So it's no secret 40k as a community experiences polarization. If, by some wonderful gift of ignorance, that which I envy any carrier of, you are unaware of this, I speak of the schism between competitive 40k players, and players that do so for fun outside of the competitive arena. "Tourney Gamers" and "Casuals" if you will. In the following wall of text, I will be addressing this, what I consider a problem.
I should start by asking the reader not to prejudice me, the writer, when reading this article; presented as my voice and opinion. Neither my signature, avatar, or past posts are at all a representation of who I am, why I play the game, or what I draw enjoyment from. All that is demonstrated is what I choose to represent myself with online, this and nothing more.
I am, in fact, quite comfortable with both "types" of play, hereby referred to as competitive and casual play. Any frequent users of dakka will undoubtably be much more familiar with my competitive side; posting and critiquing lists, advising and recommending tactics, and even boasting about the sheer power of my flyer-list. Without a doubt I have a hand in the realm of competitive 40k play. What dakka rarely sees though, is my incredible feeling for the fluff of 40k, the background and history, and the enjoyment I garner from narrative games. This is because, quite frankly, they are boring to talk about. I could make ten posts about an incredibly fun campaign I played last week, where my footslogging guard backed up a drop-pod first company of Imperial fists against a two-pronged Tyranid and Necron onslaught while trying to protect a listening post. But frankly, aside from showing that I'm not as TFG as I seem, the only thing the dakka community would gain is knowing that I, TheCaptain, had fun one Saturday in the summer of 2012. No one would become a better player, no one would learn anything about how optimal my list is, and no one would even be able to ascertain if foot-guard is fun and fluffy, because that is entirely subjective. I post lists, critique tactics threads, and talk about countering units because it makes both me, and the community, better at the game, which inevitably leads to more fun. Whether you play an unoptimized "pure-fun" list, or Draigowing allied with Robute Guilliman himself, being "good" at using our toys to kill other peoples toys is fun.
Here is my problem with the overall community attitude lately; I have seen a TON of unwarranted scorn towards the competitive community. Like wayyy too much malice for a set of adults to carry regarding how other people play with toys. Before you think to yourself "why is Captain ranting like this?" yes, this was because I, recently, had it suggested that I was both "rude" and a "douche" for running a flyer list. (I can assure you this poster had no idea if I was rude, douchey, or if I had or hadn't taken etiquette classes as a boy.) This isn't exactly why I decided to write it, but it was rather what reminded me of how much of a problem it is, and I decided to address it. The thing is, to a lot of the community, if you run an optimized list that they deem "unfluffy" (which by the way is incredibly vague and will be addressed soon.) then you are TFG, or a WAAC player. You are playing the game wrong, you will be refused games, and girls won't talk to you. That last one was made up; let's face it, girls love guardsmen. But really, and maybe it's just me, but I can't see the problem.
I enjoy both spectrums of the game, which I see as a gift, but maybe it's a problem? For the life of me, I cannot understand why a 40k player who enjoys FLGS non-tournament play would just outright refuse a game against a player say, oh...fielding a drop-pod Vulkan list (tried to pick a competitive, but not CRAZY list). They may argue it wouldn't be fun for them, but I challenge the casual player by asking "Why not?" I apologize, but this is a game, and as such, the burden of having fun is on you, the player; not your opponent. I've had plenty of opponents who aren't fun for a variety of reasons (rude, whiny, smelly, bad lists, or annoying) but I've never once not had FUN playing 40k. I see it as exciting every time I even get to take my little toy men out of their box and face someone with them. Playing someone with a list better than yours is no different from playing someone with a list much worse than yours; it is ridiculous to refuse it, and ridiculous to claim you cannot have fun with it just because one player is presenting a different level of a threat. Chances are you are at your FLGS, playing a zero-stakes game against someone you've never met, and whether or not you lose will bear literally zero meaning in the grand scheme of things. The entire world will not even notice a single die was thrown. If the army across from you is 100 grots, or a Draigowing, you should still have fun. You are, afterall playing with toys. Besides; immerse yourself in the narrative a bit, imagine how intense it must have been for your army to be wiped out so quickly by such an overwhelming force? If you're faced with TFG or a WAAC, just enjoy the show. The guy across the table will be trying his absolute heart out, and you'll be rolling dice and picturing your army-men's lasers go "pew pew!". Both of you can have fun with that, surely?
I love analogies; I think they make explaining things so much better and easier to take in. Here is one related to the above paragraph; if you, the casual player, were approached by Shaquille O'Neal and he wanted to shoot around, you're telling me you wouldn't get a kick out of that? Sure, he'll beat you up and down the court, and sink 100x the shots you do, but enjoy the experience, and enjoy the game. Not to mention, you can learn so much from something like that, even if you don't want to take it as seriously.
The other part of the problem, however, I find much more serious. This truly threatens to separate the 40k community, I think. This is the fact that, largely, the scorn is one-sided. Look for yourself. Look at Bell of Lost Souls, look on Warseer, look here on Dakka; the hate you see is always towards the Competitive community. Why? It seems like competitive gamers have no problem accepting that there are many people that aren't into the tournament scene, and that some people just like running certain codex options because they look cool. But the amount of threads I've seen proclaiming Tournaments "broken" "not-viable" "stoopid" et-cetera, are staggering. The amount of hate I see towards "cheesy" optimized lists is just gross. Like I said, i got called a douche for running a flyer-list (Which, by the way, is pretty damn fluffy considering it's Elysians) but I have never, and doubt I will ever see someone called rude, an ass, or otherwise for running fluffy options ("God you're TFG for running six Penal Legions in your Salvar Chem-dog Army!") Because, quite frankly, competitive gamers seem to be fine with it. They have tournaments, and the casual community has Apocalypse games; how much of a difference is there really? All the "haters" of competitive play need to step back for a little bit, and figure out if they can actually fathom tolerating someone who plays the game for a different reason than themselves. If they can't accept that someone else out there has a different view of fun, then really, who is TFG here?
Take this video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dS77v_jx5gU&feature=player_embedded Not a soul in the world would be particularly happy to be faced with this list, but they managed to have fun. Were they on drugs? Were they being blackmailed? No. They had fun because that's what the game is about and they didn't make it about whose list was what, or what unit made you a bad person; they enjoyed every turn, even as the one was being utterly wrecked. Then they puked.
