Before starting I would like to say that I am argumentative and that anyone that dislikes argument may not want to post here, just for the sakes of other's sanity and civility.
I DESPISE the thought that people who "Play to Win" are bad. I don't know about other areas, but in my area some people openly (verbally) attack me and a few other gamers for taking optimal lists and playing to win the game. I just don't understand how in a game where the objective is to win the mission, playing to win is frowned upon.
The Argument (from what I have gathered): The general consensus seems to be that people who "Play to Win" do not play for fun. People who play to win are obviously fun-sucking monsters that will destroy your life in their rampage of optimizing lists and making (100% correct, but often game-changing) rules calls. These people are horrible and evil and therefore must be shunned from society or killed with fire.
My Personal Counter-Argument Why in the world does anyone think that?
People who "Play to Win" do not play for fun
I absolutely play for fun. I obtain enjoyment from outplaying (possibly outwitting) my opponent tactically and, in extention, winning.
Those who "Play to Win" ruin the fun with rules calls
So just because we are playing a friendly game you should be immune to the rules? Why should that happen? Now, keep in mind there is a difference between rules CALLS and rules EXPLOITS. For example, the rule that if a skimmer moves flat out into terrain and immobilises itself (therefore wrecking itself) the passengers immediately die is a rules CALL. While something like the guerenteed 3+ Ward save Chosen WoC unit in fantasy would be an EXPLOIT - something never intended to be possible in the rules, but not noticed before the rules were released.
People who powergame have no sportsmanship
Excuse me? Like any other person, I say "Good Game" and shake my opponent's hand at the end of the game. I never gloat, I try to joke or make small talk during slow parts of a game, and I allow my opponents quiet during close parts of the game when they need to think.
How this argument pans out 1) I get called out and the person says everything from "you play to win, not for fun" to "you're a powergamer" to "you have no sportsmanship"
2) I counterargue everything seen above in my counterargument section, starting for the "I do play for fun" and then ending with "Sportsmanship."
3) He says "there is more to sportsmanship then that."
4) I ask "What?" and restate what I do for sportsmanship.
5) At this point (I think because he has run out of ideas) he says that I am too young to understand (I'm 17, so I doubt that I wouldn't know basic sportsmanship) and that I'll probably learn by the time I'm his age (mid 20's).
6) All I have to say to this is WTF are you talking about.
Why I HATE this way of thinking 1) Because there is nothing wrong with Playing to Win. First of all, I am playing for my own enjoyment. It is up to others to play for their own. I could understand that if I had an ability that allowed me to control my opponent's turns then yes, I would take away from my opponet's fun. But I don't. There is not much I can do past just playing the game that I can do for my opponent's enjoyment. Why should I build sub-optimal lists when I don't need to nor want to?
2) Because if my opponents don't know the rules, its their fault when it comes back to bite them in the ass. If I were to know exactly what they would try to do before they try it then I would warn them about a rule preventing them or puting them in danger, but I can't read minds.
3) People that argue against powergaming say "You are not playing to have fun, only to win." Well, firstly the objective of the game is to win. Secondly, if you want to have fun playing a tabletop game or a board game even, without winning, then how do you have fun? These kinds of games are designed so that you have to screw over your opponets in order to win. So should I purposely ignore weaknesses in my opponent's army? Shooting AP3 weapons at Terminators, throwing my Hammer units into enemy Tarpits, and other STUPID moves so that I force a tie every game that I would otherwise win?
So is there anything else to this? Why the hell to people hate powergaming/playing to win? Do they just not understand that playing to win can be the same as playing for fun? are they just QQing?
I have no issue with optimizing your list, especially in a tournament setting, where it is to be expected.
Bear in mind that not all codexes are created equal. That's where a lot of the resentment comes from. The more recent, or more Imperial a codex is (double whammy for both) the more potent the cheesier units are. If the codexes are not balanced then an uberpowered hot codex list is utterly unbeatable by an older codex with less uber to its name, which makes the game against that list about as much fun as having your body vigorously rubbed by a maniac with a cheese grater. If it's not fun for BOTH parties it's not a fun game
I optimize my lists as much as my codex will allow (i play Necrons in tournament, so not much ) and run a vaariety of Ork lists for friendly games.
The reason I play orks for friendly games is that they are funny, and i play them for their sheer wackiness. If i happen to win, all the better. I play them to have fun. I often run non-optimal units, because they are more fun to use.
Tournaments- every little badly-phrased RAW argument matters, as there are prized involved, and everyone else will be raw-lawyering too, usually.
Friendly games- Just that. Nothing makes a game unfriendly like a 3 hour rules debate. Dice off and get on with it
I think the issue with playing to win isn't playing to win :0)
It's playing to win at the expense of everyone having a good time. I play to win, but it'll be a peaceful day on cadia before you'll find me nose to nose with my opponent, spraying them with phlegm as I 'explain' how this rule loophole and that overpowered unit inter-react to make them ungodly, despite clear indications that they are not supposed to.
This is called WAAC- Win at all costs. It is as enjoyable to play against as experimental bowel surgery without anaesthetic, unless you are a WAAC player yourself, and enjoy high decibel 'debates'
I think WAAC players in the friendly game scene is a bit much. Who wants to see there army get crushed when they only wanted a game for fun? I use Necrons, and my recent list has 40 warriors in it. It's fun to use, and I use it well. Although in Tournaments optimised lists and WAAC players are a bit more welcome.
zeekill wrote: So is there anything else to this? Why the hell to people hate powergaming/playing to win? Do they just not understand that playing to win can be the same as playing for fun? are they just QQing?
I don't think it's a case of people hate 'playing to win', it's more a case of those that 'play to win' end up being a$$hats. There is a significant distinction between playing an optimal list and being a WAAC gamer. Significantly, as you have stated above, you play for fun, you just happen to enjoy playing with competitive/optimal lists, a WAAC gamer, as I see it, is someone that plays a min-maxed list (nob bikers, leafblower IG, dual-lash-prince etc etc) but derives their pleasure from completely destroying the enemy in 1 or 2 turns then gloating about it for the rest of the day, really rubbing it in that they absolutely pwned you and screeching their cheeto-breath-flavoured victory tale to anyone within earshot. Typically a WAAC gamer will also pick fights he KNOWS he will win (e.g, rather than going for the other guy in the club with an optimal/competitive list, he will go for the 10 year old kid with a 'these are the models I own because I only have the battleforce and I can't get anymore until I do some chores' list), and then will gloat EVEN MORE. The main point of the matter is that your typical WAAC gamer will want to go for an easy win, whereas you, as I have deduced from your post, would rather go up against another optimal list in order to enjoy the tactical challenge.
Also in the event of the WAAC gamer being defeated, he/she would immediately launches into a tirade about how the opponents army is broken, the rules are borked, the opponent cheated (when in most cases it is they who are guilty of one or more of the above).
Personally I don't mind people taking optimal lists, but it's a bit demotivating when I am table in turn 2 by a leafblower IG list, but then again I would rather play a game over an hour or two in length, have a coffee and generally have fun and banter over my games. The point at which I can tell I will lose from deployment is the point at which the game stops being fun, but everyone enjoys the game differently.
But there is most certainly a difference between a person who plays optimal lists, and a WAAC gamer.
Your friend is probably just not accepting the fact that you might want to spend some time polishing off your list instead of just lumping stuff together.
Out of my little gaming group, I am probably the most competitive. I always want to clarify rules, and I'm always the one to advise my friends on army lists and/or tactics. However, I never stop the fun flowing.
The guys don't mind me being me (and not having a painted army. They're big on P&M), and I don't mind them being a little more sloppy about army list optimization and the like. Tactics-wise, I often point out what the best tactic might have been after the movement, or at least what I think it is, and they always thank me for it!
I think there are many people out there who don't like people being mean, and, like Ascalam said, extend it to cover your habits. A pity though, 40k should be a far friendlier community. The game-scope certainly allows for different things to be enjoyed, including tactics and tac-ing.
I forgot to mention that actually.
I don't play to WAAC. Like you said, the day a 3 hour rules debate comes up mid-game is the day I shoot myself. But when its as simple as showing someone 3 rules combined to result in something like the flat-out immobilization unit death I described earlier I'll take the 2 minutes to show the rule or the 3 additional mintues to explain it if need be.
I've gotten into hour long arguments (not while in the middle of the game, mind you) about what exactly the hive guard rule is, but I would never do that in the middle of any game. Any rules quarrel that lasts more than 5 minutes I say just dice off for now, unless their argument holds no ground whatsoever.
Ascalam wrote:I think the issue with playing to win isn't playing to win :0)
It's playing to win at the expense of everyone having a good time. I play to win, but it'll be a peaceful day on cadia before you'll find me nose to nose with my opponent, spraying them with phlegm as I 'explain' how this rule loophole and that overpowered unit inter-react to make them ungodly, despite clear indications that they are not supposed to.
This is called WAAC- Win at all costs. It is as enjoyable to play against as experimental bowel surgery without anaesthetic, unless you are a WAAC player yourself, and enjoy high decibel 'debates'
Play to win, by all means. We all like to win.
Don't ruin the game doing it though, or why play?
I couldn't agree more Playing to win is fine, I play to win (whats the sense in playing a game and trying to loose?!), but playing to win at all costs isn't why a lot of people are into the hobby. It's a game, it should be fun for everyone involved, not just the guy who likes to take the same old list he found on the internet and bend the rules just to let them smash face.
Well, I strongly disapprove of finding lists on the internet. That means you're not willing to take time and enjoy the stresses of "ARGH SHOULD I TAKE X OR Y THIS IS DRIVING ME NUTS!!!!". WAAC much?
Theres nothing wrong with playing to win. Its broken rules and units that they are complaining about. You have to realize that this game is made by people, people who can and OFTEN do make mistakes. The WORST offenses though are when they accidentally overpower something just to boost sales. See dark eldar 9 venom lists. People dont want to constantly fight nothing but lists consisting of the most broken, undercosted, overpowered units spammed across the field. It also kills diversity, as if they want to compete and the only things showing up are broken lists to face off against, they themselves are forced to make a broken list and it gives the impression that the game is fundamentally flawed.
You are 17 so you likely havent played people younger than you. There is something fun about playing someone younger, mabye throwing the game a little, letting them do better than they normally would against you, so they get into the spirit and fun of the hobby. But overpowered lists are a bit like watching world champ baseball players play against bottom ranked AAA teams. The outcome is already decided, lets just see how rediculous it is.
Tournaments are where you can pull out all the stops, but even then people who dont like units your playing that they feel personally are broken may dock you points for sportsmanship, and tell you it was because of your attitude or some other precieved slight. Usually these hyppocrites are running similarly broken units.
If you bring the same list every week to your game, and it just wtfowns everything, people start thinking to compete they have to play dirty too, and then all the variety and suprise is sucked out of the game in favor of cookie cutter proven winners lists, a little bit like how magic the gathering is now. For a year there was a broken combo so bad that basically it won every tourney, and if you dident run that combo you were throwing your chances away. THEY however can ban cards to rectify this, which they did. GW does not, they just make cheeze lists pay in tournaments with harsh win conditions for the OP lists going around (sometimes).
You can look across the table when your good, and say to yourself, Im gonna roll this list, this list is going to obliterate me, or this guy is decent, and has a decent list its going to be 50/50. Taking chance out of the game moots the point.
TLDR nobody wants to watch mike tyson fight pee wee herman (well thats a bad example because everyone wants to see that, but you get the point)
'TLDR nobody wants to watch mike tyson fight pee wee herman (well thats a bad example because everyone wants to see that, but you get the point)'
Gods, fight of the century there.. I have $20 on Herman
For the record OP, I would have no issue playing you, as long as you told me ahead of time that you like playing hardcore. I would then bring a hardcore list and throw down.
Running a 'just for fun' list into a meatgrinder isn't fun, but running a vicious lsit against another equally vicious list can be a blast if the other guy isn't a TFG
Orock wrote:You are 17 so you likely havent played people younger than you. There is something fun about playing someone younger, mabye throwing the game a little, letting them do better than they normally would against you, so they get into the spirit and fun of the hobby. But overpowered lists are a bit like watching world champ baseball players play against bottom ranked AAA teams. The outcome is already decided, lets just see how rediculous it is.
Actually I purposely do not play younger players because I dislike not having at least some challenge. I'll just steamroll them, and that would just not be fun for anyone.
It's really just how you go about things. If you take two lists for pick up, one nails the other more balanced and communicate with your opponent before the game what kind of game both you and they are looking for and play that kind of game then neither side should feel hard done by. Also it's how you play the game there's being competitive and there's being a jerk.
It's like saying "I want to be rich" no one is gonna say "oh my god that's terrible" but then if you got out and start mugging and stabbing up grannies it's gonna be frowned upon.
When we play a game against another opponent you enter into a social contract to act in a reasonable manner, violate that, then yes people will have a low opinion of you.
The best way I always here it put is
"the aim of the game is to win, the reason to play is to have fun"
This is what I don't understand, and maybe why people have an issue. The entire prospect of playing a "just for fun" list I don't get.
Why play nothing but your best? Is it fun for you to see your sub-optimal units do almost nothing compared to the points you paid and then die? The units you had to pay the money for overpriced GW models, nonetheless.
I think you might need to look up the Timmy, Johnny & Spike player profile analysis article Mark Rosewater came up with in Magic the Gathering as it would probably answer a lot of your questions. The ideas he puts there for different playstyles can equally be applied to warhammer.
If this was in reference to a magic the gathering game you would be a Spike, you fun is obtained from winning in the most effective way you can find. The joy of having your cards effortlessly destroy and win you the game is the reason you play. This analysis can be applied to Warhammer just as easily.
There's nothing wrong with that, but not all players play the game just for winning. For instance I play/mainly paint as I enjoy the whole mythos and story behind the game and often when I do field an army it has some bizarre ideas that probably won't work, but occasionally they do. It doesn't matter that my plague marines got slaughtered, that my Daemon prince got killed by a bunch of imperial guard troopers or that my dreadnought went nuts and ran into a bog, the fact that my newly painted chaos cultists with novelty hats succeeded in killing the enemy priest is where my fun comes from. I can then with my mates set up some more ideas for the next battle, about how this has effected the morale of the imperial guard or that more cultists might join my side due to a daemon possessing the priest.
So in the situation when I'm fielding my casual chaos cultist army and then I'm faced with a powergame web based army list designed to demolish all opposition in 2 turns from there own deployment zone by shooting then my fun is diminished and so is my opponents as it was pointless.
Now if your talking tournaments then play to win, I mean thats what they are all about.
Well, firstly the objective of the game is to win. Secondly, if you want to have fun playing a tabletop game or a board game even, without winning, then how do you have fun?
Nope, other way around. Go back to the rulebook and read the first thing they say about the rules.
First rule of 40k fight club
"Fun" (then both parties determine what's fun. Whether it's fluff, WAAC etc). It's when there is a mismatch that one party cracks a fruity.
Second rule of 40k fight club
"Win" (it's game, between two opponents. Obviously there will be win, loss, or draw). If you can't handle loss, don't play. A win can be a crushing, absolute victory where you hear the lamentations of the women, or a 'good game mate, til next time' affair.
It's not that hard... seems like more a question of how to choose suitable opponents.
zeekill wrote:
Actually I purposely do not play younger players because I dislike not having at least some challenge. I'll just steamroll them, and that would just not be fun for anyone.
That's exactly the point I tried to put across in my post. A WAAC gamer WOULD go for the younger player because they KNOW that they would steamroll them, resulting in an easy win without any challenge. Whereas (as you have pointed out) you want a bit of a challenge to your game, which puts you in the category of not a WAAC gamer.
Any game I play needs to be naturally fun without me having to inject it artificially with poor tactics. As the saying goes "don't hate the player, hate the game", there is no real excuse for any fully released game in this day and age to have such imbalance as to allow powergaming and exploits. This does not excuse any lowlifes that try to take advantage of poor balance though, using the strongest build from the strongest codex against everyone dose not make you a better player, it just means you need a crutch. If you are good and know you can win with your best list, try expanding a bit and making some of those mediocre options turn to gold? The OP doesn't sound like one of these jerks, but it's something to keep in mind for anyone playing in an unbalanced game.
In 1 vs.1 competitive games the ideal situation is to lose half the time, in my opinion anyway. If your win/loss ratio is 50/50 against someone it is a good indication that you and he are evenly matched. I feel as bad as if I were cheating when I don't play to my best ability, it robs my opponent of a challenging game. Sportsmanship plays a big part here. If you aren't at a tournament, give your opponent his take-backs, poin out when he moves into the range and line of sight of your crazy supergun if you don't think he noticed, and help him play at his 100% too. Even in a tournament there's no need for silly psychological warfare beyond maybe wearing a silly hat or a lady gamer showing some cleavage (most of us guys don't mind that kind of distraction).
This concept of the WAAC player confounds me. I can't understand why someone would want to artificially inflate his ego with cutthroat tactics at the consequence of neither player having much fun. That's the point of it all right, to have fun? Playing dirty is very different than playing to win, and I think people being unable to distinguish the two is where this whole thing started. I honestly had never heard of WAAC or TFG before I came here to dakka (ok I had heard of tfg but that means temple flameguard to me). I had met people that fit those profiles loosely but I just called them poor sports, insecure, jerks, and an assortment of other things that the mods would not like me typing out. The fact that this phenomenon has grown so wide that it needs TWO acronyms saddens me. Sadder still is the fact that I have only noticed these types playing gw games, I'm no gw fan but, the industry leader deserves better than to be a rat's nest.
Well, firstly the objective of the game is to win. Secondly, if you want to have fun playing a tabletop game or a board game even, without winning, then how do you have fun?
Nope, other way around. Go back to the rulebook and read the first thing they say about the rules. .
Ok.... well there's a quote on page 1 towards the bottom. And then on page 2 it goes on to talk about dice and stuff... Wierd how they left the top 1/3 of page 2 blank though.....
But in all seriousness I was just listing, not in any particular order of importance. Overall here is my flowchart-type-thing (not really a flowchart):
What is the point of playing this game (for me)? To have fun How do you have fun in this game? By beating my opponents into a bloody pulp. Just, you know, on turn 4, not turn 1.
Actually now might be a good time to introduce one of my friend's favorite quotes:
If you are not playing a board game with the intent to lose all of your friends, you arn't playing it right.
Only half true obviously, but still just putting it out there.
there is a difference between a play to win player and a play to WIN player
everyone plays to win, thats just fact, but its a hope of winning, its not your primary concern, the gaming experience is the concern, in the end you won't care if you win or lose as long as that win/loss was enjoyed by both parties
play to WIN players (or WAAC players) are disgusting forms of life who believe a game of toy soldiers is a 1 player affair, they don't care about everyone involved having fun, as long as they have fun and only they win
they will lie
they will cheat
they will optimise
they will do anything to guarantee a win for them
your not playing for your enjoyment, your playing for 2 peoples enjoyment, or more, if your only concerned with your own fun then your a selfish git who needs to realise your playing a game of 2 people, its like a relationship, you both have to work to make the experience fun, if one of you completely dominates the entire experience the other person is gonna be left feeling like a sack of horse dung.
but then thats another reason I stopped playing GW games, all the gamers have the same attitude these days
Hmm I sort of understand where you are coming from OP.
I like to play for fun but I also enjoy trying new tactics with units (Flames and 40k), winning, and playing by the rules.
A few times lately I have called people up on rules (simply because I have read the rules back to front for Flames of War and I am quite new so I remember them well) and they have been quite important game changing rules. For example...
Hit by Artillery you are pinned and NOT gone to ground (+1 to hit modifier for anyone else). This is in the RULES book. However the group I play with were saying you were gone to ground making it damn hard to hit that unit with anything else. I showed them the rules and they all agreed but I got some stick for bringing it up :/
I love to play for fun but I love playing by the sodding rules. If we can't agree roll off but on obvious rules then it makes sense to get it out of the way for next time.
No one tries to lose do they? You always try to make a competitive effort because that makes a game more exciting, you put your heart into it.
But then there's 'playing to win'. Where winning is the priority and made at the expense of the other player's fun. Some people can only have fun if they are winning. Maybe the person trying to win is having fun because that's what they enjoy, but it doesn't mean the other person is. But if you don't care about your opponent, then you are a bad gamer.
If winning and losing means more than a laugh afterwards then at least one person involved is taking it too seriously. Nobody likes a sore loser or a bad winner.
Play to have fun, don't 'play to win'. There's more to gaming than winning, if winning is a priority, then it'll always come at the expense of other aspects.
WAAC players are dirty. They cheat, they lie and try to advantage themselves. For example, some WAAC said Wood Elves can only stand and shoot. They ignore rules like str 4 bows at short range and other Wood Elf Rules.
I play to have fun and not WAAC. If winning is a priority you'll find yourself short of opponents.
If my battle if generally going bad to worse I know myself I will quieten down and generally not be too happy BUT after the game I lighten up, always shake hands and congratulate the other player and generally talk about silly moments during the game, be that dice rolls or units doing crazy things. I love the after game talks just as much as the game sometimes.
An example might add more input, as we all seem to have different interpretations of "playing to win":
I was playing with another guy at my LGS, who had a monster stuck between a piece of impassible terrain and one of his own units, but he didn't realize it because he forgot about the 1" rule. Which I agree is a stupid rule, but either way it exists in the rulebook.
We both brought our most optimised lists (later we found out his was so optimised that it was 300 points over :\ ) But either way when he tried to move the monster into positon on turn 2-3 (NOT TURN 1, or I would have let him re-deploy it) I called him on the 1" rule and while he had to accept it he cried "BS" and "I can't belive you actually called that on me" for at least the next HOUR of play, really ticking me and everyone watching the game off (I assume this because after that hour one of the bystanders told him to shut up). Since then he has refused to play me (clearly because he is afraid of his rulebook.... )
zeekill wrote: when he tried to move the monster into positon on turn 2-3 (NOT TURN 1, or I would have let him re-deploy it) I called him on the 1" rule
See, in that situation I would have to side with him. If you agree it's a BS rule you should man up and let him nudge his models back a bit. There is no rule in the book that obligates you to do this but sometimes good sportsmanship means rising above your grievances. The fact that you called him out just because he was hasty in his desire to jockey for a good position just helps make it clear it wasn't about the rule in question, but his aggressive tactics, that is a different issue altogether. The way you describe it, you sound as if your using bad rules as a weapon to combat tactics you don't find agreeable.
