Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
2014/07/24 09:33:36
Subject: Re:Confused about "you 'learn to play' types"
I feel like there's two separate topics being discussed in this thread, one being the general attitude of elitism in gaming, and the other being the dynamic of how balance/tactical discussions work on this specific forum, specifically regarding Warhammer 40K. I'd rather muse on the latter, because the former is I think a pretty well-established culture.
Essentially, the thing that I begin to notice about 40K and this board is that there's really three broad categories of members (broad strokes, of course):
Player type 1: The player who recognizes that the game is broken, and blames the game for imbalance.
Player type 2: The player who does not recognize that the game is broken, and blames the players for abusing mechanics.
Player type 3: The player who exists a little bit in-between the first two- he recognizes that the game is broken, and blames the players for abusing mechanics.
Lots of text below:
Spoiler:
P1 recognizes that the game is broken, accepts it for what it is and tries to play it to its maximum potential. He is often the power-gamer, and is the most frequent member in a tactics discussion. He's often the math-hammer guy, and the guy who'll go into a thread asking for list-building advice, make a one-liner detailing the current most optimal build or units and then leave, or get into a debate with other members of his kind. This is the guy who'll go into a tactics thread about Rough Riders and tell you to take a vendetta, or a thread asking for Blood Angels advice and tell you to use the Space Marine codex. P1 is often the member most critical of Games Workshop, and will be "the negative nancy" in a rumor thread or the weekly "does GW suck?" thread.
P2 does not recognize that the game is broken. He is often a pure hobbyist and isn't really into 40K for its strategic play so much as its modeling opportunities or fluff. He may spend lots of time painting, converting etc, but doesn't actually play the game very often, and when he does he doesn't read too much into the mechanics. Win, lose, it doesn't really matter- he doesn't really care. He judges units based off their aesthetic and doesn't generally care about their performance. This attitude leads to him being mostly insulated from the game's myriad problems, but also makes it difficult for him to empathize with P1's criticisms of the game. As far as P2 is aware, 40K gives him everything he wants out of it, so what's the problem? P2 is often the member who will tell P1 that it's his fault for having unrealistic expectations of the game. When imbalance is brought up, P2 will assert that it's the players' fault for deliberately breaking the game by min-max'ing the best units. After all, P2's lists tend to have just one or two of everything, because he only takes the stuff he likes, as do his opponents, and so there's never any issues. P2 is most often the "Games Workshop apologist", and will clash with P1 in the rumors threads and the weekly "does GW suck?" thread.
P3 has sipped P1's negative kool-aid, and recognizes that the game is broken. However, instead of reserving his hate purely for the game, P3, for whatever reason, has also rationalized that players only make the imbalance worse. P3 differs from P2 in that while P2 is just not aware of how gakky some units are versus others, P3 knows which units are the power-gamer units, and feels that while the game is imbalanced, it would be much more playable if players avoided using these power-units. P3 is often the "morality-nazi", and will acknowledge that the game has problems in the weekly "does GW suck?" thread, and the rumors threads, but will often accuse the P1 of being a WAAC douche.
I'm not interested in debating about which player type is "the best", or right or wrong. I am interested in staying within the context of "where does communication break down in a tactics/balance discussion?"
Some people might assume that P1 and P2 have the most abrasive relationship in such a discussion, because they are literally opposites. That would be a misconception however- P2 doesn't even participate in tactics/balance discussions. He doesn't give a gak about being good at the game, so why would he care to discuss tactics or balance? P2 will crop up to defend Games Workshop but will otherwise stay out of most tactics discussions. It's P1 and P3 who have the greatest struggle within a tactics discussion, because they are the same person who took different forks in the road for whatever reason. There's a number of reasons for why P3 chooses to blame the player base instead of the game. It's possible that he may have been a P1 at one point, but eventually got bored of using the same units all the other P1s use, or got tired/guilty of crushing lesser players, and so decided to start experimenting- and now it's a point of pride for him to use what many consider "sub-optimal" units; he thinks the P1 is playing the game on EZ mode. The P3 could have once been a P2 who had the bad luck of finding himself in a P1 meta, and just had to endure watching his beautiful, lovingly crafted army get crushed into the dirt by competitive players one time too many. Could be neither, maybe he just has his pride, or likes to look out for the little guy.