NOW FOR THE REST:
So that's my main thesis guys; yeah, I'm basically defending the competitive community, but that's basically because it's damn annoying hearing all the hate towards it when they don't really need/ask-for/deserve it at all. Scan through a couple of the Army-List posts. Someone has a fluffy, non-optimal option in their list, and maybe a competitive player says "That's points inefficient/underpowered/can be replaced with X or Y" the List-owner either says "Okay, I'll try it out" or "Actually, my list is themed as X so fluff-option A is there for that reason" and the competitive player goes on their merry way either response. But if someone posts a competitive list or overuses competitive options, the exchange is moreso "X is too cheesy, you should use less" "Well, I have these models made already/I kindof want a competitive list/I have fun winning" "Well I wouldn't play you." It's ridiculous, and pretty embarrassing. I do have some stuff I'd like to tack on here, though, because I feel this thread could provoke a lot of growth and useful discussion; mainly I'd like to address why I think Competitive Gamers have a bad rep, and what makes something "Unfluffy".
First, yikes; the Competitive Gamer that everyone outside of the Tourney Scene has learned to hate. He challenges you, asks what you're running, tailors his list for a couple minutes, and then pulls out five flyers and two squads of Terminators with rerollable saves, hits, wounding, FNP, EW, and he fields a baneblade too. He berates you for taking too long to move your orcs one by one, whines when you move them too fast and go past 6" by a hair, and tables you in two turns, followed by ranting about every bad play/list-choice you made all day. This seems like the guy the rest of the community considers Competitive Players to be. And yes, there are players like this, but do you know why? It's because our hobby is pretty damn nerdy. Yeah, sorry, had to say it. I don't consider myself a nerd (for goodness sake, I'm in a frat and spend D6 days a week drinking/lying to college girls) but damn right do I admit and accept that the hobby I love, 40k, is pretty nerdy. It's something we all have to come to terms with eventually. This aspect of the hobby no doubt brings in, every once in a while, a person lacking in certain sectors of social conditioning. That, ladies and gentlemen, is the man described in the first couple sentences. Sure, he sucks to play against, and you betcha he's the most competitive person in the room, but you are mistaken to consider him a solid representation of the competitive community. Fact is, he probably wouldn't make it very far in the community. He'd be hard pressed to find a team, get good sportsmanship scores, make friends at all, and probably would get kicked out of his fair share of events. Whether you're a Casual or Competitive gamer, you won't be a good one if you suck as a person. It just happens that these people usually carry themselves in an incredibly aggressive, rude, competitive manner, because of what is coined as an inferiority complex. Sadly, competitiveness gets them lumped in with true Competitive, Tournament gamers, and that is a stigma that anyone who respects 40k as a hobby should strive to avoid. Please. Goodness, yeah, I've tabled a few people in my time, but I've always been gracious about it, and we've always laughed over it. Even in my most recent tournament, I tabled a player turn three, but he had such a beautifully painted White Scars list we spent the rest of the allotted time talking about how he washed white Power Armour. Don't blame the community; blame the sucky person you just had to put up with.
Unfluffy, ladies and gentlemen. To many synonymous with cheesy, I have come to hate these words. They are entirely subjective, and carry no water in any argument. "Unfluffy" has come to be used to deem something as not okay, by the casual community. Where is the line drawn? I've seen Draigowing called both cheesy and unfluffy; why on earth wouldn't the grand master of the GREY KNIGHTS fight with the most elite of the GREY KNIGHTS? Like I said, my Elysian Flyer list has been called unfluffy, but like...what??? Eldrad lists get called unfluffy because "he's dead in the fluff" (There is no canon, guys. Get over it.) Who cares? To me, it seems more like a justification of otherwise unbacked malice towards a particular choice/list. No one would ever freak out if I included ratlings in a Mordian Iron Guard list, even though they don't usually use Abhumans; nor would someone crap their pants if a warwalker were fielded in a Saim-Hann jetbike list; but that's because they aren't a big deal. For goodness sake, you see Creed all the time, but if you wanted to be fluffy, he'd need about 100,000 more points in any Creed list. So which is it you care about, is it ACTUALLY the fluff? Or are you just nitpicking at fluff so you can support your distaste for the use of a particular unit. It seems like largely it's the latter.
There you have it guys; argue, slug it out, or like I ask so nicely, have a discussion. I truly want to hear about feelings on the matter from Dakka; we should be getting along. I'll say it again, we're playing with toys; who cares how we do it? Just have fun while we do.
-TheCaptain
Edit: I've added a poll to get a more concrete feel of the feelings.
I largely agree with the message your sending, and I get a long with nearly everyone. I don't care what kind of list my opponent plays as long as my opponent is an enjoyable human being to spend time with.
What I'm curious about is why you, your posts, your signature, and your tone is many posts is so incredibly douche-like at times. I appreciate this post in reversing my opinion on you, but you just come across as so unnecessarily abrasive, it just makes me wonder, especially if you claim you are not like that in person. Is it just to get a rise/reaction out of people? Genuinely curious, is all.
I find nothing brings out someones true colors and opinions like rustling their feathers.
If I asked a casual player "Would you mind if I bring a couple flyers?"
They'd likely respond "Oh...I guess that's cool." and the game would be spent with them mourning the loss of every unit in their Fluffy, ramshackle list.
But if, to the same casual player, I said "I'm running flyerspam; and you're going to get wrecked, son."
They'd more likely either say "Good. I'll bring out my Broadsides list. Game on." or "Well F**k flyers, and the same to you, I'm out of here."
I'll always prefer a brutally honest truth, than a half-hearted concession. Sometimes rudeness is the best means to that.
Also it's funny acting like a total TFG and seeing how Dakka feels.
You say (if I read that correctly) that 40K is a game, and people should be having fun regardless of what's used to play the game.
But to many, it isn't (first and foremost) a game: It's more something like a miniature-simulation of narratives and stories they have read, seen or heard.
At that point the entire emphasis shifts. It truly (yes, hard to believe for some (!) competitive people) isn't "important" anymore who loses or wins.
