I always wanted to post about this, so I figure my first post past 300 for me should be about the fine line we kinda sorta walk in friendly games.
I'll start with an example. I have mean space wolves lists with 3 long fang squads w/ 4 missiles each and all three squads have a las/plas razorback, and the rest of the army is generally heavily mechanized with meltahunter squads. But I don't play those lists in friendly play because idk if I'm playing a fluffbunny, a newbie, or a tournament player.
Why? I don't want to make people angry. Most people don't like playing against spammy lists, I don't mind, but I know most people do.
So I tone my lists down and put in my cool looking wolf guard terminators with wolf claws and other guys with cool looking poses.
But, if I do that, I leave myself to getting stomped by the guy who is playing for the win, using the tourney list, the guy who doesn't care, or doesn't realize a lot of people get angrypants over that style of listbuilding.
My question is, do you walk the fine line of trying to make a list that isn't overkill against "for fun" players but doesn't roll over to "for the win" players? Do you even think about this weird social contract? Do you think it even exists?
I always approached gaming lightly and played units I liked and against 2 out of 3 people it was always fine.
I actually don't mind playing WAAC players in a perfect world where they're O.K. with losing but in my experience, they hate to lose and throw their toys out of the pram.
I suppose if I know I'll get to play someone that beat me again, I enjoy the challenge the next battle promises. I'm that type of gamer, it's more interesting to me if a history develops, that's why I'd keep coming back to play effing Dark Elves with my army of Vampire Counts (before the new book)
Maybe you could have both lists ready, and ask your opponent what list they're fielding before the game. Should be a good indicator of what kind of playstyle they favour. Oh, and good show for being so considerate of others, that's awfully civil of you.
When offering a game (or accepting one) say "I've got my hard list and my soft list - which one would you like to play?"
I find this alleviates any bad feelings. Yeah, sometimes you'll get the guy that has a tournament list that wants to play your soft list for an easy win, but you'd get that sometimes anyway.
ivangterrace wrote:I don't want to make people angry.
People will always find a reason to get angry. Such is life.
Just run what you want to run, but "forget" to do things with units. Also, methinks people complaining about lists in any form are in the minority. I've never once encountered someone that wouldn't play me because of the army I ran.
rigeld2 wrote:When offering a game (or accepting one) say "I've got my hard list and my soft list - which one would you like to play?"
I find this alleviates any bad feelings. Yeah, sometimes you'll get the guy that has a tournament list that wants to play your soft list for an easy win, but you'd get that sometimes anyway.
You'll also get the people insulted by being offered a "hard mode" and a "easy mode"
I definitely agree with offering a choice of two lists.
Just ask them whether they want to play a fluffy game or if they want a tourney game.
Some folks will take offense at anything, but I think you're far more likely to have folks annoyed with you for showing up with a WAAC force than you are by giving them a choice.
Also, from your end it's a much better game challenge to get the most from a fluffy list than to try and dumb down or "forget" the abilities of your WAAC list.
I avoid the whole topic by socializing with a potential opponent before we start a game. Knowing what he is up to in advance and having enough stuff with me to be able to use several lists is the way for me.
I have only little time for gaming so I have to be picky. I don't want to end up playing against a douchebag and I do not enjoy one sided battles (either way).
I simply adapt to the situation and therefore had no "bad" games yet where one of us leaves with hard feelings.
darefsky wrote:I wound up teaching most of the game, showing him how to move and think about what to shoot and how to prioritize targets ect. was a great time.
You, sir, are a gentleman. You exemplify what the hobby needs more of.
Most of the time I'm playing, I play against my friend's wolves. We end up playing fluffy lists more often than not simply because they are more fun (Especially when I field my orks). This game is entirely what you make of it. We're both DnD'ers (2nd ed), so we end up narrating our battles as well. It keeps things entertaining where it would otherwise get stale.
It doesn't matter what list I bring, how optimized it is, or how good my opponent's list is.
It doesn't matter because I always ensure I'm a friendly, sociable human being is fun to game with.
That should be your primary focus, not the list. I could bring the softest list possible and my opponent would still have a terrible time if I'm a horrible person.
That's the way I see it anyways. Play the list you want to play, and be a good, decent player. The good times will surely follow.
Blacksails wrote:Play the list you want to play, and be a good, decent player. The good times will surely follow.
This.
I could be roflstomped by the hardest netlist someone can find and I couldn't care less as long as the game was fun and my opponent was an enjoyable person.
Remember folks: The objective is to win, the point is to have fun. Don't get them confused.
I personally see the games at the club I play at as 'friendly' because they aren't at a tournament, not many/often any really competitive lists unless previously arranged games. But there is still a certain competitiveness, there are a mix of fairly decent lists (some come almost as standard with some codex's.) and fluffy lists. I don't really think that line exists as long as your a decent person and are playing with decent people. As soon as you start adding people who aren't going to be friendly, 'laid back', generally nice, or people who get stroppy or upset easily. Thats when problems can occur.
I'm sure you could have a really fun game, if one person was using a decent tournament standard list, and one person was using a fluffy Eldar list. You can both be going all out for the win, but what happens in the game and how you interact with each other is going to determine the fun level, not wether your both using 'not competitive' lists and not going all out for the win. I've had plenty of games when i've been absolutely thrashed, barley even killed anything but still enjoyed the game.
If your playing with people, who when they lose start complaining you have a cheesy list, basically your playing with the wrong people.
I think its pretty simple, just ask. When your setting up a game ask what kind of list they are going to play. Let them know up front what options you have so it can be agreed upon.
Sure, now and then you will get a TFG who says he wants a friendly game, then drops a spam list on you...and proceeds to say that IS his friendly list. However I think overall people would prefer to be on the same page before starting.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
darefsky wrote:I don't bask in the glow of stomping n00bs into the ground
Too many people doing that are exactly the reason I dont play online/multiplayer videogames. Too many asshats out hunting for the easy kills.
I think that this is GW's biggest flaw. They produce a game that is very poorly suited to competitive play, but is so unbalanced that casual play requires preparation.
I usually bring trashy lists. This can annoy competitive gamers. However, they really should be playing a different game.
darefsky wrote:I wound up teaching most of the game, showing him how to move and think about what to shoot and how to prioritize targets ect. was a great time.
You, sir, are a gentleman. You exemplify what the hobby needs more of.
Not sure about all that, I just figure he was new, and it would only discourage him if I tabled him. Besides if you take the time to teach new players it helps with getting great hard fought games later down the road.
At last year's Game's Day I remember my friend and I both brought fluffy lists and we looked for games to play against people. I found an Ultramarines player who had the same idea in mind. It was a blast and I won by only a single KP. We both agreed that it was a really fun game and we parted, satisfied at the awesome game we just had. Than I turned around and my friend had just lost to two 10 year old's and I had a good laugh. So my friend and I went back to them and we had a rematch, little did I know that these kids we loaded and armed to the teeth. They had perfectly constructed spammy armies straight from Adpeticon and they exploited several rules and overall were clearly WAAC players. Their armies were a ramshackle assortment of unpainted and oop minis with many different types of paint jobs (most had none). So, in only a few turns My IG and friends Tau were pretty much destroyed by the combined BA and IG force. It wasn't even remotely fun and to this day I think that people should save the cheesy lists for tournaments where they belong.