For whatever reason, P3 wants to win games, cares about and understands tactics, but his moral code prevents him from using the best units- and not only that, he looks down on those who do. This is where the communication breaks down between P1 and P3.
It could be P3 who started the discussion, maybe asking for advice or wanting to discuss an army or mechanic, or he could just be a participant. Either way, what'll happen is that the P1 will offer his typically robotic input, and it'll set the P3 off. The P3 will feel offended by the P1 suggesting that he or others go against his moral code and take broken units, or if the P1 suggests superior/alternative tactics, the P3 will feel annoyed, and the reason for that is that deep down, while he may want tactical advice, his code doesn't allow him to want to win. What he actually wants is a good fight and he wants to do it without stooping to the P1's level, which is a distinction that the P1 simply does not understand. So when P3 makes a thread complaining about how his friends' Heldrakes keep butt-raping his army, he won't appreciate the P1 telling him to take moar vendettas and space out his units better . The P3 already knows how good vendettas are, he already knows that if he wants to win he could just take a bunch of vendettas, and he's not interested in some WAAC P1 telling him to play like a WAAC P1. The P3 doesn't want to be told to take power units and learn to play, he wants to have his frustration with the OP game-breaking unit/list/faction validated, and then, maybe later, someone could offer a suggestion on how to win using the models he already has, or with some other mid-tier units. The P1 is going to do neither.
TL;DR: When a P3 makes a thread explicitly complaining about a particular unit/list/faction, it's likely that his moral code has already identified the unit/list/faction in question as being game-breaking OP nonsense, and his code demands that that feeling be validated by other players. So when the P1 doesn't do that, the P3 feels that the P1 is just as bad as the unit/list/faction that's causing him this irritation in the first place.
That's how I look at it, anyway.
This message was edited 12 times. Last update was at 2014/07/24 10:19:24
2014/07/24 10:40:57
Subject: Re:Confused about "you 'learn to play' types"
BlaxicanX wrote: it's likely that his moral code has already identified the unit/list/faction in question as being game-breaking OP nonsense, and his code demands that that feeling be validated by other players. So when the P1 doesn't do that, the P3 feels that the P1 is just as bad as the unit/list/faction that's causing him this irritation in the first place.
"'players must agree how they are going to select their armies, and if any restrictions apply to the number and type of models they can use."
This is an actual rule in the actual rulebook. Quit whining about how you can imagine someone's army touching you in a bad place and play by the actual rules.
Freelance Ontologist
When people ask, "What's the point in understanding everything?" they've just disqualified themselves from using questions and should disappear in a puff of paradox. But they don't understand and just continue existing, which are also their only two strategies for life.
2014/07/24 19:24:19
Subject: Confused about "you 'learn to play' types"
I feel like there's two separate topics being discussed in this thread, one being the general attitude of elitism in gaming, and the other being the dynamic of how balance/tactical discussions work on this specific forum, specifically regarding Warhammer 40K. I'd rather muse on the latter, because the former is I think a pretty well-established culture.
Essentially, the thing that I begin to notice about 40K and this board is that there's really three broad categories of members (broad strokes, of course):
Player type 1: The player who recognizes that the game is broken, and blames the game for imbalance.
Player type 2: The player who does not recognize that the game is broken, and blames the players for abusing mechanics.
Player type 3: The player who exists a little bit in-between the first two- he recognizes that the game is broken, and blames the players for abusing mechanics.
Lots of text below:
P1 recognizes that the game is broken, accepts it for what it is and tries to play it to its maximum potential. He is often the power-gamer, and is the most frequent member in a tactics discussion. He's often the math-hammer guy, and the guy who'll go into a thread asking for list-building advice, make a one-liner detailing the current most optimal build or units and then leave, or get into a debate with other members of his kind. This is the guy who'll go into a tactics thread about Rough Riders and tell you to take a vendetta, or a thread asking for Blood Angels advice and tell you to use the Space Marine codex. P1 is often the member most critical of Games Workshop, and will be "the negative nancy" in a rumor thread or the weekly "does GW suck?" thread.