Hell, 90% of the 40K games I played "back in the days" we didn't even count kill-points, objectives or whatever at the end to see who "won". Noone cared. What counts than is the "narrative" of the unfolding events. We also fudged like hell. Resurrecting IC's if their death was seen "uncinematic" or just having deepstrikers enter without die-roll, simply because "now would be a cool time".
By "playing to win", rather than "playing to the narrative", an opponent would then undermine the entire point of the game (from the fluff-gamers perspective), no matter what he plays.
And since 90% of the 40K game these days is list-building, the heap of the discussion ends up about lists...
Yeah, I figured as much. Well, either way, interesting post, I don't have strong enough feelings on the matter to really post anything interesting, besides my one line above.
You say (if I read that correctly) that 40K is a game, and people should be having fun regardless of what's used to play the game.
But to many, it isn't (first and foremost) a game: It's more something like a miniature-simulation of narratives and stories they have read, seen or heard.
At that point the entire emphasis shifts. It truly (yes, hard to believe for competitive people= isn't "important" anymore who loses or wins. Hell, 90% of the 40K games I played "back in the days" we didn't even count points at the end to see who "won". Noone cared. What counts than is the "narrative" of the unfolding events. By "playing to win", rather than "playing to the narrative", an opponent would then undermine the entire point of the game (from the fluff-gamers perspective), no matter what he plays.
And since 90% of the 40K game these days is list-building, the heap of the discussion ends up about lists...
But then if you're looking for an interactive narrative; why go to a FLGS and challenge/accept a challenge from a random guy that may or may not be TFG? Or at least discuss what you're looking for first. With such a simple few steps done, the complaints you've suggested seem like they'd disappear.
It'd be like if a man with peanut allergies goes into a deli, asks for a sandwich, receives PB&J, and whines online about how he hates people who eat PB&J.
I agree with you totally on all counts. I've had the experience you talk about the incredibly competitive guy who just isn't fun to play again and the funny thing is that all of the other truly competitive gamers at my FLGS have called him out on multiple occasions for his attitude.
I wish people would realize that the one bad apple isn't an accurate representation.
But then if you're looking for an interactive narrative; why go to a FLGS and challenge/accept a challenge from a random guy that may or may not be TFG? Or at least discuss what you're looking for first. With such a simple few steps done, the complaints you've suggested seem like they'd disappear.
It'd be like if a man with peanut allergies goes into a deli, asks for a sandwich, receives PB&J, and whines online about how he hates people who eat PB&J.
(I like that analogy a lot, actually.)
Well, I was just speaking mainly from fond memories, not any realistic gaming going on today...
But why is my "style" the peanut allergy and not yours? "Back in the day" (at least around where I am), the interactive narrative was the default to play 40K.
I think that is where a lot of the "grief" comes from. The "competitive" guys came in and changed the "default" (but unwritten) social contract of how the game was played, but they did so with the (in some cases) arrogant bearing of waving the book around and/or under people's noses with words like "that's how it is written here".
In turn, the "fluff" players only had the (as you say vague and subjective) defense of deriding the other side as "unfluffy", simply because this unwritten social contract that used to make the hobby so special wasn't written down anywhere and obviously not enforceble once it was (partly or wholly) lost (in the semi-public of FLGS etc..).
One side pointed to the rule-book to make their "claim", the other pointed to the growing (vague, internally contradicting) body of "fluff", while actually trying to refer to a stylistic approach to the game.
TheCaptain wrote:I could make ten posts about an incredibly fun campaign I played last week, where my footslogging guard backed up a drop-pod first company of Imperial fists against a two-pronged Tyranid and Necron onslaught while trying to protect a listening post. But frankly, aside from showing that I'm not as TFG as I seem, the only thing the dakka community would gain is knowing that I, TheCaptain, had fun one Saturday in the summer of 2012.
Before addressing the real issue, I thought I'd comment on this first. I think you're actually missing something with this statement.
Humans are storytellers. We listen to gossip, we read fiction novels, we swap war stories, and how we got scars, and which YouTube videos we think are best. We are fascinated by story.
For whatever reason (I'm not a psychologist), human beings gain something by experiencing something by proxy. We watch other people being excited, and we get excited. Our sense of empathy causes us to cry when we watch Finding Neverland (I dare you not to). For whatever reason, we seek out these proxy experiences.
I mean, nobody has learned anything, or has become a better person by watching "Iron Man 2", but millions of people thronged into the theaters to see it anyways. Like you, my battle reports written and read were for the purpose of learning to be a better player. The same reason a physicist might read Physics Today, or a politician might read Cato newsletters, or whatever - for professional reasons. It turns out, though, that there IS a second side to it. People DO want to read a good thread. If all that they learn is that you had fun playing a game, well, if they had fun reading about you having fun, then it seems like everybody is a winner.
TheCaptain wrote:They may argue it wouldn't be fun for them, but I challenge the casual player by asking "Why not?" I apologize, but this is a game, and as such, the burden of having fun is on you, the player; not your opponent. I've had plenty of opponents who aren't fun for a variety of reasons (rude, whiny, smelly, bad lists, or annoying) but I've never once not had FUN playing 40k.
As you say, fun is subjective. The problem, though, occurs when one person, pursuing their idea of fun, interferes with another person's pursuit of fun. I mean, this is basically why we have a criminal justice system...
And it's actually a tricky problem. How do you set up a system wherein both people can have fun in whatever way they choose to define it, neither of the two people detracting from the other. I won't attempt any solutions at the moment, but I would ask anybody to try and be empathic when a person gets frustrated by their fun getting squelched by someone else.
TheCaptain wrote:This is the fact that, largely, the scorn is one-sided. If they can't accept that someone else out there has a different view of fun, then really, who is TFG here?
Of course, I won't defend anybody who, in feeling frustrated, takes it out on others, no matter how natural of an instinct it is to do so. I wouldn't necessarily attack them, though, as "he who is without sin cast the first stone", so to speak. That said...
TheCaptain wrote:Someone has a fluffy, non-optimal option in their list, and maybe a competitive player says "That's points inefficient/underpowered/can be replaced with X or Y" the List-owner either says "Okay, I'll try it out" or "Actually, my list is themed as X so fluff-option A is there for that reason" and the competitive player goes on their merry way either response.