This is why I stopped playing in open games at LGS's.For me, unless I am playing against some one and the toughest list they can provide, I see it as a waste of my time. I know how that sounds, but unless I am playing against the toughest lists, I am not doing my best to stay sharp.
I don't know about this as a whole concept. I kind of have no sympathy for people who can't enjoy a game of 40k if their opponet brings a really good army list. What stops people from enjoying games is how their opponet acts, not what army they bring. I have gotten tabled and had a blast, and have tabled opponets and had a terrible time. What makes the difference? was my oponent argumentative? was he shady (stealing extra movement, misrepresenting rules ect)? could he appriciate unusual/funny results?
On a related note, I do find my self thinking much more about how much to enforce the rules in "friendly games" , generaly I let most things slide, but it takes a lot of will power not to complain about movement that is clearly too much, people wanting to go back in phases when they forgot to move or shoot, people who reserve something and then want to outflank/deepstrike. Again it is a friendly game but these things have a pretty big impact on the game and they are not things I do myself.
I used to wonder if I should field a friendly list or a competitive list, but in the last 6 months, all I've played against are people who are quite open about how they're using me for tourney practice, so now I don't bother taking friendly lists anymore. (Two land raiders in a 1,250 list? Really?) That is part of why I started collecting Dark Eldar, because you have to field a pretty aggressive list with them to have any chance at winning.
For example...my local scene doesn't have a concept of friendly or fluff matches. Not that they aren't friendly players, there just ins't a difference in their mind between playing to win and playing for the experience, they're one and the same. That's why I stopped using my themed Death Guard list, without oblit spam I just couldn't handle the mech.
It's all about who you are playing and the expectations of the game. If I am trying out a tournament list than I want to play hard as nails list, if a new player wants a game I am gonna take a softer list as not to discourage them.
I love a hard fought tough as nails game sometimes, just as I love teaching the game to folks that are new or just not that good.
rigeld2 wrote:When offering a game (or accepting one) say "I've got my hard list and my soft list - which one would you like to play?"
I find this alleviates any bad feelings. Yeah, sometimes you'll get the guy that has a tournament list that wants to play your soft list for an easy win, but you'd get that sometimes anyway.
You'll also get the people insulted by being offered a "hard mode" and a "easy mode"
Well, I think it's a good idea which you correctly point out has a flawed presentation. Perhaps it might be better to say, Well, I have a fun list, or I have a tournament list; which should of game would you like to play?
The point behind the basis of it as a game is competition. This comes down to decisions and tactics in game, in addition to your pre-game which includes your list building. If you pick something that works, you're playing the game. Do you dumb down when you play poker? Do you run slower when you play soccer? No, even in friendly games you understand that there's a winner and a loser. Why get upset if you lose, regardless of how the game went? If you're upset, it shouldn't be at your opponent for being the one who came out on top.
That doesn't mean cheat, but if it's within the rules to do something it's fair gaming. Anyone who claims it's not sportsmanlike to play within the rules shouldn't be playing.
TheHarleqwin wrote: Do you dumb down when you play poker? Do you run slower when you play soccer
I might, if I were playing with a child, or someone I knew was just learning how to play. "Sporting" works in both directions; that's the reason the concept of a handicap exists. When I play with my 14 year old nephew, intentionally using a less competitive list makes the game more even-footed for us both, and hence more fun for me.
I bring a single list. It is the list that I use in tournaments. It spams Predators and has a Deathstar LR/THSS Term/Vulcan contingent. It has often been the bane of many a casual player's existences, but I do not offer to play a different list.
You can say "The list I'm running is optimised". This gives the person the opportunity in a casual setting to say "I'm not interested in playing that army." If they fail to give you this notice, you should not have to deal with upset feelings.
That said, I will always talk about a game after it is finished. I will say what I thought about an opponent's army. I will tell them if I think they made mistakes and I'm not averse to informing a player that I think their decision is a bad one. (For example, Charging my Counter-attack Purifier squad and grenade master with a Trygon.)
Darkness wrote:...but unless I am playing against the toughest lists, I am not doing my best to stay sharp.
TheHarleqwin wrote:Anyone who claims it's not sportsmanlike to play within the rules shouldn't be playing.
The thing is, we play a game with a massive variety of possible lists, and where bringing an optimised, competitive list is very easy and takes very little skill or experience. I could spend five minutes on YMDC or any other website, and have the most optimised, competitive GK army without ever having played GK before. I'm not saying I'd win with it (because I'd be a new GK player) but I'd certainly have a top notch list which would give me more of a chance.
Now, there would be no issues if we all took those lists, but those lists represent about 1% of the possible army builds out there. If we all took those lists, the game would be less varied and thus less fun. See the poster above who can't take his DG army any more because it's not competitive enough for his local crowd.
In this situation, it IS sporting to adjust what you bring to the local crowd. It doesn't imply any lack of skill on your part, because taking a well-known competitive list from the internet is not a skill. And, if you want to play challenging games to 'stay sharp', then this can be done at any level as long as the two armies are equal in power. You'll have exactly as challenging a game if you're both playing strong lists as if you're both playing weak lists.
I haven't won enough yet to know what is competitive and what is not. ofcourse that is because everytime im beginning to win and we are 1 turn away from total victory for me. I get the sorry i got to go or i dont want to play anymore. Only one of the people that used that excuse had an legit reason.
I stay away from anything that relies on a shaky or dodgy rules interpretation.
Double Lash DP lists weren't hated so much for being effective, but more for requiring taking advantage of the poorly-worded rules.
In my experience, Warhammer is a mess of long-winded and poorly written rules, and this is the main thing that you need to accept and work around if you want to keep playing the game, as opposed to a more balanced, and clear cut set of rules like Warmachine or KoW.
There are a million and twenty different ways to abuse the crap out of rules loopholes or poorly-worded and tedious paragraphs in GW games, because balanced rules writing is something GW does not give even the slightest care about. Don't use any of them, and play without using all the stupid tricks they allow (stuff like conga lines in fantasy etc.) and you'll avoid being seen as annoying, regardless of how tough your list is (unless of course, the list makes use of these tricks as well).
Even then, it's not that simple - in many cases, using a "spammy" list is the only way to have an effective army, and that should not be held against them... ask anyone with an army book or codex that got "Cruddace'd"...
- Tyranid book: Two-thirds of the unit entries are useless, other third is a little overpowered (the ones with new models, surprise, surprise!)
- Tomb Kings 8th: Two-thirds of the book is average or useless, other third is average and requires "tricky" combos just to have a chance at winning.
- Empire 8th: One-third of the book is useless, the rest is average,and requires buff-stacking and combo synergies and other "cheese" to stand a chance against the 7th edition power armies.
Poor Tyranid players have to deal with a crap book, and then when they do take the remaining third of their units that are powerful, they get accused of spam and cheese... 9x Hive Guard might seem like spam and the other player being a jerk to someone who isn't aware of the fact that there is literally no other reliable anti-armour in the entire damned codex, because Cruddace sucks at his job.
Same goes for stuff like Oblit spam, it's the only way for the army to compete in 5th edition mech-spam, but the poorly-written rules make it look like the player is choosing to be a jackass cheese-lister when the reality is, they don't have much of a choice.