I think the general perception people have of WAAC players is of hyper-active obsessives who leach onto the latest internet fad, do mathhammer and play generic uber-netlists of doom (or slight variations there of). I'd argue that such a perception is generalised and a touch harsh. I've nothing against WAAC, provided the opponent isn't a total and is arrogant about it - to me its more to do with personalites rather than the WAAC premise. I'd also argue that more laid back gamers just like to collect/paint/use what they like - either the models or background, they may not care for the WAAC attitude at all and find it jarring (if not offensive) to what they consider the 'spirit' of the hobby to be - again I think that's a generalisation that is also a touch harsh. To me it's about attitudes. For instance I'm completely cold to mathhammer - I don't need to make calculations to tell me that a meltagun will be useful, nor do I need equations to work out how many times my missile launchers will hit/kill/destroy - I often find dice too random and the dice gods too fickle, so why bother?
I also think that WAAC is, in general, more of an American stance - Americans strike me as being a naturally competitive people (am I wrong? I mean no offense with this personal observation), whilst most Europeans, for instance, are more laid back about such things in general. I'm not saying there aren't any competitive players throughout Europe, it just strikes me that the majority of articles/posts I see on WAAC/Mathhammer/the 'Meta-Game' etc, are from Americans, who seem to embrace the tournament scene with a lot of vigour (or at least a lot more vocally) compared to, say, here in the U.K. Is it fair to say the tournament scene is a bigger deal in America than in the U.K (country size comparisons apart)?
Of course WAAC players have fun, I have fun writing lists of all kinds, be they filled with the tournament cheese I've heard about or else heavily themed. I think the way for WAAC and for more laid back fluffy players to understand one another is to play a game using either army - is an overtly competitive army fun to play with/against in a more casual game? I think a lot of people who are vocally against WAAC simply don't want that attitude in their hobby, life's stressful enough without making every game a power struggle. For tournaments, it's a different story, as it is if you have regular friends/opponents who get the same enjoyment out of making the most competitive lists possible - but for random games against stranger's, it may be a bit too much for some people - who don't strictly care for winning - for some it's simply about playing, regardless of the outcome.
I think WAAC players help highlight problems with the rules and army lists in ways that more casual gamers don't - so in terms of the 'meta-game' (if you care for the term at all) they bring things into perspective.
@zeekill - I really think it's more about player's personalities and the way people carry themselves, more than the WAAC attitude in itself - I'd argue that a WAAC player may care so much about winning that for many opponent's it drains any kind of fun from a game. It's like randomly going paintballing for a bit of a laugh with your friends, when one decides to stop off at their house, only to turn up in a Ghillie Suit with a ridiculousy high powered paintball gun, body armour, paint grenades, a rocket launcher and a penchant for judo throws. Sometimes it's just not cool
Orock wrote:You are 17 so you likely havent played people younger than you. There is something fun about playing someone younger, mabye throwing the game a little, letting them do better than they normally would against you, so they get into the spirit and fun of the hobby. But overpowered lists are a bit like watching world champ baseball players play against bottom ranked AAA teams. The outcome is already decided, lets just see how rediculous it is.
Actually I purposely do not play younger players because I dislike not having at least some challenge. I'll just steamroll them, and that would just not be fun for anyone.
That's disrespectful. Don't say that younger players don't pose a challenge. Because no doubt there is a young person in the world who is better than you.
Orock wrote:You are 17 so you likely havent played people younger than you. There is something fun about playing someone younger, mabye throwing the game a little, letting them do better than they normally would against you, so they get into the spirit and fun of the hobby. But overpowered lists are a bit like watching world champ baseball players play against bottom ranked AAA teams. The outcome is already decided, lets just see how rediculous it is.
Actually I purposely do not play younger players because I dislike not having at least some challenge. I'll just steamroll them, and that would just not be fun for anyone.
That's disrespectful. Don't say that younger players don't pose a challenge. Because no doubt there is a young person in the world who is better than you.
plus being 17 himself really isn't a strong position to bring the whole age=experience BS into anything
Orock wrote:You are 17 so you likely havent played people younger than you. There is something fun about playing someone younger, mabye throwing the game a little, letting them do better than they normally would against you, so they get into the spirit and fun of the hobby. But overpowered lists are a bit like watching world champ baseball players play against bottom ranked AAA teams. The outcome is already decided, lets just see how rediculous it is.
Actually I purposely do not play younger players because I dislike not having at least some challenge. I'll just steamroll them, and that would just not be fun for anyone.
That's disrespectful. Don't say that younger players don't pose a challenge. Because no doubt there is a young person in the world who is better than you.
plus being 17 himself really isn't a strong position to bring the whole age=experience BS into anything
zeekill wrote: when he tried to move the monster into positon on turn 2-3 (NOT TURN 1, or I would have let him re-deploy it) I called him on the 1" rule
See, in that situation I would have to side with him. If you agree it's a BS rule you should man up and let him nudge his models back a bit. There is no rule in the book that obligates you to do this but sometimes good sportsmanship means rising above your grievances. The fact that you called him out just because he was hasty in his desire to jockey for a good position just helps make it clear it wasn't about the rule in question, but his aggressive tactics, that is a different issue altogether.
Thing is again, if it was turn 1 I would have let him do it, but once turn 3 hit and my positioning 100% needs the monster to not do anything (and he had ample time to move it around the terrain by then).
Again, I dislike non-competitive play. Any rule, no matter how stupid, is still a rule. The only time I don't care is, like I said, when an extensive rules debate comes up. So next time when he deploys he will know of this rule, and while he was a bid mad before, he doesnt have to worry about it again, because he will remember now
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Stella Cadente wrote:
woodbok wrote:
zeekill wrote:
Orock wrote:You are 17 so you likely havent played people younger than you. There is something fun about playing someone younger, mabye throwing the game a little, letting them do better than they normally would against you, so they get into the spirit and fun of the hobby. But overpowered lists are a bit like watching world champ baseball players play against bottom ranked AAA teams. The outcome is already decided, lets just see how rediculous it is.
Actually I purposely do not play younger players because I dislike not having at least some challenge. I'll just steamroll them, and that would just not be fun for anyone.
That's disrespectful. Don't say that younger players don't pose a challenge. Because no doubt there is a young person in the world who is better than you.
plus being 17 himself really isn't a strong position to bring the whole age=experience BS into anything
By younger players I mean the ones that really don't know what they are doing. I see them play others and against each other, and I see their skill level.
Orock wrote:You are 17 so you likely havent played people younger than you. There is something fun about playing someone younger, mabye throwing the game a little, letting them do better than they normally would against you, so they get into the spirit and fun of the hobby. But overpowered lists are a bit like watching world champ baseball players play against bottom ranked AAA teams. The outcome is already decided, lets just see how rediculous it is.
Actually I purposely do not play younger players because I dislike not having at least some challenge. I'll just steamroll them, and that would just not be fun for anyone.
That's disrespectful. Don't say that younger players don't pose a challenge. Because no doubt there is a young person in the world who is better than you.
plus being 17 himself really isn't a strong position to bring the whole age=experience BS into anything
By younger players I mean the ones that really don't know what they are doing. I see them play others and against each other, and I see their skill level.
Ah, I see what you mean. Remember though, adults who have just started will not know what to do either.
Orock wrote:You are 17 so you likely havent played people younger than you. There is something fun about playing someone younger, mabye throwing the game a little, letting them do better than they normally would against you, so they get into the spirit and fun of the hobby. But overpowered lists are a bit like watching world champ baseball players play against bottom ranked AAA teams. The outcome is already decided, lets just see how rediculous it is.
Actually I purposely do not play younger players because I dislike not having at least some challenge. I'll just steamroll them, and that would just not be fun for anyone.
That's disrespectful. Don't say that younger players don't pose a challenge. Because no doubt there is a young person in the world who is better than you.
plus being 17 himself really isn't a strong position to bring the whole age=experience BS into anything
By younger players I mean the ones that really don't know what they are doing. I see them play others and against each other, and I see their skill level.
other older players might think the same of you, and I'm sure you were once one of these "younger players", I'm sure you wouldn't think older players were jerks for not playing you just because of you being less experienced and younger, like I'm sure these younger players don't think your a jerk for automatically assuming you would steamroll them, did it not occur to you that maybe one of them COULD steamroll you, but they don't play with that attitude all the time and sometimes just like to mess around with the TOYS they play with?
or maybe you could play on there level, believe it or not you don't have to bring your A game all the time, its only toys
Rules are important, knowing how to discuss the rules in a civil manner and call up people on rules at the right time is another matter entirely.
---
In casual friendly matches If you have a powergamer in your midst a good way of lightening up a game is to swap armies.
1. It provides a challenge for the power gamer as he has to try an win with an army not purely designed for winning.
2. Its a great way to show the powergamer that what he brought along wasn't really conducive to the general enjoyment of everyone else.
3. It is usually very funny to play. ("Hey guys I brought my lethal Imperial Fists of doom" .. "That's nice, but today you will be using Bob's Snakebite Madboyz Feral Ork Army")
Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:It is a game
Sorry to state the bleeding obvious but you are getting in a bit of a state about playing toy soldiers.
By all means be competitive but there is no need to get so wound up about how others approach the game.
but for goodness sakes, "I am argumentative" is not a good way to approach the issue. Thought Dakka was a forum for discussion, not a killing field.
Wasn't the first thing I said that if you dislike argument to not post?
Yeah, and it was hardly in the spirit of enlightened discourse. It basically lays out that you don't want a discussion, you want to rant.
Its called a "debate" not a "rant." I actually wanted someone to present me with good argument, not to completely overpower others with my opinion while not letting them talk.
For the record:
That is rather a selective quote which I qualified it in a reasonable way.
You obviously only wish to hear your own opinions so I will glady oblige and remove myself from your ravings.
htj wrote:See, that's not how your opening comments came across. They came across like a straight rant, that's all I'm saying.
Rant or not, I posted backround info on the debate I was trying to start. No matter how it turned out looking it gave much more info and kept the thread on-topic for longer than if I just posted the question and nothing else.
My intent was to try to spark a debate. I don't really care about your comments on how I did so, as that's not the purpose of this thread.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:For the record:
That is rather a selective quote which I qualified it in a reasonable way.
You obviously only wish to hear your own opinions so I will glady oblige and remove myself from your ravings.
You never gave an opinion.... The only thing you said is that I should stop "ranting" (I.E. debating) and continued from there, before saying I only want to hear my own opinions.
Do I think my opinions are correct? Yes
Did I want to find a solid counter-argument? Yes
Did I find one? No
Orock wrote:You are 17 so you likely havent played people younger than you. There is something fun about playing someone younger, mabye throwing the game a little, letting them do better than they normally would against you, so they get into the spirit and fun of the hobby. But overpowered lists are a bit like watching world champ baseball players play against bottom ranked AAA teams. The outcome is already decided, lets just see how rediculous it is.
Actually I purposely do not play younger players because I dislike not having at least some challenge. I'll just steamroll them, and that would just not be fun for anyone.
That's disrespectful. Don't say that younger players don't pose a challenge. Because no doubt there is a young person in the world who is better than you.
plus being 17 himself really isn't a strong position to bring the whole age=experience BS into anything
By younger players I mean the ones that really don't know what they are doing. I see them play others and against each other, and I see their skill level.
Ah, I see what you mean. Remember though, adults who have just started will not know what to do either.
I don't play most kids because they lack any intellectual properties and cry about losing alot. They seem to do the you were lucky take every time they loose.
So tell me, if for you the fun in the game is the victory, do you not have fun if you lose? Does the fun only start on the point of victory?
Did I want to find a solid counter-argument? Yes
Did I find one? No.
Did you not find Howard A Treesong's well reasoned response to be a solid counter-argument?
You brought up an example of a rules issue regarding a rule that you consider 'BS' in which you enforced the rule and another player reacted poorly. Tell me, does this kind of thing happen often? Will you generally let minor rules infractions slide, or are you very strict on every aspect of the rules?
The problem is "wanting to win so bad that you are a dick about it".
I play wargames to escape the stress of daily life, relax, and enjoy the escapsim of toy soldiers. The last thing I want to encounter is a TFG across the table from me that thinks toy soldiers is "Serious buizin3ss111" and acts like a douche bag the whole time...
the fact that the OP started the trhead saying "I like to argue, don't post if yopu can't take it (paraphrasing) is very telling me thinks and might hint at the problem.
So to sum up: You want to win? Great, just try not to be a tool on the way to victory...
Just thought I'd add another $0.02, if you lose and have fun, of course it means the game was played well. I'm sure everyone would rather lose for the sake of a better game, and, although you don't know it yet, that might be it: a sacrifice of sportsmanship over something that will end up being a crucial game-winning move.
It's happened to me before, always err on the side of gentlemanliness.
Reading all this made me wonder why I hate competitive play so much, it probably has to do with how we go about our victories. My brother and his gang are quite notorious at wanting to win at any cost, so that might be the source right there.
But you shouldn't have a problem with playing a competitive person, as long as they were cool about it. ie, you shouldn't mind their geared-up list, as long as it wasn't severely OP.
I mean, inappropriate victorious behavior is not the greatest way to go.
Minor Rules infractions, yes I do let them slide most of the time. But excatly what?, I'm just curious.
As for the 1" rule, I never said it was BS. The other guy called out BS when I told him about the rule. It's a stupid rule, but its one that can make or break a battle sometimes.
About losing, I do still have fun with the game if I lost because of a well fought tactical battle. I love that, although it does make me leave the table slightly disheartened.Still I have no issue with it, I'll get them next time. If I lose because of such dumb luck its unbelivable, I still somewhat have fun, we still move toy soilders around on a table, but I kinda have a sour taste in my mouth from dumb luck losses.
As for the counter argument, sorry. Completely forgot. It was late at night
warspawned wrote:
I also think that WAAC is, in general, more of an American stance - Americans strike me as being a naturally competitive people (am I wrong? I mean no offense with this personal observation), whilst most Europeans, for instance, are more laid back about such things in general. I'm not saying there aren't any competitive players throughout Europe, it just strikes me that the majority of articles/posts I see on WAAC/Mathhammer/the 'Meta-Game' etc, are from Americans, who seem to embrace the tournament scene with a lot of vigour (or at least a lot more vocally) compared to, say, here in the U.K. Is it fair to say the tournament scene is a bigger deal in America than in the U.K (country size comparisons apart)?
Then's there us Canadians who will let you have rerolls, take back moves if you misunderstood rules and prod you in the right direction until both sides ends up losing but sitting down afterwards at Tim Hortons for an Iced Cappucino talking about how fun the game is.
zeekill wrote:Minor Rules infractions, yes I do let them slide most of the time. But excatly what?, I'm just curious.
As for the 1" rule, I never said it was BS. The other guy called out BS when I told him about the rule. It's a stupid rule, but its one that can make or break a battle sometimes.
Out of curiosity, do you let that one slide when it isn't important?
broadcast wrote:
Then's there us Canadians who will let you have rerolls, take back moves if you misunderstood rules and prod you in the right direction until both sides ends up losing but sitting down afterwards at Tim Hortons for an Iced Cappucino talking about how fun the game is.
Man, I miss playing people like that! Catching people off with rules they're not familiar with is not how the game should be played in my opinion. Like when I play my Cryx list and encounter a newish player, and they say "I'll shoot that unit", I'll tell em "Not yet, you'll auto miss due to the stealth, this and this unit however you can hit". Unless it's an AoE weapon, then I'll cry inside.
zeekill wrote:Minor Rules infractions, yes I do let them slide most of the time. But excatly what?, I'm just curious.
As for the 1" rule, I never said it was BS. The other guy called out BS when I told him about the rule. It's a stupid rule, but its one that can make or break a battle sometimes.
Out of curiosity, do you let that one slide when it isn't important?
Sort of. I point it out so that people are aware, but after they shift it over a tad just to satisfy me I let them leave it at half an inch or 3/4 unless it really matters. I'm not going to climb over the table to personally mesure out every inch between each unit unless it matters (although I can imagine the looks I would get if I did ).
I gave up playing the game because of a different breed of player, the win at all cost and sulk if you dont player. I had a friend that resorted to throwing his models across my bedroom when he started losing badly against my Wood Elves... A: I dont count him as a freind anymore B: There is far too many of tese types of players out their.
Theres nothing wrong with playing to win as long as your curtius, fair and your a good winner or good loser.
This is what I don't understand, and maybe why people have an issue. The entire prospect of playing a "just for fun" list I don't get.
Why play nothing but your best? Is it fun for you to see your sub-optimal units do almost nothing compared to the points you paid and then die? The units you had to pay the money for overpriced GW models, nonetheless.
Because if everyone only played the 'best' lists, you'd only ever be playing against the same four or five lists. This would be boring.
So, the vast majority of gaming groups make an unconscious group decision to lower the 'competitiveness' level of the armies in friendly play, so that we can collect and play with the models we like and a face an interesting selection of opponents.
This is what I don't understand, and maybe why people have an issue. The entire prospect of playing a "just for fun" list I don't get.
Why play nothing but your best? Is it fun for you to see your sub-optimal units do almost nothing compared to the points you paid and then die? The units you had to pay the money for overpriced GW models, nonetheless.
Because if everyone only played the 'best' lists, you'd only ever be playing against the same four or five lists. This would be boring.
So, the vast majority of gaming groups make an unconscious group decision to lower the 'competitiveness' level of the armies in friendly play, so that we can collect and play with the models we like and a face an interesting selection of opponents.
Of course, in a tournament different rules apply.
Well first off its like 10 or 15 lists, and even then every list has variations of it. And if it presents a challenge I don't care if I faced a list like it before. That just lets me be more prepared to play against it.
Theres a few key differences between Playing for fun, playing to win, and WAAC. I think Playing only with optomized list is borderline WAAC. I mean unless you dont really care for the IP or lore and you just play 40k cause its the tabletop game you can easiliy get the most games in cause its the most popular then most players have a favorite army or unit or something and that army or unit may not be competive or as good as an optimized army. Part of playing for fun would be playing with the army you LIKE and seeing how well you can do with it against others doing the same. Of course a lot of people (like you it seems) get their fun from making their army as good as it can be and you get a lot of fun from playing similar people but if you take that against soemone army that they built just for fun with cool units then it wont be as fun for him (or you) cause the match isnt balanced.
Personally I like playing games that give a 50/50 chance. Id give an analogy, I love racing games and Im really good. Now when I play others depending on their skill level and what they choose I choose accordingly. I'd rather give my opponent a chance to win than to wipe th floor with them just cause I can.
Few points, Zeekill, I'm pretty certain we play at the same shop and know who each other are there's a few things i'll point out:
1: There is a massive difference in play styles and play levels. For example, I have played in Grand Tournments for 7+ years now. I know what when I goto a GT sleeves are rolled up, i'm in for a awesome fun competitive game, I bring my optimal list, and let it fly. I play fair, hard, fast. That's my play style.
2: There is a massive difference in playing in a LFGS. A GT player who does not see that will always run into problems. Your list, will look horrific to many LFGS. Casual players are not up to snuff on their rules. They won't be used to talking and dialoguing about the rules. It will get ugly. If you want to still seek a "competitive" game in your gaming shop, tone down your list to challenge yourself. Otherwise your going to make your opponent feel you just wanted to kick their butt to the curb. Its an awful feeling to have.
3. Rules conversations. There is again, a different way to handle a rules conversation in a GT vs LFGS pick up game. In a pick up game, you need be more casual. Dice stuff off, offer do overs to the opponent, because they likely have no idea what your talking about. You want to make your game awful and not be able to find a opponent? Or do you want lots of pick up games. Part of being a really quality gamer is knowing your surrounding. GT level rules arguments are usually easy. "Hey look at page 5, its got blabah rule." Opponent: wow, never saw that one, cool thanks for pointing it out." Or "hey judge..."
4. Playing to win: I'm a GT gamer. I enjoy tactical, competitive play. I don't mind losing if my opponent is a good sportsman, and tactically takes me apart. I might be disappointed, but at the same part I learned something. LFGS players often do not think this way. They aren't looking for that. Their looking to check some dice and laugh. Its not going to happen vs a optimized list. A vetern GT gamer wiht a fluffy list, can often beat LFGS players with GT hardened lists.
5: Lastly, you may have been witnessed to the way I play my armies. In said LFGS, i don't get asked for pick up games often. There is this common flawed logical that GT gamers "only want to win." And people know I goto a lot of tournments in GW Voorhees land. What I do when someone asks me to play I...
-First say the army i'm playing lately its "i'm played chaos space marines"
-Next ask if they have a printed or written list they would like to use
-Next hand them 4-5 of my lists and say, pick a list you would really like to play against
-Ask to see their list.
Why? Often the FLGS player will notice "wow there are some really good lists and some balanced lists here." Often they will go right to the balanced or fluff list. I will then ask to see their list. I will then mention, i do goto tournments, lets dice for sides terrain etc. Handshake, and talk about there army. I don't even move a model until i have talked to my opponent, found out how much experience they have, or really know a little about them. Then I start. Why: because I know how experienced my opponent is. I'll know that maybe my opponent has played for 1 year. I'm going to offer dice off's, let him take things back, and play very casual. If he's a veteran and picks my fluffy list i ask. "are you getting ready for a event?" your list is really tweaked, do you need help with practice? I want my opponent to always walk away with several things
-a few laughs and willing to play me again
-having learned something
-willing to consider painting and tournment play
-not feeling like he has to go kick a dog or the wall
zeekill wrote:Minor Rules infractions, yes I do let them slide most of the time. But excatly what?, I'm just curious.