... this is the only thing I actually take issue with. I have seen (and likely participated in) competitive gamers absolutely ripping apart fluff players before. It really isn't one-sided.
The real issue here is that you have (at least) two groups of people who are taking the game seriously. They also have different ideas that constitute "best" and different strategies for achieving it. This brings the two sides into very heated conflict some times. The problem is that there is a lack of ability to be articulate, generally speaking, which means that, instead of engaging in a conversation to bring understanding, both sides just shout slogans at each other. It's not working to make the game more fun it's that "you just want to win at all costs, and don't care who has fun" and "you're a bad player who is throwing a temper tantrum because you lost, man up and play with the big dogs or quit your whining". For every "your list is unfluffy" there is a "your opponent brought a terrible list".
So the trick is, of course, to learn how to ignore those people who don't understand what they want, and/or are unable to articulate what the problem is if they do. There is an emotional response, and there is jerking of knees. Unfortunately, given that most people are philosophical lightweights, you just sort of have to endure spewed emotional nonsense, whether in the world of 40k, or in the rest of the world at large.
The only way I've figured out how to handle this, personally, is with compassion. People are being hurt, bothered, or frustrated, and they don't know why. Being able to help people understand what's going on and thus have the clarity to be able to act to improve their lives and those around them is a skill I think we should all foster. If you are being harassed for being WAAC or unfluffy, you should react with pity, not anger.
But, of course, that's my own way of handling things. I'm sure there are many others. Hopefully, with the actions of those who understand helping those who can't, we can end the bitter factionalism and obnoxiousness. Or, as I like to hope I do, I like to think that I'm cleaning up the culture of dakka one good, polite, well-articulated post at a time. That some of the awful abrasive people I've spoken against have left dakka entirely over the years I vainly care to believe had some small part to do with a purposely positive impact I tried to have.
In any case, taking a polite tone to a helpful attitude is bound to make things better. I'd like to think of what we all would be if such practices were universal.
As the guy you're probably referring to calling you rude, I'll repost myself here again:
AlmightyWalrus wrote:
TheCaptain wrote:Run nine flyers man. Six Vendettas, Three Valks. That stuff is cray. I run a 11 flyer list for Elysians sometimes; just to haze kids at the FLGS.
Go ahead and weep about it, fluffers.
Your avatar says it all. Not only do you admit to running stuff just to stomp kids (not cool man), but you're rude about it too. I've no problem with running optimal lists (I try to do it myself) but at least be gracious enough not to be rude.
As you can see, it wasn't the fact that you run a flyer list that ticked me off, but the way you came off. Hazing kids and telling fluffers to "go weep about it" IS rude. I agree with playing as strong lists as possible, but against enemies that are prepared for it, not against some random kid (unless he's bragging and/or generally obnoxius).
EDIT: Flippin' hell, how does this new quotes system work? >.<
It'd be like if a man with peanut allergies goes into a deli, asks for a sandwich, receives PB&J, and whines online about how he hates people who eat PB&J.
But why is my "style" the peanut allergy and not yours? "Back in the day" (at least around where I am), the interactive narrative was the default to play 40K.
Fair, I do feel it's largely mutual; and I think there would be far less complaints if the WAAC's made it clear they were here to play a game, and the Fluff players were here to create a story, and then before games disagreements could end with the two players either picking one, finding a mix, or finding someone else who better matches their needs.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AlmightyWalrus wrote:
As you can see, it wasn't the fact that you run a flyer list that ticked me off, but the way you came off. Hazing kids and telling fluffers to "go weep about it" IS rude. I agree with playing as strong lists as possible, but against enemies that are prepared for it, not against some random kid (unless he's bragging and/or generally obnoxius).
Nah; honestly it was moreso the other gentleman who titled me as a douche. I probably am a douche, likely a huge douche, but at least get to know me well enough so that when you're calling me a douche, it's because I'm a douche, and not because I run flyers. Not to mention, I've been called far worse things for any of the lists I've run; the aforementioned quote is just what inspired me to make this post.
I'm more fine being called rude that's a fair inference.
You challenging someone for reasons when they say they don't want to play is douchbaggery. Maybe they refuse a game because you come across as a douchebag in real life just as you do on forums.
P.S. Being a fratboy that drinks a lot and has to lie his way into panties is an inescapable symptom of being a douchebag. It seems many of your ailments may stem from this social disorder.
I enjoy both spectrums of the game, which I see as a gift, but maybe it's a problem? For the life of me, I cannot understand why a 40k player who enjoys FLGS non-tournament play would just outright refuse a game against a player say, oh...fielding a drop-pod Vulkan list (tried to pick a competitive, but not CRAZY list)
I once played six Space Wolf Players in a row across a month fielding the Exact Same List, the exact same Tournament List that someone had at the time, down to the wargear.
There's no fun in playing the exact same list, the exact same way, every time I saw it, hell they actually played similar enough that by the fourth I tailored towards it, wrecked the next two as a result and basically cut back on playing SW players for a while since it got so boring to play.
I never found 'competitive' to be related in any way to being WAAC or TFG, and 'casual' gamers were far more likely to complain about rules (generally because they didn't bother to remember them) or try to take the interpretation that would help their army.
Of the gamers I have played with:
Self proclaimed 'casual' gamers were more likely to care about how well specific units did or whether they won. It was far more common for these same players to call other armies beardy/imbalanced/complain about anything. They also blamed their poor tactics on their codex, complained if someone else didn't play the opposing army in a way that was their interpretation of the armies 'theme' and were far more likely to bicker about being 1/16th of an inch out of range for shooting or charges. They were more likely to have painted armies, and brag how they played in the spirit of the rules while holding grudges against most other players who disagreed with them on anything. There players were annoying to play, never knew the rules, and would bring the game to a grinding halt over a rules interpretation.
Players who didn't identify as casual (they just played but weren't openly competitive) who focused on painting were more likely to have excellent looking armies, were good sports, but who played badly and blamed their dice for the problems. A few pursued tactics and improved their game over time or found out that what they thought worked, didn't in practice. These players were generally pouting about their 'poor luck' and had to be corrected on rules most of the time, but otherwise fun to play against.
