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.

I have seen many a lively discussion on playing to the best of your ability: playing to win but devolves into nastiness... I do not want that here.
Can all that needs to be done is education?
This site has outlined many things I "knew" but did not put into words: I sincerely recommend reading this:
http://www.sirlin.net/ptw
And before it gets all fun, and various "ethics of play" is bandied about: read about "scrubs" here:
http://www.sirlin.net/ptw-book/introducingthe-scrub

I understand that games can be for some like a form of RPG: to recreate situations from source material you would like to enter that time/world.
This is common in Napoleonic battles, re-enactments of famous engagements, some Star Wars battle seen on the big screen or some 40k scenario from a favorite book from the Black Library.
I get this and understand, this is why we paint stuff up, the epic display of it all.

BUT

I want a challenge.
I want to look at rules and find the optimum way to select and play the game in front of me.
I expect to get thumped as I learn, the experts and the weaker players all have something to teach me (again see Sirlin link).
People confuse real life behavior with games, I maintain it is not the same.
Life has a lot of grey area, laws, ethics, social norms we need to get along and there is no clearly defined means of "winning" so you balance it all as best you can.
Games have rules, defined winning criteria, subterfuge, misleading, keeping them guessing is the very nature of most games.

Other than a good frank discussion with your potential opponent of the expectation of how the game will be played: how can you play to your very best and try to mitigate the risk of hurting someone's feelings over a game?

I am happy to find a player to push it to the max (within game rules!), socially acting badly lends no advantage to a game and pretty much guarantees no repeat games so being nice and civil is a reasonable and necessary part of play.

How can ruthlessness within a game not be construed as being how you are in real life? I feel they do not reflect one another.

You are my peers and experts, there is a lot of love for game and to truly "play to win" appears to have a stigma attached that is only reserved for life and death situations.

 Talizvar wrote:
there is a lot of love for game and to truly "play to win" appears to have a stigma attached that is only reserved for life and death situations.

Only in 40k.

 MWHistorian wrote:

 Talizvar wrote:
there is a lot of love for game and to truly "play to win" appears to have a stigma attached that is only reserved for life and death situations.

Only in 40k.

Oh common!
That was "cheap" (funny though!)
I play other games, honest!
It can happen in other settings.

How?

Play any non GW game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ok, sorry, are we already on the 40k vs everything else 3 posts in?
If so I'll expand on that a little.

The WAAC/That Guy does, of course, exist in every game. 40k however is the only one unbalanced enough that those stigmas are attached to you purely for playing competitively. In other games it has nothing to do with the list you bring, it is all about your attitude. Being a donkey cave is never a good thing, but the other games dont give you the tools to make so absurdly OP lists, and while it still exists in some fashion, usually jokingly, there are not usually units that automatically label you a WAAC player for bringing.

To get rid of TFG/WAAC, you need a ruleset sufficiently well designed that the armies and strategies you want people to play are also the best armies and strategies. A fun army, a fluffy army and a competitive army should all be one and the same. Do that, and it doesn't matter whether you're a fluff bunny or a competitive gamer, you'll still have an effective army.

 MWHistorian wrote:

 Talizvar wrote:
there is a lot of love for game and to truly "play to win" appears to have a stigma attached that is only reserved for life and death situations.

Only in 40k.

I do agree with this. In just about every other game in any medium, from Monopoly to Call of Duty, there is an understanding that you're going to try to win. Discussions over whether you're "WAAC" or whatever never come into it, it's just assumed that people want to win and it doesn't get in the way of a good time.

So, I do wonder why it only seems to be in WH40K that "playing to win" is treated like a bad thing. It's a game so surely you wouldn't be playing if you didn't want to win at some level? Even people who play just to take part in a story surely still have their models move into cover and shoot in the right direction. Even if the scenario is intentionally skewed against you, as a last stand type of game, you're not just going to wait in a bunker for the Tyranids to come and eat you.

I would guess the reason it's such a problem in 40K (don't know about Fantasy) is because for a long time there have always been obviously better ways to skew things in your favour and there seems little effort on GW's part to ensure every army has access to such options. The new jetbikes are just one example, a fast, slippery unit that can pack a lot of firepower and it's a Troop choice. What have Orks, for example, got that can match all that? Another example would be the way that Tyranids couldn't ally with anyone in the last edition. Why should one army be denied access to a major new part of the game? Is it too much trouble to scribble a paragraph of fluff about Tau experimenting with putting mind control chips in synapse creatures, or whatever (to pick a completely random and half-thought out idea)?

