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.

Lets change gears here....

Are you sick and tired of going to Tournaments to find yourself constantly paired up against fluff-nazies that cannot challenge your finely tuned Tournement list that you've spent twice as much money on as anyone elses army because you got it pro-painted?

If someone finely tunes a list...puts tons of hours of play-time into it...analyses weaknesses and strengths, isnt it a waste of your money/time to fly out to a tournament expecting solid games just to go up against some "Fluffy" Space Marine list that obviously has no chance of winning a single game against a savvy player?

Then, instead of playing a 2 hour game as is allotted, your opponent concedes after turn 2 and 30 minutes of gaming. Not only robbing you of an hour and a half of entertainment in a good game, but then complaining and whining that your army is broken...then torpedoing your soft scores because he plays "for fun".







/s off. Sound ridiculous...why yes it does. As does the reverse.

Deashane, that post is ridiculously biased...I see what you did there. Unfortunately, I doubt everyone will realize this.

RustyKnight wrote:Deashane, that post is ridiculously biased...I see what you did there. Unfortunately, I doubt everyone will realize this.

No more biased than the other post.

I think that we need to see the third side of the Unholy Trinity.

I mean, we've seen fluff gamer, power gamer, and now we need to see... hobbyist gamer.

The legions of people who barely even know the stats on their 5000 points of models, or any of their fluff, but damn it if they aren't all beautifully painted, converted and based. And their gaming table is a beautiful work of art.

The experience is marred only by occasionally wondering why there are so many spikes on some of their marines when compared to others, and how far, exactly, do these 'bolter' things shoot?

Actually, deadshane's is biased, but doesn't pretend not to be. His post actually addresses, in detail, how another person's method of partaking in the hobby hurts his enjoyment of it. It's also specific to a particular context and points out particular behaviors that can be identified.

Like often happens, competitive gamers are more honest, more straightforward, and far less douchey than our fluffy brethren.

Polonius wrote:
Like often happens, competitive gamers are more honest, more straightforward, and far less douchey than our fluffy brethren.

... therin lies the problem, and is probably why this subject is rehashed over...and over....and over again. Always with new "fluff" players trying to be slick and make themselves look somehow superior to "tournement" gamers.

Deadshane1 wrote:

Polonius wrote:
Like often happens, competitive gamers are more honest, more straightforward, and far less douchey than our fluffy brethren.

... therin lies the problem, and is probably why this subject is rehashed over...and over....and over again. Always with new "fluff" players trying to be slick and make themselves look somehow superior to "tournement" gamers.

I'm not going to say that every hard core tournament gamer is a treat to game against, but I can't really think of any cheating, abuse, discomfort, or whining when I play competitive player.

I mean, when a guy says, "Hey, good luck, but I'm going to try my hardest to beat you," I feel more comfortable than the guy that gives me the old "well, this is just a god old game, and I want to have fun" at a top table in round three.

Polonius wrote:
Like often happens, competitive gamers are more honest, more straightforward, and far less douchey than our fluffy brethren.

I find this statement completely opposite of what I tend to encounter.

Mattlov wrote:

Polonius wrote:
Like often happens, competitive gamers are more honest, more straightforward, and far less douchey than our fluffy brethren.

I find this statement completely opposite of what I tend to encounter.

The statement is probably not the most unbiased statement ever. Perhaps chalked up to personal experience.

I would say both camps are capable of the same evils.

Mattlov wrote:

Polonius wrote:
Like often happens, competitive gamers are more honest, more straightforward, and far less douchey than our fluffy brethren.

I find this statement completely opposite of what I tend to encounter.

Do you play in a lot of tournaments?

I'm just saying, I've played some of the top 40k players in the US (Skinny Mike and a few other toledo guys) and while they bring hard as nails lists, they tend to be polite, gregarious, utterly scrupulous about measurements, dice rolling, and not taking mulligans. I've also found that top players tend to know the rules, and not only follow them for their own army, but remind their opponents about their beneficial rules. It's been against middling players where you get the dreaded "rules confusion" that somehow always seems to benefit the player. I've played some good players that were TFG, to be sure, but more are reasoanble, fun guys.