In short, GW rules are unbalanced, poorly-written, long-winded garbage, and that this is the main source of arguments and problems between players who play GW games.
There is far too much to remember while playing, making it very easy to forget, leading to problems when one person assumes that the other is trying to cheat rather than simply having forgotten or misinterpreted the exact and precise sentence structure of page 234, paragraph 7, sentence 3 of the Warhammer rulebook.
scarletsquig wrote:Poor Tyranid players have to deal with a crap book, and then when they do take the remaining third of their units that are powerful, they get accused of spam and cheese... 9x Hive Guard might seem like spam and the other player being a jerk to someone who isn't aware of the fact that there is literally no other reliable anti-armour in the entire damned codex, because Cruddace sucks at his job.
This only works in a pre-organised 'competitive' situation, though.
Using 'Power Levels' as an analogy for the strength of a list...
You're essentially saying 'There is only one Power 5 Tyranid list'. You're right, but that's only a problem if you assume we should all be playing at Power 5.
There are probably ten Power 3 lists, and a twenty Power 1 lists you could get out of that Tyranid book. If you built lists and played at Power 3, your Tyranid playing friend could field loads of different lists, and your games would be more varied and interesting. And they would be exactly as skillful, tactical, engaging and difficult as if you were both playing at Power 5.
If I'm playing in a tournament - a weird, warped, unintended version of 40k - then I'll take a Power 5 list and expect to have to play the same two SW and GK builds again and again, because that's the point in that situation. But if I'm playing 'real' 40k against my friends Kroot Mercs list at home over a beer, taking a Power 2 list will result in a better game, one that should be exactly as challenging as the Power 5 tourney, but much more varied.
When I compete at anything else in life for fun, I try to win.
I enjoy being good at the things I'm good at and I like to push myself while doing them. If my friends can't handle that, they shouldn't be my friends (it hasn't happened yet)
Why shouldn't this apply to Warhammer?
I should play a terrible army because it will be more "fun"? I don't think so.
When I compete at anything else in life for fun, I try to win.
I enjoy being good at the things I'm good at and I like to push myself while doing them. If my friends can't handle that, they shouldn't be my friends (it hasn't happened yet)
Why shouldn't this apply to Warhammer?
I should play a terrible army because it will be more "fun"? I don't think so.
That's ok - I'm not saying you shouldn't try to win or enjoy the competition.
But winning at Power 5 requires exactly the same amount of skill and challenge as winning at Power 3. As long as you're both playing at the same level. It doesn't diminish your experience at all, and allows tons more interesting armies/builds in the game, and a lot more people (who might have 'nerfed' armies, for example) can play. Lots of advantages, no disadvantages.
Choosing to take a Power 5 army, however, is NOT a skill. Anyone who's been playing the game for while can manage that, given a quick look at the forums.
And of course, if you really were all about skill and challenge, you'd be taking a Power 1 army all the time, because it's the biggest challenge to win with, right?
says he wants a friendly game, then drops a spam list on you...
I don't see that friendly equates to running an uncompetitive list (though I can see that one could take the opportunity to try out unfashionable units in a casual setting, and why not?).
A friendly game in this sense would be better termed a casual game as competitive game can (and in fact should) be played in a friendly manner. Otherwise you are saying competitive lists (and by extention players) are necessarily unfriendly which is just not true.
If we say that there are two sorts of player -- 'sportsmen' and 'WAAC' and two sorts of lists -- competitive and uncompetitive then you can have a situation where you get a player with a WAAC attitude playing an uncompetitive list (I've encountered this a few times and it's way more unpleasant than facing a WAAC player with a competitive list). Generally the WAAC/uncompetitive player wants a list based on the units he likes and (I suspect) has an unrealistic idea about their tabletop performance based upon the background fluff rather than their actual in game abilities, or more commonly he has chosen each unit for its perceived performance withouth thinking about likely counters and/or how his army will act as a cohesive whole.
On the other hand a sportsman with a competitive list will likely bend over backwards to help a weaker opponent (be it weaker player or just player with a noticeably weaker list) in a casual game with perhaps suggestions or opinions as to options available or always giving said opponent the benefit of the doubt if questions arise (are they in cover or not? is thet just in or just out of assault range? etc).
There's actually another sort of player who always has a casual list, and that's the guy who just doesn't care about tactics at all. This chap generally gives an unsatisfactory game (though is always nice to talk to while playing) because he's really just passing time.
The way I see it, the opponent can take whatever list they choose to take (spammy, cheesy, whatever) in a friendly game. I'm used to losing (I have terrible dice karma) and I tend to get a little too much into the spirit of my Orks (krump stuff now, claim objectives later ) and end up using unpredictable but not always sensible tactics.
But for me the main driving force is having fun, I play (mostly) to win, but I play games for the entertainment. They can have a tournament optimised list or the worst list known to man, I don't really mind so long as them and I are having a jolly good time about it
For ,me, a big chunk of the skill and fun of the game is building a powerful, competitive, take-all-comers list. So those are the lists I will play with, generally, unless we're playing a specific scenario or something.
I will happily take a list against a complete newcomer to the game (having explained that this is the list I take to tournaments), and have a "teaching game" in which I talk him/her through their options at all times, and ensure they don't make any blatantly obvious mistakes. I'll also offer list-building advice if there's time.
I don't really see any point in deliberately having a less than optimal list in a game that has victory conditions. It'd be like deliberately playing badly.
Ian Sturrock wrote:I don't really see any point in deliberately having a less than optimal list in a game that has victory conditions. It'd be like deliberately playing badly.
Ian Sturrock wrote:For ,me, a big chunk of the skill and fun of the game is building a powerful, competitive, take-all-comers list. So those are the lists I will play with, generally, unless we're playing a specific scenario or something.
I will happily take a list against a complete newcomer to the game (having explained that this is the list I take to tournaments), and have a "teaching game" in which I talk him/her through their options at all times, and ensure they don't make any blatantly obvious mistakes. I'll also offer list-building advice if there's time.
I don't really see any point in deliberately having a less than optimal list in a game that has victory conditions. It'd be like deliberately playing badly.
But building a powerful list doesn't really take skill, as others have said. You can just go onto the internet and find a powerful, competitive list in five minutes.
I build the list that I want to play then play it to the best of my ability. Sometimes this means that my list is not as optimised as it could be (my Tau army uses Farsight for feths sake ) but that doesn't affect my enjoyment of the game. It means that if I do beat an opponent using a massively powerful list they got off the internet I know it was because I outplayed them, not because I had an uber-list which cannot be defeated without serious tailoring or using the same list against it.
Victory may be rarer when using a less than optimal list but it is much sweeter because of that.
I've never used a netlist, out of personal preference. I don't get all that many games in, though, so if I'm playing 40K, I probably want to have my next tournament in mind, and play at that points level, with that list.
You can give a horrible player the best tourney list and the kid can still lose, you can play differently depending on who you are playing. If you find someone playing for the win, play as hard to. If your opponent is trying out some new models, use new strategies and don't try your hardest. Or you could have a list for every type of player.
When I compete at anything else in life for fun, I try to win.