P2 does not recognize that the game is broken. He is often a pure hobbyist and isn't really into 40K for its strategic play so much as its modeling opportunities or fluff. He may spend lots of time painting, converting etc, but doesn't actually play the game very often, and when he does he doesn't read too much into the mechanics. Win, lose, it doesn't really matter- he doesn't really care. He judges units based off their aesthetic and doesn't generally care about their performance. This attitude leads to him being mostly insulated from the game's myriad problems, but also makes it difficult for him to empathize with P1's criticisms of the game. As far as P2 is aware, 40K gives him everything he wants out of it, so what's the problem? P2 is often the member who will tell P1 that it's his fault for having unrealistic expectations of the game. When imbalance is brought up, P2 will assert that it's the players' fault for deliberately breaking the game by min-max'ing the best units. After all, P2's lists tend to have just one or two of everything, because he only takes the stuff he likes, as do his opponents, and so there's never any issues. P2 is most often the "Games Workshop apologist", and will clash with P1 in the rumors threads and the weekly "does GW suck?" thread.
P3 has sipped P1's negative kool-aid, and recognizes that the game is broken. However, instead of reserving his hate purely for the game, P3, for whatever reason, has also rationalized that players only make the imbalance worse. P3 differs from P2 in that while P2 is just not aware of how gakky some units are versus others, P3 knows which units are the power-gamer units, and feels that while the game is imbalanced, it would be much more playable if players avoided using these power-units. P3 is often the "morality-nazi", and will acknowledge that the game has problems in the weekly "does GW suck?" thread, and the rumors threads, but will often accuse the P1 of being a WAAC douche.
I'm not interested in debating about which player type is "the best", or right or wrong. I am interested in staying within the context of "where does communication break down in a tactics/balance discussion?"
Some people might assume that P1 and P2 have the most abrasive relationship in such a discussion, because they are literally opposites. That would be a misconception however- P2 doesn't even participate in tactics/balance discussions. He doesn't give a gak about being good at the game, so why would he care to discuss tactics or balance? P2 will crop up to defend Games Workshop but will otherwise stay out of most tactics discussions. It's P1 and P3 who have the greatest struggle within a tactics discussion, because they are the same person who took different forks in the road for whatever reason. There's a number of reasons for why P3 chooses to blame the player base instead of the game. It's possible that he may have been a P1 at one point, but eventually got bored of using the same units all the other P1s use, or got tired/guilty of crushing lesser players, and so decided to start experimenting- and now it's a point of pride for him to use what many consider "sub-optimal" units; he thinks the P1 is playing the game on EZ mode. The P3 could have once been a P2 who had the bad luck of finding himself in a P1 meta, and just had to endure watching his beautiful, lovingly crafted army get crushed into the dirt by competitive players one time too many. Could be neither, maybe he just has his pride, or likes to look out for the little guy.
For whatever reason, P3 wants to win games, cares about and understands tactics, but his moral code prevents him from using the best units- and not only that, he looks down on those who do. This is where the communication breaks down between P1 and P3.
It could be P3 who started the discussion, maybe asking for advice or wanting to discuss an army or mechanic, or he could just be a participant. Either way, what'll happen is that the P1 will offer his typically robotic input, and it'll set the P3 off. The P3 will feel offended by the P1 suggesting that he or others go against his moral code and take broken units, or if the P1 suggests superior/alternative tactics, the P3 will feel annoyed, and the reason for that is that deep down, while he may want tactical advice, his code doesn't allow him to want to win. What he actually wants is a good fight and he wants to do it without stooping to the P1's level, which is a distinction that the P1 simply does not understand. So when P3 makes a thread complaining about how his friends' Heldrakes keep butt-raping his army, he won't appreciate the P1 telling him to take moar vendettas and space out his units better . The P3 already knows how good vendettas are, he already knows that if he wants to win he could just take a bunch of vendettas, and he's not interested in some WAAC P1 telling him to play like a WAAC P1. The P3 doesn't want to be told to take power units and learn to play, he wants to have his frustration with the OP game-breaking unit/list/faction validated, and then, maybe later, someone could offer a suggestion on how to win using the models he already has, or with some other mid-tier units. The P1 is going to do neither.