That's always been my confusion in these topics. Maybe I'm just kind of a thick skinned guy that has enough jerky qualities to not let it bug me, but I tend to have more fun playing a top guy than curb stomping a noob.

if you play in tourneys that have a composition element, and still get pissed that your double lash plague marine oblit list gets dinged for comp, i really dont know what to tell ya.

gearing up for a hardcore tourney is fine, getting down to the most optimal build, playing it out over months and months of practice is great, good for ya. but in the end, i think that in a composition enviroment, you have to have boundries if you dont wanna get a comp hit.

thats just my opinion.

studderingdave wrote:if you play in tourneys that have a composition element, and still get pissed that your double lash plague marine oblit list gets dinged for comp, i really dont know what to tell ya.

gearing up for a hardcore tourney is fine, getting down to the most optimal build, playing it out over months and months of practice is great, good for ya. but in the end, i think that in a composition enviroment, you have to have boundries if you dont wanna get a comp hit.

thats just my opinion.

Hey, I got no problem with comp. I mean, I think it's far to subjective in many ways for reasons that have been discussed ad nauseum, but knowing going in what the rules for comp are, and how it will be judged, enables everybody to build their list with that in mind. It's, if not fair, at least a known hazard.

I mentioned it in the other thread, but I'll throw out my question here as well: What is good comp? What is power gamey? Where's the boundary between strong and cheesy? Should theme be a factor in these calculations? In short: how do you tell good comp from bad comp?

studderingdave wrote:if you play in tourneys that have a composition element, and still get pissed that your double lash plague marine oblit list gets dinged for comp, i really dont know what to tell ya.

gearing up for a hardcore tourney is fine, getting down to the most optimal build, playing it out over months and months of practice is great, good for ya. but in the end, i think that in a composition enviroment, you have to have boundries if you dont wanna get a comp hit.

thats just my opinion.

Tournements here in the states generally no longer have a composition element.

...however, UNSPORTSMANLIKE players who wind up losing a game tend to voice their disapproval of their opponents army list by simply marking them down in sportsmanship...I.E. Torpedoing/chipmunking soft scores.

You're all a bunch of WAAC power-gaming rules lawyers. 'Tournament Gamers'? Might as well put "Hitler Youth" at the end of it.

You and your power-builds sicken me.

- This post brought to you by the Dakka Dakka Casual Gamer Mafia - 'Our way is the only way!

Deadshane1 wrote:Tournements here in the states generally no longer have a composition element.

...however, UNSPORTSMANLIKE players who wind up losing a game tend to voice their disapproval of their opponents army list by simply marking them down in sportsmanship...I.E. Torpedoing/chipmunking soft scores.

while i only play in local tourneys that do have a composition element.

if i was going to a tourney KNOWING there is no composition element, i would be inclined to take an optimal list. of course i have my limits when it comes to list building (i played nob biker 3 times and sold it, i also wont have lash princes leading my plague marines) but thats just me.

all in all if im going to a no comp tourney i expect people to be bringing the kitchen sink, and i wouldnt chipmunk people for rolling me with said optimal lists. when you add prizes to the game, it changes people. i tend to stay out of that side of the hobby, but i dont trash talk it (no more then any gamer that is)

I am going to write something similar to what I wrote on the other thread.

Why does it have to be one or other. Can't a person do both. I mean play their army because they love it and love the fluff and have fun with it. While at the same time building a power version of their army (or even another army for that matter) for competitive tournament play.

Also, some armies lend themselves to strong builds that adhere to fluff.

Orkestra wrote:I think that we need to see the third side of the Unholy Trinity.

I mean, we've seen fluff gamer, power gamer, and now we need to see... hobbyist gamer.

I think this is something I'm gonna work towards... either that or ex-40k-plays-mostly-WoW-now gamer...

@DJ: I'm working towards the exact reverse.

I'm getting back into the warhams and my WoW has 5 days left. (Cancelled my subscription :O )

I mean, when a guy says, "Hey, good luck, but I'm going to try my hardest to beat you," I feel more comfortable than the guy that gives me the old "well, this is just a god old game, and I want to have fun" at a top table in round three.

I had to laugh at that one as my opponent (coincidentally table 3 final game at adepticon) repeated that line over and over.

"Hey im just here to have a fun game."