I enjoy being good at the things I'm good at and I like to push myself while doing them. If my friends can't handle that, they shouldn't be my friends (it hasn't happened yet)
Why shouldn't this apply to Warhammer?
I should play a terrible army because it will be more "fun"? I don't think so.
Several posters have tried to bring out the difference between the skills used in list building and the skills used while playing. The chances of beating a competitive list with a regular list are small even if you are a good player. Beating a regular list with a competitive one does not really reflect your skills at playing the game. Many players would not consider it a win at all. Thus, many players prefer to take sub-par lists to test their skills at playing the game.
I've seen too many potential new entrants to the hobby turned away by self-diagnosed Aspergers types roflstomping their first army list with BA razorspam or DE Venom Swarm under the guise of -reaching- them to think we can really be cavalier here.
My list is not really competitive but it's not soft either. But for my DE, I would say that i have a 'fluffy' list, with a plot behind it, and my tournament list, and let them pick. I don't think it's patronizing at all. Being made to feel helpless and disappointed in your investment is not a learning step.
I'm pretty sure it's the roflstomping persona that turns people away, not the list. :(
My local group tends to play quite competitive games. Maybe not every list is optimised, but every player is aiming to win, and expects to lose badly to start with.
I've no objection to other people having fluffy lists vs tournament lists. Personally I'd find it a bit of a waste of my limited gaming time. I certainly also play experimental lists, but I don't think I'd learn much from a fluffy list vs fluffy list game, and I like to get better with each game if I can.
I went to my FLGS yesterday looking for a game. Wound up playing a guy who was playing his 3rd game ever.
I took a very soft 1850 eldar list so he could get more experience with his necrons (they were by no means optimized).
I wound up teaching most of the game, showing him how to move and think about what to shoot and how to prioritize targets ect. was a great time.
If I had used my tournament list it wouldn't have been fun for anyone (I don't bask in the glow of stomping n00bs into the ground)
Quite often I accidently bash em up a bit to much. It doesn't help if a tourney player is behind you telling you your advantage. Well, maybe it was because that noob had been beating me with his grey knights in other games, so when I get a mycetic spore I put my warriors in it next to his psykers.
Now I ask if it's a hard game or a friendly game and tell them too remind me their skill.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dayvuni wrote:You can give a horrible player the best tourney list and the kid can still lose, you can play differently depending on who you are playing. If you find someone playing for the win, play as hard to. If your opponent is trying out some new models, use new strategies and don't try your hardest. Or you could have a list for every type of player.
I agree with the sort of level 1-5 of listing but also levels 1-5 of good tactics.
played a lvl 5 grey kinght list with a lvl 2 nid list and won.
how? Because Im a lvl 3 player and their a lvl 1 player. you should base the games on both factors.
LVL 2 list, LVL 4 player VS LVL 4 list, LVL 2 player.
that would be interesting, provided that they dont go charging into CC with ranged units or try to run through huge minefeilds.
We have a very very diverse community when it comes to wargaming and we have to find ways to stick together because lets face it, our hobby is going to be like yesterday's model trains, it will grow old with us, but the new blood will someday die down to a trickle.
So the point is, in the realm of pickup (friendly) we should try to be conscious of everyone because that is where we all meetup, regardless of playstyle.
ivangterrace wrote:..... our hobby is going to be like yesterday's model trains, it will grow old with us, but the new blood will someday die down to a trickle. .
Actually you'd be surprised for model trains are still popular in some places. I guess some types just like to build stuff.
The competitive side of warhammer is fairly ugly and unfun, IMO. People just seem to be obsessed with the WAAC mindset at my FLGS. They're nice people and I love to head down every Saturday and see what they've painted and show my work off as well (sadly only a few even bother to paint).
But once the game starts is maximum carnage with no mercy.
It's also unfortunate that not every unit or army is created equal in terms of effectiveness vs. points cost. The game has some balance issues to be sure.
I wonder how the game would be in its current incarnation without forums like this where people have mathammered out every unit and possible combination of upgrades and tactics. I think some people take the game, and themselves, too seriously. It's supposed to be fun, right? Not a mechanical regurgitation of rules and probability matrices.
Cave_Dweller wrote:
I wonder how the game would be in its current incarnation without forums like this where people have mathammered
You'd have more ensconced metas where people would think certain
things were good because individuals play them better than the locals
around them and they'd have no outside data to show them that
certain things are really just chancy or matchup dependent.
I'm torn between two worlds because I have two mates who I usually play againt, one really terrible, and the other is a WAAC player.
On one hand, I like playing my terrible mate because I teach him as I play, I use fluffy lists to a point, and I can enjoy the flow of the game more. Although the poor bugger has no morale at all, and once the casualties mount up he almost just gives up.
Then, on the other hand, my WAAC mate is really good, knows the rules better than me...mostly...and tries every possible spammy netlist he can get his hands on. I only keep up because of Dakka and constant research, but every game turns into this annoying grudge match. Although, it makes me a better player I guess, but when I go back to 'fun' games, I end up stomping my other mate because I've had my tactics so refined and its really hard to go back to playing it easy.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Just for the record, I don't think I am an exceptional player or anything, just in case I made it sound like I was...
TheHarleqwin wrote:The point behind the basis of it as a game is competition. This comes down to decisions and tactics in game, in addition to your pre-game which includes your list building. If you pick something that works, you're playing the game. Do you dumb down when you play poker? Do you run slower when you play soccer? No, even in friendly games you understand that there's a winner and a loser. Why get upset if you lose, regardless of how the game went? If you're upset, it shouldn't be at your opponent for being the one who came out on top.
That doesn't mean cheat, but if it's within the rules to do something it's fair gaming. Anyone who claims it's not sportsmanlike to play within the rules shouldn't be playing.
ITT: WAAC gamers who have deluded themselves into believing that their victories are due to their own superior ability, rather than the often ludicrously unbalanced Warhammer rules. Also ITT: People who think a tabletop wargame published by a company which has an entire division devoted to narrative gaming is equivalent to a pro-sport designed from the ground-up for unrestrained competition.
The absolutist and entirely inconsiderate arguments you make in the quoted post are exactly why "fluff" gamers find playing WAAC'ers so annoying, boring, and unfun. It's not just that you can't conceive that someone has a different opinion, a different approach to finding their enjoyment in the game, it's that you are perfectly aware but dismiss them out of hand.
So, IMO, anyone who doesn't have the common sodding courtesy to consider their opponent's enjoyment as much as their own is the one who shouldn't be playing.
Personally, I would not mind playing any kind of list. I am not playing a list, I am playing a guy owning it. This is a social interaction game, the experience depends entirely on the guy. I would much rather lose to a decent opponent than win over some big jerk.
That being said, playing single power list in all situations kind of tells that you are probably a jerk. If you know beforehand that your opponent is a much lower level than you, that's you who decide what kind of game it will be. You can either crush him outright for your own enjoyment, or provide a reasonable challenge. In second case, you get to experiment with some less useful units, too. Of course, if you don't know your opponent level, you are in full right to assume he's good and play him on your max.
Whenever people talk about WAAC gamers, I assume they're talking about people other than me, as WAAC clearly means you'd happily break the rules of the game, lie, hold your opponent's family hostage at gunpoint, etc. I don't think I've ever met anyone would wanted to win at all costs.