As for the 1" rule, I never said it was BS. The other guy called out BS when I told him about the rule. It's a stupid rule, but its one that can make or break a battle sometimes.
OK, that makes sense. What I meant by minor rules infractions, well, I suppose that's the kind of thing that's a judgement call, so it's hard to say. Genuine mistakes, caught early, should be corrected but sometimes even a major one it's best to forgive if it will prevent souring the game for both players. Unfortunately, there are always going to be scrubs who will take advantage of this, just as there will always be WAAC players.
About losing, I do still have fun with the game if I lost because of a well fought tactical battle. I love that, although it does make me leave the table slightly disheartened.Still I have no issue with it, I'll get them next time. If I lose because of such dumb luck its unbelivable, I still somewhat have fun, we still move toy soilders around on a table, but I kinda have a sour taste in my mouth from dumb luck losses.
Ah, OK. I think that most people who decry competitive play rail against people who play hard to win, enforce every rule to the point of hostility and both win and lose with no grace. Often, this will result in people reacting badly to any kind of competitiveness, associating it with jerky players they've played before.
This is what I don't understand, and maybe why people have an issue. The entire prospect of playing a "just for fun" list I don't get.
Why play nothing but your best? Is it fun for you to see your sub-optimal units do almost nothing compared to the points you paid and then die? The units you had to pay the money for overpriced GW models, nonetheless.
Well, I know it might be a little misleading, but people play 'just for fun' lists...for fun. Just for fun, in fact. I don't need to win every time to feel like I had a good time. I value a close game, or an amusing game, far more. I'm not throwing any judgements on you, Zeek, but most of the 'Competitive' or 'Win at All Costs' players I run into are jerks. They are the gaming equivalent of a schoolyard bully. They get picked on in their high school, so they go down to the wargaming club and ruin other peoples' days to cheer themselves up. In addition, the typical 'Powergamer' (again, that I run into) is also the first person to cheat.
Now, in a tournament, sure, powergame away. I expect it then. (Hard money or soft plastic is on the line, and then all's fair.) But in a friendly (pickup) game? But recognize that not everyone is the kind of person who plays baseball is going to go out and run ten miles, spend two hours in the batting cages, lift weights for two more hours, and then go home and take a bunch of steroids. Some people are just going to get together with some co-workers on the weekend and have fun. The same applies to wargaming.
There's a scene in that movie where Jim Carrey's character shows up uninvited for a pick up basketball game. He then proceeds to be a ball hog, throw hard picks, and talk crazy junk.
When win at all cost guy shows up to a friendly game night I can't help but imagine him in blue spandex and talking with a lisp.
It's fine if you want to play to win, but the problem with people that play to win is most people like that are a giant douche about it. Not everyone, but still. Like everything else, it's the bad apples that spoil the bunch.
This is what I don't understand, and maybe why people have an issue. The entire prospect of playing a "just for fun" list I don't get.
Why play nothing but your best? Is it fun for you to see your sub-optimal units do almost nothing compared to the points you paid and then die? The units you had to pay the money for overpriced GW models, nonetheless.
Well, I know it might be a little misleading, but people play 'just for fun' lists...for fun. Just for fun, in fact. I don't need to win every time to feel like I had a good time. I value a close game, or an amusing game, far more. I'm not throwing any judgements on you, Zeek, but most of the 'Competitive' or 'Win at All Costs' players I run into are jerks. They are the gaming equivalent of a schoolyard bully. They get picked on in their high school, so they go down to the wargaming club and ruin other peoples' days to cheer themselves up. In addition, the typical 'Powergamer' (again, that I run into) is also the first person to cheat.
Now, in a tournament, sure, powergame away. I expect it then. (Hard money or soft plastic is on the line, and then all's fair.) But in a friendly (pickup) game? But recognize that not everyone is the kind of person who plays baseball is going to go out and run ten miles, spend two hours in the batting cages, lift weights for two more hours, and then go home and take a bunch of steroids. Some people are just going to get together with some co-workers on the weekend and have fun. The same applies to wargaming.
Also, some people really enjoy playing models that they like! I am guilty of that. My GK's are 3 stormravens and dreadnoughts that are not *GASP* psyriflemen! My BA jumpers has tooled out vanguard and sanguinary guard. Why you ask? Because I love the models.
As already mentioned, if everyone was bringing their competitive lists all the time there would be almost no variation. I consider myself a decent gamer winning more often than not. I know how to write optimized lists and use them. I just find them rather bland and completely unoriginal. Even in tournaments I don't bring a fully optimized lists because I don't play in super competitive tournaments.
njpc wrote:Few points, Zeekill, I'm pretty certain we play at the same shop and know who each other are there's a few things i'll point out:
...
...
...
Ok... alot to take in.
Before anything else: HAI (you know who you are)! Long time no see.
I get everything you're trying to say, I 100% understand it. The thing is, when it comes to writing a balanced list. Its almost like I can't do it. The first thing I see when I look at a balanced list is 101 ways to make it SO MUCH better, and from that moment on its like a leech on the back of my neck constantly nagging me to make the list competitive. Not playing to the best of my ability in every aspect of the game (List, Target Priority, Objective grabbing, etc) just seems like its pointless when I could be doing all of that. Yes I CAN take that Land Raider. But for 30 more points I can get 2 Long Fang Squads kitted with ML. Why bother with the LR? Yes I COULD run a Black Orc Warboss with my Black Orcs. But then why not run Grimgor?
I suppose plenty of this also stems from the fact that GW raises their price so fast that there is no possible thing to compare it to, and paying $35 for half of a less-than-optimal squad or $20 for a less-than-optimal HQ might as well be the equivalent of slowly selling shards of my soul to GW.
Then again, I'm stuck between a rock and a hard place here, I can keep playing optimal lists only in tournies, or I can write balanced lists and play both in tournies and pickup games.If I MUST pick one, then even though it will slowly kill off my ego I guess I'll pick the one that lets me keep my friends
Sorry in advance for not reading the entire thread, but here's what seems to be the general feeling of myself and my clubmates.
I feel that it is mostly a matter of differing priorities.
Priority 1. What are your playing priorites?
Everyone Plays to Win, but the term would suggest (rightly or wrongly) that winning is first priority and that it takes presedence over the following things
-Making sure everyone has a good time.
-Enjoying other's company
-Having fully painted armies (the spectacle aspect)
For folks for whom the above consderations are more important than winning, it's easy to see where "Play to Win" would be a disagreeable term.
For example:
As someone who enjoys the spectacle and the company of friends as much higher priorities than winning, I have absolutely no interest in playing against someone who shows up with a very competetive attitude and unpainted miniatures. There's almost no point in me even engaging the person in a game as our priorites are so different. Maybe we can work out a comprimise (perhaps he plays a less competative list and I keep from gagging on all the grey platic) but if not, it's better to not play than to force a game that will not be enjoyable for both players.
Priority 2. Where does winning (or even gaming) fit into your life priorities?
For those who have more time and money -or have prioritized so that they do- to invest in the game they may approach the game with a different set of advantages. I realize it's not fair to judge those who put more effort into their gaming, but when a casual gamer shows up for a game and meets someone who has invested a huge amount of time in building their list, spending a large amount of cash on a powerfull combination of units, and knows the tricks of the game, they are going to get hammered and hammered hard. Fairly or unfairly, that's going to leave a bad taste in the mouth.
This is exacerbated by the fact that 40k, WHFB, and WM are games where list-building and knowing the special abilities of a myriad of different armies are as (probably more) important than tactics. Those with time and especially $ to invest have a massive advantage.
Example:
My bi-weekly gaming club is comprised mostly of working folks in their 30's. We don't have a ton of time to dedicate to gaming, so we focus on playing fun games (with painted figures) that everyone will enjoy. Someone who has taken the time to build lists that stretch or break the various rulesets we play is going to damage the enjoyment of all involved because we have neither the time nor interest to do so. We all want to win, but it's not our top priority.
None of the above reasons really justify the hate shown to "Play to Win" gamers, but hopefully it explains where differing priorities can lead to some of the bad feelings.
My advice for everyone is simple.
Find out what kind of game your opponent wants and what their priorities are ahead of time. Even if you end up playing with someone who isn't your type of gamer, at least everyone knows what to expect.
I won't lie, I'm a beer and pretzels gamer. I would much rather joke and have a relaxing game if its not a tournament setting. I tend to win more often than not but thats not that important to me.
There are several friends of mine who get a bad rep of being "unbeatable" which isn't the case. Their lists are solid (We are talking primarily Warmachiene/Hoards here, but GW games apply as well) and they know how to use them. That being said they will usually talk tatics with you after the game to help thier opponent get better.
I have found that bringing 2-3 lists really helps out as you can gage who you are playing. I also find it fun to experiment with other units to see if they have potential for upcoming tournaments.
That being said i think njpc's post is the best articulated advice in this thread.
He took me and a friend, both of us had the AoBR set of marines and not much else (I think he had some scouts). We were going to play an quick game since we were still learning the rules, so the WAAC asked us if we could combine forces and we could team up against his Eldar (about 1000 pts. worth). We agreed and he brought out this army composed almost entirely out of jet bikes, Wave Serpents and a Fire Prism. He then taunts us the entire game because we don't have anything that can get through his armor and he was systematically eliminating anything that could possibly hit him. After putting up with gloating mid-game, gloating post-game, and more gloating the next time I saw him, I almost gave up on the hobby entirely, and I vowed to never be like that.
My other 40k experiences have been people that pull lists off the internet, the cheesier the better, so I never stand a chance. I haven't won a game yet. Probably never will, but I'm going to have fun with it, marching my army of terminators across the field.
So if you play to win and are encouraging to the opponent and maybe even offer advice how to beat an army like yours if they're struggling, more power to you. If you're a jerk, you ain't worth my time.
This is what I don't understand, and maybe why people have an issue. The entire prospect of playing a "just for fun" list I don't get.
Why play nothing but your best? Is it fun for you to see your sub-optimal units do almost nothing compared to the points you paid and then die? The units you had to pay the money for overpriced GW models, nonetheless.
There are several reasons to take a 'just for fun' list:
- Some people don't like spamming the same thing in their list so they may take other things. After all variety is the spice of life.
- Some models are just too awesome not to field even if they're not that great. It'd be a shame to have them just collecting dust on a shelf .
- Fluff reasons because some people like to immerse themselves in game's universe when they play.
Even if its not your thing, hope that helps you understand why not everyone takes optimal lists
WAAC players suck because I'm not that great of a player, so while their busy beating up on my army all I can think about is finishing quickly so I can get home.
I'd rather lose a close game then table someone on turn 3. Its just more fun when both players are into it and doing well. Its just hard for me to do well against min/maxed lists and generals who go all out for the win.
Not trying to offend: Change your thinking, or you'll run out of opponents.
Firstly, the cost factor. I 100% get that. Do I want to run out and buy fluff units when most of my focus is GT's? No way. Most pure GT gamers have their tournment armies. My former WFB Demons, could not be toned down. People would ask "can i play that," i'd realize there is 1 way to play it, I only had GT models, no stand in's. I had some games that despite being friendly. LFGS thought my list was horrific and never wanted to goto tournments. I accepted, I cannot play that army in the shop. I gave it to the Manager to display, because I realized that's where it would do the best good to help him advertize demons. I still played it in tournments, but never in that shop.
I used to look at things like you did. I still look at lists and go "why the heck would you want to run that?" But yet I realize, that's the competitive gamer in me. There's a post above referencing professional baseball vs pick up games. Its the perfect analogy.
If you want to pick up game, be prepared to tone it down. Or don't play your full list. If your opponent is running 1500 pts of balance, run 1250 of optimal. Challenge yourself. You will make yourself 100% a more well rounded and more efficient gamer. Don't tell your opponent, keep it to yourself. You'll find and interest fact when you then goto tournments: you may not need your whole army to win, you also learn how to priortize targets, combats, and you learn more about the opponents army.
I'll also chime in for zeekill: he's not a WAAC player, he's competitive. He's also practice and learned against older veteran gamers. You've fallen into that intereting key void area. Where you can go into LFGS, analyze a list, and give advice to make it better. But you start to fall into a point you have to make a choice
1. Only play tournments?
2. Go into a FLGS, tone down list challenge yourself
3. Go into shop to paint, hang out, laugh, and not game as much.
Me? I game less in LFGS now. I focus more on tournments. I work a lot, have found more enjoyment in painting. I'm playing in the 40k escalation, doing just fine with a somewhat toned down CSM list. Its a challenge, its hard. But its been very rewarding to beat lists that are more optimal then mine. But when I come in for looking for a pick up game, I make sure try some new stuff out:
-Possessed are overly expensive, but they look cool
-Demon weapon of khorne for crazy killy lord whose going to kill himself, why not.
-Double lash in pick up game... No
You could always take up playing Necrons or Tau... then you really need that optimal list to stay competitve Smile and laugh, its just a dice game, your going to do fine!
Zeekill, I've said it once already on these boards and I'll say it again: it's only plastic soldiers being pushed around.
My attitude to wargaming is always try your best at tournaments. When it comes to casual gaming, have a laugh. Life's too short to get stressed out over minis.
I stick to playin regiments of men-at-arms even though they're rubbish (love the background) and I always roll out the trolls, simply becuase the models are f$$$$$G ace IMO. Do I care if I lose? No, I care about my friends and family, my job, having a good life etc. It's all about priorites.
and if you want a real challenge then play with less points than your opponent! Ha ;-)
I had a 4 way Flames of War game the other night and a river cut the town in two. I was on one side with 1500pts 91st Recon Cavalry facing down around 2250 points of Fearless Veteran Fallschmiger (sp?) ... and I beat him!!! That was such a bloody enjoyable game as it really felt like a "no retreat, outnumbered game".
Try doing something like that if you ever get bored of winning dude
(and to the poster above, C'mon you Sexy Magpies, see you down here at Meadow Lane for a thrashing )
I will be brief since I should have gone to bed 2hrs ago, Warhammer and indeed any miniature wargame is at is heart, just as much of a social experience as say going at to lunch with friends, hell even White Dwarf showed us this (before it became the world's most expensive toilet paper ) and you are in essence trying to take out the core of the game with your question, no I'm not talking about your codices or BRB, I am talking about human psychology, no-one I repeat no-one, likes to lose, not now, not ever.
There is nothing that crushes human spirit quite in the way that losing, no-matter what it is, whether it is a pick-up game of 40k, or just a game of Texas-Holdem, hell even WoW raids qualify (yes Steve Carrell, That's what she said, even though I am a dude...).
You are clearly a gamer that is experienced enough to know what units to use, etc, however you are not mentally mature enough (like 90% of the internet, including myself) to have the paradigm shift, where you can unconsciously realise, that anything in life is never about WHAT you do, but HOW you conduct yourself about doing it, for example in that example you gave earlier, you called a distance that would probably have been less than a 1/2 inch.
In a LGS, that is generally not the way you would conduct yourself (It's like bringing the Turkish Flag to the Greek side of the Tennis court) all it is going to do is frustrate your opponent, which in turn leads them (whether they know it or not) to automatically forfeit their A game, which as you have said is your entire reason to play against people. Unfortunately for stubborn people such as you and such as me, you have to learn that whether or not you like it, in life you MUST give a little and you MUST take a little and it seems to me that you have been doing nothing but taking.
Notice how I have played on my point in this post, I eased the mood with a bit of humor, i.e. I played on your psychology, chances are, had I not broken up my post with humor that I probably would not have kept your attention and you would not have been able to fully pay attention to my post.
Now after rambling on for longer than intended, I will bid you good day. I know it is a lot to take in, but think about it, sleep on it if you have too and than see what you make of it.
An oiptimised list is not cheating, is not unreasonable.
Expecting a person to use their rules correctly [within their knowledge, and within reason.] is not unreasonable.
Rules queries are not unreasonable.
Using cheesy tactics that are within the rules, but bend the intention of the rule is an acceptable thing to frown upon, but you're not cheating.
Trying to get someone to play a rule your way is unreasonable.
refusing to let someone use your dice is unreasonable.
Being rude or insulting players is unreasonable.
Rules calling on EVERYTHING. especially while knowing nothing or worse, everything about an army. That is extremely unreasonable.
All in all, Playing to win is good. It's healthy, and it's acceptable.
Playing to win, by bending the rules, is unacceptable.
and if you want a real challenge then play with less points than your opponent! Ha ;-)
I had a 4 way Flames of War game the other night and a river cut the town in two. I was on one side with 1500pts 91st Recon Cavalry facing down around 2250 points of Fearless Veteran Fallschmiger (sp?) ... and I beat him!!! That was such a bloody enjoyable game as it really felt like a "no retreat, outnumbered game".
Try doing something like that if you ever get bored of winning dude
(and to the poster above, C'mon you Sexy Magpies, see you down here at Meadow Lane for a thrashing )
I think that's something that may apply solely to Flames of War.
Giving your opponent an extra 750 points in Warhammer, 40k, or an extra 25 points in Warmachine/Hordes? You'll get rofltstomped, unless the scenario is to 'hold out' for X amount of time.
Also, if you're a tournament gamer, it wouldn't hurt to be friendly. I don't mind being stomped into the ground if I'm having fun and learning.
When I play against lower- level players [Most of my gaming group, who're mostly younger than 14 and not particularly good] I always try to make the game fun for them, but I'm still trying to win.
IT wouldn't stop them enjoying playing, and they'll die laughing [metaphorically]
and if you want a real challenge then play with less points than your opponent! Ha ;-)
I had a 4 way Flames of War game the other night and a river cut the town in two. I was on one side with 1500pts 91st Recon Cavalry facing down around 2250 points of Fearless Veteran Fallschmiger (sp?) ... and I beat him!!! That was such a bloody enjoyable game as it really felt like a "no retreat, outnumbered game".
Try doing something like that if you ever get bored of winning dude
(and to the poster above, C'mon you Sexy Magpies, see you down here at Meadow Lane for a thrashing )
I think that's something that may apply solely to Flames of War.
Giving your opponent an extra 750 points in Warhammer, 40k, or an extra 25 points in Warmachine/Hordes? You'll get rofltstomped, unless the scenario is to 'hold out' for X amount of time.
It's why I love Flames of War now!
Yeah, you're probably right mate I've never tried a huge points difference in 40k but might give it a go...lol!!!
I regards to "soft lists" there is something else I also picked up from MTG and this is the element of going rogue. This is where you build a deck (list) that is competitive but in an unusual way, it also usually requires a greater degree of skill to use. However as people at tournaments have become so used to net listing and preparing to play against net lists they find there deck (list) does not have the tools to deal with it and the player does not know how to play against such decks (lists). Conley woods is a name that springs to mind in this regard.
So just because the OP is using a tournament net list it doesn't make him a good player. The good player is one who experiments and builds against the metagame to pull off what appear to be stunning upsets, but are in fact a product of extensive play testing and good generalship. Just because it was copied of the Internet and it doesnt look like a tough list it doesn't mean it isn't a wolf in sheeps clothing.
The trouble is too many poor players use tournament net lists as a crutch and then whinge and cry on forums because no one likes them anymore because they acted like a douche when they lost to a better general, not a better list.
This is what I don't understand, and maybe why people have an issue. The entire prospect of playing a "just for fun" list I don't get.
Why play nothing but your best? Is it fun for you to see your sub-optimal units do almost nothing compared to the points you paid and then die? The units you had to pay the money for overpriced GW models, nonetheless.
(No offence meant)
To me honestly, running sub optimal units means you have to be creative in how you win. You've got to play to the strengths of what you've got and learn them more than the most optimal units, whose strengths are glaringly obvious. I think this simulates war better for me as well, because you are not always going to be running at your best and will often have to improvise with what you have.
Plus it throws a curveball at people who are used to seeing the optimal unit and know how to counter them, they've rarely seen sub optimal ones so might not know whats the best way to deal with them. Take for example Chaos 2x Daemon Prince LOS lists, people know how to deal with them because of the frequency its used. Mixing it up with Sorcerors or Chaos Lords might actually be a good thing and provide unexpected advantages.
UNCLEBADTOUCH wrote:
The trouble is too many poor players use tournament net lists as a crutch and then whinge and cry on forums because no one likes them anymore because they acted like a douche when they lost to a better general, not a better list.
I'll agree with this. As non-tactical as 40k is, a better general with a sub-optimal list can beat a lesser player with a optimized net list.
Since i'm ending up on to of the multiquote as espousing a 'fun' only list i just want to reiiterate my original post, to avoid confusion.
Playing a fun list (since the OP doesn't get the attitude) is for me playing a list that has the models i think look best, or are most enjoyable to play, not neccesarily the ones with the best rules. I enjoy playing them regardless of effectiveness, so my list is fun for me to play.
Hardcore list VS hardcore list with no TFG is fun
Non-optimized VS non-optimized is fun
Hardcore VS non-optimized (without warning) is not fun.
To really mess with TFGWAAC's heads i'll sometimes give them 250 pts (1750 fun list vs 2000 WAAC) and then play that fun list hard. The less optimal units are just that, but the WAAC-holes will probably not have played them too often. It's nice to hand someone like that their unkillable list at the end of the game with a smile and a 'good game' having nuked their prized uberunits with a mob of grotz or a trukkfull of Flash Gitz.
I sometimes take 100 Necron Warriors and a lord at 2000 pts. To me it's very fluffy and fun. It mathhammers out to be about the most pathetic list in the Necron Dex, but it'll surprise you sometimes
In short: Play people like you for optimal fun. If you like to play har, play someone who liked hardcore play. If you like to play fluff/themed play someone else who likes that style, if you can
I mainly play a Mech DE list with 20+ lances and FNP everywhere.
Which is fine, if I was playing in a tournament. It really takes the fun out of the 'pro' army when I'm fighting a Space Marine army which has AV consisting of a Lascannon Predator and 2 Meltaguns.
The thing is, I don't play this list because I know it will win. There's plenty of IG and SW players that would stomp me. Hell, I lost to Necrons a couple weeks ago. I play it because I find it cool. Everything in my list is cool to me. Only things that I wish I could use is some Incubi and a third Blasterborn unit.