I think that has been drilled into us by the "Sportsmanship Politics" apnosphere of the GT circuit.

I know he wanted to win, and would play to his best ability.

I should mention though that he was also very pleasant to game against and while he expected the rules to be followed he was very courteous about my own relative lack of experience with 5th edition ( at the time it was my 7th game ever playing 5th ed) He was also very gracious with his win and made a point to give me advice on things I could have done better. In fact all of my opponents at Adepticon were great and fun to play against.

Thinking about it ln all the big tourney games I have played at GTs and now Adepticon I can only remember one player who was TFG and he was playing a sub optimal fluff based IG army with near unpainted figs and was a total bleep hat. I don't make the assumption that all fluff players are jerks, just that he was. I actually find that I am more likley to run into TFG at smaller local tournaments. In my experience if you take the time and expense to have a GT level painted army and travel to a multi day event you tend to be comited to your hobby in all aspects.

Just my experiences, but I would always rather play a competive player. I remember my games against Ed Maule as some of the most fun games I have every played despite his dakka reputation at the time.

Orkestra wrote:@DJ: I'm working towards the exact reverse.

I'm getting back into the warhams and my WoW has 5 days left. (Cancelled my subscription :O )

Feels good don't it?

I don't think you can tell anything about the game you're about to have against someone based on the list they take, except how experienced they are (and maybe how much time they spend on internet forums).

I've had my share of TFG encounters at the local gaming store with guys who wouldn't know courtesy if it jumped up and bit them. I've played some great games at tourneys where the games were epic struggles right down to the last dice roll and the opponent was a gentleman and fun to play against. The opposite of both have been true as well... great games at the FLGS and asshats at tournaments.

Having said that I do appreciate a game against a someone who participates in all aspects of the hobby. I mean really... if you're going to have appearance count towards the final overall score, isn't having someone else build and/or paint your army cheating to some degree? Corner cutting at best? Are you really "Best Overall" if you didn't paint your own stuff? Or are you just "Best General with lots of disposable income"?

The Green Git wrote:I mean really... if you're going to have appearance count towards the final overall score, isn't having someone else build and/or paint your army cheating to some degree? Corner cutting at best? Are you really "Best Overall" if you didn't paint your own stuff? Or are you just "Best General with lots of disposable income"?

I second that!

There is nothing impressive about playing with a "pro-painted" army if you are not the "pro" who painted it.

I have to disagree with you guys.A fluff gamer like myself has every right to game when and where I want.

I've played lash lists and Nidzilla and spomped both, and got the "you just won because my dice were cold" or There is no way your crappy list can beat my ubre list".

Just as you expect to face an army that can give you a challenge, I expect an army that in some way resembles what the books and story lines portray. My night lords don't have lash princes plagues or oblits, It beats a lot of people simply because basic CSM are still a heck of buy. You complain about the money you spend for your Army, what about the money I spent on my army, books, and special add-ons like the Imperial primer and the Libre books, or the guide to the warhammer world, or the black library stuff. Or the many Models that I have lost due to codex changes over the years, the only redeeming fact is that the story is intact.

You can spend hours honing your warhammer lists, I have a wife new kid and a very demanding Military job where a mistake can get my men killed.

I paint my army as best I can, you get your army propainted, you auto win the painting comp is that fair to me? Is it fair I lose because a new codex comes out invalidates my Very competivie Nightlords rules and army, then because I have a morgage, car payment and 100 other bills, and have somebody complain about how weak my list is like I can throw 1000$ for an army thats just going to get depowered when the next hot codex comes out.

Maybe I've grown fond of my Chaos lord he is a 12 year old model and one of the first I got and painted, He has been raging aginst the Emp for over a decade and I won't get rid of him just because GW didn't make him the best of the best this time around.

1.Not everybody can afford to get whats best, they have to make do with what they have.

2.Just as many powerlisters quit when get one minor victory and can no longer get first place

3.Some people go to events to meet new people, play new lists, get out of the house for the weekend, hang with buddies. Winning isn't everything for these guys

4.You get a bad soft score and a high paint score, evens out to me.