In fact, most tournament and other competitive players I've met are the very model of a good opponent -- they know the rules, recognise there are occasional rules inconsistencies (and are happy to call a ref over, or just dice off for it, rather than getting into long arguments), and scrupulously play within the rules.
I've had more instances of cheating (sometimes accidental or semi-accidental) from supposedly casual, fluffy players. I recognise that the plural of anecdote is not data, so I certainly don't regard all casual players as cheats. But I really despise the default, and erroneous, assumption that anyone who plays competitively is a WAAC player. It's as insulting as it is wrong, and has no place in constructive discussion.
Personally I'm very, very happy to lose, whether my opponent is a new player or an old hand. I learn something every time I play, and I learn even more if I lose.
ITT: WAAC gamers who have deluded themselves into believing that their victories are due to their own superior ability, rather than the often ludicrously unbalanced Warhammer rules. Also ITT: People who think a tabletop wargame published by a company which has an entire division devoted to narrative gaming is equivalent to a pro-sport designed from the ground-up for unrestrained competition.
This This a thousand times this.
The only way Meta netlisting is fun for all is when it is fair for all. The current state of 40k simply is not fair for all players. When people go to tourneys, they are fully aware that the game is stacked against them and choose to compete anyways. In playing in the local store, the poor kid who bought Nids because they looked cool doesn't deserve to have his teeth kicked in simply because of codex creep and the gaming being slanted towards power armor.
People who think every game everywhere must be 'unrestrained competition' are missing the point. There is a time and a place for it and it isn't always 'all the time'. One of the problems is many Netlisters only have a static 1500 point of that army in a specific configuration so they couldn't 'tone down' their list if they tried. This is where I would suggest people sometimes offer to trade armies with people to play outside the idea of 'unrestrained competition' and play to have fun and maybe learn new things.
There are multiple valid ways to play these games and no correct way. Less than 10 years ago, the meta was so unbalanced, the game couldn’t even be played under the current competitive mindset. Just because there has been progress doesn't mean there isn't more distance to go to a fair and balanced meta for all.
A friendly game for me is not determined at all by the list, it is determined by the player. If I can have some fun, witty banter, and a good time with somebody then It is a friendly game. We shake hands, laugh about the silly things that happen, and congratulate each other on our strengths. A non friendly game is usually quiet, serious and ends up with somebody being mad.
I can usually tell what type of game is by the following interaction, both a response after I destroyed their first tank.
(Friendly game against Cheese Angels, both competitive lists. Lost in Kill Points) "Slick shot bro! Congrats on your first KP(we fist pound)"
(Not so friendly game against Mech IG, semi comp lists. Tabled the guy) "Oh, so it is going to be one of THOSE games... " And proceeded to complain about how he always loses his manticore for the next 5 minutes.
Dr. Serling wrote:A friendly game for me is not determined at all by the list, it is determined by the player. If I can have some fun, witty banter, and a good time with somebody then It is a friendly game. We shake hands, laugh about the silly things that happen, and congratulate each other on our strengths. A non friendly game is usually quiet, serious and ends up with somebody being mad.
I really like this observation. Far too often I've been guilty of using the term "friendly" game to mean non-competitive. It wouldn't be my kind of game, but it must be said that two players can have a perfectly friendly game with WAAC, tooled'up, web lists and if they're laid back about it, they could even call the game casual.
Perhaps it would be best for us to define the kind of list we want to play - "Fluffy" or "Competitive", "Optimized" or "non-optimized", etc, etc - and use terms like friendly, or casual to describe the demeanor of the player.
Dr. Serling wrote:A friendly game for me is not determined at all by the list, it is determined by the player. If I can have some fun, witty banter, and a good time with somebody then It is a friendly game. We shake hands, laugh about the silly things that happen, and congratulate each other on our strengths. A non friendly game is usually quiet, serious and ends up with somebody being mad.
QFT.
I usually will even ask someone if they're looking for a tough list, or if they'd like to see something crazy. (Space Wolves tourney list being the former; Deathmark & C'Tan lists the latter)
Both have some bite to them, but the former is a standard spamalot net list (except I use Dreads) whereas the latter really just wins because it will repeatedly sucker punch the opponent when, where & with what they wouldn't expect.
Perhaps it would be best for us to define the kind of list we want to play - "Fluffy" or "Competitive", "Optimized" or "non-optimized", etc, etc - and use terms like friendly, or casual to describe the demeanor of the player.
Yes, absolutely. Otherwise one is saying that anyone running a competitive list isn't being friendly which is both absurd and rather insulting.
I'm not going to lie. I have on one occasion stomped a guy who had no idea what he was doing to the ground. Normally however I try to play to let everyone have fun rather then for me to win. Some of my favorite matches have been ones where I lost but had a good time the whole game. Also you should always play to win but well doing that if the other person needs help with his skills or army you shouldn't always exploit his every weakness to the point where the game no longer becomes fun for him. For tourneys where there is stuff on the line have at it. But for casual games why risk hurt feelings by being a jerk. If you know the other guy will have no chance of beating you pro spam list and you can play another option where both of you will have a chance to win why not use it and let everyone have a good time.
Even in a tourney you can be pleasant about it -- congratulate the enemy on good tactics or a lucky shot, all that stuff. Talk about how you think the game's going, not just in a kind of "I will crush you" way.
I'd just make a list that I wanted to play. If it's a newbie then it's all part of the learning curve. Help them out throughout the game to give them a better chance. Give them tactical advice or advice on what you'd do to their list. If you let them win easily it's only going to be all the more horrible when they come up against WAAC guy and he stomps their asses into the soil.
WaaaaghLord wrote:I'd just make a list that I wanted to play. If it's a newbie then it's all part of the learning curve. Help them out throughout the game to give them a better chance. Give them tactical advice or advice on what you'd do to their list. If you let them win easily it's only going to be all the more horrible when they come up against WAAC guy and he stomps their asses into the soil.
That's very true, if you give them the win and they don't know how to earn it, the only person they can beat is whoever let's them.
As a relatively new player (January), who loses on a consistent basis, I would rather face the "tough" list. I am trying to learn how to make a list, how to play with what I already have, what I need to do to get better, and where my tactical weaknesses are. I have had one opponent who rather helpfully put little toothpick flags with his units with a 1-10 scale of their threat level to me.
I have also faced the hated "rich teen" with the ultra-cheddar sooper spam interned BA list, and I will never play that kid again. Using an AoBR Dread as a counts as Furioso Liberian and sending psychic lance shots at my Land Raider Crusader while ignoring everything else, then calling me lucky and blaming the dice when I end up holding 3 out of 4 objectives when the game ends, then telling your friend "I let him win 'cuz he's new" seconds before I find out that most of your kills came from misinterpreting (or possibly misrepresenting) special rules... Never again
To the OP:
The way I look at it, if you goto a LFGS on an off night you bring 2 lists if you are a GT or Tournment player. You bring your standard tournment list, and you bring something toned down to try out. Frankly 1 off games do not matter, you should approach it that way. Its a time to focus on solid tactical play. Focus on objectives of the game. What deployment presents a strong opportunity. What level of play is my opponent? Will this be enjoyable for both of us? What are positives of units I do not have an opportunity to use frequently?