TL;DR: When a P3 makes a thread explicitly complaining about a particular unit/list/faction, it's likely that his moral code has already identified the unit/list/faction in question as being game-breaking OP nonsense, and his code demands that that feeling be validated by other players. So when the P1 doesn't do that, the P3 feels that the P1 is just as bad as the unit/list/faction that's causing him this irritation in the first place.
That's how I look at it, anyway.
...What am I supposed to be, then?
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/07/24 19:29:02
I should think of a new signature... In the meantime, have a
2014/07/24 20:27:01
Subject: Confused about "you 'learn to play' types"
There's another type of player. One that sees the game is broken, sees people exploiting the broken bits of the game, plays the game anyway and tries to fight against the broken bits by using really big guns and glorious amounts of overkill and has fun if that one broken bit is killed off in a 'moral victory' no matter the end result. "Take that you stupid Stompa!"
2014/07/24 21:42:56
Subject: Re:Confused about "you 'learn to play' types"
jreilly89 wrote:Ailaros, I'm not quite sure what much more you're looking for. People have presented several theories on why they believe this happens, but you don't seem satisfied by any of them.
Well what do we have? So far it seems people advise others to solve their problem with more player skill because...
- They don't want to repeat themselves. I've never actually seen this happen, though. Usually experienced players will quote or link to something, or just repeat themselves, or just ignore the topic. Does someone have any actual examples of an experienced player rudely dismissing someone who actually wants to learn?
- They're donkey-caves. Or some version of this. I'm trying to believe this isn't true, and that people who complain about this have something constructive, rather than just being a troll on the internet. I mean, what are the options?
AegisGrimm wrote:The "Learn to play, bro" mentality is mostly just a way for someone to try to shame you by implying that their metaphorical nerd-wiener is bigger than yours. Which, ironically, I think nerds do even more vehemently than jocks.
urbanevil wrote:It's pretty easy to explain away these people, some people are suffering in another part of their life, therefore they attempt to compensate by trolling other people, who may/may not be quite as skilled at them in this particular game.
So let's say for a second that this is absolutely true. Everyone who talks about player skill is a total donkey-cave.
So what? What difference does that make AT ALL on how player skill works in 40k? That's the problem with ad hominem - the characteristics of a person speaking are completely irrelevant to what is being spoken. One isn't really saying anything of substance, which means, well... the only thing going on is being rude. Who is the real troll?
BlaxicanX wrote:Player type 1: The player who recognizes that the game is broken, and blames the game for imbalance.
Player type 2: The player who does not recognize that the game is broken, and blames the players for abusing mechanics.
Player type 3: The player who exists a little bit in-between the first two- he recognizes that the game is broken, and blames the players for abusing mechanics.
The one thing I'd add to what you're saying is that I think that group 3, is probably better expressed as group 1b and group 2b. They both share some characteristics (being a "b"), but they have more in common with their parents.
In this case, we have a person 2b. They are mostly a casual player, understanding that certain decisions will make them less likely to win, but they still make those decisions anyways. It's a conscious choice. They know how to win and what powergamers do, and what optimal lists are, but they don't play them anyways. One example of this is the "challenger" type in the link I gave. Or you could also think of a "retired" serious gamer, who is still very savvy, but no longer places winning games at the center of their world. Of course, because it's a person 2 type, they're not going to complain and draw L2P style comments.
On the other side, we have person 1b, a person who is playing to win, but is also trying to impose a certain non-mandatory set of rules on others. And then they're complaining when they don't win, despite the fact that they have a handicap, and their solution is to bitch at people who don't use the handicap (like all the anti-smoking legislation we saw 10 years ago). I want to win games, but not with THAT cheese!!! etc. If you tell someone that the problem is, in part, because they're taking bad units, they'll point at game brokenness that prevents them from being able to do whatever they want however they want, and still win just as much.
They will, as you say, blame both the players for being waacmonsters AND blame the game balance for not just letting them do what they want, free of consequences. And then blame the game again for allowing WAAC. And then blame the WAACers for using loopholes to get around the good game rules. And then blaming the game... and then blaming the players... and then blaming GW... and then starting up complaint threads on dakka...
