their army with the latest army book.

Normally followed by a rant about GW stealing their money because of it.

thegoss84
05-12-2013, 15:31
I'm with IcedCrow on this one. Straw Man arguments are the ones i hear the most (not just on Warseer, but in-person also).

The continuous one-upsmanship players involve themselves in is hilarious.

"Unit X is so amazing because Unit Y has no counter it."
"Well then I'll just bring Unit Z so that Unit X is neutered."
"Oh oh oh, well then I could just use spell X so that Unit Z isn't as effective"
etc, etc, etc.

Tyrant of Zhufbar
05-12-2013, 15:32
'Argument from authority' is another favorite of mine.

"I've been playing this game now for twenty years and have run a GT. I think my opinion trumps yours"

Not realizing that none of that matters when it comes to if you actually know how to play the game.

False Appeal to Authority and Poisoning the Well are the cousins to this one.
"So and so who ran a GT and has played for 20 years, but isn't on the forum did this and so its good"
"So and so who is a gigantic douche does this therefore the entire idea is bad"
In real conversation someone told me I should be a vegetarian because Einstein was. I told her that Hitler was too, so should we adopt all his standards? (I of course was Poisoning the Well, but I knew I was)

TheDungen
05-12-2013, 15:39
Straw man. Probably the biggest fallacy on the intrawebz.

Yes and no, the real strawman is anoying but people constantly mistake similes and metaphors for strawman arguments and that's way more annoying. Frankenstein's monster is an example of strawman (things like resident evil is too but they probably don't realise the whole science gone wrong is a strawman). "Saying you like Chopin is like saying you like vanilla icecream" is not. Strawmen are carefully set up and then brought down in a very spectacular way, not all in one sentence.

Mine is what i call "The glory of days past", the idea that things used to be better. When in reality things are generally getting better.
For an example whenever a new book is released it always sucks, then a few months later it turns out it was overpowered all along, then it turns out it was actually more or less balanced.

The bearded one
05-12-2013, 15:57
Ah, you helped me got mine:
"that unit isn't overpowered, it's just a tad undercosted".

An overpowered unit is a unit too good for its cost. An undercosted unit is a unit too cheap for what it does.
or
An overpowered unit is a unit too cheap for what it does. An undercosted unit is a unit too good for its cost.

It means the bloody same thing. Repeat after me: Bloody. Same. Thing (BST).

They tend to be the same thing, although there can be a small difference. The difference between them is a bit like 'glas half full, glass half empty', which are both supposedly the same things too. I guess what it more or less comes down to is 'undercosted' tends to be the view what the model does is good and proper, but a bump in price would be appropriate for the abilities, while 'overpowered' is more of the view that what the model does is too stupidly much. Like a daemon prince. You could probably appropriately price an infantry unit that has 4 str6 attacks with ASF per model and a high armoursave each, but arguably it'd still be a stupid thing to have a unit like that exist.

Let's try a reductio ad absurdum example.

A model that wins you the game on a 2+ with infinite rerolls is overpowered no matter how you slice it. Even if it's ten thousand points it'd in principle stil be undercosted.

RecklessAbandon
05-12-2013, 16:02
Appeal to (own) authority is my 'favorite' one closely followed by argumentum ad populum. But they really shine when used in conjunction: Appeal to authority of the hivemind.

Avian
05-12-2013, 16:44
This one crops up repeatedly:

Warhammer FB cannot be "dying" . Just listen to all the people on this forum who say it isn't.

Theocracity
05-12-2013, 16:56
This one crops up repeatedly:

Warhammer FB cannot be "dying" . Just listen to all the people on this forum who say it isn't.

The reverse, of course, is also true (Fantasy is dying, listen to all these people on a forum who say it is). In both cases you're arguing with anecdotes instead of data.

Avian
05-12-2013, 17:34
That's not the fallacy - the fallacy is that the people from the places where it HAS died are unlikely to still hang around and tell you about it. Thus regardless of how many places it has died out, the percentage of posters saying it's doing fine where THEY live, is going to be pretty much unchanged. If you wish to get an representative view of something, you can't go asking on a fan site.

Icarus81
05-12-2013, 17:45
"I know unit A is poorly costed, underperforming and generally a very mediocre choice compared with it's alternatives, but that can actually work to my advantage! People will underestimate it and thus it will not be targetted / chaffed / killed and can be allowed to finish its job while a 'better' unit would simply be denied!"