Going to a tournment, you should really expect to run into some nasty stuff if you've been to one before. When I'm in a shop and I hear a "hey i'm going to my first event!" I usually walk over, and take 5-10 minutes to talk to the person about expectations, to be preparred to get caught in the open, and take it all in. Similarly those experienced guys, they may not have that huge collections of minatures. They may not be able to tone down armies. There's nothing wrong with that, as long as they tell their opponents, and the opponent is prepared to see that nasty tournment list.
The only time I cringe, is watching a TFG enjoy stomping a new guy, or any player who tricks people into tournment games when they are not ready or have a suitable list.
I'm going to highlight and incident from GW Voorhees. I took a year off 40K to focus on Warmachine. A lot of guys in the area know me by sight as a WFB / WMHD player. They were becoming acustomed to seeing me at 40K events. I was asked to play a 1 off game one night. I asked the person what they run, introduced myself, referenced getting back into 40k, but knowing the drill on lists. They mentioned they would like to play a "friends giggle game."
I was both impressed and happy. I brought out a balanced, Chaos SM list. No lash princes, no obliterators, no fully mechanized. Focusing on really learning the ins / outs on rules and sceniarios. Opponents plunks down Spammed Long Fang Missles, Podded Hunters.
I pause and ask about his list, he claims its a friendly list and not that hard. I polite reference he has a net / strong list, he refutes, and I call his bluff. He says he really doesn't have anything else. Yep, he crap kicks my army. Zero fun. TFG's the game. Berating me for most of the game. EDIT: why did I play? I sometimes work night shifts... I really have to schedule to try to goto those tournments I love, so when I get a off night to game, i'd rather roll dice then not.
I asked what's up after the game. Point out that yep, i've won GT's in the past, I knew his list was a power list and that's ok. But why would he do that. He remarks "everything is a tournment game." I offer a little insight, that he could lead with that, and that sportsmanship is important because you can be scored on it. He sights "its ok to get a zero in sports."
That's the attitude I don't want people confronted with if people are learning. I want people to learn to play. If you want a tournment game, go for it. Be honest with your opponent in 1 off games. People can get royally spanked, but they can have a fabulous game doing it. I don't ever want anyone walking away with the "waste of time" feeling.
On a side note: happy ending, I have crap kicked said player in every tournment game since at local events. I also refuse to play him in 1 off games, citing he lost a opponent. Every time he asks me to play I reference when he learns to be honest with opponents, and when I witness him being a decent sportsman. I will give him a 2nd chance.
Wow what a great thread! I recently had a "friendly" game that caused me lots of irk.... lots of irk. This game really pissed me off. it was 3 v 2 and I was tau with another tau player and an IG player. We planned this game and knew what each others army was. The other team was DE and GK. The GK player purposly took a plasma syphon vs tau. A bigger f** you there is not. He also took a callidus assain and claimed ID vs my broadsides, when ID vs neural shredder is based on LD therefore ID only happens on LD 4. Anyway I was furious and I almost stopped playing. I refuse to play those 2 again. Both cheated claiming they "forgot" to roll for reserves which really affected the outcome of the game. The GK player cheated with cover save rules, claiming cover on a dread that was standing in a lawn. I dont have tau anymore, but not because of this, but I have Krieg now. We have, without question, the most powerful weapon in the entire non apoc40k game, the Hades Breaching Drill, of which I have 3. For those who dont know its S10 AP1 melta large blast with no center of blast(says in the rule) that always hits on the vehicles side armor that comes in via deep strike. It goes in an engineer squad and it costs 50 points. I would never EVER take them in a friendly game because its a total dick move, if I wanted to be a dick I could. But I choose not to run spam lists in friendly games because they are just the, they're friendly.
I went to my FLGS yesterday looking for a game. Wound up playing a guy who was playing his 3rd game ever.
I took a very soft 1850 eldar list so he could get more experience with his necrons (they were by no means optimized).
I wound up teaching most of the game, showing him how to move and think about what to shoot and how to prioritize targets ect. was a great time.
If I had used my tournament list it wouldn't have been fun for anyone (I don't bask in the glow of stomping n00bs into the ground)
I honestly find that I end up teaching new players (and existing players) things more so that I play and I end up getting more enjoyment out of it. I enjoy playing as much as the next guy but it seems no matter what I field something is "cheese" even if I am running Codex: Marines. I've never heard a new player tell me that teaching him to play was cheese though I have had some players I was teaching tactics to possibly consider my suggestions cheese, but knowing is half the battle. (One of the major things I end up really teaching people about is space marines/space marine tactics, I've spent a load of time on Drop Pod/disembark combat squads stuff).
If you're going to offer up different types of lists, though, definitely advertise them as "fluffy" vs. "tournament-style", because "hard" vs. "soft/easy" is pretty condescending even if it's true.
I was both impressed and happy. I brought out a balanced, Chaos SM list. No lash princes, no obliterators, no fully mechanized. Focusing on really learning the ins / outs on rules and sceniarios. Opponents plunks down Spammed Long Fang Missles, Podded Hunters.
I pause and ask about his list, he claims its a friendly list and not that hard. I polite reference he has a net / strong list, he refutes, and I call his bluff. He says he really doesn't have anything else. Yep, he crap kicks my army. Zero fun. TFG's the game. Berating me for most of the game. EDIT: why did I play? I sometimes work night shifts... I really have to schedule to try to goto those tournments I love, so when I get a off night to game, i'd rather roll dice then not.
I asked what's up after the game. Point out that yep, i've won GT's in the past, I knew his list was a power list and that's ok. But why would he do that. He remarks "everything is a tournment game." I offer a little insight, that he could lead with that, and that sportsmanship is important because you can be scored on it. He sights "its ok to get a zero in sports."
That's the attitude I don't want people confronted with if people are learning. I want people to learn to play. If you want a tournment game, go for it. Be honest with your opponent in 1 off games. People can get royally spanked, but they can have a fabulous game doing it. I don't ever want anyone walking away with the "waste of time" feeling.
On a side note: happy ending, I have crap kicked said player in every tournment game since at local events. I also refuse to play him in 1 off games, citing he lost a opponent. Every time he asks me to play I reference when he learns to be honest with opponents, and when I witness him being a decent sportsman. I will give him a 2nd chance.
This is very refreshing to see, this proves that not every player is a WAAC player who really isnt fun to play with. As mentioned above, whats the point of playing? I really dont like WAAC players who are on all the time
darefsky wrote:I wound up teaching most of the game, showing him how to move and think about what to shoot and how to prioritize targets ect. was a great time.
You, sir, are a gentleman. You exemplify what the hobby needs more of.
Ditto.
Most of the guys I play with know I go to alot of tournies so they bring their A game to the table.
"One of the problems is many Netlisters only have a static 1500 point of that army in a specific configuration so they couldn't 'tone down' their list if they tried."
I think this is the biggest difference to me... I like my games varied, and will play your tourney list in a casual game, but if you can't/won't/don't change it up every now and again, it gets super boring.
This game is such a niche community, mostly of social outcasts, that it's honestly hard to get a regular group of guys for consistant games (at least in the cities I have lived in). Anyone who actually cares about the outcome of a non-tournament game is instantly flagged as an outcast IMO, as Warhammer is a analog relic of digital rts...