I have no problem with running what you think is cool, but I'm not gonna take 30 Mandrakes just because you would feel better if my list was gak.
Don't have time to read all those mighty walls of text. My two cents:
I think you have confused, "playing to win," where you can simultaneously be, "playing for enjoyment," with, "WAAC."
This may have been covered already but a quick skim of the OP suggests you had mixed up the two concepts. WAAC is bad. Playing to win is natural. It's a game ergo it's competitively natured. Playing to lose or not trying is bad sportsmanship.
I'd not insist that my opponent fills his list with anything he didn't like, but i reserve the right to run gak units myself without being lectured on how mathematically gakky they are
As long as i know what kind of game i'm getting into i'm fine with any power level of list. I tend to keep a few dozen lists on hand for various levels of competitiveness.
ArbitorIan wrote:Running a 'just for fun' list This is what I don't understand, and maybe why people have an issue. The entire prospect of playing a "just for fun" list I don't get.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that "just for fun" lists are not "just for fun". Just for fun implies that they repsresent no thought or consideration. Many of these aren't collections made around a "list" rather, they collected around asthetic or fluff prefferences. It would be more accurate to call them Modelers or Fluff "Armies", since "list building" might not have anything to do with their creation.
It's nearly impossible to overstate how far apart the reasoning can be between someone who buys a model because they like it (whether because of asthetics of fluff) and someone who buys a model because it fits a niche in their game list.
ArbitorIan wrote:
Why play nothing but your best? Is it fun for you to see your sub-optimal units do almost nothing compared to the points you paid and then die? The units you had to pay the money for overpriced GW models, nonetheless.
I would answer those questions with several questions from a modeler or fluff enthusiast's perspective.
-Why would I want to buy multiples of the same unit when I already have 1 or 2?
-Why would I want to tie myself to a list that doesn't include some of the coolest looking units in the codex?
-Why would I want to buy/model a unit that didn't "accurately" reflect the unit that I am basing my army on?
-Why would I want to buy that butt ugly piece of...?
These aren't game consderations, but to model or fluff enthusiasts they are no less important factors than list-worthyness is to a competative player.
I think most people's view of WAAC is a misconception of the people they think are WAAC.
90%+ of tourney players are not WAAC. And my tourney players I mean those who travel to GTs not you RTT players.
The players that are WAAC are usually local players that seek for exploits and do in fact cheat are their venues. They do well in small local tourneys, but thats the limit of their ability. They also like to try and curb stomp the "friendly" gamers on open nights.
The top tourney players that are assigned the WAAC label generally do not deserve it. People blur the local TFG with all competitive players.
ArbitorIan wrote:
Why play nothing but your best? Is it fun for you to see your sub-optimal units do almost nothing compared to the points you paid and then die? The units you had to pay the money for overpriced GW models, nonetheless.
I would answer those questions with several questions from a modeler or fluff enthusiast's perspective.
-Why would I want to buy multiples of the same unit when I already have 1 or 2?
-Why would I want to tie myself to a list that doesn't include some of the coolest looking units in the codex?
-Why would I want to buy/model a unit that didn't "accurately" reflect the unit that I am basing my army on?
-Why would I want to buy that butt ugly piece of...?
These aren't game consderations, but to model or fluff enthusiasts they are no less important factors than list-worthyness is to a competative player.
QFT!
To me what a model looks like and how it plays (is it fun to use) are as important as it's ability to render the enemy into mush.
If a model is butt-ugly, no fun to run but rules powerful it generally won't make my 'fun' lists. Some of my fun lists are pretty competitive, but not uber-optimized. It is possible to compete without spamming the 'best' unit in all three (or 6) FOC slots.
My tournament lists will be more likely to include models based on their effect, as tournament play is more wiun-oriented, and less fun-oriented.
An example, from when i used to play nids. In tournament play i'd rarely run rippers. They aren't hugely effective. In a friendly game (or a themed list for the fun of it) i would, because i love the ugly little anklebiters, look and fluffwise. It didn't preclude me taking some potent units in my fun list (i wasn't playing to lose ) but it did let me get some of my favourite models off the shelf and on the table
Mr. Self Destruct wrote:I mainly play a Mech DE list with 20+ lances and FNP everywhere.
Which is fine, if I was playing in a tournament. It really takes the fun out of the 'pro' army when I'm fighting a Space Marine army which has AV consisting of a Lascannon Predator and 2 Meltaguns.
The thing is, I don't play this list because I know it will win. There's plenty of IG and SW players that would stomp me. Hell, I lost to Necrons a couple weeks ago. I play it because I find it cool. Everything in my list is cool to me. Only things that I wish I could use is some Incubi and a third Blasterborn unit.
I have no problem with running what you think is cool, but I'm not gonna take 30 Mandrakes just because you would feel better if my list was gak.
It isn't the list it is the atttude.
I have been stomped by guys that had me laughing the whole game and we had a blast even thought I got tabled, etc.
It is the chect bumping, and smack talk, and general TFG attitude that kills the mood...
njpc wrote:Few points, Zeekill, I'm pretty certain we play at the same shop and know who each other are there's a few things i'll point out:
...
...
...
Ok... alot to take in.
Before anything else: HAI (you know who you are)! Long time no see.
I get everything you're trying to say, I 100% understand it. The thing is, when it comes to writing a balanced list. Its almost like I can't do it. The first thing I see when I look at a balanced list is 101 ways to make it SO MUCH better, and from that moment on its like a leech on the back of my neck constantly nagging me to make the list competitive. Not playing to the best of my ability in every aspect of the game (List, Target Priority, Objective grabbing, etc) just seems like its pointless when I could be doing all of that. Yes I CAN take that Land Raider. But for 30 more points I can get 2 Long Fang Squads kitted with ML. Why bother with the LR? Yes I COULD run a Black Orc Warboss with my Black Orcs. But then why not run Grimgor?
I suppose plenty of this also stems from the fact that GW raises their price so fast that there is no possible thing to compare it to, and paying $35 for half of a less-than-optimal squad or $20 for a less-than-optimal HQ might as well be the equivalent of slowly selling shards of my soul to GW.
Then again, I'm stuck between a rock and a hard place here, I can keep playing optimal lists only in tournies, or I can write balanced lists and play both in tournies and pickup games.If I MUST pick one, then even though it will slowly kill off my ego I guess I'll pick the one that lets me keep my friends
See what I would do if I were you is similar to what he said. Bring your competitive list along with some more balanced variations of it. When you meet an opponent look at their list and choose accordingly. Yeh you COULD wipe the floor with them with your competitive list but thats NOT playing to the best of your ability. At that point its just an excercise in repitition and moving your units from point A to point B and it isnt fun for anyone (unless you get a kick out of beating up 10year olds). To really test your ability you have to choose a list that matches theirs so ONLY your playing and tactical skills come into play when determining the winner.
Why play nothing but your best? Is it fun for you to see your sub-optimal units do almost nothing compared to the points you paid and then die? The units you had to pay the money for overpriced GW models, nonetheless.
I have a habit of building sub-optimal or obscure lists just to frustrate min/maxers, rule mongers and power gamers. My lists don't include "must have" choices and usually appear overly squishy. I'm one of those cynical folks that actually doesn't play to win; I play to not lose. If I do lose, I have an excuse. If I win though think of how bad you get to feel. All those hours spent number crunching and tweaking were all for nothing. Your ultimate steamroller of destruction halted by a lowly speed bump.
WAAC and min/maxers pretty much drove me to this style of play. I refuse to give those folks any satisfaction in their army selection or their rule mongering skills anymore. For example, I played in a War Machine tourney where I did not even get a turn. The scenario (which was known by my opponent prior to the event as he was a regular to the WM tourney scene) was to occupy a hill. The poor rules for the scenario had you score points at the end of each player turn instead of each full turn. The majority of my opponent's army infiltrated and his feat allowed him an extra move. He had the full point allotment before I even got to move. Can you really say I was outplayed when I didn't even GET to play? That took no skill, gives ZERO bragging rights and pretty much ruined the rest of the day for me. A clear case of abuse of a poor rule set. It might not have been so bad if the scenario hadn't been known ahead of time by my opponent. At least I did walked away with best army since I was the ONLY one who brought jacks to a War Machine tourney (all jacks, by the way. It's not infantry machine....)
My lists are formed by the "rule of cool" and I'll be honest, I walk away with more prizes for sportsmanship or best army then I ever have for best general (don't be fooled, I win my fair share of games with my crappy lists) and if you're one of those folks that has to go to tourneys isn't the point to leave with some swag? I'm also one of those guys who won't make a fuss during a game. If you're a jerk, if your list is clearly exploiting some loophole in a rules set or you try to rules monger throughout the game I'll finish the game and just ding your score on comp or sportsmanship. WAAC should not be rewarded in my opinion. The example of the monster lost during a game because of the 1" rule comes to mind here of an example where a sportsmanship score would get dinged. Just a smidge of sportsmanship would have pointed out the infraction and allowed the player to fix it rather than use it to get rid of a potential threat. I understand it's not your job to make sure your opponent is moving according to the rules but since you obviously were watching the friendly thing to do is point out the infraction, not play "gotcha"! Save that for your Blood Bowl games where it's actually written into the rules that it's okay to pull that stuff.
People are just ridiculous sometimes, trying to tell us what we should think, or that my fun is somehow inferior to their fun.
I just use a rule of thumb..
Don't bring ball-buster lists to normal club/meetings unless you can get someone to practice with you for the tournament.
In a tournament, you bring your best. Comp, or no comp, you bring the best list you like. Even if it means razorspam or 6 psyflemen dreads, you bring what you think is the best you can.
Not Fun: Playing against a guy who complains about his codex everytime something happens(even in his favour), who is constantly online trying to determine the best possible (down to the point) list, hasnt even based (as in attatched them to a base) his miniatures, let alone painted or assembled them yet still buys things from forgeworld because he thinks they would be slightly more optimal and then complains when people dont want to play his Imperial Armour stuff. Losing to this guy isnt fun, winning against this guy isnt fun. Anyone who thinks this kind of behaviour should be encouraged is in a word: wrong.
I think the issue of the "Play to Win is Bad" mindset stems from a deeper issue than just folks not liking when you beat their army. I think it's actually coming from 40k's inherent unbalanced-ness. In Flame of War and Warmachine, you don't get angry when someone wins against you, because generally you don't, and (with decent playing) can't get 'stomped'. Those games, those rulesets are more inherently balanced between factions, meaning that everyone can play to win against everyone else, while using their own lists and tactical decisions, and knowing that there aren't any 'hard counters' to their lists that they may run into.
40k, on the other hand, has situations where you can get tabled turn 1, or where if you play an army, the only way to win is to use a prescribed list and set of tactics. Look at Necrons, for example. Most of the time, Necrons are considered weak, easily tabled. Does that seem fair, seem balanced? It means that the person playing the 'Crons is going into the game with an inherent handicap, which means that the opponent "should" play less competitively, in order to make the game 'even', give both players an equal chance to win. Or you get that one build, like Wraithwing or Destroyerwing, that's absolutely brutal, and there's no way for the opponent to deal with it- and so the Necron player then 'should' not play that style, because it then becomes an uphill battle for the opponent.
Fairness is when, if you take any two lists of equal points values, from any two factions, and have two players who are equally experienced/inexperienced with both play them, you'll get a 50/50 win/loss ratio (with a couple ties) in there, depending on the dice. You can't get that in 40k, since there's some lists that are, well, literally unable to do a thing to other lists. Like what if you were an Ork player who absolutely hated Powerklaws for some reason? And you fought that previously mentioned Wraithwing. You'd almost certainly get slaughtered, especially if you were running Green Tide. Or a Guard player, against deep-striking, outflanking Nidzilla. (whether or not that's possible, you get the idea).
When Dash quits the game because he can't find an underdog anymore, that's when 40k will be balanced. Until then, when there even exist hard counters to entire army lists, the game cannot be truly balanced, and so Playing to Win will be inherently unfair, unfun, and uncool, because while one player, playing to win, concentrates on winning, it's a good bet that the other player will be forced to concentrate on avoiding being tabled, struggling for just a tie.
Anvildude wrote:I think the issue of the "Play to Win is Bad" mindset stems from a deeper issue than just folks not liking when you beat their army. I think it's actually coming from 40k's inherent unbalanced-ness. In Flame of War and Warmachine, you don't get angry when someone wins against you, because generally you don't, and (with decent playing) can't get 'stomped'. Those games, those rulesets are more inherently balanced between factions, meaning that everyone can play to win against everyone else, while using their own lists and tactical decisions, and knowing that there aren't any 'hard counters' to their lists that they may run into.
Can't speak for FoW but this description of Warmachine has no basis in reality.
Anvildude wrote:I think the issue of the "Play to Win is Bad" mindset stems from a deeper issue than just folks not liking when you beat their army. I think it's actually coming from 40k's inherent unbalanced-ness. In Flame of War and Warmachine, you don't get angry when someone wins against you, because generally you don't, and (with decent playing) can't get 'stomped'. Those games, those rulesets are more inherently balanced between factions, meaning that everyone can play to win against everyone else, while using their own lists and tactical decisions, and knowing that there aren't any 'hard counters' to their lists that they may run into.
Can't speak for FoW but this description of Warmachine has no basis in reality.
Actually, it has merit.
In Warmachine, most of the time - most - you can come back. Are there hard counters? Most definately, and there will be times that you will be stomped. But Warmachine and Hordes offer the unique fact that no matter how beaten you feel, it's just like in chess: you only need a single pawn, in the right place, for a checkmate.
As for Flames of War, he's also right. Thanks to the fact that instead of a turn limit, you have a time limit, and that a company can break and retreat if you can wear t down enough, even if you're outclassed you can always fight defensively. With Dug In and Concealed infantry holding an objective, hopefully with some machine guns and a AT gun or two, you have an extremely difficult amount of defense that you'll have to move in order to win.
I think I have a slightly different take on WM/H v 40k.
Imagine a sliding scale with ROFLpwn(me) and ROFLpwn(you) on both ends.
For the scale to be at either extreme, typically it's a combination of one player doing all the right things and the other player doing many wrong ones. Frankly you don't often get ROFLpwnd unless you make a monstrous mistake an opponent can capitalize on. This can develop in either game system (2 models die in an entire match of WM/H, but one of those models was your warcaster / you deploy your 3 LR Vulkan list against Manticore-spam mech IG T1 and watch your vehicles disappear from the table).
It's toward the middle of the scale where I see the most difference between the two game systems. In 40k, a newbie can lose half of his army by T3 but still throw dice at Daemon Princes and feel like he's doing something for the next 3 turns. Is he losing badly? Probably. Does he have any real hope of winning? Probably not. Can "fun" still be had if Lysander can punch that Defiler to death and make 3++ saves til the end of the game? Absolutely.
For a newbie in WM/H, there really isn't that opportunity to keep on truckin' after a bad turn. Warcaster dies, game over. Bad taste in your mouth, and all that.
Similarly there's never really an opportunity to feel totally secure in your impending victory as long as there's a chance that the one important model dies and the game ends. I've won several games with the majority of my army dead and horribly outnumbered.
Good 40k players can look at a table and conceptualize where units/models will be in a couple turns with pretty high reliability because 40k is fairly predictable; models move X, do Y, and dice, on average, should predict Z.
Good Warmachine players can do the same, but to a lesser extent because the combo-building nature can result in weird U-turns, and throwing your opponent off by pulling a Crazy Ivan-type maneuver is actually a key component of the game.
In summary, although I think balance is better in WM/H you can definitely get stomped--and often do-- at any point in the game regardless how good a player you are.
In 40k, getting stomped usually requires you to make key mistakes, or truly aberrant dice rolling on one side of the table or other.
Anvildude wrote: Like what if you were an Ork player who absolutely hated Powerklaws for some reason?
Anvildude wrote:which means that the opponent "should" play less competitively
So, if I decide to take an extremely weak list then my opponents should either take an equally weak list or play worse so that I can have fun?
This is the whole problem with the take-fun-lists argument. As soon as one person's fun list is stronger than another it falls down. Should the player with the stronger list then play worse? According to you they should. Do you really feel that deliberately playing badly is fun? For either player?
And how do you ensure that everyone is bringing equally weak lists?
sarcastro01 wrote:WAAC and min/maxers pretty much drove me to this style of play. I refuse to give those folks any satisfaction in their army selection or their rule mongering skills anymore. For example, I played in a War Machine tourney where I did not even get a turn. The scenario (which was known by my opponent prior to the event as he was a regular to the WM tourney scene) was to occupy a hill. The poor rules for the scenario had you score points at the end of each player turn instead of each full turn. The majority of my opponent's army infiltrated and his feat allowed him an extra move. He had the full point allotment before I even got to move. Can you really say I was outplayed when I didn't even GET to play? That took no skill, gives ZERO bragging rights and pretty much ruined the rest of the day for me. A clear case of abuse of a poor rule set. It might not have been so bad if the scenario hadn't been known ahead of time by my opponent. At least I did walked away with best army since I was the ONLY one who brought jacks to a War Machine tourney (all jacks, by the way. It's not infantry machine....)
I realise it's not much consolation at this point, but your opponent likely cheated. Points have started being accumulated at the bottom of 2 since the earliest Steamroller ruleset I can remember...
Anvildude wrote: Like what if you were an Ork player who absolutely hated Powerklaws for some reason?
Anvildude wrote:which means that the opponent "should" play less competitively
So, if I decide to take an extremely weak list then my opponents should either take an equally weak list or play worse so that I can have fun?
This is the whole problem with the take-fun-lists argument. As soon as one person's fun list is stronger than another it falls down. Should the player with the stronger list then play worse? According to you they should.
Do you really feel that deliberately playing badly is fun? For either player?
And how do you ensure that everyone is bringing equally weak lists?
Note the quotation marks. It's a question of fairness to the loser, fairness to the winner, and fairness to the rules of the game. If you want a balanced game, that is, one where both players have an equal chance of winning or losing, despite what armies they brought? Then yeah, handicaps should be given and taken. If you want to follow the rules directly, then, well, better hope the one with the 'worse' army is either very lucky, or the better player of the pair. If you want to be fair to the winner, (that is, the person with the 'better' army), well, usually playing by the rules is all you need- but at the same time, as before, that can result in a very one-sided match, unless the 'Loser' is incredibly lucky and the 'Winner' rolls all 1s to hit and boxcars for leadership.
About the only way to ensure that everyone is bringing 'equally weak' lists (or equally strong) is to have a system that doesn't have weak/strong lists; one that allows any list to be used either well or poorly, depending on the player. Something about the Warmahordes game is Focus/Fury demarcation- something up to the player completely, that can be used to turn a losing situation into a winning one- make the weakest warjack in the game able to take on the strongest, if the player so desires. It's like Faith Points in Sisters games. Sisters would be a terrible army without them, and even with them, they're still incredibly hard to play if you don't have experience- but with them, they're still competitive, if used properly.
No, deliberately playing badly isn't fun for either, but it occasionally can be fun if the 'Winner' sometimes gives the 'Loser' a free save, or decides to send his Deffdredd against that squad of Termies instead of the Tac marines that can't do anything to it- or letting a mistake with Wound allocation slide instead of making the opponent re-do it (of course, explaining how it's properly done).
It's just, 40K, though being fun to play, isn't by any stretch of the imagination balanced. The sheer fact that you can start a thread about Flash Gitz, asking how they could, potentially be used, and have it turn into "Don't use them. They're completley useless. Use X instead" every time means that it can't be balanced- if it were balanced, that wouldn't happen- you wouldn't have units that were 'useless', or armies that were 'not crunchy enough'.
Anvildude wrote:I think the issue of the "Play to Win is Bad" mindset stems from a deeper issue than just folks not liking when you beat their army. I think it's actually coming from 40k's inherent unbalanced-ness. In Flame of War and Warmachine, you don't get angry when someone wins against you, because generally you don't, and (with decent playing) can't get 'stomped'. Those games, those rulesets are more inherently balanced between factions, meaning that everyone can play to win against everyone else, while using their own lists and tactical decisions, and knowing that there aren't any 'hard counters' to their lists that they may run into.
Can't speak for FoW but this description of Warmachine has no basis in reality.
Actually, it has merit.
In Warmachine, most of the time - most - you can come back. Are there hard counters? Most definately, and there will be times that you will be stomped. But Warmachine and Hordes offer the unique fact that no matter how beaten you feel, it's just like in chess: you only need a single pawn, in the right place, for a checkmate.
As for Flames of War, he's also right. Thanks to the fact that instead of a turn limit, you have a time limit, and that a company can break and retreat if you can wear t down enough, even if you're outclassed you can always fight defensively. With Dug In and Concealed infantry holding an objective, hopefully with some machine guns and a AT gun or two, you have an extremely difficult amount of defense that you'll have to move in order to win.
And just like in chess, if you're not completely familiar with your opponents every model it only takes a single mistake to have your Warcaster torn apart by a furious warmachine powered by a hundred angry ghosts. Wait, that's nothing like chess (because Warmachine is nothing like chess).
The caster kill mechanic does allow the dramatic come back to occur, but it also makes Warmachine far more brutal and demoralizing than 40k (as that's the game we seem to be referring to, I'm not trying to make any sort of 40k Vs Warmachine argument here). You can lose, completely and utterly by your second turn, and with only losing one model.
I don't think that the "your playing to win!" whine has anything to do with the particular game system.
I play to win in the sense I fight uphill battles with little to no hope of victory but if I can drag that moment of triumph from the pedestal of defeat before the boulder comes crashing down you know I'll take that chance.
Anvildude wrote:About the only way to ensure that everyone is bringing 'equally weak' lists (or equally strong) is to have a system that doesn't have weak/strong lists; one that allows any list to be used either well or poorly, depending on the player.