Ok - lets go with red herring then and talk about people misidentifying the utility of a unit even if another unit could perform better in other areas.

RecklessAbandon
05-12-2013, 18:01
"I know unit A is poorly costed, underperforming and generally a very mediocre choice compared with it's alternatives, but that can actually work to my advantage! People will underestimate it and thus it will not be targetted / chaffed / killed and can be allowed to finish its job while a 'better' unit would simply be denied!"

This isn't a fallacy at all. This is just a tactical application of your opponent's contempt for said unit.

Vipoid
05-12-2013, 18:03
This isn't a fallacy at all. This is just a tactical application of your opponent's contempt for said unit.

If you really believe that, I suggest you read this (http://www.3plusplus.net/2013/11/disadvantages-only-make-my-units-stronger/).

Theocracity
05-12-2013, 18:07
That's not the fallacy - the fallacy is that the people from the places where it HAS died are unlikely to still hang around and tell you about it. Thus regardless of how many places it has died out, the percentage of posters saying it's doing fine where THEY live, is going to be pretty much unchanged. If you wish to get an representative view of something, you can't go asking on a fan site.

But that also ignores the people who don't play but post, and the people play but don't post. You're right that you can't make judgements off a self-selected sample size, but you still don't have an accurate data sample to prove the opposite point. It's anecdotal either way.

RecklessAbandon
05-12-2013, 18:08
If you really believe that, I suggest you read this (http://www.3plusplus.net/2013/11/disadvantages-only-make-my-units-stronger/).

I've won a couple of games with my WoC army because my opponent was trying so hysterically to stop the skull crushers, they let the knights of khorne get past them. So yeah, I really believe that.

Rowenstin
05-12-2013, 18:11
"You can't prove there's not a good reason for Citadel miniatures to be as expensive as they are", which is not a fallacy but an example of how you can shoot yourself in the foot with logic.

Theocracity
05-12-2013, 18:13
"You can't prove there's not a good reason for Citadel miniatures to be as expensive as they are", which is not a fallacy but an example of how you can shoot yourself in the foot with logic.

Isn't the fallacy there that you can't prove a negative? (Wikipedia calls it 'Russell's Teapot,' apparently).

Edit: On a bit more research I'm not sure that's actually a fallacy - more of a statement of skepticism - but I think it's still relevant in this case.

RecklessAbandon
05-12-2013, 18:17
Isn't the fallacy there that you can't prove a negative? (Wikipedia calls it 'Russell's Teapot,' apparently).

Or the fact that whether a reason is 'good' or not is subjective.

Theocracity
05-12-2013, 18:27
Or the fact that whether a reason is 'good' or not is subjective.

Indeed - I can think of lots of good economic reasons why models might cost that much. Whether those reasons are acceptable to a given customer is a totally different question, of course.

Avian
05-12-2013, 18:40
But that also ignores the people who don't play but post, and the people play but don't post. You're right that you can't make judgements off a self-selected sample size, but you still don't have an accurate data sample to prove the opposite point. It's anecdotal either way.
Eh? I didn't say I was out to prove anything. This thread is about logical fallacies. It's a fallacy that you can get a meaningful view of the population's interest in FB when you are sampling from a group that was interested enough to visit an FB forum. Regardless of whether interest is going up or down, you're not going to have a representative sample.

Theocracity
05-12-2013, 18:45
Eh? I didn't say I was out to prove anything. This thread is about logical fallacies. It's a fallacy that you can get a meaningful view of the population's interest in FB when you are sampling from a group that was interested enough to visit an FB forum. Regardless of whether interest is going up or down, you're not going to have a representative sample.

I think we're saying the same thing - you can't argue a point with anecdotal, self-selected data. I'm just pointing out that it applies to more than just the example you provided; I didn't mean to imply you were arguing any particular view.

facepalm
05-12-2013, 19:54
Favorite of mine was spouted on the DE tactics post not too long ago, "GW obviously have for got to include a line in the rules that says this bla bla so that's how i'm going to insist its played even tho i says something different because i'm 100% certain GW will chance this in the next ERRATA." because we all know exactly what the army book author was thinking when he wrote it.

Gustav Kohn
05-12-2013, 19:57
I've won a couple of games with my WoC army because my opponent was trying so hysterically to stop the skull crushers, they let the knights of khorne get past them. So yeah, I really believe that.