In this case, it seems like L2P comments are like splashing alcohol on a wound. Or, I suppose, lysol, if trolls are made of fungus.
Or new players who already think they're great at the game and then want to blame others when they're not. Either way...
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/07/24 21:43:58
AegisGrimm wrote: The "Learn to play, bro" mentality is mostly just a way for someone to try to shame you by implying that their metaphorical nerd-wiener is bigger than yours. Which, ironically, I think nerds do even more vehemently than jocks.
Oh I need to sig this. Thank you so much for the laugh.
Agies Grimm:The "Learn to play, bro" mentality is mostly just a way for someone to try to shame you by implying that their metaphorical nerd-wiener is bigger than yours. Which, ironically, I think nerds do even more vehemently than jocks.
Everything is made up and the points don't matter. 40K or Who's Line is it Anyway?
Auticus wrote: Or in summation: its ok to exploit shoddy points because those are rules and gamers exist to find rules loopholes (they are still "legal"), but if the same force can be composed without structure, it emotionally feels "wrong".
2014/07/24 23:06:33
Subject: Confused about "you 'learn to play' types"
Oh, and something else I forgot from earlier. We're talking about a strategy game, right?
A strategy game is more or less defined as a game with rules and the person who better understand the rules, and how to apply them better is the person who wins. Right?
In this case, there's really no such thing as a "balanced" or a "broken" game, there's only combinations of rules, some of which make a player more likely to win and some that don't.
Doesn't that mean that people who complain about balance or brokenness are people who don't actually want 40k to be a strategy game? If you could sort of make any decision and win, that's what you'd have.
Someone taking umbrage at a L2P comment would necessarily be someone who doesn't want to play a strategy game then... but that still wants to win... with the pretense that player skill matters (or else why complain?)
I would like to see someone provide a well spoken, logical "learn to play" argument as to why my Eldar Shining Spears, while cool in concept, have been absolute underpowered, overpriced gak since 3rd edition.
'Cause they were pretty neat in 2nd edition, and then....
Meh, must not know how to play them correctly.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/07/25 02:43:06
"By this point I'm convinced 100% that every single race in the 40k universe have somehow tapped into the ork ability to just have their tech work because they think it should."
2014/07/25 04:20:42
Subject: Re:Confused about "you 'learn to play' types"
They may be lower in power compared to other things, yes.
So?
AegisGrimm wrote: overpriced gak
And that's just your opinion of them. It's possible for anybody to think anything is gak. Hell, I've know tau players who think riptides are underpowered.
The question is, why complain about them? You know they're lower power, so what? Does that mean it's impossible to have varying level of player skill get more or less use out of them? Does it mean taking them and losing and getting upset about losing mean that you should still be able to take them anyways? What's the greater point being made?
Ailaros wrote: Oh, and something else I forgot from earlier. We're talking about a strategy game, right?
A strategy game is more or less defined as a game with rules and the person who better understand the rules, and how to apply them better is the person who wins. Right?
In this case, there's really no such thing as a "balanced" or a "broken" game, there's only combinations of rules, some of which make a player more likely to win and some that don't.
Doesn't that mean that people who complain about balance or brokenness are people who don't actually want 40k to be a strategy game? If you could sort of make any decision and win, that's what you'd have.
Someone taking umbrage at a L2P comment would necessarily be someone who doesn't want to play a strategy game then... but that still wants to win... with the pretense that player skill matters (or else why complain?)
What?
40k is moving away from being a strategy game. These more recent editions removes player agency and replaces it with random and luck. And 40k gamer culture defines understanding the rules as WAAC behavior, because winning is rude. Humans like winning, but in 40k you can't admit it. I figure 8th will be on par with Monopoly in strategy.
2014/07/25 06:24:57
Subject: Confused about "you 'learn to play' types"
Well, it's never been that serious of a strategy game. But that doesn't mean there's literally no strategy involved. Player skill may be nothing more than playing odds when you're in a dice game, but that doesn't mean that you're not playing odds, and using player skill.
And I highly disagree with the statement that most people think basic competence is a sign of being an donkey-cave. Even the idea that people winning a game therefore makes them one has an extremely narrow following, at best.