5.I simply don't go to major turnies anymore. I got tired of beating the same lash list and nob biker lists over and over again. All my opponets get nifty fun facts tacked on to my armylists, As shown in most of the older wite dwarfs and the old guide to fun turnament gaming ardicle that GW used to have up. Most don't even have a name for their commander, it makes battle reports hell to write.

6.Relying on armylists cuts out on tactical skill. I've seen some games where I can instantly say no matter how good that player is there is no way he can win. ( you like orks HE bought 9 valks...GG, you can't afford anything new so...)

7. I tend to find non "competive" gamers have a lot less arguments about rules and there is a lot less rules lawyering

In closing, we all game for different reasons, I remember when The big events were more of a warhammer-con than cut throat battles. I blame them for the horrible numbers at these events, and the fact that there are a lot less...if any taking place in the states.
I'd rather just stay home and run a friendly fun campain.

Don't take this as a flame or attack, I actually very moch enjoy your posts Deadshane1

Every gamer has the right to game how they want - that is obvious. Trying to talk down to someone because they play a game differently than you do is actually pretty irrational. There is no right answer to this question of course, it comes down to personal preference.

For myself, if I wanted a pure fluffy game i'll play DnD. If I want a pure competition game ill play in a chess tournament. 40k Offers something in between with an artistic element attached. It all depends what I want out of a game as to how I approach it. For friendly games I leave my stompy list at home, but if I'm going to a tournament I'll bring the strongest list I can make.

sexiest_hero wrote:
I expect an army that in some way resembles what the books and story lines portray.

So, do armies like the Necrons, Tau, and Tyranids have fewer options in what makes a fluffy list? They do have less published material. Where does it say that Night Lords will never have a Slaaneshi devoted chapion who ascends? Where doesit say that Night Lords never ally with Obliterator Cults?

Ha ha, I voted "I agree!" on both polls just for fun.

Night lords would curbstomp anybody weak enough to worship any god Emperor or otherwise, Oblits would fit in with night lord like teleporting fits in with grey knights. (yes I know fluff is subject to change lately at anytime invalidating years of work and 100s of dollars of written materials)

Tyranids have more leeway due to biodiversity Necron armies are divoid of personality bar Lords Harbringers and star gods. Tau armies work for a single goal and fuction as one. Space marines have many sub armies, same with CSM, Eldar, and to a lesser point Ork clans.

You can expect necrons and Tau to react in a nomal way befitting thier race when attacked. How every the Iron warriors would react vastly different that the World eaters, and grey wolves would react different than white scars. Point is if you play for "fun" don't go to turnies, for turnies are for games that are not "fun". Prob solved.

I think the issue isn't really tournament play. Anybody who makes 'fun, fluffy' army for tournament play with more of an eye towards their fluff than the competitive aspects of their army for a tournament probably deserves to lose, and if they bitch about it alot, they REALLY deserve to lose. Regardless of the army I play, I expect to see power builds at tournaments - there is a lot more at stake there than just the immaterial outcome of a game or two. I expect my opponent to be at their best, and I will try to be at mine.

However, where the lines start to get fuzzy is in friendly play. Everybody knows you can win a tournament with that power build if you know what you are doing, but friendly games aren't about (at least for me) winning. It's about narrative. At a tournament, you get the thrill of climbing the ranks to be number one, but that is just not something that everybody wants or needs. If I show up at the FLGS and I just want to have a fun, fluffy game, I don't want to have to set up against that same vet air cav list or dual lash/oblit spam list I fought 10 times at the last tournament.

I think friendly games are a way to create a narrative with the game. It's not a place for WAAC gaming, where this unit has X% chance of killing that unit and therefore you have a X% chance of winning. It's a game where the noble, courageous 122nd Cadian protects their home from the bloodthirsty ravages of an invading World Eaters company.

There is a time and a place for both fluffy play and powergaming, and it's when the two clash that it becomes a problem.

The main problem with the fluffy-vs-competitive debate is that ultimately it comes down to bad rules design on GW's part.

If every entry in every codex was worth taking and all the points costs were properly balanced then I would bet that every army would be fluffy because there would be no reason for it not to be.

As it is most people steer away from fluffy armies because they are more likely (in many cases) to lose.

Ever tried designing a competitive Witchhunter force without sisters?

Meh, the other thread is more entertaining.