Players who played for the game generally fielded plastic grey or basecoated armies and focused on the rules and gameplay. A few were WAAC, but no more so than the 'casuals' and were far more likely to not stomp their feet when the other player disagreed about something in particular. These players would sometimes field imbalanced armies but mixed it up and would talk with their opponent if there was a disagreement about army comp because they were polite. These players really cared about whether they won or lost or if the game was a fun battle because of tactics, not because of theme or lucky rolling. I was in this category when I first played because I would rather play than paint at any given time, and waiting a year to be able to field a painted army was not appealing...
Then there were the two players I met who were super competitive, fielded lopsided armies all the time, and didn't care about their opponent's fun at all. These guys were jerks, and they weren't fun to be around in general.
Now, my main focus when playing is a combination of fun for both, some kind of challenge for both, and good sportsmanship. Unfortunately this is interpreted different ways:
The 'casual' gamer will blame the opponent for everything. Therefore, if someone beats them repeatedly the opponent is a WAAC player no matter their army list, personality, or tactics. A shooty army falling back from their charging orks, multiple charges on their shooty units, or hiding behind cover are all WAAC when the other player does it but not when they do. I was told I was WAAC for not charging a single unit of guardsmen into a horde of 30 choppa boys or for enforcing move through cover rules because 'that wouldn't slow orks down!'
The non-competitive players would complain about losing all the time, and I won't throw a game. Offering to go over the game to see if there is anything that could be improved was taken as an insult half the time (and taken well the other half so no, it wasn't how it was presented).
The competitive players who weren't WAAC were always fun to play with but the 'casuals' kept driving them off. The 'casuals' didn't even get along because they all had their own 'right way' to understand the spirit of the game.
I guess my rambling can be summed up as self proclaimed casuals are the ones who create conflict between player types and promote stereotypes in my experience.
Also, part of the reason some people take things personally has to do with personality. Everybody gets upset with someone who has a superiority complex, whether they choose to express that as being superior fluffwise, or being superior in player skill.
40k is a loose story based around a game where the winner rolled better dice at key points in the game. There isn't very solid ground to stand in in 40k if you are going to try and profess that you're better in some way.
A little more humility will breed a little more respect.
60mm wrote: You challenging someone for reasons when they say they don't want to play is douchbaggery. Maybe they refuse a game because you come across as a douchebag in real life just as you do on forums.
P.S. Being a fratboy that drinks a lot and has to lie his way into panties is an inescapable symptom of being a douchebag. It seems many of your ailments may stem from this social disorder.
If you read the actual OP instead of excerpts, you'd see it actually has nothing to do with any problem I may have with people refusing games. I actually suggested refusing games is usually the right idea, if an agreement can't be reached. Oops, guess you must have missed all that.
I present an excellent source for discussion, you largely ignore the topic/miss the point, take seriously a joke I made at myself about my presence in Greek life, and you call ME a douchebag? Something is wrong here. Read the second paragraph regarding prejudicing the writer instead of focusing on the topic.
P.S. I never said anything about panties, lying to get into them, or drinking a lot. Or being a fratboy. I said I drink 1-6 (read:d6) days a week (that is a reference to frequency, not volume), I said lying to girls (pretty general, and everyone lies), and beyond all else, it was a joke meant to address a larger idea unrelated to any organization I may be affiliated with. I'm sorry if I upset you somehow, not that I find it warranted, but your opinion on me is neither wanted nor relevant, and thus should be kept to yourself. Smile a bit more; you'll seem nicer.
I enjoy both spectrums of the game, which I see as a gift, but maybe it's a problem? For the life of me, I cannot understand why a 40k player who enjoys FLGS non-tournament play would just outright refuse a game against a player say, oh...fielding a drop-pod Vulkan list (tried to pick a competitive, but not CRAZY list)
I once played six Space Wolf Players in a row across a month fielding the Exact Same List, the exact same Tournament List that someone had at the time, down to the wargear.
There's no fun in playing the exact same list, the exact same way, every time I saw it, hell they actually played similar enough that by the fourth I tailored towards it, wrecked the next two as a result and basically cut back on playing SW players for a while since it got so boring to play.
I guess I just don't understand why the list you are facing has this much bearing on your "fun". To me, you are playing with the person across from you, the models are just the means. If he wants to use a list he found on the internet, sure; that's pretty dry, but no reason there can't be funny banter, silly plays/moves, and an enjoyable narrative forged. Clearly your army has been facing siege from a contingent of Space Wolves, and have become veterans at dealing with their adverse tactics; I'd actually have a lot of fun integrating this in my army's fluff. Hell, with six fights against such a similar list, I'd probably throw a wolf-tail talisman or something on my Commander's belt, or wedge a rune-axe in the armor of one of my tanks.
I find fighting against Dark Eldar and Orks tend to be incredibly dull games, as both codexes have a propensity to spam indistinguishable hordes at you. Not fun for me. And both armies often (not always) come with highly arrogant players who seem incapable of repressing the need to tell everyone in earshot that their's are the superior plastic toys compared to SPEHS MARNIS or something of that sort.
I contrast, I do immensely enjoy Marines vs. Marines "mirror-games", which are hated with a passion "by the internet", because I think they always "flow well".
I find fighting against Dark Eldar and Orks tend to be incredibly dull games, as both codexes have a propensity to spam indistinguishable hordes at you. Not fun for me. And both armies often (not always) come with highly arrogant players who seem incapable of repressing the need to tell everyone in earshot that their's are the superior plastic toys compared to SPEHS MARNIS or something of that sort.
I contrast, I do immensely enjoy Marines vs. Marines "mirror-games", which are hated with a passion "by the internet", because I think they always "flow well".
Tastes are just different I suppose.
Very fair; kindof forgot people disliked lists for reasons other than "TOO CHEESY!" in my scribe-like fervor.
Hmmm, don't really like the attack on casual gamers that Snooggums makes. I would consider myself a casual gamer as it's much more about the social side for me than anything else - getting together with like minded people to talk about something we have a passion for, maybe a few beers and some crisps [not pretzels, who eats pretzels?], talk about girls/girlfriends/wives etc. The game almost becomes an excuse for my gaming group to get together [at least it does for me]. We keep talking about meeting up for other things but it never happens.