While my criticism was directed to 40k players in general. In the context of the group being discussed, I believe it to be accurate. In theory these guys want a balanced game, so they can play with anything they bought and and have a fair chance. But in reality; they want to place X pts on the table and have an easy win with minimum mental effort without appearing to be WAAC. They want the benefits without the effort.
2014/07/25 09:17:01
Subject: Confused about "you 'learn to play' types"
Crimson Devil wrote: While my criticism was directed to 40k players in general. In the context of the group being discussed, I believe it to be accurate. In theory these guys want a balanced game, so they can play with anything they bought and and have a fair chance. But in reality; they want to place X pts on the table and have an easy win with minimum mental effort without appearing to be WAAC. They want the benefits without the effort.
easy win with minimum mental effort
This is a rude, unwarranted, insulting and frankly wrong assumption with absolutely nothing to contribute to this discussion.
The thread in question is directed essentially at Eldar being unfun to play. Unfun to play =/= I'm angry because they're not easy to beat.
In addition, issue rises from the fact that 40k isn't a game where you can take a lot of the things you want, how you want, as opposed to others, as certain armies in areas with a large number of friendly/casual players will always dominate (Tau/Eldar) because of inherent advantages in playing them. That's why the thread has cropped up.
Blaxican and Ailaros are doing in-depth analysis on this but I think this issue is best simplified like this. You have a spectrum with two types of gamers at either end. (I'm just going to use the commonly known net terms, not going to be a connoisseur of terms here)
Friendly Gamer <- - -Casual Gamer <- - - Players who do both - - -> Competitive Gamer - - -> Tournament Gamer
Friendly Gamer:
You take what you want, probably don't care too much about winning. Probably want fluff or fun elements not always found in the rulebook.
Casual Gamer:
Want to win, but want to enjoy it and will probably take a unit or a couple that aren't the most efficient. Both of these two will lose horribly to the last two.
Competitive Gamer:
Find enjoyment in the road and attempt to achieve victory, the competition is where the fun is. Will very rarely take clearly sub-optimal units. Not always likely to care much about the fluff.
Tournament Gamer:
As above, but no sub-optimal units at all, less likely regard for fluff, and probably no mercy. The above two are the sort who would say "L2P"
None of the above are inherently unpleasant, rude or arrogant people.
The issue here is that some people from both ends of the spectrum see the other end with scorn, sneering or contempt. This leads to some friendly/casual gamers calling competitive and tournament gamers scum because they're "not living the spirit of the game" or because they're misinterpreting them as all WAAC (which is wrong) or various other garbage.
Likewise, I have seen the sneering and contempt competitive players and the like can give to the other side and questioning like "wow, why would take this, are you stupid?" even if the selection is competitively inadvisable, saying that or some variation of it by implication is rude and inconsiderate.
This message was edited 7 times. Last update was at 2014/07/25 09:23:32
2014/07/25 10:01:29
Subject: Confused about "you 'learn to play' types"
Crimson Devil wrote: While my criticism was directed to 40k players in general. In the context of the group being discussed, I believe it to be accurate. In theory these guys want a balanced game, so they can play with anything they bought and and have a fair chance. But in reality; they want to place X pts on the table and have an easy win with minimum mental effort without appearing to be WAAC. They want the benefits without the effort.
Inherent claptrap...
firstly you must define the "minimal mental effort" required. For experienced players some of the cheesy combos can be seen by a quick reading of the rules etc while some will cut ' n ' paste from the internet but in those cases they have no clue how to use their army properly and lose and then whine.
The "L2P" argument gets used way too much in my opinion, however in quite a few cases its obvious that said whiner is ignorant of the capabilities of certain units and do not help themselves if they do not ask their opponent what said units do.
The eldar anti fun thread was quietly amusing as it showed how the said eldar player had put some thought into his army, and the guard player in my estimation had not. The said guard army could have been wasted my my Dark Eldar pretty much on autopilot and i reckon a thread would have appeared about "Dark Eldar cheese"
Players have to accept the learning curve and listen to advice and act accordingly.
A humble member of the Warlords Of Walsall.
Warmahordes:
Cryx- epic filth
Khador: HERE'S BUTCHER!!!