I'll never say that someone should be forced to rewrite their list, or not be allowed to use the models they bought and paid for, just because the other player doesn't like it. As far as I'm concerned when you start a game you have to accept that the other player is entitled to bring anything as long as it's legal. I've played games where one list hardly stood a chance against the enemy list, but where civility and good humour made it bearable. But I also like to play games where we won't see an impossibly one-sided matchup, and where one army can't suddenly come along and overnight tower above every other. In a game with careful quality control and playtesting, there will still be exploitable combos, but they will be less common.

TFG and WAACs are a mental state of a person not a game

You can mitigate the effects by making the game nearly impossible to game with no rules ambiguity or ability to twist rules around peoples necks.

But it wont stop people from constantly complaining or cheating.

even in non GW games.

 MWHistorian wrote:

 Talizvar wrote:
there is a lot of love for game and to truly "play to win" appears to have a stigma attached that is only reserved for life and death situations.

Only in 40k.

WM has its fair share of people that cry "broken" a lot and use it synonymously with "I was just beaten".


It's not a 40k only phenomenon.


Also 2 posts in is pretty good for the 40k hate to start up. Gotta love Dakka.

 Haight wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:

 Talizvar wrote:
there is a lot of love for game and to truly "play to win" appears to have a stigma attached that is only reserved for life and death situations.

Only in 40k.

WM has its fair share of people that cry "broken" a lot and use it synonymously with "I was just beaten".


It's not a 40k only phenomenon.

But in WMH, trying to win isn't looked down upon as WAAC behavior.

 MWHistorian wrote:

 Haight wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:

 Talizvar wrote:
there is a lot of love for game and to truly "play to win" appears to have a stigma attached that is only reserved for life and death situations.

Only in 40k.

WM has its fair share of people that cry "broken" a lot and use it synonymously with "I was just beaten".


It's not a 40k only phenomenon.

But in WMH, trying to win isn't looked down upon as WAAC behavior.

It is in some circles. Go play at any shop where they don't hold regular tourneys.

In my area there's a clear cut line between the Competitive players and the (not my term) Casuals.

That line is further demarcated between the "local only" competitives, and the "national scene players".

 Talizvar wrote:
How can ruthlessness within a game not be construed as being how you are in real life?

By telling people to STFU and stop being stupid when they insist that "competitive" and "TFG" are the same thing. That's really all there is to it.

 AlexHolker wrote:
To get rid of TFG/WAAC, you need a ruleset sufficiently well designed that the armies and strategies you want people to play are also the best armies and strategies. A fun army, a fluffy army and a competitive army should all be one and the same. Do that, and it doesn't matter whether you're a fluff bunny or a competitive gamer, you'll still have an effective army.

What, like chess or Risk? The second you move past identical armies for each player, people are going to figure out ways to optimize their armies and play styles. These competitive players will defeat most casual players in games. I literally cannot think of a game where this isn't so.

Rules balance isn't the answer. (Although it's an integral part of good game design.) (That being said, barring a return to Stratego and identical armies, perfect game balance is an impossibility.) It seems like fostering a good community where people don't go full-barrel competitive outside of tourneys, and where people don't take losing so hard, is much more important.

As I think about games that fit the bill I'm describing, I realize they all tend to be faster games. I wonder if streamlining the system (thus reducing the amount of time you invest into each game) would mean lower stress and a friendlier community?

 Haight wrote:


It is in some circles. Go play at any shop where they don't hold regular tourneys.

I do.

The WMH players around here (back when WMH was a thing around here) definitely had casual players and WAAC types (who were definitely looked down on) so that might be situational.

 MWHistorian wrote:
Only in 40k.

I don't think this is quite accurate. 40k certainly has a higher percentage of "casual at all costs" players, but other games aren't immune the problem. It's one of the reasons why I stopped playing "casual" MTG, I got tired of having people act like I'm a bad person because my deck was more powerful than theirs. And it's especially bad in EDH/commander MTG, where the people in charge of the rules have an explicit GW-style policy of "you know our rules are broken and exploitable, so play 'casually' and leave the 'cheese' at home".