Sadly, there is no game with a decent range of list building options where it is impossible to build a bad list. You talk about the focus/fury system in warmahordes - you can still go into a game with a massive disadvantage. In fact, given that warmahordes is so focused on unit combinations, a poor list is possibly an even bigger disadvantage than in 40K.
The only games where it is impossible to start with a huge disadvantage are those with virtually no list building. If that's the kind of game you want, where list building skill is removed from the gaming equation then there are games like Mercs (pick five out of the six available units), sealed deck tournaments and the like.
Games with customizable forces inevitably make the force selection part of the game - skill at list building is as important as skill at playing. That is not a negative unless that isn't the sort of game you want to play.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Anvildude wrote:It's just, 40K, though being fun to play, isn't by any stretch of the imagination balanced. The sheer fact that you can start a thread about Flash Gitz, asking how they could, potentially be used, and have it turn into "Don't use them. They're completley useless. Use X instead" every time means that it can't be balanced- if it were balanced, that wouldn't happen- you wouldn't have units that were 'useless', or armies that were 'not crunchy enough'.
The fact that some units stink does not mean that the system is unbalanced. Again, all games with force selection have units which are better or worse.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ascalam wrote:Win quotient and fun are not always the same thing in regards to armies..
People who play for win quotient are a whole different breed - any really good player knows that a high win quotient just means that you need better opponents. Most quotient focused players make of point of having themselves be a big fish in a little pond and throw an enormous tantrum when someone upsets their comfort zone.
'People who play for win quotient are a whole different breed - any really good player knows that a high win quotient just means that you need better opponents. Most quotient focused players make of point of having themselves be a big fish in a little pond and throw an enormous tantrum when someone upsets their comfort zone. '
QFT!
I've met a few of these, and they are almosy always the most cheating, rules-lawyering TFG's imaginable. Very occasionally i'm proved wrong, and that guy is usually awesome
zeekill wrote:
The general consensus seems to be that people who "Play to Win" do not play for fun.
That depends. There are a lot of kids who play a game because they can win it, not because they think it's fun. Have you played an FPS on XBOX Live? If yes, then you know what I mean. No way those screaming, abusive little whiners have any fun. I don't know if you're one of them, but if "everyone" I played against complained about my play style, then I'd at least have started thinking about it.
zeekill wrote:
I absolutely play for fun. I obtain enjoyment from outplaying (possibly outwitting) my opponent tactically and, in extention, winning.
Nice Charlie Sheen reference.
Anyway, your idea of fun might be different to other's idea of fun.
zeekill wrote:
Those who "Play to Win" ruin the fun with rules calls
So just because we are playing a friendly game you should be immune to the rules? Why should that happen? Now, keep in mind there is a difference between rules CALLS and rules EXPLOITS. For example, the rule that if a skimmer moves flat out into terrain and immobilises itself (therefore wrecking itself) the passengers immediately die is a rules CALL. While something like the guerenteed 3+ Ward save Chosen WoC unit in fantasy would be an EXPLOIT - something never intended to be possible in the rules, but not noticed before the rules were released.
Well. There's a LOT of rules interpretation going on in WH40K for example, and if your interpretation is different to someone else's, what guarantee do you have that your's is the correct one, and not just the one that benefit you the most. Who made you the Sole Arbitrator of The Rules?
I have a mate who refuses to accept anyone else's interpretation of the rules, so since I'm not bothered enough to join an argument, he always gets all the benefits. I can promise that it's no fun playing with such people.
zeekill wrote:
People who powergame have no sportsmanship
Excuse me? Like any other person, I say "Good Game" and shake my opponent's hand at the end of the game. I never gloat, I try to joke or make small talk during slow parts of a game, and I allow my opponents quiet during close parts of the game when they need to think.
How this argument pans out 1) I get called out and the person says everything from "you play to win, not for fun" to "you're a powergamer" to "you have no sportsmanship"
2) I counterargue everything seen above in my counterargument section, starting for the "I do play for fun" and then ending with "Sportsmanship."
3) He says "there is more to sportsmanship then that."
4) I ask "What?" and restate what I do for sportsmanship.
5) At this point (I think because he has run out of ideas) he says that I am too young to understand (I'm 17, so I doubt that I wouldn't know basic sportsmanship) and that I'll probably learn by the time I'm his age (mid 20's).
6) All I have to say to this is WTF are you talking about.
There IS more to sportsmanship than this. It's a lot to do with trying to ensure a fair game, and not one that only benefits you.
I can well understand those who say you're too young to understand. I know I gained a ton of insight into my own behavior in my late teens early twenties. And my 6 year old niece sometimes thinks that the knowledge she has is all there is to have, no doubt you do the same. It does sound like you have a hard time accepting that you could be wrong. It also sounds like you are nearly violently argumentative, which makes it even less fun.
zeekill wrote:
Why I HATE this way of thinking 1) Because there is nothing wrong with Playing to Win. First of all, I am playing for my own enjoyment. It is up to others to play for their own. I could understand that if I had an ability that allowed me to control my opponent's turns then yes, I would take away from my opponet's fun. But I don't. There is not much I can do past just playing the game that I can do for my opponent's enjoyment. Why should I build sub-optimal lists when I don't need to nor want to?
2) Because if my opponents don't know the rules, its their fault when it comes back to bite them in the ass. If I were to know exactly what they would try to do before they try it then I would warn them about a rule preventing them or puting them in danger, but I can't read minds.
3) People that argue against powergaming say "You are not playing to have fun, only to win." Well, firstly the objective of the game is to win. Secondly, if you want to have fun playing a tabletop game or a board game even, without winning, then how do you have fun? These kinds of games are designed so that you have to screw over your opponets in order to win. So should I purposely ignore weaknesses in my opponent's army? Shooting AP3 weapons at Terminators, throwing my Hammer units into enemy Tarpits, and other STUPID moves so that I force a tie every game that I would otherwise win?
So is there anything else to this? Why the hell to people hate powergaming/playing to win? Do they just not understand that playing to win can be the same as playing for fun? are they just QQing?
Personally, I don't see why making an optimal list should be negative, as long as it's not made by exploiting the BRB or codex. That's just good strategy. Also as long as you don't mod your models to give you an advantage, like crawling marines and stuff.
It's your "rule calling" as you call it, or "rule bending" as others would call it, which would have made me not want to play you twice. Nothing is worse than people who constantly try to bend (read: interpret) the rules in their favor and who won't accept they're wrong.
Anyway, like I said, if it had just been your list people complained about, I'd have understood your argument perfectly. But when you explain all the other things you do which people react negatively to, I gotta say I understand your opponents more and more.
zeekill wrote: Before starting I would like to say that I am argumentative and that anyone that dislikes argument may not want to post here, just for the sakes of other's sanity and civility.
Actually I purposely do not play younger players because I dislike not having at least some challenge. I'll just steamroll them, and that would just not be fun for anyone.
What is the point of playing this game (for me)? To have fun How do you have fun in this game? By beating my opponents into a bloody pulp.
Actually now might be a good time to introduce one of my friend's favorite quotes:
If you are not playing a board game with the intent to lose all of your friends, you arn't playing it right.
The one made by the people that are against my way of playing in my LGS. I thought that was obvious.
I obviously don't know you personally, nor do I really want to get into an argument. After all, there is no point to arguing on the internet. However, I will throw this out, just in case you haven't heard it before, and in case you take some parts of it to heart.
Looking at your posts, it seems that your main issue is that those in your local environment don't really like playing you, and you think it's because you play to win, and they don't. You take pride in the competition, and in doing your best, and they don't. And somewhere in that clash of goals is the problem. It may indeed be part of it. However, to be honest, it's far more likely that you might just be a jerk.
I say that based on nothing more than reading the above quotes and many years of gaming and knowing all sorts of gamers, and having seen all kinds. Yes, sometimes there are genuine philosophical differences and/or personality clashes. But generally, if someone is having the sort of issues you describe, it's just because they're a dick.
Believe me, I don't think worse of you. You're 17. That's how 17 year old males are. Rest assured that I was a far bigger arsehole than you at 17, I guarantee it. Furthermore, we're all gamers. The vast majority of gamers are not extremely skilled at social graces - that's why they're gamers. The combination of competitive juices and people with poor social skills produces a very high douchebag quotient - combine that with being a teenage male, add a pinch of testosterone and bake in the internet, and you have a recipe for complete disaster.
This issue of playing 'competitively' vs playing 'for fun' is almost always not really the issue. I've seen gamers in miniature games and other kinds of game, eg. RTS, board games, whatever, who bring nothing but an A game every time and completely destroy everyone, but who are a joy to play with and against, and everybody desperately wants to play them, even if they're going to lose, because they're gracious, fun, and make it a great experience. That's hard to do, but it's something to aspire to. Conversely, if someone is a douchebag, it doesn't really matter if they're playing for fun or to win; however, everyone hates losing a game to a douchebag, even if it's 'just a game'. So it's not about the clash of 'competitive' vs 'playing for fun', it's simply about social graces. If you're genuinely interested in the other guy as a person, rather than a hapless sucker to be dominated to glorify your ego and show off your mad skillz, he will like you whether you play to win or not.
My advice to you is to look carefully at someone who is well liked, and try to emulate them. Tip: it usually starts with a heavy dose of humility. And note that there is a big difference between someone who is well liked, and someone who you personally like. A lot of teenage males make this mistake - they try to emulate the BMOC, because he's the big dog, leader of the pack, and he's the biggest badass around. This is true especially on the internet, where the biggest internet bully who talks himself up the most is worshipped by everyone, not just teenage males. That's not the person to emulate, though. That guy is a dick, guaranteed. The guy who always seems to be getting into a lot of arguments, or who a lot of people don't like 'because they envy him/don't like that he wins all the time/have sour grapes', is not an awesome guy who is just misunderstood. He's just a dick.
I would say it boils down to bad sportsmanship. Lets look at a football analogy. It is considered bad sportsmanship to run up a score in the fourth quarter simply because you can. Many people hated Steve Spurrier and the Gators for doing this to smaller colleges late in the fourth quarter. The game was decidedly over and then Spurrier would push the victory from a 28/7 score to 49/7 in the last quarter, simply because he could.
Its one thing to play aggressively but its another to beat the little guy into the ground. No one likes a bully.
If you want to play for blood, make sure your opponent is looking to do the same. Don't bring a tournament list to a pickup game, unless there are other like minded individuals there.
So far the primary thing I've been able to take away from this thread is that a large number of posters either do not distinguish between "playing to win" and WAAC'ng or that that they do distingish "playing to win" from "playing for fun".
Anvildude wrote:About the only way to ensure that everyone is bringing 'equally weak' lists (or equally strong) is to have a system that doesn't have weak/strong lists; one that allows any list to be used either well or poorly, depending on the player.
Sadly, there is no game with a decent range of list building options where it is impossible to build a bad list. You talk about the focus/fury system in warmahordes - you can still go into a game with a massive disadvantage. In fact, given that warmahordes is so focused on unit combinations, a poor list is possibly an even bigger disadvantage than in 40K.
Hardly. I've seen people win Warmachine tournaments with horrible lists written by their opponents five minutes before the thing started. Unit combinations and combo stacking really aren't as important in Warmahordes as people seem to think.
I have no problem with people 'playing to win' in fact I encourage it. Just don't be a cry baby if you don't actually win haha. I mostly 'play to win' on tourny or campaign games. For casual games I mostly play to get down mechanics or tactics for specific situations so my focus isn't so much to win overall.
Relic_OMO wrote:
I obviously don't know you personally, nor do I really want to get into an argument. After all, there is no point to arguing on the internet. However, I will throw this out, just in case you haven't heard it before, and in case you take some parts of it to heart.
Looking at your posts, it seems that your main issue is that those in your local environment don't really like playing you, and you think it's because you play to win, and they don't. You take pride in the competition, and in doing your best, and they don't. And somewhere in that clash of goals is the problem. It may indeed be part of it. However, to be honest, it's far more likely that you might just be a jerk.
I say that based on nothing more than reading the above quotes and many years of gaming and knowing all sorts of gamers, and having seen all kinds. Yes, sometimes there are genuine philosophical differences and/or personality clashes. But generally, if someone is having the sort of issues you describe, it's just because they're a dick.
Believe me, I don't think worse of you. You're 17. That's how 17 year old males are. Rest assured that I was a far bigger arsehole than you at 17, I guarantee it. Furthermore, we're all gamers. The vast majority of gamers are not extremely skilled at social graces - that's why they're gamers. The combination of competitive juices and people with poor social skills produces a very high douchebag quotient - combine that with being a teenage male, add a pinch of testosterone and bake in the internet, and you have a recipe for complete disaster.
This issue of playing 'competitively' vs playing 'for fun' is almost always not really the issue. I've seen gamers in miniature games and other kinds of game, eg. RTS, board games, whatever, who bring nothing but an A game every time and completely destroy everyone, but who are a joy to play with and against, and everybody desperately wants to play them, even if they're going to lose, because they're gracious, fun, and make it a great experience. That's hard to do, but it's something to aspire to. Conversely, if someone is a douchebag, it doesn't really matter if they're playing for fun or to win; however, everyone hates losing a game to a douchebag, even if it's 'just a game'. So it's not about the clash of 'competitive' vs 'playing for fun', it's simply about social graces. If you're genuinely interested in the other guy as a person, rather than a hapless sucker to be dominated to glorify your ego and show off your mad skillz, he will like you whether you play to win or not.
My advice to you is to look carefully at someone who is well liked, and try to emulate them. Tip: it usually starts with a heavy dose of humility. And note that there is a big difference between someone who is well liked, and someone who you personally like. A lot of teenage males make this mistake - they try to emulate the BMOC, because he's the big dog, leader of the pack, and he's the biggest badass around. This is true especially on the internet, where the biggest internet bully who talks himself up the most is worshipped by everyone, not just teenage males. That's not the person to emulate, though. That guy is a dick, guaranteed. The guy who always seems to be getting into a lot of arguments, or who a lot of people don't like 'because they envy him/don't like that he wins all the time/have sour grapes', is not an awesome guy who is just misunderstood. He's just a dick.
I hope that makes sense.
Well said Relic, this was my conclusion to this as well and you put it very respectfully.
Hmm have not read every rant but thought I would throw my 2 cents in. I usually have 2 or 3 lists ready to go at almost every game. I ask my opponent if he is playing fluffy, normal or I WILL CRUSH YOU LISTS! And I usually respond in turn. For instance I play fantasy with High Elves. I have my dual archmage list, my slightly better list, and then finally if someone wants I will bring teclis.
For 40k i have necrons and daemons, so most people tend not to care what I bring
Until you bring a ringwraith smackdown (9 wraiths plus Nightbringer) then they whine
I love hearing someone say during setup (usually to their friend next table over)
'This guy's playing Necrons. I'll come watch your game inna sec, once he's beaten..'
That list is beatable too, but it's a lot of fun to run, and most opponents seem to forget that Necrons still have a couple of teeth left, even if thay are pullable if you know what you're doing...
Excuse me? Like any other person, I say "Good Game" and shake my opponent's hand at the end of the game. I never gloat, I try to joke or make small talk during slow parts of a game, and I allow my opponents quiet during close parts of the game when they need to think.
How this argument pans out 1) I get called out and the person says everything from "you play to win, not for fun" to "you're a powergamer" to "you have no sportsmanship"
2) I counterargue everything seen above in my counterargument section, starting for the "I do play for fun" and then ending with "Sportsmanship."
3) He says "there is more to sportsmanship then that."
4) I ask "What?" and restate what I do for sportsmanship.
5) At this point (I think because he has run out of ideas) he says that I am too young to understand (I'm 17, so I doubt that I wouldn't know basic sportsmanship) and that I'll probably learn by the time I'm his age (mid 20's).
6) All I have to say to this is WTF are you talking about.
There IS more to sportsmanship than this. It's a lot to do with trying to ensure a fair game, and not one that only benefits you.
I can well understand those who say you're too young to understand. I know I gained a ton of insight into my own behavior in my late teens early twenties. And my 6 year old niece sometimes thinks that the knowledge she has is all there is to have, no doubt you do the same. It does sound like you have a hard time accepting that you could be wrong. It also sounds like you are nearly violently argumentative, which makes it even less fun.
"There IS more to sportsmanship than this"
Such as?
I abide by the common "sportsmanship protocols" (for lack of a better term.) Unless you give an example of something else, just saying "yes I agree with them you are too young" says nothing. Why should I ensure a fair game? We are playing a flawed system, there is NO SUCH THING as a fair game. EVERY army has a hard or at least semi-hard counter. This is only balanced by superior play and dice rolling luck. The objective of the game is to win. I try to win. I do not gloat, I do not rage when dice rolls screw me, I do not act like a sore loser when I do lose.
SgtSixkilla wrote:
Well. There's a LOT of rules interpretation going on in WH40K for example, and if your interpretation is different to someone else's, what guarantee do you have that your's is the correct one, and not just the one that benefit you the most. Who made you the Sole Arbitrator of The Rules?
I have a mate who refuses to accept anyone else's interpretation of the rules, so since I'm not bothered enough to join an argument, he always gets all the benefits. I can promise that it's no fun playing with such people.
Personally, I don't see why making an optimal list should be negative, as long as it's not made by exploiting the BRB or codex. That's just good strategy. Also as long as you don't mod your models to give you an advantage, like crawling marines and stuff.
It's your "rule calling" as you call it, or "rule bending" as others would call it, which would have made me not want to play you twice. Nothing is worse than people who constantly try to bend (read: interpret) the rules in their favor and who won't accept they're wrong.
Anyway, like I said, if it had just been your list people complained about, I'd have understood your argument perfectly. But when you explain all the other things you do which people react negatively to, I gotta say I understand your opponents more and more.
Well, firstly, I end up being the Sole Arbitrator of The Rules because 99.9% of the time I am right. I do not give my own interpretations, I give the CORRECT answer. I do not "bend rules" I "make rules calls" BIG BIG BIG BIG BIG difference.
Rules BENDING would be something like Going to Ground and laying your model down, then saying "because I get to lay my model down you can no longer draw LoS, therefore you cannot shoot at me." This is obviously bending the rules - a FALSE RULE someone may use against a less experienced player who does not know any better.
Rules CALLING is calling a 100% fair and legal RULE (or combination of rules) written in the rulebook. I will once again use the skimmer example.
Rules 1a) Moving Flat Out means that you cannot disembark that turn.
1b) Moving Flat Out means all Immobilized results turn into wrecked results
2) Failing a Dangerous Terrain Test on a vehicle immobilizes it.
3a) If a vehicle is wrecked, the unit in transport must immediately disembark.
3b) When a vehicle is wrecked, any models that cannot disembark are destroyed.
Result = My Call 1) You moved flat out into difficult terrain and must take a Dangerous Terrain Test. You fail it.
2) Because of rule 2, your vehicle is now immobilized
3) Because of rule 1b, your vehicle is now wrecked.
4) Because of rule 3a, the unit MUST disembark
5) Because of rule 1a, the unit CANNOT disembark
6) Therefore because of rule 3b, your entire unit is destroyed.
There. 100% Legal. No Rules Bending.
Relic_OMO wrote:
zeekill wrote:
Before starting I would like to say that I am argumentative and that anyone that dislikes argument may not want to post here, just for the sakes of other's sanity and civility.
Actually I purposely do not play younger players because I dislike not having at least some challenge. I'll just steamroll them, and that would just not be fun for anyone.
What is the point of playing this game (for me)? To have fun
How do you have fun in this game? By beating my opponents into a bloody pulp.
Actually now might be a good time to introduce one of my friend's favorite quotes:
If you are not playing a board game with the intent to lose all of your friends, you arn't playing it right.
The one made by the people that are against my way of playing in my LGS. I thought that was obvious.
...
...
I find it almost insulting that you remove the parts of my quotes that make them less harsh.
After the "bloody pulp" quote I go on to correct myself, saying "you know, on turn 4, rather than turn 1." Showing that I don't want to steamroll, but to win tactically over a well played game.
After presenting my friend's quote I go on to say that it is not entirely true. The point of the quote was to acknowledge the fact that board games and tabletop games are made so that to win you must screw over your opponents. There is no way to win in 40k without forcing your opponent to take a single casualty (unless that is some kind of scenario with specific win conditions).
Don't twist what people say by removing part of what they say. Only desperate news reporters do that to form fake celebrity relationships. As most should know, taking things out of context often results in poor interpretations of what was being said. Don't do it.
zeekill wrote: The point of the quote was to acknowledge the fact that board games and tabletop games are made so that to win you must screw over your opponents.
I'm not twisting your words at all. The quotes are the parts that demonstrate my assessment, and the 'modifiers' you think make all the difference actually don't.. The point is that you think that the above sentence is the issue people have with you, but it isn't really. Rather, it isn't the fact that you're competitive and skilled that annoys them, but the fact that you're probably, well, kind of a tool.
Maybe that doesn't bother you. It didn't bother me when I was 17. That's okay. It probably will someday. And you may well figure out how to change your attitude on your own. I hope so. I just wanted to make sure you'd heard it somewhere.
You having fun wargaming should be defined by your friends, who should be like-minded. If you play "friendly yet competitive", you will obviously have the most fun playing against people who have exactly the same mindset as you. Fun is defined by YOUR/ONE'S gaming environment, and not always by yourself.
The only exceptions I can think of to this are true-jerk WAAC players. These poor depraved souls have fun sucking others dry pity them
Relic_OMO wrote:
I obviously don't know you personally, nor do I really want to get into an argument. After all, there is no point to arguing on the internet. However, I will throw this out, just in case you haven't heard it before, and in case you take some parts of it to heart.
Looking at your posts, it seems that your main issue is that those in your local environment don't really like playing you, and you think it's because you play to win, and they don't. You take pride in the competition, and in doing your best, and they don't. And somewhere in that clash of goals is the problem. It may indeed be part of it. However, to be honest, it's far more likely that you might just be a jerk.
I say that based on nothing more than reading the above quotes and many years of gaming and knowing all sorts of gamers, and having seen all kinds. Yes, sometimes there are genuine philosophical differences and/or personality clashes. But generally, if someone is having the sort of issues you describe, it's just because they're a dick.