That says less about the "Subpar Knights" and more about the Skull Crushers. That they shoot one and allow the other through does not mean that shooting the one was a mistake. Of the two, the skull crushers ARE a bigger threat, hence targetting them was a good plan. It doesn't mean that Knights are good or bad.

Kakapo42
05-12-2013, 22:52
I think mine would be "Not many people use unit X" becoming "No-one uses unit X". My planned Wood Elf army contains a ton of units that supposedly no-one uses. Does that mean I do not exist? :p

underscore
05-12-2013, 23:24
I'm pretty sure that the 'No one that I know' is implied in that kind of statement.

Is a generalisation/simplification really a fallacy?

Urgat
06-12-2013, 05:30
[snip]

Not going to discuss this with you, it's a matter of opinion I suppose. I just wanted to point out I know I happen to have made the same remark in another topic some days ago, but this wasn't directed at all against you, it's just a coincidence.


I'm pretty sure that the 'No one that I know' is implied in that kind of statement.

Is a generalisation/simplification really a fallacy?

Nobody uses monsters. You'll read that a lot on Warseer, and usually people will reallty believe it. Sometimes they add "excepted Nurgle DP or abombs", though.

underscore
06-12-2013, 07:24
Nobody uses monsters. You'll read that a lot on Warseer, and usually people will reallty believe it. Sometimes they add "excepted Nurgle DP or abombs", though.
But again, add in the words 'that I know' and suddenly it's entirely more reasonable.

ewar
06-12-2013, 13:22
Argument ad populum.

"This is how everyone plays it"

I get tired of hearing that as the only support for a rule being played wrong. It's like they're too lazy to even come up with a reason.

I'm sure you might feel like this after your rule forum thread - I don't think the internet has ever been more united in agreement on one topic! (except with you obviously...)

However gaming norms are just as valid, the rulebook can't cover every situation and if everyone plays it the same way then that is effectively a rule, don't you agree? In the UK we have no written constitution which works much the same way - it is a body of behaviours and agreements built up over time. The example you raised was actually supported by a number of very valid reasons to explain why everyone plays it that way. The fact that you disagree with a majority opinion is nothing to do with argument ad populum.

SteveW
06-12-2013, 14:10
I'm sure you might feel like this after your rule forum thread - I don't think the internet has ever been more united in agreement on one topic! (except with you obviously...)

However gaming norms are just as valid, the rulebook can't cover every situation and if everyone plays it the same way then that is effectively a rule, don't you agree? In the UK we have no written constitution which works much the same way - it is a body of behaviours and agreements built up over time. The example you raised was actually supported by a number of very valid reasons to explain why everyone plays it that way. The fact that you disagree with a majority opinion is nothing to do with argument ad populum.

I actually wasn't referring to that and accept that if I'm at a tourney or gamestore it will most likely be played wrong.

DaemonReign
06-12-2013, 16:02
One assertion that appears nigh-ideological to a lot of people here is that 7th Ed Daemons were somehow especially broken all the way from 7th Ed until Mat Ward relieved himself once more on our behalf.
The fact that 7th Ed Daemons were 'top dogs' only for the summer when the book was new just won't stick. No amount of data etcetera seems to shift this idea.
Kind of pet-peeve I guess, and kind of amusing if you rise above it, but 'Daemon-hate' oftentimes appear like a popular movement on this board, which of course isn't a fallacy in-and-of itself (the empiricism isn't exactly flawless though).

RecklessAbandon
06-12-2013, 20:41
That says less about the "Subpar Knights" and more about the Skull Crushers. That they shoot one and allow the other through does not mean that shooting the one was a mistake. Of the two, the skull crushers ARE a bigger threat, hence targetting them was a good plan. It doesn't mean that Knights are good or bad.

Nope. But we're not talking about the same thing anymore. You've moved the goalposts.

Lord Solar Plexus
07-12-2013, 10:40
Mine is...

Affirmative Conclusion from a Negative Premise

ex. Tournament players use competitive builds. You do not play in tournaments. You do not play competitive builds.


That is not a fallacy. That is a perfect syllogism, terminus medius etc. Same structure as "humans use X, not human, ergo etc."

You might say that the premise is not true but if it is, so is the conclusio.

Verm1s
07-12-2013, 12:46
A few of my favourites that I've seen here on Warseer, mostly variants on a theme:

'I've spent too much money on GW models to stop spending money on GW models.'