(This is why, even though the concept is interesting, I will never play EDH.)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jimsolo wrote:
These competitive players will defeat most casual players in games. I literally cannot think of a game where this isn't so.

But that's not really where "casual at all costs" behavior comes in. A relatively balanced game might have 60/40 odds for a game between a competitive player and a "fluff" player, but the "fluff" player is probably still going to enjoy the game and not worry too much about the fact that they're at a disadvantage. But when, as in 40k, you have odds that are more like "why did I even bother unpacking my army" people start to get frustrated with the fact that they can't play their army the way they want to and still have a decent chance of winning. And that gives the "casual at all costs" attitude an opportunity to exist as people look for someone else to blame for their frustration.

Like others have said, just stop playing GW. In any other game, utilizing units' strengths and fielding an effective force is admirable. In either of the Warhammer games, doing so means taking advantage of shoddily-designed rules and finding the most blatantly unfair combinations. The fact that 40K has "why did I bother unpacking my case" moments speaks to how poorly written a game it is. How many other game systems have choices that are so much better that you can determine a winner based on list choices alone?

Other games such as PP and Infinity have thriving competitive scenes, because the rules are well-balanced. Of course, there will always be people who complain when they lose a game. Outside of GW, the WAAC players are looked down upon because they're being jerks.

 Jimsolo wrote:

 AlexHolker wrote:
To get rid of TFG/WAAC, you need a ruleset sufficiently well designed that the armies and strategies you want people to play are also the best armies and strategies. A fun army, a fluffy army and a competitive army should all be one and the same. Do that, and it doesn't matter whether you're a fluff bunny or a competitive gamer, you'll still have an effective army.

What, like chess or Risk? The second you move past identical armies for each player, people are going to figure out ways to optimize their armies and play styles. These competitive players will defeat most casual players in games. I literally cannot think of a game where this isn't so.

No, a game where the developer bothered to do the optimisation first, and made sure that the right armies and play styles came out on top. For example, the rules for Warhammer 40,000 should be such that a Space Marine player trying to optimise their army would discover a Battle Company (60 Tactical / 20 Assault / 20 Devastator, plus transports and command) is already a top tier army.

 AlexHolker wrote:

 Jimsolo wrote:

 AlexHolker wrote:
To get rid of TFG/WAAC, you need a ruleset sufficiently well designed that the armies and strategies you want people to play are also the best armies and strategies. A fun army, a fluffy army and a competitive army should all be one and the same. Do that, and it doesn't matter whether you're a fluff bunny or a competitive gamer, you'll still have an effective army.

What, like chess or Risk? The second you move past identical armies for each player, people are going to figure out ways to optimize their armies and play styles. These competitive players will defeat most casual players in games. I literally cannot think of a game where this isn't so.

No, a game where the developer bothered to do the optimisation first, and made sure that the right armies and play styles came out on top. For example, the rules for Warhammer 40,000 should be such that a Space Marine player trying to optimise their army would discover a Battle Company (60 Tactical / 20 Assault / 20 Devastator, plus transports and command) is already a top tier army.

Or bothered to do play testing...or cared about the game.

You get overly competitive characters (I won't use WAAC because in truth a WAAC player will cheat to win, and I'm not including that element in this) in any activity where there is any sort of adversarial element and winners and losers.

The difference is, if you play one of these characters in most any other TT wargame currently widely played then all you'll likely get is a slightly awkward social experience where they're not terribly gracious in victory or magnanimous in defeat.

Only in 40K is this approach an actual playstyle rather than simply an attitude to the game.

 Azreal13 wrote:
Only in 40K is this approach an actual playstyle rather than simply an attitude to the game.

No, it's in other games. 40k is worse than average, but it's not alone. My previous post:

I don't think this is quite accurate. 40k certainly has a higher percentage of "casual at all costs" players, but other games aren't immune the problem. It's one of the reasons why I stopped playing "casual" MTG, I got tired of having people act like I'm a bad person because my deck was more powerful than theirs. And it's especially bad in EDH/commander MTG, where the people in charge of the rules have an explicit GW-style policy of "you know our rules are broken and exploitable, so play 'casually' and leave the 'cheese' at home".

(This is why, even though the concept is interesting, I will never play EDH.)