I hardly give a monkeys who wins or loses, with the only real motivation for me to win being to take the piss out of my opponent if they lose [in a friendly way ofc] - I run a Slaanesh list with all of my squads in 6s with full sonics. If it's not Slaanesh I don't include it. My army is painted [took me 3 years] but I did that for me, not for anyone else, as it's how I relax after work. Therefore it is fluffy and it is painted but If someone wants to play with an unpainted army then fair enough, and if they choose a 'cheesey' list then I just see it as more of a challenge. With the prices how they are I completely understand if people google a competitive list and then buy to that list.
I my most recent game I used a FW Decimator that the missus got me for my birthday for the first time. When the other people I was playing saw how happy I was to be using my all time favourite model they all immediately targeted it and it got blown up turn 1 to general hilarity. It's probably over costed and I probably should have used a mark of Nurgle but I just wanted to use such a badass model in a 'fluffy' way.
The only bit I agree with is that I am pretty shoddy on the rules, but I don't get many opportunities to play as I have to fit this around work and other hobbies [I am getting better though!].
That said I would never play a pick up game at a GW shop as there's far too many kids in there [this is a man's game! ] and I hate the hard sell from the employees who try to get me to start whatever army my gaze happens to fall upon. I probably wouldn't play in a tournament either because I don't think I would enjoy the competitive environment but never say never.
tyrannosaurus wrote: Hmmm, don't really like the attack on casual gamers that Snooggums makes.
If you don't actively brag about being casual, for example repeatedly stating "I'm casual, I hate WAAC gamers!" to everyone you meet then you are probably in the second group I characterized as non-competitive players:
snooggums wrote:Players who didn't identify as casual (they just played but weren't openly competitive) who focused on painting were more likely to have excellent looking armies, were good sports...
It was an observation on players I have met who brag constantly about being casual gamers, not an attack on non-competitive players. There is a large spectrum out there.
1. I don't consider any of the lists you named unfluffy.
2. My problem with cheeselists is not that they are unfluffy, it's that they exploit poor codex writing to make an army that gives its player an advantage over everyone else. I'm willing to play against such lists, but I don't see the point in using such lists when the point of the game is to have fun, not just win.
I hardly give a monkeys who wins or loses, with the only real motivation for me to win being to take the piss out of my opponent if they lose [in a friendly way ofc] - I run a Slaanesh list with all of my squads in 6s with full sonics. If it's not Slaanesh I don't include it. My army is painted [took me 3 years] but I did that for me, not for anyone else, as it's how I relax after work.
But If the casuals have no interest in wining/losing , why do they talk so much about non normal players having a better chance to win ?
If someone builds a good army and plays it a lot , he will win more. If someone paints a lot then his painting will get better or at least should , if he realy wants to be a better painter . Same with converting .
the problem with the community as a whole is that somewhere along the way , some people started to think that they can have it all . that it doesnt matter if they focus in painting, gaming or converting , all the other aspects of the game will be always good for them . They also lost the ability to cope with not geting what they want . they seriously want to play an army based on looks and have it work just as good as an army based around combat effectivness . And because painting/converting are an own taste thing , people focus on the playabilty of stuff. The difference is a striking difference between a casual and non casual player . The casual wants to force other people to play same bad armies as he does . The non causal doesnt , sure non optimal armies are worse to play against , because they dont realy teach you much , but its a persons choice to pick an army . the casual says he doesnt want to win , but whines about not wining , when he isnt doing anything to make his army better. the non casual player understands that more often then not a new edition or a new dex means a dead list and models turning in to paper weight . He also doesnt force the fluff player to write pages long stories for each model in the fluff player army .
But one has to get used to that , it is not just table top gaming that turned like that . I dont know why and from where people got the idea , that stuff is granted for ever and that they dont have to do anything to get what they want , but somehow it happened . And because for humans polarization is a natural way of dealing with stuff , we end up with what we have now .
I'm willing to play against such lists, but I don't see the point in using such lists when the point of the game is to have fun, not just win.
how and when did fun become separate from wining . If wining isnt fun the only other option in a 0 1 situation is for losing to be fun . And if that was true the casual should be happy , because against a better list the chance of losing would be higher.
I agree with everything above except for one thing.
TheCaptain wrote:It's because our hobby is pretty damn nerdy. Yeah, sorry, had to say it. I don't consider myself a nerd (for goodness sake, I'm in a frat and spend D6 days a week drinking/lying to college girls) but damn right do I admit and accept that the hobby I love, 40k, is pretty nerdy. It's something we all have to come to terms with eventually.
We should not be afraid to call our hobby a nerd's hobby or to refer to ourselves as geeks, nerds, whatever. Long gone are the days where the nerd was stereotyped as some loser in their parents basement with no social skills to speak of indulging in the most obsucre of hobbies. Hobbies that were once nerdy and often looked down upon are now so mainstream and acceptable that it's almost the cool thing to do. I do not need to defend myself by saying that I have X amount of non nerdy pursuits. I watch e-sports, played in a few tourneys myself, play wargames, wear t-shirts professing my love for science and watch docus about engineering.
I am a nerd.
Tyrion Lanister: Never forget what you are. The rest of the world will not. Wear it like armor, and it can never be used to hurt you.
Sorry, it's a pet peeve of mine when people go "I do nerdy stuff but I'm not a nerd because I drink and meet girls and stuff".
Other than that I agree almost whole heartedly with everything you've said. As I mentioned in another thread when I first started playing the first thing I noticed upon visiting forums was that there was this huge imaginary rift between competitive and casual players. There's a great saying relating to videogames that goes "If you ever really love a game, never visit the forums as the people there will make you hate it". I guess this could apply to wargames aswell.
I'm willing to play against such lists, but I don't see the point in using such lists when the point of the game is to have fun, not just win.
how and when did fun become separate from wining . If wining isnt fun the only other option in a 0 1 situation is for losing to be fun . And if that was true the casual should be happy , because against a better list the chance of losing would be higher.
Winning and fun aren't separate. However, what I meant was that having fun should be any player's primary objective. If you only care about winning, you shouldn't be playing.
Makumba wrote: how and when did fun become separate from wining.
When it leaves both players sour. Your opponent is pissed because he felt like he never had a chance. He bought his army, painted it, modeled it, brought it to the club and set it up just so you could effortlessly add another win to your tally.