Believe me, I don't think worse of you. You're 17. That's how 17 year old males are. Rest assured that I was a far bigger arsehole than you at 17, I guarantee it. Furthermore, we're all gamers. The vast majority of gamers are not extremely skilled at social graces - that's why they're gamers. The combination of competitive juices and people with poor social skills produces a very high douchebag quotient - combine that with being a teenage male, add a pinch of testosterone and bake in the internet, and you have a recipe for complete disaster.
This issue of playing 'competitively' vs playing 'for fun' is almost always not really the issue. I've seen gamers in miniature games and other kinds of game, eg. RTS, board games, whatever, who bring nothing but an A game every time and completely destroy everyone, but who are a joy to play with and against, and everybody desperately wants to play them, even if they're going to lose, because they're gracious, fun, and make it a great experience. That's hard to do, but it's something to aspire to. Conversely, if someone is a douchebag, it doesn't really matter if they're playing for fun or to win; however, everyone hates losing a game to a douchebag, even if it's 'just a game'. So it's not about the clash of 'competitive' vs 'playing for fun', it's simply about social graces. If you're genuinely interested in the other guy as a person, rather than a hapless sucker to be dominated to glorify your ego and show off your mad skillz, he will like you whether you play to win or not.
My advice to you is to look carefully at someone who is well liked, and try to emulate them. Tip: it usually starts with a heavy dose of humility. And note that there is a big difference between someone who is well liked, and someone who you personally like. A lot of teenage males make this mistake - they try to emulate the BMOC, because he's the big dog, leader of the pack, and he's the biggest badass around. This is true especially on the internet, where the biggest internet bully who talks himself up the most is worshipped by everyone, not just teenage males. That's not the person to emulate, though. That guy is a dick, guaranteed. The guy who always seems to be getting into a lot of arguments, or who a lot of people don't like 'because they envy him/don't like that he wins all the time/have sour grapes', is not an awesome guy who is just misunderstood. He's just a dick.
I hope that makes sense.
Well said Relic, this was my conclusion to this as well and you put it very respectfully.
zeekill wrote: The point of the quote was to acknowledge the fact that board games and tabletop games are made so that to win you must screw over your opponents.
I'm not twisting your words at all. The quotes are the parts that demonstrate my assessment, and the 'modifiers' you think make all the difference actually don't.. The point is that you think that the above sentence is the issue people have with you, but it isn't really. Rather, it isn't the fact that you're competitive and skilled that annoys them, but the fact that you're probably, well, kind of a tool.
Maybe that doesn't bother you. It didn't bother me when I was 17. That's okay. It probably will someday. And you may well figure out how to change your attitude on your own. I hope so. I just wanted to make sure you'd heard it somewhere.
zeekil wrote:I end up being the Sole Arbitrator of The Rules because 99.9% of the time I am right. I do not give my own interpretations, I give the CORRECT answer. I do not "bend rules" I "make rules calls" BIG BIG BIG BIG BIG difference.
This made me laugh so much, having ran tournaments as a judge and attended them I know exactly the type of player you are.
Your a rules bully.
Not one person in this hobby is 99.9% correct about the rules, this is because you are applying an arbitrary set of rules to abstract situations, this calls for interpretation of said rules and where there is interpretation any any rule there is inconsistency.
Ask the best lawyer you can find how often he is right in the interpretation of the law when it is applied to scrutiny (ie in court) you will be lucky to find one who can honestly say over 50/50.
I have dealt with players Like this at tournaments before, they call a judge over, they say the rule is definately X and they are right. Do you know how I deal with them, they get there first warning, when you call for a judgement you present the facts truthfully and how you believe the rules interpret this. You do not assume "im 99.9% right and therefore tell this noob to do it my way".
This is first class donkey-cave behaviour, luckily in tournaments a good judge can knock it on the head.
However in your case you obviously take this attitude to your local gaming club, and wether consciously or subconsciously, you bully your opponent with this attitude. So how does it feel to be a bully? Does it make you feel good to win that way? Are you proud of yourself? Do you still wonder why you are unpopular on your gaming scene?
Time to take a long hard look in the mirror, the fault lies in you, not others.
zeekil wrote:I end up being the Sole Arbitrator of The Rules because 99.9% of the time I am right. I do not give my own interpretations, I give the CORRECT answer. I do not "bend rules" I "make rules calls" BIG BIG BIG BIG BIG difference.
This made me laugh so much, having ran tournaments as a judge and attended them I know exactly the type of player you are.
Your a rules bully.
Not one person in this hobby is 99.9% correct about the rules, this is because you are applying an arbitrary set of rules to abstract situations, this calls for interpretation of said rules and where there is interpretation any any rule there is inconsistency.
Ask the best lawyer you can find how often he is right in the interpretation of the law when it is applied to scrutiny (ie in court) you will be lucky to find one who can honestly say over 50/50.
I have dealt with players Like this at tournaments before, they call a judge over, they say the rule is definately X and they are right. Do you know how I deal with them, they get there first warning, when you call for a judgement you present the facts truthfully and how you believe the rules interpret this. You do not assume "im 99.9% right and therefore tell this noob to do it my way".
This is first class donkey-cave behaviour, luckily in tournaments a good judge can knock it on the head.
However in your case you obviously take this attitude to your local gaming club, and wether consciously or subconsciously, you bully your opponent with this attitude. So how does it feel to be a bully? Does it make you feel good to win that way? Are you proud of yourself? Do you still wonder why you are unpopular on your gaming scene?
Time to take a long hard look in the mirror, the fault lies in you, not others.
First of all, you can't compare several hundred years of law, built on top of itself over and over and spanning many hundred thousand pages to a 112 page rulebook about toy soldiers.
Second of all, I don't rules bully, how can one rules BULLY? Its the rules. I know the rules, I've memorized all but the most obscure ones that almost never come up. Unless someone bends the rules so that they are false, there is no way to rules bully.
Am I a bully because I force people to play by the rules? What are you talking about? If a rule is so obscurely worded (and we all know there are some out there) that there are 17.5 different interpretations, then I give my interpretation, my opponent gives his, and if we can't agree then we dice it off. If a rule is correct 100% (such as, again, the skimmer rule) I call them on it. There is no way one can argue against a correctly worded/interpreted/derived rule. That would be like refusing to remove your tank from the field after it explodes by just standing there and saying "no," without any ground to support your claim.
Thirdly, from what I've gathered, you go up to people that call you over during a tourney and give them a warning when they make a rule call and are correct? Do you at least solve the problem? In any case if it is true that you freak over people making rules calls and throw out warnings that easily do your community a favor and refuse the position the next time you are asked to be a judge.
Lastly, I do not say anything along the lines of "I'm 99.9% right and therefore tell this noob to do it my way" I tell them the rule. If they don't believe me then I show it to them in the rulebook. Why I said I'm right nearly all the time now is that I want people to know that I make correct rules calls, not that I pull out incorrectly interpreted or non-exsisting rules.
@zeekil. Do you understand the concept of arbitrary vs abstract? From what you yourself have said you clearly do not.
Not every single ruling is contained within in the rulebook, and just as in law, it must be tempered by application. It is impossible to point to the rulebook for every example, it does not doesn't contain an exhaustive and infinite supply of example and illustration for every example.
As for being a rules bully, it is where some one, ie you, presents there "interpretaion" of the rules in such a forceful manner that the opponent chooses not to question said "decree". This is no different to bullying a kid in school because he doesn't think the band you like "are definately the best band ever", essentially it's being a douche.
As for tournaments it is not for the participant to try to unduly influence a judge In his favour, even should that individual be correct they have acted in an unsportsmanlike manner and deserve that warning.
For instance I can be determined innocent in a court of law but still be found guilty of contempt.
You have to remember it is only your opinion that you are right 99.9% of the time, I'll give you a hint, your wrong.
Suck it up, be a man and make yourself a better person.
UNCLEBADTOUCH wrote:@zeekil. Do you understand the concept of arbitrary vs abstract? From what you yourself have said you clearly do not.
Not every single ruling is contained within in the rulebook, and just as in law, it must be tempered by application. It is impossible to point to the rulebook for every example, it does not doesn't contain an exhaustive and infinite supply of example and illustration for every example.
As for being a rules bully, it is where some one, ie you, presents there "interpretaion" of the rules in such a forceful manner that the opponent chooses not to question said "decree". This is no different to bullying a kid in school because he doesn't think the band you like "are definately the best band ever", essentially it's being a douche.
As for tournaments it is not for the participant to try to unduly influence a judge In his favour, even should that individual be correct they have acted in an unsportsmanlike manner and deserve that warning.
For instance I can be determined innocent in a court of law but still be found guilty of contempt.
You have to remember it is only your opinion that you are right 99.9% of the time, I'll give you a hint, your wrong.
Suck it up, be a man and make yourself a better person.
Yet again, it is not all "interpretation." I understand that for several rules there is such poor wording that interpretation is the only way to do it, yes. But for most of the rules the wording is clear.
You are talking nonsence. Most of the rules are stated clearly. If I call that I am in area terrain and that I should obtain a 4+ cover save, a clearly stated rule, there can't be any other interpretation.
Perhaps an example could strieghten things out?
Also, stop acting as if rules arguments are 80% of my game. At most I ever call 2 rules in a game. Most games go smoothly without needing any.
Well for starters all terrain should be discussed before the game between opponents to determine what each piece represents, the rule book does not have an illustration for every piece of terrain ever built and a ruling as to what it should count as. There's a direct example linked to a situation you yourself brought up. That is an interpretation that cannot be wholly resolved based upon what is written int he rulebook.
You are the one who introduced the notion of you being 99.9% correct on rules, no one else. Do not try to infer anyone else is using this to attack you, we are merely refuting a point you made to try and attack the points of others.
At the end of the day you can take on board the constructive advice offered by those on the boards here at dakka and improve your hobby experience. Or you can do as you are now, bury your head in the sand ignore us and continue on your path to being a social pariah.
No skin of our noses.
It's been fun but TTFN I have other business to attend to.
UNCLEBADTOUCH wrote:Well for starters all terrain should be discussed before the game between opponents to determine what each piece represents, the rule book does not have an illustration for every piece of terrain ever built and a ruling as to what it should count as. There's a direct example linked to a situation you yourself brought up. That is an interpretation that cannot be wholly resolved based upon what is written int he rulebook.
In our club everyone always makes sure terrain is decided before a game. (For the most part everything is either a hill, ruin, or area terrain)
Poor example of me "rules bullying."
How about naming how a rule that seems easy to understand can be misinterpreted or "rules bullied" with?
Honestly Zeekill, what i'm reading that you may or may not be getting is that it doesn't matter if you're in the right or not.
Say if I'm at my job and i notice that one of my direct reports did something incorrectly, what they think of me isn't necessarily whether or not I'm right or not, it's how i handle the situation. If everyone hated working for me and i found out about it, wouldn't it seem ridicules if i said there was something wrong with ALL my workers?
Without being there I can't say for sure without a video feed but my suspicions like some others are that you may be a bit heavy handed or less than friendly in your dealings.
@Zeekill Yesh, all of posts read like your a very angry arguementive person. I actually had to work up a bit of nerve to bother posting; weighing whether or not advice was worth giving to someone who could likely berate me and dismiss my advice.
I'd have to say that first off you need to take a big step back and look and what your doing/ saying.
zeekil wrote:
I end up being the Sole Arbitrator of The Rules because 99.9% of the time I am right. I do not give my own interpretations, I give the CORRECT answer. I do not "bend rules" I "make rules calls" BIG BIG BIG BIG BIG difference.
zeekill wrote:
The point of the quote was to acknowledge the fact that board games and tabletop games are made so that to win you must screw over your opponents.
zeekill wrote:
What is the point of playing this game (for me)? To have fun
How do you have fun in this game? By beating my opponents into a bloody pulp.
These are all pretty antisocial/ hardcore view points. An extreme viewpoint is hard to ally with (lets compare it to hardcore lakers fans), so sure your friends really like these things about you; determination, steelyness...
people who don't like you really don't like you; power gamer, WAAC...
BUT and heres the things people who've just met you, are likely to not like these things either, even if you really are a great person to play with. You come off as being too extreme, taking a game too seriously. (like a hardcore fan at lakers game, shouting and whooping it up; they're annoying and ruin the game if your near them BUT their just hardcore fans...)
now i'm sorry that this post has been rude. I re-read it before posting it and its a bit offensive, but honestly i can't find a way to express this without being a little harsh, sorry. I hope this gives you a little perspective or rather i hope that doesn't push you away from introspection.
"If I call that I am in area terrain and that I should obtain a 4+ cover save, a clearly stated rule, there can't be any other interpretation."
Should that not be "If I AM in..."? The way you phrase it suggests that it is in fact open to interpretation..that interpretation being whether you are in fact IN terrain or not. This may actually be what you mean, IDK..but your phrasing suggests otherwise.
Haters gonna hate, but they have a point, zeekill.
However, I think the two separate issues on this thread have actually just resolved into one, basically discussing the hypocrisy of the OP.
Wow, wasn't this about why everyone hates "playing to win"?
I think, zeekill, that you've expressed some opinions that show us that you are one of the more extreme types of gamers. And while you probably have good intentions, by standards you would be, at the very least, a hard-line competitive gamer. Whereas you are insisting you aren't.
As said, you can't just ignore what everyone else is saying...
Sam__theRelentless wrote:Haters gonna hate, but they have a point, zeekill.
However, I think the two separate issues on this thread have actually just resolved into one, basically discussing the hypocrisy of the OP.
Wow, wasn't this about why everyone hates "playing to win"?
I think, zeekill, that you've expressed some opinions that show us that you are one of the more extreme types of gamers. And while you probably have good intentions, by standards you would be, at the very least, a hard-line competitive gamer. Whereas you are insisting you aren't.
As said, you can't just ignore what everyone else is saying...
I am a hardcore competitive gamer. I am. I am a powergamer, I win about 80% of my games and tie 15%, I feel like writing a balanced list means I am only hindering myself. I'm just saying that there is nothing wrong with that.
At the same time I am NOT a WAAC gamer. I have tried Razorwolves, Razorangels, Leafblower guard (all just proxying) and standing there rolling lascannon shots for 15 minutes, while effective, is not fun. I enjoy TACTICAL PLAY, not steamrolling. My wolves list, while competitive, features 4 razorbacks, not 11, and 1 Rune priest, not 2 or 3. I also dont minmax 6 troops of 5 man squads with a melta. I have 2 units of 9 Hunters with an attatched Fist.
I also don't rules bend. I only follow the rules strictly unless it doesn't matter to the game whatsoever, like I said when I mentioned the 1" rule.
I am a hardcore competitive gamer. I am. I am a powergamer, I win about 80% of my games and tie 15%, I feel like writing a balanced list means I am only hindering myself. I'm just saying that there is nothing wrong with that.
At the same time I am NOT a WAAC gamer. I have tried Razorwolves, Razorangels, Leafblower guard (all just proxying) and standing there rolling lascannon shots for 15 minutes, while effective, is not fun. I enjoy TACTICAL PLAY, not steamrolling. My wolves list, while competitive, features 4 razorbacks, not 11, and 1 Rune priest, not 2 or 3. I also dont minmax 6 troops of 5 man squads with a melta. I have 2 units of 9 Hunters with an attatched Fist.
I also don't rules bend. I only follow the rules strictly unless it doesn't matter to the game whatsoever, like I said when I mentioned the 1" rule.
I think my problem with powergamers is they are often those that have been in the hobby for 10 or so years, and/or have such deep pockets they can build whatever multitude of lists suit them.
I mean little 15-16 year old Timmy (example name here, for example purposes.) gets into 40K he likes oh lets just say Space Marines for cliche sake. Now because Timmy's funds come from a 10-15 dollar a week..and that's if he is lucky allowance, there is no way in hell unless it's his birthday or christmas that he is going to Land Raiders, Razorbacks, Drop Pods, Venerable Dred kits, etc. He will however, save up, by some basic tact squads here and there, a land speeder off ebay, and build a list. So while he has over the course of time amassed a 1500 point army of infantry, with a smattering of MLs and Flamers, maybe one Captian/Chapter Master model, and maybe a tank or two at the most, he goes and plays Mr. Powergamer.
Mr. Powergamer probably in the span of 2-4 months has bought and painted 4000 points of his army, read online articles like here on dakka, and so when he builds a 1500 point list to take on Timmy he can throw down as much cheese as it takes, and optimise against his opponent. And so Mr. Powergamer will dominate the game, maybe lost a tank, and 4-5 models but Timmy's army is wiped off the table by turn 3.
Timmy didn't have fun because his years of hard work to build his list just got thrashed, so he comes away with no feelings of accomplishment, and resentment he even tried to compete. Also, he finds out his Whirlwind is really useless dispite the fact he thought it was cool, and nobody really uses one Land Speeder he has to have them grouped up to be effective otherwise thier not worth it. And his scouts aren't special, they are speed bumps.
See how a powergamer destroys the hobby and average player now?
In Tournaments and when money is involved I can understand these cheese lists, to a point, but everyday games, play to your opponent if you can. And play for fun.
KingmanHighborn wrote:I think my problem with powergamers is they are often those that have been in the hobby for 10 or so years, and/or have such deep pockets they can build whatever multitude of lists suit them.
I mean little 15-16 year old Timmy (example name here, for example purposes.) gets into 40K he likes oh lets just say Space Marines for cliche sake. Now because Timmy's funds come from a 10-15 dollar a week..and that's if he is lucky allowance, there is no way in hell unless it's his birthday or christmas that he is going to Land Raiders, Razorbacks, Drop Pods, Venerable Dred kits, etc. He will however, save up, by some basic tact squads here and there, a land speeder off ebay, and build a list. So while he has over the course of time amassed a 1500 point army of infantry, with a smattering of MLs and Flamers, maybe one Captian/Chapter Master model, and maybe a tank or two at the most, he goes and plays Mr. Powergamer.
Mr. Powergamer probably in the span of 2-4 months has bought and painted 4000 points of his army, read online articles like here on dakka, and so when he builds a 1500 point list to take on Timmy he can throw down as much cheese as it takes, and optimise against his opponent. And so Mr. Powergamer will dominate the game, maybe lost a tank, and 4-5 models but Timmy's army is wiped off the table by turn 3.
Timmy didn't have fun because his years of hard work to build his list just got thrashed, so he comes away with no feelings of accomplishment, and resentment he even tried to compete. Also, he finds out his Whirlwind is really useless dispite the fact he thought it was cool, and nobody really uses one Land Speeder he has to have them grouped up to be effective otherwise thier not worth it. And his scouts aren't special, they are speed bumps.
See how a powergamer destroys the hobby and average player now?
In Tournaments and when money is involved I can understand these cheese lists, to a point, but everyday games, play to your opponent if you can. And play for fun.
This isn't powergaming, this is just picking on the noob kid. If someone does this, have people that are more experienced play him and thrash him, put him in his place.
Furthermore, what you described is called list tailoring. List tailoring is not powergaming, it is (IMO) the greatest expression of the weakness of one's gaming skill that can ever be done. List tailoring shows that in order for someone to win they need every aspect of their army pointed at specifically killing his opponent's army, and he can't learn to multitask with his units. By far the most pathetic thing one can do (unless of course its a theme of an event).
For all others I'd like to say now that I'd rather the topic not drift to list tailoring, I just wanted to say that list tailoring and powergaming is not the same.
zeekill wrote:
I am a hardcore competitive gamer. I am. I am a powergamer, I win about 80% of my games and tie 15%, I feel like writing a balanced list means I am only hindering myself. I'm just saying that there is nothing wrong with that.
That statement is actually two different issues.
"I am a hardcore competitive gamer. I am. I am a powergamer, "
This is why people don't like playing with you.
" I feel like writing a balanced list means I am only hindering myself. I'm just saying that there is nothing wrong with that."
This is probably not.
zeekill wrote:
At the same time I am NOT a WAAC gamer. I have tried Razorwolves, Razorangels, Leafblower guard (all just proxying) and standing there rolling lascannon shots for 15 minutes, while effective, is not fun. I enjoy TACTICAL PLAY, not steamrolling. My wolves list, while competitive, features 4 razorbacks, not 11, and 1 Rune priest, not 2 or 3. I also dont minmax 6 troops of 5 man squads with a melta. I have 2 units of 9 Hunters with an attatched Fist.
Again probably not why people don't like to play against you.
zeekill wrote:
I also don't rules bend. I only follow the rules strictly unless it doesn't matter to the game whatsoever, like I said when I mentioned the 1" rule.
You keep saying you know you have the rules down correct all the time. Reality is that you think you have the rules down correct all the time, compared to how you interpret the rules. Of course you do, when that's your standard. While there are some rules (most) which are clearly defined and easy to understand, there are rules which calls for interpretation on the spot where you can't sit there reading the BRB and get the rule down correctly. It's not that kind of rule. And then there are the rules which are just poorly defined, which also calls for interpretation, because it's so hard to understand what they mean. And in these cases, you might not have interpreted it correctly. You only think you have. Others might have, you just don't think they have.
Like someone said before me, once you learn some humility, people will enjoy playing against you more. Which was not intended to insult, just some friendly advice. Which I'm sure is more than you are willing to provide the people you play against. Like I said in my first post; you sound violently argumentative.
zeekill wrote:This isn't powergaming, this is just picking on the noob kid. If someone does this, have people that are more experienced play him and thrash him, put him in his place.
Furthermore, what you described is called list tailoring. List tailoring is not powergaming, it is (IMO) the greatest expression of the weakness of one's gaming skill that can ever be done. List tailoring shows that in order for someone to win they need every aspect of their army pointed at specifically killing his opponent's army, and he can't learn to multitask with his units. By far the most pathetic thing one can do (unless of course its a theme of an event).
For all others I'd like to say now that I'd rather the topic not drift to list tailoring, I just wanted to say that list tailoring and powergaming is not the same.