As a former WAAC and now "Casual Gamer" you can have Casual Competitive Play".
Most of it comes from the group you play with. My group plays to win, but we are not about ""The Best Unit/Army", we are about just building list based on what Models/Units/Armies [in that order] look like fun to play. We also talk about what are going to play before we even List Build. Now we are not talking about "List Tailoring", but some level of "Mata-Gaming".
If Billy-Bob says he is going to play his Orks I know two things:
1] His Ork Army has no way to deal with AV14
2] Dakka-Jets
Now I could pull out my Triple Land Raider List and run around the table freely. However none of will have fun at that point. So I leave them at home and make sure I have a few Flyers of my own.

If Billy-Bob says he is going to play his Space Marines/Sisters I know there will be buckets of Melta, but lots of Rhinos and Razorbacks, but no real heave vehicles. So I have no issue dragging out my Land Raiders other than the Redeemer and Crusader will probably die at some point.

WAAC is also more of an attitude.
>If the guy pulls out 30 Scatter-Bikes and is a jerk about how he won, bragging about his victory for weeks, That is WAAC.
>If the guy pulls out the same list and goes "Do you mind?". He is not WAAC.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
Only in 40K is this approach an actual playstyle rather than simply an attitude to the game.

No, it's in other games. 40k is worse than average, but it's not alone. My previous post:

I don't think this is quite accurate. 40k certainly has a higher percentage of "casual at all costs" players, but other games aren't immune the problem. It's one of the reasons why I stopped playing "casual" MTG, I got tired of having people act like I'm a bad person because my deck was more powerful than theirs. And it's especially bad in EDH/commander MTG, where the people in charge of the rules have an explicit GW-style policy of "you know our rules are broken and exploitable, so play 'casually' and leave the 'cheese' at home".

(This is why, even though the concept is interesting, I will never play EDH.)

No, I disagree, there's a world of difference between winning by being better at deck building and winning by exploitation of poorly written rules. It's perfectly acceptable to lose to someone who is better at the game, it is markedly less so to lose to someone who has been created better by wonky balance.

 Azreal13 wrote:
No, I disagree, there's a world of difference between winning by being better at deck building and winning by exploitation of poorly written rules. It's perfectly acceptable to lose to someone who is better at the game, it is markedly less so to lose to someone who has been created better by wonky balance.

But the point is that there's the same "casual at all costs" attitude as in 40k, where people whine endlessly about how something is "overpowered" because it beat them and add all kinds of unwritten rules about what "cheese" you're not supposed to use. The only difference between MTG and 40k is that the "casual at all costs" crowd is a lot less common in MTG, and a lot easier to avoid.

 Peregrine wrote:
But that's not really where "casual at all costs" behavior comes in. A relatively balanced game might have 60/40 odds for a game between a competitive player and a "fluff" player, but the "fluff" player is probably still going to enjoy the game and not worry too much about the fact that they're at a disadvantage. But when, as in 40k, you have odds that are more like "why did I even bother unpacking my army" people start to get frustrated with the fact that they can't play their army the way they want to and still have a decent chance of winning. And that gives the "casual at all costs" attitude an opportunity to exist as people look for someone else to blame for their frustration.

Really? You mentioned M:tG earlier, and my experience with that had always been that games were so swift, most people didn't get too horked about losing.

In games like Highlander or Fuzzy Heroes, I get my fanny handed to me on a regular basis. In these two game systems (and Magic, at least back when I played) the competitive builds/minis/decks trounced the fun/friendly ones four out of five times. But the games (or reset time, in the case of FH) were so fast that it didn't really leave a lot of time for sore feelings.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AlexHolker wrote:

 Jimsolo wrote:

 AlexHolker wrote:
To get rid of TFG/WAAC, you need a ruleset sufficiently well designed that the armies and strategies you want people to play are also the best armies and strategies. A fun army, a fluffy army and a competitive army should all be one and the same. Do that, and it doesn't matter whether you're a fluff bunny or a competitive gamer, you'll still have an effective army.

What, like chess or Risk? The second you move past identical armies for each player, people are going to figure out ways to optimize their armies and play styles. These competitive players will defeat most casual players in games. I literally cannot think of a game where this isn't so.

No, a game where the developer bothered to do the optimisation first, and made sure that the right armies and play styles came out on top. For example, the rules for Warhammer 40,000 should be such that a Space Marine player trying to optimise their army would discover a Battle Company (60 Tactical / 20 Assault / 20 Devastator, plus transports and command) is already a top tier army.