He's understandably bitter about the whole affair. He wanted a close match. He wanted to feel like even if he lost, he could have won.
His attitude affects you. You don't understand why he's bitter, it confuses you and makes you angry. He should be happy he got a game at all, if he lost it's his own fault, so why is he upset? What's this guys problem?
THAT'S when fun becomes separate from winning. When you take a finely tuned list that takes advantage of anything it can, and effortlessly crush someone who has designed a list with a different focus, be it models they like, the background, or just what they have in their collection.
Ailaros wrote: As you say, fun is subjective. The problem, though, occurs when one person, pursuing their idea of fun, interferes with another person's pursuit of fun. I mean, this is basically why we have a criminal justice system...
And it's actually a tricky problem. How do you set up a system wherein both people can have fun in whatever way they choose to define it, neither of the two people detracting from the other. I won't attempt any solutions at the moment, but I would ask anybody to try and be empathic when a person gets frustrated by their fun getting squelched by someone else...
The only way I've figured out how to handle this, personally, is with compassion. People are being hurt, bothered, or frustrated, and they don't know why. Being able to help people understand what's going on and thus have the clarity to be able to act to improve their lives and those around them is a skill I think we should all foster. If you are being harassed for being WAAC or unfluffy, you should react with pity, not anger.
But, of course, that's my own way of handling things. I'm sure there are many others. Hopefully, with the actions of those who understand helping those who can't, we can end the bitter factionalism and obnoxiousness. Or, as I like to hope I do, I like to think that I'm cleaning up the culture of dakka one good, polite, well-articulated post at a time. That some of the awful abrasive people I've spoken against have left dakka entirely over the years I vainly care to believe had some small part to do with a purposely positive impact I tried to have.
In any case, taking a polite tone to a helpful attitude is bound to make things better. I'd like to think of what we all would be if such practices were universal.
I'm willing to play against such lists, but I don't see the point in using such lists when the point of the game is to have fun, not just win.
how and when did fun become separate from wining . If wining isnt fun the only other option in a 0 1 situation is for losing to be fun . And if that was true the casual should be happy , because against a better list the chance of losing would be higher.
Some people find the journey (the game) more enjoyable then the destination (winning/losing).
This, IMHO is the definition of a casual gamer.
I'm willing to play against such lists, but I don't see the point in using such lists when the point of the game is to have fun, not just win.
how and when did fun become separate from wining . If wining isnt fun the only other option in a 0 1 situation is for losing to be fun . And if that was true the casual should be happy , because against a better list the chance of losing would be higher.
It's not that winning definitely doesn't incite fun, but that it should not always be the primary source. It is perfectly okay for someone to enjoy a game without care of the victor.
Yes, but neither should you look down on someone who gets joy from winning.
Winning is more fun then Losing, that will always be true.
I believe anyone who says winning doesn't matter is a big fat liar. It does matter, because to have fun you play to win. Nobody plays to lose.
If my opponent doesn't have his heart for winning, I will feel cheated. I gave my 100%, but my opponent insults me by not really trying to win. I did him the honor of battle and didn't pull any blows. I expect the same treatment.
Its my philosophy in Fencing and its my philosophy here. I expect you to try and beat me. You coming into a game not intending to give your all at winning is wrong.
I play opponents that are like that occasionally. I don't feel sorry for them. I just go and beat their pants off in the hope that they will knuckle down and figure out a way of beating me.
My favorite games ever are ones where the victory was hardwon, or the defeat was hardlost. My favorite game of all time is one I lost. But it was fun because both of us gave out all into beating the other.
Grey Templar wrote: I believe anyone who says winning doesn't matter is a big fat liar. It does matter, because to have fun you play to win. Nobody plays to lose.
What about the vast number of players who play simply to forge a narrative? To them, their models rolling their dice worse than the other models, and thus dying isn't a killpoint lost, but a squad was killed by their enemies, several men/xenos slain in an epic battle that they are forging. The outcome isn't what matters to a lot of people; some just want to see the story unfold.
Grey Templar wrote: I believe anyone who says winning doesn't matter is a big fat liar. It does matter, because to have fun you play to win. Nobody plays to lose.
What about the vast number of players who play simply to forge a narrative? To them, their models rolling their dice worse than the other models, and thus dying isn't a killpoint lost, but a squad was killed by their enemies, several men/xenos slain in an epic battle that they are forging. The outcome isn't what matters to a lot of people; some just want to see the story unfold.
Yes, but they'd be lying if they said they didn't care if their team won or lost. Those Nid players don't want their vast horde to get gunned down while the defenders of Randomus Prime stand victorious. They want those sorry defenders to die gloriously and get their biomass absorbed into the Hive Fleet.
Grey Templar wrote: Yes, but neither should you look down on someone who gets joy from winning.
Winning is more fun then Losing, that will always be true.
This is untrue. For some people, myself included, the competition is what matters. I prefer to win than lose, this is true. But I prefer to lose a close match than win a landslide. In that instance, losing is preferable to winning.
Grey Templar wrote: You coming into a game not intending to give your all at winning is wrong.
I play opponents that are like that occasionally. I don't feel sorry for them. I just go and beat their pants off in the hope that they will knuckle down and figure out a way of beating me.
No one plays to lose, as you observed already. But when many people build lists, they have considerations other than simply optimizing every aspect of it. Maybe they don't like the way that awesome unit looks. And maybe they like the way that crappy unit looks. Maybe they want to emphasise a certain theme, so some awesome units from their codex are ignored.
Those people can come into a game and get roflstomped by twelve Necron fliers, or Purifier spam, or the IG leafblower or whatever 'optimal' build you're running, and that's just a crappy experience for everyone. You don't get a challenging game, they get smashed with no hope of victory, and no one has any fun.
Yes, nobody had any fun in that mismatched game. Hence why I say it was discourtious to bring the suboptimal list.
Why should I sacrifice a list I like, just so you have a chance of winning.
I hate it when people say "lets bring a fluffy list"
Why? Its because Fluffy lists are not all created equal. A CSM list with 30 Posessed and a bunch of Spawn is Fluffy. So is a list that contains Crowe, 30 purifiers, and 3 Dreadknights. Both fluffy fun lists. But we all know that one list will beat the pants off the other.