GW: IG: ABG, Dark Eldar , Tau Black Templars.
2014/07/25 10:14:45
Subject: Confused about "you 'learn to play' types"
But in the end after you learn and test, eldar are more powerful codex then other. Yes a super player will have a better chance beating a new or bad eldar player. But if both are super and one picks eldar and the other one picks anything, but a counter list, the non eldar player will lose more then the eldar player.
Both armies in the unfun eldar thread were unoptimal. But there are a worlds of difference between playing a non eldar power list and a non AM power list. With eldar you have to realy try to find bad or unoptimal unit set ups, while other army books have maybe one or two power builds and all other combination are weaker , with more then a few units being totaly unplayable. For eldar unplayable means there is a unit that does the same thing better for less points.
2014/07/25 13:25:32
Subject: Confused about "you 'learn to play' types"
Casual Gamer:
Want to win, but want to enjoy it and will probably take a unit or a couple that aren't the most efficient. Both of these two will lose horribly to the last two.
That's me.
I should think of a new signature... In the meantime, have a
2014/07/25 13:39:25
Subject: Re:Confused about "you 'learn to play' types"
The only "You need to learn how to play types" are those that seem to ignore every bad issue about a unit and simply say "You need to learn how to play it better"
Pyrovore? Yeah pretty much you are just using it badly.
Terminators? Yeah you are just using it badly, here's my hypothetical on where it could be useful if you didn't know what units were far better for its roles.
2014/07/25 13:44:07
Subject: Confused about "you 'learn to play' types"
First, someone who says "learn to play" is immediately discounting the other person's position, without providing any illustration of how to go about doing this. It's not something you say in a discussion, it's something you say to indicate that you believe that the other person's position is so bad that it's not even worth discussing. That's "hand waving", it's rude, and condescending.
Secondly, in my experience, most people who say "learn to play" are less experienced players than many of the people they'd say it to, and don't have any 'qualifications' on which to base their claim to being expert.
This here is the internet - we're all more-or-less anonymous. I've placed in the top-ten of multiple GTs. There are maybe a dozen people who I'd accept "learn to play" from - and none of them are so crass as to say it. So when someone busts out his internet toughguy act and says 'learn to play' - where does that leave the discussion?
There's no following that statement, which doesn't derail the thread. I guess you can ignore the guy? But you're stuck in a position from which the discussion has then shifted from whatever the topic was, to attempting to establish that you have enough experience to even be allowed to speak in the presence of mr.-learn-to-play. No one wants to see that. Meanwhile, he's had to do nothing to establish that he has any sort of usable experience in the game, he just throws out his nebulous statement.
I think the issue is more general problem in that the learn to play comment hold some weight. There are a lot of people that take a power list and think that makes them skilled at the game and in the same vein there are a lot of people that take a list with weaker units that they are very good at using and think that gives makes those units great even though they obviously have some shortcomings. It is also a question as to what makes anyone qualified to decide what is a good or bad unit or who is good or bad player. The later is even more hard to determine as even top players take a power list run the exploits into the ground because they have and know their opponents are going to do that same. And you also see tons of people claiming house rules or fixes even going as far creating a homebrew rule book as if they are more capable than anyone else and balancing anything.
In general, the idea that list building is the key to victory is also a main issue and it has led to an arms race of sorts. I believe pretty firmly that unless you have taken the most troll list possible it is only around 40 percent of the game. Even if the game itself is not a completely strategy focused one you are still going to need some tactical savvy to get anywhere. If you look around the internet, it is easy to see that units that are broken and the ones that are underpowered because of the consensus that forms around. And by extension it is easy to tell which commenters are the "X unit is totally not over powered because i always lose with it" types. Even more so, if you have played a lot of pick up games it is easy to see the people who make a mistake during a game or two verse the people who have no concept of what basic strategy is. It is much much harder to understand how to use the more specialist units that shine brightly in some or just few instances, but in will fall flat in more. There are a lot of units in most of the books that fall into this category.