It's not 'just' picking on the noob kid. It's the fact that if you look at every powergaming list, even here on dakka it shows, it takes thousands of dollars to build a competitive list, especially mech/air cav, tanks heavy armies. You can't powergame on the cheap. List tailoring is just part of the arguement as they can afford to buy things and find out they don't work, other people buy units that don't hold up, are stuck with them, in thier lists. Also if a powergamer is beat by another gamer, he just goes and gets something else, to out game the other guy.
Look at me for example. I play Orks. I play them for the fluff, for the aesthetic, and because I'm cheap. I have enough models and units for up to a 2000-2250 regular game, or a small-ish Apocalypse game. But because I didn't want to spend $5,000 dollars on hordes of Ork boyz (and I don't much like Horde lists in general- I'm okay with a model getting removed, less so with fifteen at a time) my list relies heavily on Walkers, Battlewagons, and special units like Meganobz and Tankbustas- high cost units that may or may not be useful.
Would I love to win more games? Hell yeah! Would I love to win more games because I switched to a Kan Wall or Green Tide? Hell No! I want to play my orks, my way, on my budget. And I'd like to know that, if I spent the next few years doing nothing but finishing up my models, customizing them all, painting them to higher and higher standards and playing them against all comers, that I'd eventually be able to reach a consistent 50/50 win/loss ratio with them (what I consider good for a balanced list against a balanced list, depending on vagaries of chance).
I think most here would agree that the purpose of playing a game is generally to have fun. Most here would also agree that you have more fun when winning than you do when losing, most of the time. But most here should also agree that it's more fun to be winning when your opponent is also having fun than it is to be winning when your opponent is not having fun. What needs to be determined is this: is the difference in the Loser having fun/not having fun greater than the difference in Winning/Not Winning? And then you must take a look through the Veil of Ignorance, and put yourself in the Loser's shoes, and ask the same questions. Losing is not Fun. Losing while the Winner is having fun is even less fun. Losing while the Winner is not having fun is more fun than just Losing (yay schadenfreude!). However, there's a bit of a Gray area there, where both are Winning and Losing, back and forth. So for the most fun on each person's part comes when both people are winning, or at least when one is winning, then the other is winning while the new Loser's winning situation Fun hasn't worn off, then it goes back, and forth.
Thus, it is most fun, and best serves the purpose of the Game, (which I just Lost, by the way) if both sides have an equal chance of winning and losing, ergo a balanced game, which by definition precludes Powergaming, which is itself by definition playing in such a way as to minimize the chances of the opponent winning, while Maximizing the chances of yourself winning.
Ahh I have lived a long life to see one of my nemesis (we were friends once now he is someone whom I believe is a cancer to society) in real life, get everything that he deserved in game play.
This man fully believes in WAAC. In real life as well. He's one of the elite what lives in a gated community. Trophy wife, 2.3 kids (the .3 is his bull dog). Well he lost a game to one with the simliar beliefs. Oh the rage on his face was priceless as he complained about the situation to me.
"Was it not who said that the Ends justify the means. That first place is only what matters? Ya got what you deserve Dave. Next time you better re-evaluate what is important to you. To win at all costs is not what life and what this game is all about. Once you understand that, you will be a better player".
There is nothing wrong being competitive. You can be a nice guy and still be competitive. But to "play to win" with the attitude will only harm the hobby in the end.
Anvildude Wrote:
Look at me for example. I play Orks. I play them for the fluff, for the aesthetic, and because I'm cheap. I have enough models and units for up to a 2000-2250 regular game, or a small-ish Apocalypse game. But because I didn't want to spend $5,000 dollars on hordes of Ork boyz (and I don't much like Horde lists in general- I'm okay with a model getting removed, less so with fifteen at a time) my list relies heavily on Walkers, Battlewagons, and special units like Meganobz and Tankbustas- high cost units that may or may not be useful.
Would I love to win more games? Hell yeah! Would I love to win more games because I switched to a Kan Wall or Green Tide? Hell No! I want to play my orks, my way, on my budget. And I'd like to know that, if I spent the next few years doing nothing but finishing up my models, customizing them all, painting them to higher and higher standards and playing them against all comers, that I'd eventually be able to reach a consistent 50/50 win/loss ratio with them (what I consider good for a balanced list against a balanced list, depending on vagaries of chance).
I think most here would agree that the purpose of playing a game is generally to have fun. Most here would also agree that you have more fun when winning than you do when losing, most of the time. But most here should also agree that it's more fun to be winning when your opponent is also having fun than it is to be winning when your opponent is not having fun. What needs to be determined is this: is the difference in the Loser having fun/not having fun greater than the difference in Winning/Not Winning? And then you must take a look through the Veil of Ignorance, and put yourself in the Loser's shoes, and ask the same questions. Losing is not Fun. Losing while the Winner is having fun is even less fun. Losing while the Winner is not having fun is more fun than just Losing (yay schadenfreude!). However, there's a bit of a Gray area there, where both are Winning and Losing, back and forth. So for the most fun on each person's part comes when both people are winning, or at least when one is winning, then the other is winning while the new Loser's winning situation Fun hasn't worn off, then it goes back, and forth.
Thus, it is most fun, and best serves the purpose of the Game, (which I just Lost, by the way) if both sides have an equal chance of winning and losing, ergo a balanced game, which by definition precludes Powergaming, which is itself by definition playing in such a way as to minimize the chances of the opponent winning, while Maximizing the chances of yourself winning.
QFT I'd just wished there are more people in my region that have this ideal that you have posted.
I think one legitimate reason people might get annoyed by the 'playing to win' attitude, is because tabletop war-games tend to be pretty crappy 'competitive games' in the David Sirlin sense (writer of 'Playing to Wiin, becoming the champion').
Games like Street Fighter (the game Sirlin was champion of) can be truly competitive, because the rules are presided over by an impartial computer program. The computer program makes the rules completely non-negotiable. Your opponent doesn't have to agree with you on them. You don't even need to talk to your opponent. So long as the screen says 'you win', then you do indeed win.
Table top games are different, because they have their roots in roll-play rather than gaming. Many of the rules hinge on quite arbitrary calls of judgement. The original 40k required a GM to make these calls (He wasn't always impartial or right, and could still sometimes be negotiated with). Newer versions loose the GM and assume an element of cooperation and good will between you and your opponent instead. This is okay, because creativity and imagination are part of the attraction of these types of games.
However if winning is your only objective, then the best way to do that is to show no good will and be uncooperative. Argue with your opponent on every judgement call. Argue that they don't have LOS when they do. Argue that you do have LOS when you don't. Argue that you are in cover when you are not. Argue that you are more than than 50% covered when it is more like 35%. Argue your his models are under a template when they are not, and yours are not when they are. Argue that his cover is actually dangerous terrain whenever the situation is unclear. If he ever refuse to concede the point, force a roll-off (as the rules suggest) half the time you'll win the roll (even when you're wrong).
If you do this for the whole game, then you will probably save quite a sizeable portion of your army that deserved to die, and kill a sizeable portion of your opponents force that deserved to live. But your opponent will hate you, and you will be TFG.
Don't get me wrong, I completely agree with Playing to Win, if you are playing a competitive game. But trying to win against your opponent at war gaming is a bit like trying to win against your dance partner at dancing. The harder you try the more you end up just looking like a jerk.
Sam__theRelentless wrote:Haters gonna hate, but they have a point, zeekill.
However, I think the two separate issues on this thread have actually just resolved into one, basically discussing the hypocrisy of the OP.
Wow, wasn't this about why everyone hates "playing to win"?
I think, zeekill, that you've expressed some opinions that show us that you are one of the more extreme types of gamers. And while you probably have good intentions, by standards you would be, at the very least, a hard-line competitive gamer. Whereas you are insisting you aren't.
As said, you can't just ignore what everyone else is saying...
I am a hardcore competitive gamer. I am. I am a powergamer, I win about 80% of my games and tie 15%, I feel like writing a balanced list means I am only hindering myself. I'm just saying that there is nothing wrong with that.... .
That sums up the thread. You see the game as a contest to win, and you want to maximise your chance of winning by having the strongest possible list.
Lots of people don't see the game that way.
It's like playing a game of dice, for highest roll wins, and you have three dice while your opponent has only two. Your view is that your opponent should have brought three dice. His view is that you should have brought only two.
That sums up the thread. You see the game as a contest to win, and you want to maximise your chance of winning by having the strongest possible list.
Lots of people don't see the game that way.
It's like playing a game of dice, for highest roll wins, and you have three dice while your opponent has only two. Your view is that your opponent should have brought three dice. His view is that you should have brought only two.
That's why "People frown upon 'Playing to Win'"
But that is exactly what makes no sence. If one is not going to have fun taking only 2 dice against my 3 dice, and furthermore judge me on that, then why don't they take 3 dice? I have fun either way unless its something like 20 D8's vs 1 D3, in which case the game is pointless. Why do they hinder themselves and then complain about how I am in the wrong for taking the 3 dice that each player is able to use?
On the subject of interpreting rules, the only rule (in 40k) I have ever seen with multiple interpretations so far has been the hive guard gun rule. In fantasy there's also several issues with certain spells or items that require Ld checks on 3D6 when being cast on lizardmen. For the hive guard part, I've gone through the arguments and I've just decided to stop about that, because no matter who is right (in this scenario one other person who I thought gave the best argument for his side, and actually convinced me to interpret it his way (which to this day I still think is the right way to read it if you pick at the grammar and wording)), all of the Tyranid players will never acknowlege any interpretation that does not benefit them. As for the Lizardmen we went deeper into the wording and found the correct answer.
Rule #1: "Take a Ld test on 3D6....."
Rule #2: "All Lizardmen take Ld tests on 3D6 and discard the highest roll...."
Therefore the Lizards would just take their test on 3D6 and discard the highest, as there is no rule that says "an additional dice," only "3D6."
However if a rule would have said "take a Ld on 4D6" then when mixed with the Lizardmen rule it has no answer and would break the game. We should not allow it to break the game so people dice it off (until an FAQ is made).
If you look closely then most rules do have a correct answer. There is not a significant number of rules that dont.
Most gamers are slightly obsessive about one or more aspects of the hobby. Zeekill is overly obsessive about winning and doesn't understand why not everyone is equally obsessed.
Gaming is a mansion of many rooms, but some people just lock themselves in the broom cupboard.
Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:Actually the summing up can be thuswise
Most gamers are slightly obsessive about one or more aspects of the hobby.
Zeekill is overly obsessive about winning and doesn't understand why not everyone is equally obsessed.
Gaming is a mansion of many rooms, but some people just lock themselves in the broom cupboard.
Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:Actually the summing up can be thuswise
Most gamers are slightly obsessive about one or more aspects of the hobby.
Zeekill is overly obsessive about winning and doesn't understand why not everyone is equally obsessed.
Gaming is a mansion of many rooms, but some people just lock themselves in the broom cupboard.
I can understand what you are saying. And I think some context could make things clearer.
In my community most people DO CARE ABOUT WINNING. They want to win, they play semi-competitive lists, they are "equally obsessed."
But when I play my competitive list (again, not Razorwolves, just competitve) they hate it because I beat them, and QQ about how "overpowered" my lists are while they have the possibility of building equally competitive lists.
Take as an example this one guy who does nothing but QQ about how bad TK archers are (in his opinion) (and TK core in general in his opinion) but refuses to take chariots - the most competitive way to fill the, as he calls it, "waste of 625 points of my army" (the required 25% core). Then complains about how he can't do anything with his archers and cant win with that list without rediculous luck
Yes, people care about winning, because that's the object of the game. You aren't going to play to lose are you? hardly.
I see it this way, friendly competition is a good thing. But, there is too much of a good thing sometimes, overdoing competitive lists will lead to people getting upset by it.
Essentially, financially sometimes people may be unable to purchase units, or they might hate the looks. Heck, I've a friend who refuses to take Grand Marshall Helbrech, because he looks *crap*.
What it comes down to, is how people value their games, and how people value their models, rather than rules etc.
I've a friend who refuses to take Grand Marshall Helbrech, because he looks *crap*.
That is more my style! Can relate
Zeekill
In which case does it not get a tad boring winning easily all the time?
Could you have a handicapped game, whereby, for example, the TK player has x amount of points more than you?
It might give your mate a chance and you the possibility of being stretched while allowing you to maximise the lists as you like
Kilkrazy wrote:Because they don't want to take three dice.
They find the game as much fun with two dice.
And the problem is with both players.
To play a game with someone who has different expectations to you and neither of you is willing to compromise is a recipe in failure.
To handicap yourself and complain that your opponent hasn't done the same is just going to create conflict. Equally, to play without handicapping yourself if your opponent has made it clear that's what he's expecting is also not going to win you any friends.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
zeekill wrote:Take as an example this one guy who does nothing but QQ about how bad TK archers are (in his opinion) (and TK core in general in his opinion) but refuses to take chariots - the most competitive way to fill the, as he calls it, "waste of 625 points of my army" (the required 25% core). Then complains about how he can't do anything with his archers and cant win with that list without rediculous luck
This is a different type of problem gamer. Complains about his army book / codex so that he has something to blame besides himself when he loses. Easier to blame the book than to try and improve.
If your so set on your convicions and how you play then your only options is to keep doing what your doing. Whether or not people will still want to play with you in the future is their problem.
Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:Actually the summing up can be thuswise
Most gamers are slightly obsessive about one or more aspects of the hobby.
Zeekill is overly obsessive about winning and doesn't understand why not everyone is equally obsessed.
Gaming is a mansion of many rooms, but some people just lock themselves in the broom cupboard.
You just received my first Exalt!
Kilkrazy wrote:Because they don't want to take three dice.
They find the game as much fun with two dice.
Zeekil, if you plan on arguing with KK, you might wanna go back and edit your Winraw:Loss stats now...
That sums up the thread. You see the game as a contest to win, and you want to maximise your chance of winning by having the strongest possible list.
Lots of people don't see the game that way.
It's like playing a game of dice, for highest roll wins, and you have three dice while your opponent has only two. Your view is that your opponent should have brought three dice. His view is that you should have brought only two.
That's why "People frown upon 'Playing to Win'"
But that is exactly what makes no sence. If one is not going to have fun taking only 2 dice against my 3 dice, and furthermore judge me on that, then why don't they take 3 dice? I have fun either way unless its something like 20 D8's vs 1 D3, in which case the game is pointless. Why do they hinder themselves and then complain about how I am in the wrong for taking the 3 dice that each player is able to use?
LOL! Even here you "play to win". There are so many excellent posts and arguments being made since your last post, and you choose that one which is easiest to argue against. Incredible.
zeekill wrote:
On the subject of interpreting rules, the only rule (in 40k) I have ever seen with multiple interpretations so far has been the hive guard gun rule. In fantasy there's also several issues with certain spells or items that require Ld checks on 3D6 when being cast on lizardmen. For the hive guard part, I've gone through the arguments and I've just decided to stop about that, because no matter who is right (in this scenario one other person who I thought gave the best argument for his side, and actually convinced me to interpret it his way (which to this day I still think is the right way to read it if you pick at the grammar and wording)), all of the Tyranid players will never acknowlege any interpretation that does not benefit them. As for the Lizardmen we went deeper into the wording and found the correct answer.
Rule #1: "Take a Ld test on 3D6....."
Rule #2: "All Lizardmen take Ld tests on 3D6 and discard the highest roll...."
Therefore the Lizards would just take their test on 3D6 and discard the highest, as there is no rule that says "an additional dice," only "3D6."
However if a rule would have said "take a Ld on 4D6" then when mixed with the Lizardmen rule it has no answer and would break the game. We should not allow it to break the game so people dice it off (until an FAQ is made).
If you look closely then most rules do have a correct answer. There is not a significant number of rules that dont.
The fact that you consistently cherry-pick rule calls where you've been right makes me certain that you're not correct by far as often as you want to believe. Also, all the rules you've used as examples are easy to understand. They are clearly defined, and only a moron wouldn't get it. Those aren't the rules in question. Those aren't rules you have to interpret or make judgment calls for. Which also leads me to believe that you understand far less of the BRB than you think you do. It's nothing to be ashamed of. Lots of people aren't the smartest people in the world, even though they think they are. I have a mate (the same guy I mentioned earlier, the rules bully) who always thinks he's the smartest guy in the room when it comes to tabletop games and tactics/strategy. He's not. What's fun is that when he's "at it" everyone else in the room just thinks "Oh man, what a douche". What's even funnier is that everyone but him knows everyone else thinks this. I believe you're that guy in your group of friends. You only believe you are correct all the time, when in reality, you're not. Nobody can be correct all (or probably even 75%) the time about tabletop wargames. Trust me. Nobody.
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."
Albert Einstein
Automatically Appended Next Post:
zeekill wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:Because they don't want to take three dice.
They find the game as much fun with two dice.
But clearly they don't, because they cry about not having fun when they lose.
Because most people bring two dice, because they think it's more fun. Only the bullies and people who are literally afraid to lose bring three.
But clearly they don't, because they cry about not having fun when they lose.
Well, that's probably not true. Every single game ever played has losers, yet the vast majority aren't crying or whining about it. Maybe they're just not having fun playing with you, win or lose.
"Why do they hinder themselves and then complain about how I am in the wrong for taking the 3 dice that each player is able to use? "
They "hinder" themselves because they play for fun, not winning. Fun isn't only winning, it's the way you play the game. If you play an ultra-competitive style of army all the time, you'll end up not being played at all. One of the guys at my local GW just left after joining because he's a WAAC.
Peoepl just have different ways at looking at the game.
Sure, it's great to win a game. But personally I see the game as a way of playing a game with my minis, competetive or not. I play Wierdboyz & Flash Gitz and I still play Necrons, the game is about having fun.
Now I don't have a problem with anyone playing to win, but I do have a problem with someone who plays to win at the expense of their opponents enjoyment of the game.
If it's not fun for both players then what's the point of playing?!
SgtSixkilla wrote:Because most people bring two dice, because they think it's more fun. Only the bullies and people who are literally afraid to lose bring three.
I think it's more fun to bring one. Guess that makes you a bully and someone's who's afraid to lose?
You handicap yourself for your own reasons. That does not reflect negatively on those that do not choose to do so.
SgtSixkilla wrote:Because most people bring two dice, because they think it's more fun. Only the bullies and people who are literally afraid to lose bring three.
I think it's more fun to bring one. Guess that makes you a bully and someone's who's afraid to lose?
You handicap yourself for your own reasons. That does not reflect negatively on those that do not choose to do so.
If you want a real challenge, don't bring any dice. Then try to steal a couple of your opponent's, or Jedi-mind-trick them into giving you their dice.
zeekill wrote:In my community most people DO CARE ABOUT WINNING. They want to win, they play semi-competitive lists, they are "equally obsessed."
But when I play my competitive list (again, not Razorwolves, just competitve) they hate it because I beat them, and QQ about how "overpowered" my lists are while they have the possibility of building equally competitive lists.
If you're consistently fetching lists you define as "competitive", and they're consistently fetching lists you only define as "semi-competitive", then I question your judgement about them being "equally obsessed."
People don't' have a problem with "Playing to Win."
They have a problem with the personality that brings the WAAC player to the table. For the OP, because your young, and are so clearly a champion in your own little pond, YOU need to go out and find a few more different tables to ...um.... WAAC at.
Just because you have an impression that your some sort of uberplayer in your own mind doesn't nessesarily make it so.
As to the Hows and Whys?
People do not frown on playing to win. They play to have a good time and in some peoples gameing realm, "Winning" isn't that important. Opponents mutually respect each other and inas much as thier shops, the pecking order is already established and strengths and weaknesses are already known. The group usually is accepting of individuals behaviors and they know each other enough that "Winning" is coinciding with having fun.
The OP's realm sounds like a realm of dicks. I wouldn't go into his LGS and even want to play them if he is supposedly the cream de la crap.
As for your "opinion"...
It's wrong. You are not looking to justify "Playing to win". You are looking at justifying dickbird playstyle, WAAC mentality where is acceptable, and instead of playing a game at your FLGS, your just being a dick and running all comers out of playing the game, and getting enjoyment out of exploiting rules that are gaked, and players that are inexperienced with the game.
Even some of your responses to some of the other people here, your sophising being a dick and equating it with "Winning".
Because your already having an established "Standard" that you think you can table everyone out there, think your the uberkind, or whatever- You've already lost and shown the reason WHY people frown upon "WAAC" players.
WHY? because they play like dicks, crook dice, fudge rolls and rerolls, argue over every little smattering till the point where an opponent either up and says f!@# it, you win, or they drive the opponent from the game in the wrong impression that they are good.
Your not good. People are just not wanting to put up with you and your sense of "Fair" play that they probibly have an opinion of you behind your back, and more then likely think your just a douche that they just want to get the game overwith so they can go on to the real game( I/E challenge.)
When you play, what exactly do you bring to the table? Do people activly seek you out so you can teach them some of your "Winning" ways?
Do people send new players to you to show them how to play, set up some faily good lists and relate how they will be included into the general game store population?
Or do they sit back and look over thier shoulder at you point at you like "That F@#$ing Guy"?
There are many levels of TFG. Of all of them, people don't want to play ANY of the ones that think that thier stuff don't stink.
I like this site and the people on it, but, and it's a big BUT... GET A GRIP PEOPLE!
17 - 25 year olds should not be worrying about being competitive at plastic soldiers. You should be chasing women your age and their mothers, drinking cheap cider, and smashing up bus stops. Stop wasting all your money on warhammer. Earn yourself some respect and buy a decent guitar. The hobby is fun, but often I despair at threads like these. Get your priorities sorted. Rant over!
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:I like this site and the people on it, but, and it's a big BUT... GET A GRIP PEOPLE!
17 - 25 year olds should not be worrying about being competitive at plastic soldiers. You should be chasing women your age and their mothers, drinking cheap cider, and smashing up bus stops. Stop wasting all your money on warhammer. Earn yourself some respect and buy a decent guitar. The hobby is fun, but often I despair at threads like these. Get your priorities sorted. Rant over!