'I still buy and play with Warhammer stuff because I like [reading] the fluff.'

'I pay extra for minis to prop up GW shops.'

'I'm not a wargamer, I'm a GW Hobbyist™!'

Harking back to the OP:

'I don't think balance is important because I don't play in tournies and GW don't run them.'

And then, when cornered...

'Perfect balance is impossible anyway so GW shouldn't bother trying and we shouldn't care.'


If you really believe that, I suggest you read this (http://www.3plusplus.net/2013/11/disadvantages-only-make-my-units-stronger/).

Not that I disagree, but I'm struggling to see where or how he topples the argument.

Gustav Kohn
07-12-2013, 18:36
That is not a fallacy. That is a perfect syllogism, terminus medius etc. Same structure as "humans use X, not human, ergo etc."

You might say that the premise is not true but if it is, so is the conclusio.

For that to be a perfect syllogism it would be stated as "ONLY Tournament players use competitive builds. You do not play in tournaments. You do not play competitive builds." That is correct. However, in the case of the syllogism that I gave it is false, because competitive builds are not confined to tournament players.

Theocracity
07-12-2013, 18:45
A few of my favourites that I've seen here on Warseer, mostly variants on a theme:

'I've spent too much money on GW models to stop spending money on GW models.'

'I still buy and play with Warhammer stuff because I like [reading] the fluff.'

'I pay extra for minis to prop up GW shops.'

'I'm not a wargamer, I'm a GW Hobbyist™!'

Harking back to the OP:

'I don't think balance is important because I don't play in tournies and GW don't run them.'

And then, when cornered...

'Perfect balance is impossible anyway so GW shouldn't bother trying and we shouldn't care.'


At some point the OP is going to have to change the name of this thread from 'Logical Fallacies' to 'Here are some assertions that I disagree with.'

Gustav Kohn
07-12-2013, 19:00
At some point the OP is going to have to change the name of this thread from 'Logical Fallacies' to 'Here are some assertions that I disagree with.'

Yeah, wish I had control over that, but I don't. Oh well.

Verm1s
07-12-2013, 22:07
At some point the OP is going to have to change the name of this thread from 'Logical Fallacies' to 'Here are some assertions that I disagree with.'

Too right I disagree with them, because they might not be logical fallacies (gimme a minnit to look down the list on wikipedia) but they are pretty blinkin' illogical rationalisations. ;)

Edit: for beginners, the above quote could be seen as...

Psychologist's fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychologist%27s_fallacy) (you assume your own opinion is objective)
Ignoratio elenchi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignoratio_elenchi#Red_herring) (your argument is irrelevant because it fails to address my points)
Special pleading (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_pleading) (you argue for exemption of my points from the topic without proper justification)
Argumentum ad hominem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_attacks) (you attack my position as off-topic and mere opinion without addressing my points)
Wishful thinking (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wishful_thinking) (you don't want my points to be true or relevant, so dismiss them as off-topic opinion)

And a couple of others in there...

Theocracity
08-12-2013, 01:34
Too right I disagree with them, because they might not be logical fallacies (gimme a minnit to look down the list on wikipedia) but they are pretty blinkin' illogical rationalisations. ;)

Edit: for beginners, the above quote could be seen as...

Psychologist's fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychologist%27s_fallacy) (you assume your own opinion is objective)
Ignoratio elenchi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignoratio_elenchi#Red_herring) (your argument is irrelevant because it fails to address my points)
Special pleading (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_pleading) (you argue for exemption of my points from the topic without proper justification)
Argumentum ad hominem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_attacks) (you attack my position as off-topic and mere opinion without addressing my points)
Wishful thinking (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wishful_thinking) (you don't want my points to be true or relevant, so dismiss them as off-topic opinion)

And a couple of others in there...

By 'the above quote' do you mean my comment? If so, none of that diligent wikipedia work is relevant because I never intended to address any of the points you were making - your quote was just a recent example of the way most people had been using this thread.

And even if I was, I'd have just called them what they were - strawmen. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman_argument)

GrandmasterWang
08-12-2013, 04:54
"Warhammer is dying"

These are generally as a result of Warhammer being less popular in the posters particular area. Some people seem to think that their little gaming area is representative of the global. The same goes for the reverse "Warhammer is booming".. because my local game store has 3 new players.