I see what you're saying, at least in regards to fluff. However, I think a lot of players, myself included, find the greatest joy in trying to come up with a combination that is still competitive without being the one optimal build. When it comes to games where there's only one 'best' way to build, I think of World of Warcraft and realize that 40k could get a lot worse. Multiple options for success seem like they would be more fun than a single path to the top.

Still, I can definitely see how it would be more fun for fluff-oriented players to have fluffy builds also be competitive, by design. That should always be a priority for game designers.

 Jimsolo wrote:
Really? You mentioned M:tG earlier, and my experience with that had always been that games were so swift, most people didn't get too horked about losing.

Most people don't, which is why I said that the "casual at all costs" element is much smaller than in 40k. But you still have people who whine endlessly about "cheese" and "TFG netdecks" every time they encounter someone who doesn't comply with their self-imposed deckbuilding limits or cares more about winning than they do.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Jimsolo wrote:
Really? You mentioned M:tG earlier, and my experience with that had always been that games were so swift, most people didn't get too horked about losing.

Most people don't, which is why I said that the "casual at all costs" element is much smaller than in 40k. But you still have people who whine endlessly about "cheese" and "TFG netdecks" every time they encounter someone who doesn't comply with their self-imposed deckbuilding limits or cares more about winning than they do.

Seems reasonable. Do you think the quickness of the games contributes to this? It seems like reducing the casual-at-all-costs hostility so that casual and competitive players can get along would be a big improvement to 40k. I'm feel like I'm walking on eggshells around casual players just to be welcome in my clubs.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Jimsolo wrote:
Really? You mentioned M:tG earlier, and my experience with that had always been that games were so swift, most people didn't get too horked about losing.

Most people don't, which is why I said that the "casual at all costs" element is much smaller than in 40k. But you still have people who whine endlessly about "cheese" and "TFG netdecks" every time they encounter someone who doesn't comply with their self-imposed deckbuilding limits or cares more about winning than they do.

The interesting thing i've noticed about "casual at all costs" players is they tend to be a form of "win at all costs" players. Only they want others to follow their specific version of the rules (list building) when it comes to playing a game.

Peregrine wrote:But the point is that there's the same "casual at all costs" attitude as in 40k, where people whine endlessly about how something is "overpowered" because it beat them and add all kinds of unwritten rules about what "cheese" you're not supposed to use. The only difference between MTG and 40k is that the "casual at all costs" crowd is a lot less common in MTG, and a lot easier to avoid.

MTG keeps track of the most broken combinations and usually seek to correct this, e.g., by limiting the number, say, of x card-type that you can put in a deck (only one dark ritual, for example). No?

Traditio wrote:
MTG keeps track of the most broken combinations and usually seek to correct this, e.g., by limiting the number, say, of x card-type that you can put in a deck (only one dark ritual, for example). No?

Yes, and that's one reason why people like you* are a minority in MTG. Well, that and the fact that bluffing is a major element of MTG strategy. Kant probably wouldn't approve of you playing it.

*As defined by your arguments in this thread: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/647319.page

Talizvar wrote:And before it gets all fun, and various "ethics of play" is bandied about: read about "scrubs" here:

I simply disagree with the article you link. The purpose of games is leisure/relaxation. I have a friend who will play a video game rpg, and at the end of every level, he'll spend 10 minutes "optimizing" his gear. Er...I thought we were playing a video game?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Peregrine wrote:Yes, and that's one reason why people like you* are a minority in MTG. Well, that and the fact that bluffing**** is a major element of MTG strategy. Kant probably wouldn't approve of you playing it.

*As defined by your arguments in this thread: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/647319.page

I think the fact that they frequently have new "standard" editions helps things out, plus the fact that there are inherent limitations in what can be spammed. Only 4 cards of the same title (barring lands) per deck.



****Whatever you may mean by "bluff," by a "lie" I understand the verbal expression of what is contrary to what is on one's mind. I know, for example, that Santa Claus does not exist. I tell a small child, however, that Santa Claus does exist (even though I know he doesn't). That is a lie.

I can't think of any situation in which I'd have to lie in Magic the Gathering.

As a professor I know often says regarding the matter:

You always must tell the truth. However, you don't always have to tell the truth."