This is the sort of post that makes me long for an applauding orkmoticon..
...Yes, 40k is fun and can be a nice distraction, and sure no one sits down to play thinking "Gosh...I hope I get my backside handed to me"...
But..FFS, if the high point of your life is winning a game of toy soldiers...then .. ...I question your priorities.
That sums up the thread. You see the game as a contest to win, and you want to maximise your chance of winning by having the strongest possible list.
Lots of people don't see the game that way.
It's like playing a game of dice, for highest roll wins, and you have three dice while your opponent has only two. Your view is that your opponent should have brought three dice. His view is that you should have brought only two.
That's why "People frown upon 'Playing to Win'"
But that is exactly what makes no sence. If one is not going to have fun taking only 2 dice against my 3 dice, and furthermore judge me on that, then why don't they take 3 dice? I have fun either way unless its something like 20 D8's vs 1 D3, in which case the game is pointless. Why do they hinder themselves and then complain about how I am in the wrong for taking the 3 dice that each player is able to use?
LOL! Even here you "play to win". There are so many excellent posts and arguments being made since your last post, and you choose that one which is easiest to argue against. Incredible.
Because most of the others continue to bash me for "being a rules bully" when I have already said that rules arguments usually dont come up in my games too often.
zeekill wrote:
On the subject of interpreting rules, the only rule (in 40k) I have ever seen with multiple interpretations so far has been the hive guard gun rule. In fantasy there's also several issues with certain spells or items that require Ld checks on 3D6 when being cast on lizardmen. For the hive guard part, I've gone through the arguments and I've just decided to stop about that, because no matter who is right (in this scenario one other person who I thought gave the best argument for his side, and actually convinced me to interpret it his way (which to this day I still think is the right way to read it if you pick at the grammar and wording)), all of the Tyranid players will never acknowlege any interpretation that does not benefit them. As for the Lizardmen we went deeper into the wording and found the correct answer.
Rule #1: "Take a Ld test on 3D6....."
Rule #2: "All Lizardmen take Ld tests on 3D6 and discard the highest roll...."
Therefore the Lizards would just take their test on 3D6 and discard the highest, as there is no rule that says "an additional dice," only "3D6."
However if a rule would have said "take a Ld on 4D6" then when mixed with the Lizardmen rule it has no answer and would break the game. We should not allow it to break the game so people dice it off (until an FAQ is made).
If you look closely then most rules do have a correct answer. There is not a significant number of rules that dont.
The fact that you consistently cherry-pick rule calls where you've been right makes me certain that you're not correct by far as often as you want to believe. Also, all the rules you've used as examples are easy to understand. They are clearly defined, and only a moron wouldn't get it. Those aren't the rules in question. Those aren't rules you have to interpret or make judgment calls for. Which also leads me to believe that you understand far less of the BRB than you think you do. It's nothing to be ashamed of. Lots of people aren't the smartest people in the world, even though they think they are. I have a mate (the same guy I mentioned earlier, the rules bully) who always thinks he's the smartest guy in the room when it comes to tabletop games and tactics/strategy. He's not. What's fun is that when he's "at it" everyone else in the room just thinks "Oh man, what a douche". What's even funnier is that everyone but him knows everyone else thinks this. I believe you're that guy in your group of friends. You only believe you are correct all the time, when in reality, you're not. Nobody can be correct all (or probably even 75%) the time about tabletop wargames. Trust me. Nobody.
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."
Albert Einstein
Yet again, can someone please give an example of a controversial rule? You are only proving my point (that most of the rules have a clear cut answer) more and more by not supporting your claim about these "OMGWTF controversey" rules.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
zeekill wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:Because they don't want to take three dice.
They find the game as much fun with two dice.
But clearly they don't, because they cry about not having fun when they lose.
Because most people bring two dice, because they think it's more fun. Only the bullies and people who are literally afraid to lose bring three.
Or maybe its because I WANT to win, not because I'm AFRAID of losing. If someone brings 4 Dice and beats me I don't care. If someone brings 3 dice and beats me, I don't care. If someone brings 2 dice and beats me, I DON'T CARE. It happens. This is partially a luck based game in addition to a tactical game.
But when someone brings 2 dice and then complains about me bringing 3 dice, thats when I care. Because they QQ for losing to 3 dice and all I can wonder is why they don't just take 3 dice to gain a better advantage.
I have lost to 4 dice before, and I don't b*tch about it. I have lost to 20 dice before (I.E. playing towards rules loopholes or just using BROKEN lists) and I do care, I dissaprove, I talk with people about if there is any way to beat the guy with 20 dice. But I dont b*tch about it to the player, that would just make me a sore loser.
Furthermore, what you described is called list tailoring. List tailoring is not powergaming, it is (IMO) the greatest expression of the weakness of one's gaming skill that can ever be done. List tailoring shows that in order for someone to win they need every aspect of their army pointed at specifically killing his opponent's army, and he can't learn to multitask with his units. By far the most pathetic thing one can do (unless of course its a theme of an event).
For all others I'd like to say now that I'd rather the topic not drift to list tailoring, I just wanted to say that list tailoring and powergaming is not the same.
I had to chime in here young man. "List tailoring" as you call it is how this game was designed. Read the rule. You pick a nd army and agree on points THEN create your army list. In this tournament driven era of gaming many have forgotten that. This game was never build around an "all comers" list. That tern was create by tourny players. Players who more often than not play lists not armies.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:Actually the summing up can be thuswise
Most gamers are slightly obsessive about one or more aspects of the hobby.
Zeekill is overly obsessive about winning and doesn't understand why not everyone is equally obsessed.
Gaming is a mansion of many rooms, but some people just lock themselves in the broom cupboard.
If i ever meet you, i'd buy you whatever a drink. Best post i've read on any fourm in a long long time!
People of equal skill will generally have more fun playing people of equal skill. Would someone who enjoys swimming necessarily enjoying racing Michael Phelps over and over? Not likely. Just recognize that it takes two people to game and try to make sure both players are having fun and if both sides do the same there will be no drama. It's nobody's fault in particular for enjoying playing one way or another, but we can all agree that it would be better to play against someone who enjoys the same things we do.
That sums up the thread. You see the game as a contest to win, and you want to maximise your chance of winning by having the strongest possible list.
Lots of people don't see the game that way.
It's like playing a game of dice, for highest roll wins, and you have three dice while your opponent has only two. Your view is that your opponent should have brought three dice. His view is that you should have brought only two.
That's why "People frown upon 'Playing to Win'"
But that is exactly what makes no sence. If one is not going to have fun taking only 2 dice against my 3 dice, and furthermore judge me on that, then why don't they take 3 dice? I have fun either way unless its something like 20 D8's vs 1 D3, in which case the game is pointless. Why do they hinder themselves and then complain about how I am in the wrong for taking the 3 dice that each player is able to use?
LOL! Even here you "play to win". There are so many excellent posts and arguments being made since your last post, and you choose that one which is easiest to argue against. Incredible.
Because most of the others continue to bash me for "being a rules bully" when I have already said that rules arguments usually dont come up in my games too often.
zeekill wrote:
On the subject of interpreting rules, the only rule (in 40k) I have ever seen with multiple interpretations so far has been the hive guard gun rule. In fantasy there's also several issues with certain spells or items that require Ld checks on 3D6 when being cast on lizardmen. For the hive guard part, I've gone through the arguments and I've just decided to stop about that, because no matter who is right (in this scenario one other person who I thought gave the best argument for his side, and actually convinced me to interpret it his way (which to this day I still think is the right way to read it if you pick at the grammar and wording)), all of the Tyranid players will never acknowlege any interpretation that does not benefit them. As for the Lizardmen we went deeper into the wording and found the correct answer.
Rule #1: "Take a Ld test on 3D6....."
Rule #2: "All Lizardmen take Ld tests on 3D6 and discard the highest roll...."
Therefore the Lizards would just take their test on 3D6 and discard the highest, as there is no rule that says "an additional dice," only "3D6."
However if a rule would have said "take a Ld on 4D6" then when mixed with the Lizardmen rule it has no answer and would break the game. We should not allow it to break the game so people dice it off (until an FAQ is made).
If you look closely then most rules do have a correct answer. There is not a significant number of rules that dont.
The fact that you consistently cherry-pick rule calls where you've been right makes me certain that you're not correct by far as often as you want to believe. Also, all the rules you've used as examples are easy to understand. They are clearly defined, and only a moron wouldn't get it. Those aren't the rules in question. Those aren't rules you have to interpret or make judgment calls for. Which also leads me to believe that you understand far less of the BRB than you think you do. It's nothing to be ashamed of. Lots of people aren't the smartest people in the world, even though they think they are. I have a mate (the same guy I mentioned earlier, the rules bully) who always thinks he's the smartest guy in the room when it comes to tabletop games and tactics/strategy. He's not. What's fun is that when he's "at it" everyone else in the room just thinks "Oh man, what a douche". What's even funnier is that everyone but him knows everyone else thinks this. I believe you're that guy in your group of friends. You only believe you are correct all the time, when in reality, you're not. Nobody can be correct all (or probably even 75%) the time about tabletop wargames. Trust me. Nobody.
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."
Albert Einstein
Yet again, can someone please give an example of a controversial rule? You are only proving my point (that most of the rules have a clear cut answer) more and more by not supporting your claim about these "OMGWTF controversey" rules.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
zeekill wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:Because they don't want to take three dice.
They find the game as much fun with two dice.
But clearly they don't, because they cry about not having fun when they lose.
Because most people bring two dice, because they think it's more fun. Only the bullies and people who are literally afraid to lose bring three.
Or maybe its because I WANT to win, not because I'm AFRAID of losing. If someone brings 4 Dice and beats me I don't care. If someone brings 3 dice and beats me, I don't care. If someone brings 2 dice and beats me, I DON'T CARE. It happens. This is partially a luck based game in addition to a tactical game.
But when someone brings 2 dice and then complains about me bringing 3 dice, thats when I care. Because they QQ for losing to 3 dice and all I can wonder is why they don't just take 3 dice to gain a better advantage.
I have lost to 4 dice before, and I don't b*tch about it. I have lost to 20 dice before (I.E. playing towards rules loopholes or just using BROKEN lists) and I do care, I dissaprove, I talk with people about if there is any way to beat the guy with 20 dice. But I dont b*tch about it to the player, that would just make me a sore loser.
Enough with the MULTIQUOTE... just quote who and what you are responding to...
Wanting to win isn't a bad thing, but I don't think that's the real issue here. You might be percieving it as them being frustrated at rules or competitveness of your list, but in reality it's probably their dislike of you as a person.
Reading your replies to other posters points out how inconsiderate and argumentive you, are and I suspect you are even worse in person. You can't use rules and "competitive spririt" as a sheild or as justifiction to why you should or shouldn't be liked.
Sportsmanship has nothing to do with any page in a rulesbook, it's based on how you interact socially with other human beings, an area that given the tone of your posts suggest you are completely inept at. Chances are that while the local crowd doesn't say it to your face, they all loathe to play against you and try to dodge you whenever they can.
Winning alone isn't making you happy, otherwise there would be no point for you having started this thread. You are at least in a small sense aware that you want some measure of respect from your opponent which you won't ever get with your current attitude. You could win 100% of your games and it'd still be a hollow victory because nobody respects a self absorbed ass.
You need to spend some time brushing up on your people skills, if you can wrap your head around that you might find that you not only enjoy the game better but you *might* also end up gaining the respect of your fellow players.
paulson games wrote:Wanting to win isn't a bad thing, but I don't think that's the real issue here. You might be percieving it as them being frustrated at rules or competitveness of your list, but in reality it's probably their dislike of you as a person.
Reading your replies to other posters points out how inconsiderate and argumentive you, are and I suspect you are even worse in person. You can't use rules and "competitive spririt" as a sheild or as justifiction to why you should or shouldn't be liked.
Sportsmanship has nothing to do with any page in a rulesbook, it's based on how you interact socially with other human beings, an area that given the tone of your posts suggest you are completely inept at. Chances are that while the local crowd doesn't say it to your face, they all loathe to play against you and try to dodge you whenever they can.
Winning alone isn't making you happy, otherwise there would be no point for you having started this thread. You are at least in a small sense aware that you want some measure of respect from your opponent which you won't ever get with your current attitude. You could win 100% of your games and it'd still be a hollow victory because nobody respects a self absorbed ass.
You need to spend some time brushing up on your people skills, if you can wrap your head around that you might find that you not only enjoy the game better but you *might* also end up gaining the respect of your fellow players.
The reason I argue so much here is because I can. In real life I bring it back alot. But this is the internet, where people can say exactly what they want without needing to care whether or not it will affect someone's social status, because other than a few exceptions there is no social status on the internet.
paulson games wrote:Wanting to win isn't a bad thing, but I don't think that's the real issue here. You might be percieving it as them being frustrated at rules or competitveness of your list, but in reality it's probably their dislike of you as a person.
Reading your replies to other posters points out how inconsiderate and argumentive you, are and I suspect you are even worse in person. You can't use rules and "competitive spririt" as a sheild or as justifiction to why you should or shouldn't be liked.
Sportsmanship has nothing to do with any page in a rulesbook, it's based on how you interact socially with other human beings, an area that given the tone of your posts suggest you are completely inept at. Chances are that while the local crowd doesn't say it to your face, they all loathe to play against you and try to dodge you whenever they can.
Winning alone isn't making you happy, otherwise there would be no point for you having started this thread. You are at least in a small sense aware that you want some measure of respect from your opponent which you won't ever get with your current attitude. You could win 100% of your games and it'd still be a hollow victory because nobody respects a self absorbed ass.
You need to spend some time brushing up on your people skills, if you can wrap your head around that you might find that you not only enjoy the game better but you *might* also end up gaining the respect of your fellow players.
The reason I argue so much here is because I can. In real life I bring it back alot. But this is the internet, where people can say exactly what they want without needing to care whether or not it will affect someone's social status, because other than a few exceptions there is no social status on the internet.
And that is the thing.
See the example of TFG.
If it weren't so blatent it wouldn't be such a horror show.
zeekill wrote:The reason I argue so much here is because I can. In real life I bring it back alot. But this is the internet, where people can say exactly what they want without needing to care whether or not it will affect someone's social status, because other than a few exceptions there is no social status on the internet.
Admitting to trolling your own thread is not a sign of greatness, nor something you should be proud of.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:I like this site and the people on it, but, and it's a big BUT... GET A GRIP PEOPLE!
17 - 25 year olds should not be worrying about being competitive at plastic soldiers. You should be chasing women your age and their mothers, drinking cheap cider, and smashing up bus stops. Stop wasting all your money on warhammer. Earn yourself some respect and buy a decent guitar. The hobby is fun, but often I despair at threads like these. Get your priorities sorted. Rant over!
Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:Now we know who is smashing up bus stops along the Eccleshal Road!
Ah you silly Brits and your buses. *sigh* Closest thing to this where I live is cow-tipping.
But on to the dice arguement as I figured I'd simplify this. Let's say the game rules say you can have those 3 dice, and your opponent actually has the 3 dice to play with, the powergamer will bring 3 d20s to the normal guys 2 d6s and 1 d4. The winner is obvious from the start. The powergamer just goes, "well should of had 3 d20s, and overlooks the fact that he himself could buy 50 d20s if he wanted. His opponent couldn't afford (i.e. money) a single d20 if he got lucky. He is stuck with his purchases of 2 d6s and a d4, if the powergamer finds out he bought a d4 instead of d20, he ebays the d4 and goes and buys another few d20s just to be safe.
zeekill wrote:The reason I argue so much here is because I can. In real life I bring it back alot. But this is the internet, where people can say exactly what they want without needing to care whether or not it will affect someone's social status, because other than a few exceptions there is no social status on the internet.
Admitting to trolling your own thread is not a sign of greatness, nor something you should be proud of.
Particularly when you are not winning the debate.
All I'm saying is that saying some of this stuff in real life may get me (or anyone for that matter) lots of hate because its not polite to argue this harshly.
However the internet allows everyone to express exactly what they mean without care for that. I'm sure that some of the others wouldn't say some of the things that they did if this was going on in real life.
On a seperate note, STILL no one has posted a controversial rule that I could be wrong about even though I think I'm right.
zeekill wrote:However the internet allows everyone to express exactly what they mean without care for that. I'm sure that some of the others wouldn't say some of the things that they did if this was going on in real life.
You are mistaken.
Dakka has rules on Politeness and ettiquette.
On a seperate note, STILL no one has posted a controversial rule that I could be wrong about even though I think I'm right.
In order to end this, I will make a thread specifically for this in the 40k General.
You will be free to Make Da Calls for each scenario.
The result is that this thread can die and everyone will be happy.
You can either prove that you are correct 99% of the time, or be proven wrong.
I again have to emphesize that I don't want it to be 200 D20's vs 2D6. That is boring and there is no point in playing that.
I take 3D6 on purpose. So that while my list is competitive, it is not boring "spam this transport 11 times and win by not moving and rolling lascannon shots." Can I compete against razorwolves? Hell No. I would get crushed.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AvatarForm wrote:
zeekill wrote:However the internet allows everyone to express exactly what they mean without care for that. I'm sure that some of the others wouldn't say some of the things that they did if this was going on in real life.
You are mistaken.
Dakka has rules on Politeness and ettiquette.
Yes. Which is why I have not been just calling people donkey-caves and you haven't been calling me a dickhole.
But as for the argument, we can both express our opinions, no matter how extreme to either side (or passive) they are.
Edit: LOL auto-corrected what I wrote into "donkey-caves." That made me laugh
zeekill wrote:The reason I argue so much here is because I can. In real life I bring it back alot. But this is the internet, where people can say exactly what they want without needing to care whether or not it will affect someone's social status, because other than a few exceptions there is no social status on the internet.
Admitting to trolling your own thread is not a sign of greatness, nor something you should be proud of.
Particularly when you are not winning the debate.
All I'm saying is that saying some of this stuff in real life may get me (or anyone for that matter) lots of hate because its not polite to argue this harshly.
However the internet allows everyone to express exactly what they mean without care for that. I'm sure that some of the others wouldn't say some of the things that they did if this was going on in real life.
.
... Oddly enough I tend to be a bit more polite on internet forums than I am in real life, perhaps due to the fact that someone 2,000 miles away can't click a button and "ban" me In "real life."
Feel no pain
The internet is anonymous
You don't know them personally
You don't care about what they think or feel
So it doesn't hurt to generate hatred and you feel no pain
There
a controversial rule that you could be wrong about even though you think you are right.
Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:Feel no pain
The internet is anonymous
You don't know them personally
You don't care about what they think or feel
So it doesn't hurt to generate hatred and you feel no pain
There
a controversial rule that you could be wrong about even though you think you are right.
Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:Feel no pain
The internet is anonymous
You don't know them personally
You don't care about what they think or feel
So it doesn't hurt to generate hatred and you feel no pain
There
a controversial rule that you could be wrong about even though you think you are right.
... What are you talking about?
...You read Chibi...but you don't "read" Chibi...
Let me sum up " You operate under the premise that due to the anonymity of the internet you can say anything you wish with impunity."...
You seem to think that the anonymity of the internet gives you free rein to express your opinions irregardless of others' opinions and feelings. You seem to think that anonymity some sort of anasthetic.
It isn't. Precicely because we can forget there is actuallly another person on the other end if the wire that we need to exercise caution and restraint in what we say.
Your feel no pain rule is controversial Dakka's rule #1 is incontrovertable.
Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:You seem to think that the anonymity of the internet gives you free rein to express your opinions irregardless of others' opinions and feelings.
To a certain extent. Again I'm not going to go and start insulting people for no good reason just because of the anonymity of the internet.
I can however express my opinions in full and if for whatever reason doing so insults someone then I don't really care. I'll apologize for sake of politeness, etc but it has no effect on my life, and therefore I don't really care.
Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:It is not just about what you say.
While there will always be disagreement about WAAC no one can gainsay that you have a right to discuss your opinions.
The problem is precisely because you, "really don't care" that you come out in the OP all guns blazing, and guaranteed to get peoples' hackles up.
What you are saying is that it is okay to wind people up then walk away with a clear conscience because it doesn't affect you.
I come to an internet forum to discuss things, not to get my boxers in a knot for the rest of the day. No matter how riled up people get when posting on the internet, as soon as they walk away they shouldn't care until they come back.
This also goes for the people who got "hackled up." Don't let this thread ruin your day. Like anyone else they can blow off some steam yelling at people over the web and discussing their opinions as forcefully as they want. But all that "hackling up" can and should be put away as soon as you leave your computer. There's no point in worrying about it in real life.
No there isn't
But in can still leave a bad taste.
Not everyone is a toughnut who thrives on confrontation.
If you wish for discussion rather than confrontation and ill tempered disagreement it would still be a good idea to ease down the aggressive assertions, as in the OP and consider what you say and how it will be received.
It is far more pleasant discussing now than the earlier self aggrandisment.
SgtSixkilla wrote:Because most people bring two dice, because they think it's more fun. Only the bullies and people who are literally afraid to lose bring three.
I think it's more fun to bring one. Guess that makes you a bully and someone's who's afraid to lose?
You handicap yourself for your own reasons. That does not reflect negatively on those that do not choose to do so.
Dude, if you want to play with the solo dice, I'll come down there and join you every once in a while. I'm not that fussed, and I never said I'd only ever play with two. As long as I don't have to play with three.
MOD: The idea behind DakkaDakka is that people come here for fun discussions about games of toy soldiers. That limits the topics covered and the way they are approached.
The desire to say exactly what we want must be tempered by social awareness about other users on the site.
It isn’t a good excuse to say people shouldn’t get annoyed. People should not take offence deliberately, however that doesn’t release us from the obligation to avoid giving offence.
This thread has run its course, so I shall lock it.
:\ ) But either way when he tried to move the monster into positon on turn 2-3 (NOT TURN 1, or I would have let him re-deploy it) I called him on the 1" rule and while he had to accept it he cried "
and is arrogant about it - to me its more to do with personalites rather than the 
.