SteveW
08-12-2013, 04:58
Also known as "the sky is falling fallacy".

Scammel
08-12-2013, 08:04
A few of my favourites that I've seen here on Warseer, mostly variants on a theme:

'I've spent too much money on GW models to stop spending money on GW models.'

'I still buy and play with Warhammer stuff because I like [reading] the fluff.'

'I pay extra for minis to prop up GW shops.'

'I'm not a wargamer, I'm a GW Hobbyist™!'

Harking back to the OP:

'I don't think balance is important because I don't play in tournies and GW don't run them.'

And then, when cornered...

'Perfect balance is impossible anyway so GW shouldn't bother trying and we shouldn't care.'

I actually agree pretty whole-heartedly with some if not most of these, but the bolded ones strike me as off. It's perfectly logical for someone to play the game in order to engage with the background, be it through re-enacting particular battles, taking part in a progressive campaign (Animosity, anyone?) etc.

On the second point it's a bit iffy because Warhammer of course is, de-facto, a wargame. However, the focus on fantastical elements and creating what the writers would call 'cinematic moments' as opposed to what might be streamlined mechanics more reflective of actual warfare ('That scene from LotR' was the driving force behind the racial special rule of likely three armies) result in what I would perhaps classify as a Fantasy war game instead of a Fantasy war game. My personal staple games are Warhammer, MtG and both hte Pokémon TCG and video games. I have relatively little interest in other wargames and I think both Warhammers are divorced enough from others in their 'category' for me to not really identify as a 'wargamer' (more a 'traditional gamer' perhaps).

Verm1s
08-12-2013, 17:47
So, let's have a wee peek at my list.

'I've spent too much on GW minis to stop spending money on GW minis.'
Or a corollary, '... to stop playing Warhammer.' First and foremost, this is a sunk (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunk_costs#Loss_aversion_and_the_sunk_cost_fallacy ) cost (http://youarenotsosmart.com/2011/03/25/the-sunk-cost-fallacy/) fallacy (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SunkCostFallacy), and also a non sequitur (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_(logic)), and perhaps circular cause and consequence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_cause_and_consequence), circular reasoning (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning), and wrong direction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wrong_direction). Whether you've bought one box of troops or enough for one or more comfortably-sized armies, there's absolutely no reason to keep buying more simply to justify those past costs. Nor is there reason to keep playing Warhammer just because your mini collection consists of GW products, or to switch to a new edition just because it's new. (That last one might also contain elements of an appeal to novelty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_novelty).)

'I still buy and play with Warhammer stuff because I like [reading] the fluff.'
At best an inductive (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_fallacy) or association (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy) fallacy; at worst a non sequitur. Enjoyment of the background material does not mean the minis or the rules are equally enjoyable; or that those particular minis and rules should be purchased and used to game with; or that the reader should be a gamer at all.

'I pay extra for minis to prop up GW shops.'
An example of gamers taking up the sunk cost fallacy on GW's behalf, as an external rationalisation of their pricing structure (see the pharmaceutical example in the first sunk cost link above), along with the broken window fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_window_fallacy).

'I'm not a wargamer, I'm a GW Hobbyist™!'
Special pleading (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_pleading) - arguing exemption from wargamer status without giving sufficient justification, using the following...
Cherry picking (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherry_picking_(fallacy)) - stating you only use GW minis and rules in your wargames, ignoring the facts that you're using wargaming minis and wargaming rules to play... wargames.
Overwhelming exception (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overwhelming_exception) - "all right, but apart from selling me wargaming minis to use with their wargaming rules so I can wargame, what has GW ever done for my wargaming hobby?"
Inductive fallacy - assuming the conclusion that wargaming with GW products is something different to general wargaming.
Wishful thinking (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wishful_thinking) and Ipse dixit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ipse_dixit) - "I am a GW Hobbyist because I want to be and I say I am".
And I'll throw in a thought-terminating cliché (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought-terminating_clich%C3%A9#Thought-terminating_clich.C3.A9) - falling for GW's drummed-in marketing slogan that you're participating in 'the GW Hobby'.

All ditto mini painters too.