It's going the way of the samurai, so you can either uphold the code and have some honorable combat, or you can claim "tactical superiority" in a game 100,000 (maybe?) people across globe compete in, while Online gaming has millions on at a time.
I guess sometimes you have to say, "Whats the point?" if winning casual games of warhammer is all someone has going for them then that's kinda sad. Quite simply, every warhammer game is a meaningless affair that will be forgotten in a matter of weeks or months, and in no way compairs to real life (such as social interaction, with your opponents perhaps) the only real thing that lasts are narratives and friendships formed while playing...
treadhead1944 wrote:
I have also faced the hated "rich teen" with the ultra-cheddar sooper spam interned BA list, and I will never play that kid again. Using an AoBR Dread as a counts as Furioso Liberian and sending psychic lance shots at my Land Raider Crusader while ignoring everything else, then calling me lucky and blaming the dice when I end up holding 3 out of 4 objectives when the game ends, then telling your friend "I let him win 'cuz he's new" seconds before I find out that most of your kills came from misinterpreting (or possibly misrepresenting) special rules... Never again
If you read my post that is the kid I ROFLSTOMPED, yea, I hate him to.
TheHarleqwin wrote:The point behind the basis of it as a game is competition. This comes down to decisions and tactics in game, in addition to your pre-game which includes your list building. If you pick something that works, you're playing the game. Do you dumb down when you play poker? Do you run slower when you play soccer? No, even in friendly games you understand that there's a winner and a loser. Why get upset if you lose, regardless of how the game went? If you're upset, it shouldn't be at your opponent for being the one who came out on top.
That doesn't mean cheat, but if it's within the rules to do something it's fair gaming. Anyone who claims it's not sportsmanlike to play within the rules shouldn't be playing.
ITT: WAAC gamers who have deluded themselves into believing that their victories are due to their own superior ability, rather than the often ludicrously unbalanced Warhammer rules. Also ITT: People who think a tabletop wargame published by a company which has an entire division devoted to narrative gaming is equivalent to a pro-sport designed from the ground-up for unrestrained competition.
The absolutist and entirely inconsiderate arguments you make in the quoted post are exactly why "fluff" gamers find playing WAAC'ers so annoying, boring, and unfun. It's not just that you can't conceive that someone has a different opinion, a different approach to finding their enjoyment in the game, it's that you are perfectly aware but dismiss them out of hand.
So, IMO, anyone who doesn't have the common sodding courtesy to consider their opponent's enjoyment as much as their own is the one who shouldn't be playing.
Except that in tearing me apart here, you're doing the exact thing you're griping about: you're complaining about someone with a differing opinion on a bleeding game. For the record, I am by no means a WAAC player. My enjoyment comes from improving and doing well. I get enjoyment just from being able to play, but I'd rather not be that "Oh well, at least I tried" guy every single time. When I win, I like to know what I did better than last time. That's why I enjoy competitive play, even between friends. Especially between friends. As long as you're not spiteful or resentful people, you can have a no holds barred kind of game and come out of it with all the enjoyment you could get from a match.
I warn people I play with that I don't pull punches. Does that mean I'm a WAAC kind of guy? No, I don't seek out newbies to thrash them. I do not cheat, I answer openly and readily when asked questions about my list and units, and allow people to see both list and codex when asked for. I'd go so far as to say that a lot of people get a stronger drive to improve and play when matched against someone who has some experience under their belt. As long as the "stronger" player is willing to explain their actions, as they should be, you can learn a lot about tactics, decisiveness and competitive play. This is how I got better, and how I decided I may be at a point where I can go to Warmasters this year with a chance at winning a few matches. If I don't win, however, I know I'm good enough to put up a good fight and know neither player at the table is going to softball it.
But again, I warn people. No spammy lists on my part, typically unconventional lists... But I play the game in the way I enjoy, and that's as a competition. If they don't want to play with someone like that, it's not like I have a gun to their head making them.
EDIT - I feel I should add that though I don't think "pro sports" have any value beyond the merit of exercise, they're also a game. You can't really draw much of a line between the two as far as I'm concerned, but again, that could be because I think it's ridiculous that people are being paid to play a game in the first place.
Im currently sat on a quandary myself on this topic.
My good mate Albatross and I play each other every few months, he plays Orks, and the problem seems to me that there are only two or three ways to run them competitively, so its either get smashed or play a good list. Despite the fact he runs a pretty awesome list (everyone in a trukk, couple of battlewagons, big boy squads, all nobz have PKs, Mek with a KFF/Warboss) I play Vanilla and don't wish to play a cheese list against him. I play a fluffy list, ten man tac squads, some scouts, some devastators, gak like that. Not optimised.
Anyway, after struggling against him one weekend and losing all my games due to having only a half decent amount of firepower and him having the infernal cover saves. (Plus a small board, he is always assaulting me on turn two regardless) I added a drop pod with ten sternguard in. 8 combi meltas.
Drop it in, combat squad them, always take down two vehicles, or fry some orks, he ends up dealing with them instead of driving at me 18" on turn one, I get an extra turn of shooting, and beat him all weekend.
But, it reeks of cheese doesnt it? So.. I dropped it from the list and went back to the drawing board.
So, this weekend gone I went back down, took a ten man tac, scouts in a LSS, ten devastators, a rifleman dread, some termies..
And got trounced all weekend again. :(
So, I don't play SW or GK or BA, I literally don't have the firepower to make sure I've only got 30 Orks instead of 70 assaulting me on turn two.
Do I go back to taking the cheesepod, or keep trying to think of ingenious ways to beat him with none optimal gak like Devastators and my beloved Thunderfire Cannon?
Orks seem to be either really awesome or really gakky, so I can understand him playing a list that would look ok in a tournament but I don't want to look like a beardy.
A drop pod to bugger up an opponents plans is perfectly fluffy for vanilla marines.
Drop the number of melta shots? Perhaps use a deepstriking assault squad to meltabomb one vehicle and melta gun the other? Or drop a dreadnought with MM and flamer and see what that does. Perhaps drop a devastator squad with 4 HB's in to put some behind the lines dakka on him.
Or you could use JP assault squads with melta bombs to knock out a couple vehicles then go on a crazy ass rampage for gaks and giggles. I'd go this route personally as it's loads more fun. If you're actually playing to win you may want to set up some crossfires with HB's or AC's (lots of shots) to knock down hordes. A 4xHB dev squad puts out a lot of shots, and with a good position with some sort of screening / interception unit, they can be murderous against horde armies (nids, orks, IG).
As other people have said you can have a friendly game well still playing to win. It just requires that both side remember something really important. THAT THIS IS A GAME. Sure it might hurt when nothing you do works or you big tanks all die turn one but that will happen. Winning after that is something to brag about. beating foot slogging orks with guard flamer spam isnt.
ivangterrace wrote:I always wanted to post about this, so I figure my first post past 300 for me should be about the fine line we kinda sorta walk in friendly games.
I'll start with an example. I have mean space wolves lists with 3 long fang squads w/ 4 missiles each and all three squads have a las/plas razorback, and the rest of the army is generally heavily mechanized with meltahunter squads. But I don't play those lists in friendly play because idk if I'm playing a fluffbunny, a newbie, or a tournament player.