Dakka is very much the extremes of 40k. You have its harshest critics and die hardest supporters of everything from units, armies, to the game itself. I also think it is the most frequented forum or site for 40k(maybe i am wrong?). As a result, you will get more of the diluted "my opinion is right no matter what evidence is presented" and the just plain troll types of commenters. So the L2P comment is going to be more common here than anywhere else, but you are going to find it anywhere you go. Just ignore it and let it pass.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/07/25 14:50:02
2014/07/25 15:08:02
Subject: Confused about "you 'learn to play' types"
kronk wrote: Learn to play is what neck-beards say.
Period. End-of.
Don't be a neck beard.
Calling someone a neck beard in a thread of being critical of the phrase "l2play" is very funny.
You sir, win the irony award of the day.
DavePak
"Remember, in life, the only thing you absolutely control is your own attitude - do not squander that power."
Fully Painted armies:
TAU: 10k Nids: 9600 Marines: 4000 Crons: 7600
Actor, Gamer, Comic, Corporate Nerd
2014/07/25 15:09:59
Subject: Confused about "you 'learn to play' types"
A lot of times people will say "Terminators are just bad, L2P, etc" with no actual explanation as to why they are bad, simple because THEY DO NOT KNOW WHY. They have read people who have thought much harder about the unit and do know why they are bad, state that they are bad, and thus they go out and regurgitate this whenever it comes up, as this is what the majority accepts as being a fact. And often, they'll be correct - they don't really know why they are correct however, they just know to tell people "terminators suck bro". And this is where it gets dangerous. 40k is a constantly evolving game, with a small competitive base, and no professional players. There is a lot of untread ground. And while some units might go from bad to amazing because someone discovers a top tier way to use them that spreads through tournaments, there are plenty of bad units that don't have this potential, but still can be used far greater than what everyone stuck going back and forth on the merry-go-round of conditioned opinions, would have you believe. There is much untread ground in 40k. It would be nice if people stopped regurgitating statements on units without actually analysing the unit themselves, or if people were more open to reasonable logic - but present a build with terminators in it, backed up by logical reason and an explanation of how they are playable under this strategy, and people won't hesitate to jump in and tell you "actually, terminators suck. why? Because umm L2P just trust me they suck. Everyone knows it". And this is the sheeplike mentality of humans, being largely unwilling to question the logic of the pack. It's just a human trait.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/07/25 16:02:23
P.S.A. I won't read your posts if you break it into a million separate quotes and make an eyesore of it.
2014/07/25 15:58:22
Subject: Confused about "you 'learn to play' types"
Oh, I am totally against someone just dismissing a complaint with "l2play".
But I am totally against someone who says a unit is bad, when they reject actual advice on why its not the unit that is bad, but how it was used.
Likewise, I am against someone grouping individuals into stereotypes based upon grooming choices.
(one of the best ork players I know has a mohawk).
There are many types of players - but trying to put people's behavior (and thus the people themselves) into "types" can be a flawed activity - for once you limit your groupings, many individuals begin to fall out of any one of them.
Many people reject advice - because they would rather address blame to a situation, rather than themselves.
of course, all advice may not be good - Caveat emptor
DavePak
"Remember, in life, the only thing you absolutely control is your own attitude - do not squander that power."
Fully Painted armies:
TAU: 10k Nids: 9600 Marines: 4000 Crons: 7600
Actor, Gamer, Comic, Corporate Nerd
2014/07/25 15:58:56
Subject: Confused about "you 'learn to play' types"
Just following on from the terminator example used btw, I'm not saying they are bad or good. Which is because I haven't really done a proper analysis of them as a whole. And if I had, my opinion would be subject to change if presented with logical counter evidence. This is the only smart way to discuss tactics. In my opinion.
P.S.A. I won't read your posts if you break it into a million separate quotes and make an eyesore of it.
2014/07/25 16:00:08
Subject: Re:Confused about "you 'learn to play' types"
AegisGrimm wrote: I would like to see someone provide a well spoken, logical "learn to play" argument as to why my Eldar Shining Spears, while cool in concept, have been absolute underpowered, overpriced gak since 3rd edition.
'Cause they were pretty neat in 2nd edition, and then....
Meh, must not know how to play them correctly.
This is kind of funny, because the original thread that inspired this thread (the "Eldar are the anti-fun" thread) was about how Shining Spears were OP.
Black Templars.