'I don't think balance is important because I don't play in tournies and GW don't run them.'
Non sequitur and cherry picking - non-attendance of tournaments, and non-existance of official tournaments, does not lead to the conclusion that warhammer (an essentially tournament-oriented game) should not be balanced.
Hasty generalisation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasty_generalization) and the fallacy of composition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_composition) - assuming the (non)importance of balance to the general warhammer-playing population based on insufficient sample size - you.
False dilemma (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma) and false analogy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_analogy) - presenting only two options: either a casual gamer unconcerned with balance, or a tournament (or WAAC) player who is concerned with balance.

'Perfect balance is impossible anyway so GW shouldn't bother trying and we shouldn't care.'
Sounds like a decent example of a nirvana fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_fallacy), with a bit of special pleading poking round the corner. What about the continuum fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuum_fallacy), at a stretch? "If warhammer is made a bit more balanced, it is not completely balanced, so it cannot be balanced."

While I'm here, these (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludic_fallacy) two (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambler%27s_fallacy) seem to have some applicability to mathhammer. :D

Okay Theocracity, your turn. Shoot.

The bearded one
08-12-2013, 18:40
Okay Theocracity, your turn. Shoot.

Was the venom necessary?

Scammel
08-12-2013, 21:22
At best an inductive or association fallacy; at worst a non sequitur.

Considering how GW often sacrifices streamlined mechanics for ones that are more evocative of the background of the respective settings, I disagree.

Theocracity
09-12-2013, 04:08
Okay Theocracity, your turn. Shoot.

Shoot what? You're now using the thread as it was intended. Good work.


Was the venom necessary?

I think he was under the impression that I was intending to debate his points, as opposed to just using his post as a random example of how this thread was just becoming another 'complain about my pet peeves' thread. If I was interested in engaging with people about how or why they hated GW, I could do that in literally any other thread.

Pancakey
10-12-2013, 16:03
Without a doubt the best for me are those people who actually think winning at warhammer means something.

InstantKarma
10-12-2013, 18:38
Without a doubt the best for me are those people who actually think winning at warhammer means something.

Aside from this being rather vague (considering at the very least to win a wargame would mean you won a wargame, thus is does in fact mean at least one thing) it doesn't seem to at all be a logical fallacy but simply an insult towards people who actually get a little excited or proud if they win a game (thus making this Ad Hom IIRC). I wonder if the same statement would be made regarding a major sporting event (thought it would still suffer from the same vagueness and problem that the original statement did have at least one meaning) which seems like it would be a close enough comparision.

wingedserpant
12-12-2013, 01:49
Without a doubt the best for me are those people who actually think winning at warhammer means something.

Well that's the statement of a loser. ;)

Belakor
13-12-2013, 18:52
... but simply an insult towards people who actually get a little excited or proud if they win a game.

While I didn't write the post, I am fairly sure he is not talking about that.

I suspect the whole internet "purpose before style" crap was the target.

Griefbringer
13-12-2013, 19:32
Without a doubt the best for me are those people who actually think winning at warhammer means something.

For the WAAC crowd, winning is not something - it is the only thing.

InstantKarma
13-12-2013, 20:25
While I didn't write the post, I am fairly sure he is not talking about that.

I suspect the whole internet "purpose before style" crap was the target.


Well whatever the intent, it's surely not a logical fallacy.

MOMUS
16-12-2013, 00:00
Mine is what i call "The glory of days past", the idea that things used to be better. When in reality things are generally getting better.
For an example whenever a new book is released it always sucks, then a few months later it turns out it was overpowered all along, then it turns out it was actually more or less balanced.


I think that's just due to your age. As everyone knows, things actually were better in the 'old days.'

Lord Dan
16-12-2013, 02:26
Ad hominem.

For example:

"Gustav Kohn posted this thread in the wrong section of the forums because he's a terrible person who hates the Warseer mods."

;)

SteveW
16-12-2013, 03:20
Ad hominem.

For example:

"Gustav Kohn posted this thread in the wrong section of the forums because he's a terrible person who hates the Warseer mods."

;)

While that is a personal attack it isn't an ad hominem. He has to have been making an argument and you argued against it by attacking him personally.

Lord Dan
16-12-2013, 03:26
While that is a personal attack it isn't an ad hominem. He has to have been making an argument and you argued against it by attacking him personally.

Sure, his implied argument is that he was correct to have posted a thread about logical fallacies in the Warhammer General forum.

Belakor
17-12-2013, 12:20
As everyone knows, things actually were better in the 'old days.'

Well at least you are right about one thing, because it can't be all those ugly models, there wasn't the internet to whine-type 'til your fingers bled.