Why? I don't want to make people angry. Most people don't like playing against spammy lists, I don't mind, but I know most people do.
So I tone my lists down and put in my cool looking wolf guard terminators with wolf claws and other guys with cool looking poses.
But, if I do that, I leave myself to getting stomped by the guy who is playing for the win, using the tourney list, the guy who doesn't care, or doesn't realize a lot of people get angrypants over that style of listbuilding.
My question is, do you walk the fine line of trying to make a list that isn't overkill against "for fun" players but doesn't roll over to "for the win" players? Do you even think about this weird social contract? Do you think it even exists?
I've found that "friendly" lists or a "friendly" can very, very quickly turn into competitive. What happened in my group was - I told people to build lists for fun, take units/models/characters they considered to be fun, etc. etc. and then one guy decided "fun" was beating everyone. It quickly escalated into a very competitive deal with everyone taking the strongest unit/worst spam. It's a slippery slope.
Here's a simple solution that keeps you from having to make hard choices about sportsmanship or having to bring two lists:
Just play two games instead of one, and switch armies after the first game. Did'ja stomp 'em into the ground the first game? Well, here's your chance to find out whether it was the army list that did it or YOU! Did you get your ass handed to you? Well, here's your chance to give the other fellow a taste of his own medicine!
As long as you're careful with the other fellow's miniatures, there shouldn't be any problems. Plus, it gives you an opportunity to try different armies and different tactics!
@ The OP.
I couldnt agree more that there is a social contract when you game with someone. If you know they are a newb, or just one of those players who for whatever reason fields a list that is high on units that are cool units that are filled with fluff but lack any real competitive synergy, then fielding a list that is designed primarily for fun sake is where its at. Then when you win a game its more fullfilling for you as the winner, and your foe has a better time playing against you.
Now. with that said. I know who my foes are when i go to the shop. I usually have three lists sticky noted into the back of my dex. One uber-fluffy, zero synergy list to play against newbs and those foes who just like a cinematic game, one list that is pretty middle of the road, and one uber cheese list. I usually end up playing the middle of the road list, but every now and then i pull the nasty list out when i know i am facing someone who has a cheese penchant. This ensures that no matter what the level of competition is fair, fun and balanced.
I normally have fun even when being stomped, as my opponents at both stores I play at are great guys. However, I do think that there are some lists that are "unfriendly" just because they are not fun to play against, which for me seems to only be Long Fang spam with infinite missile launchers. Though the guy I was playing was a cool guy and helped me with my list afterwards.
Just don't be TFG and bring a list that unless you get diced your opponent will get roflstomped by you in a non-tourney or non-tourney practice game unless you legitimately don't have any other models-then be honest and tell them that you don't have anything else if they get pissed.
For me it gose from "fair game, you build a list to win" to unsporting list building when people start taloring without discussing it. If you bring a good tourniment list, fine, thats a good list and what the game is about, but when I see someone pull out a bunch of flamers and pie plates when they play my ork horde when half an hour ago the force was full of melta and laz playing against an mecanized MEQ, that starts to upset me.
In my opinion as long as lists are made "in the dark" it is fine.
You should also avoid questionable rules interpritations in friendly games (and all games IMO, but not everyone agrees).
Frankly, from reading through this thread I don't really believe the issue is the list, I think the issue is the player. IMO you can likely play the most optimized GK list available but if you are cool and keep it fun your opponent is not likely to be as irked by it as opposed to you being obnoxious about it and adding to the pain of losing with a nasty arttitude. At the same time you can have a "soft" list and still be a tool and the game ends up sucking for your opponent. In the end it is not about the list but about the player behind the list. Unfortunately the hard core lists probably have a far higher percentage of the obnoxious folks behind them than a more fluffy "softer"list only because of the WAAC attitude.
Stravo wrote:Frankly, from reading through this thread I don't really believe the issue is the list, I think the issue is the player. IMO you can likely play the most optimized GK list available but if you are cool and keep it fun your opponent is not likely to be as irked by it as opposed to you being obnoxious about it and adding to the pain of losing with a nasty arttitude. At the same time you can have a "soft" list and still be a tool and the game ends up sucking for your opponent. In the end it is not about the list but about the player behind the list. Unfortunately the hard core lists probably have a far higher percentage of the obnoxious folks behind them than a more fluffy "softer"list only because of the WAAC attitude.
I largely agree with this but I'm actually not sure about the last sentence. My experience is that you get just as many 'difficult' opponents who have 'fluffy' (or sometimes just plain crap) lists as those who field competitive armies. Fortunately 'difficult' players are fairly thin on the ground in this neck of the woods.
I do find that it's rather more likely a 'fluffy' player will omit to tell you things about his list that are pertinent to the game (eg 'my HQ has an orbital strike relay', 'my HQ can seize on 4+', or whatever) until they make the roll whereas more competitive players seem usually to be at pains to go through any special rules their army may possess that might not be obvious. I don't mind this really as it acts as a kind of balancing mechanism (the 'fluffy' list springs surprises that the competitive one does not).
To the OP:
I believe for the most party, every game is worth playing. There are plenty of WAAC players who also goto tournies that are good quality people who are really really good at 40k, WFB, WMHD, etc. Playing them is an opportunity to really learn the ins / outs of the game IF they are also a good sportsman. I know many players in the philadelphia area who can spank me rotten regardless of what I run. They just know the game better, and are all around good players. They can lay the smack down with a geared GT list, or a leveled out with some fun lists.
I would never pass a game against them. Most times I'd probably lose, sometimes I win. The point of playing is to play. To have a fun time away from regular life. Now i've always considered myself to live in a good gaming area as many of the guys who people say they are WAAC, are good solid people. So the game is fun, because "we" make it fun. They know they will get a solid tactical game from me, i'll make them thinking, i'll throw stuff at them they may not have thought of. So they win. I will have a blast playing, so I win to.
Do understand of course, there are also WAAC D-Bags, who just are not fun to play. Nothing says you have to play them, unless your matched against them at a tourney. Play the guys who look like they are always smiling even in defeat at the top tables. You will learn so much in one game.
Stravo wrote:Frankly, from reading through this thread I don't really believe the issue is the list, I think the issue is the player. IMO you can likely play the most optimized GK list available but if you are cool and keep it fun your opponent is not likely to be as irked by it as opposed to you being obnoxious about it and adding to the pain of losing with a nasty arttitude. At the same time you can have a "soft" list and still be a tool and the game ends up sucking for your opponent. In the end it is not about the list but about the player behind the list. Unfortunately the hard core lists probably have a far higher percentage of the obnoxious folks behind them than a more fluffy "softer"list only because of the WAAC attitude.
I agree, it's mainly the attitude of the game what can dertermine, you can laugh and make jokes while trying your hardest to win, or you can sit and stare at each other while fielding a horrible list.
40k is mech spam these days. It wasn't, but it is now. I've never complained about playing against very good lists. But I got tired of it. I should have made better lists myself, but buying, glueing and painting all those razorbacks wasn't for me.
I started playing Hordes instead, solved my problem. I think you should play with the mech spam list not worrying about what others think. Play with the models you like. Only limits are the force organization charts. What other players think is not a limit to your army!
) and end up using unpredictable but not always sensible tactics.
at each other while fielding a horrible list.