Fluffy list building leads to the most horrible imbalance IMO.
Go ahead and play purely for fluff or with a list that you like the look of. But don't beat me down because my favorite list also happens to be kickass.
I'm running a Purifier list in an upcoming tournament. It has no vehicles of any kind. Not even Rhinos. its themed and I like it. Its also pretty decent competitivly.
I play to win, but often use units and wargear that aren't on the optimized and mathhammered 'perfect list'.
why, you ask, would i do this if I want to win? Why not take the optimal choice at all times?
It's infinitely more satisfying to beat someone a non-optimised list that you chose yourself than run an optimised netlist that someone else came up with.
Sure, you might lose more often. Your wins will be sweeter.
Winning really doesn't matter all that much. I don't have to win all the time to enjoy the game.
Sure, it's great if i win a tight-fought game against a good opponent (doubly so if he's actually using a list i've not played a hundred times before).
What some folk don't seem to get is that it's possible to derive just as much satisfaction from losing a game that tight fought and edgy.
Rolling newbies with tournament lists will get your W/L/D nice looking, but will only be fun if you are a bullying jackass.
Making the game an even match, or even giving them an edge, so that you have to work for the victory.. That is fun for both sides
There IS a difference between Win -oriented competitive players (who want to tes ttheir comparitive skills and the strengths of their armies against each other) and WAAC-holes who have to win every game to stroke their egos.
I'll happily play a competitive player (especially if i know that he wants to play a hardball game and shares that information so that I can reciprocate with my own hard list) or a narrative-based player (i'll dig up a themed list that fits the narrative without being quite so hardball), but i prefer not to massage some WAAC's ego just so that he can feel like he's alpha-Nerd of the pack.
Grey Templar wrote: Hence why I say it was discourtious to bring the suboptimal list.
NO
Grey Templar wrote: Why should I sacrifice a list I like, just so you have a chance of winning.
You are not the final arbiter of how people are allowed to have fun.
Why should I sacrifice the integrity of my list, just so I have a chance of winning?
The reasonable person has two options:
1 - Don't play people on the other end of the spectrum,
or
2 - compromise and meet in the middle.
You sir, should either play like-minded people only, or compromise your list. It is the only reasonable course of action. Telling people to play how you want to play, or suffer the consequences is most definitely NOT reasonable.
When it leaves both players sour. Your opponent is pissed because he felt like he never had a chance. He bought his army, painted it, modeled it, brought it to the club and set it up just so you could effortlessly add another win to your tally.
He's understandably bitter about the whole affair. He wanted a close match. He wanted to feel like even if he lost, he could have won.
His attitude affects you. You don't understand why he's bitter, it confuses you and makes you angry. He should be happy he got a game at all, if he lost it's his own fault, so why is he upset? What's this guys problem?
THAT'S when fun becomes separate from winning. When you take a finely tuned list that takes advantage of anything it can, and effortlessly crush someone who has designed a list with a different focus, be it models they like, the background, or just what they have in their collection.
But why would the guy with the good list feel bad ? sure the the opponent wasnt up to standards , but if what you said is true , them teams like Barca would almost never have happy players or happy fans , because few teams play on their level . On the other said if a dude builds , then paints and models an army which is bad , not carring if it can deal with the gaming aspect of the game then it is his own foult . It would be as If someone like me speed painted an army and then felt bad about not getting picked for Golden Demon .
Those Nid players don't want their vast horde to get gunned down while the defenders of Randomus Prime stand victorious. They want those sorry defenders to die gloriously and get their biomass absorbed into the Hive Fleet.
yes , but from a fluff point of view nids are an army impossible to play . they have two types of wins . they take planets with almost no defense or they win through lack of ammo/man/oxygen on the defenders side.
they would need rules for opponents going out of ammo or getting 3 pts on nids for every 1point their opponent gets.
It's not that winning definitely doesn't incite fun, but that it should not always be the primary source. It is perfectly okay for someone to enjoy a game without care of the victor.
I wanted to make an olympic example here , but I will go for another one. Ever played against a team from another neighborhood ? when was it ever about participation . ever had a guy in class/university/highschool good at the same thing as you ? when both of you were guning for the same scholership/grants/etc Or to make it as simple as it gets , do you have siblings ?
Life is always about wining losing . Saying that paritication or the "Road" is what matter , is the "truth" of losers . Why ? because if you do something not carring about the win , then you are not carring about the thing your doing . And that is both disrespecting your opponents and stuff your doing . It is like doing your job bad on purpose.
Makumba wrote: But why would the guy with the good list feel bad ?
Both of them should be prepared to compromise.
Makumba wrote: Saying that paritication or the "Road" is what matter , is the "truth" of losers . Why ? because if you do something not carring about the win , then you are not carring about the thing your doing . And that is both disrespecting your opponents and stuff your doing . It is like doing your job bad on purpose.
A better analogy is video games. Do you play one-player games on easy mode? Or on the hardest difficulty you can handle?
Outside of severely lopsided lists (all flyer, all X) most games come down to player skill.
Um... no, sorry, but it isn't.
40K is by and large a game about list-building in an environment akin to what this fantastic video from Extra Credits termed "perfect imbalance"
If GW were to shift the focus away from lists (and the models you need to keep buying to tinker with it) and towards a "skill-focused" game like Chess or Go, the entire hobby-aspect would likely soon go down the drain with a vengeance (because you wouldn't need new stuff or new stratagems.. 99,9% would simply need to familiarize themselves with the established stratagems from years upon years of plays in the way chess-players study "old games" to learn powerful moves.. e.g. improve their skill to play the game).
All your examples are things that actually matter. We are talking about a game designed for young adults, played with little plastic figures, and the majority of this thread/forum treats playing it with any less than 150% of your effort as tantamount to throwing a judo match at the olympics.
Some people just want to bring what they want, or what they have(read can afford).
My problem with the idea of competitive players in 40k is that it can't be a competition. It's has/had many poorly written rules, staggered codexes allowing for creep, under and over costing as well as 'the new shiny' for those with the funds (see flyers). Personally when I see a net list I feel that this person didn't want to play a game but beat face and feel good using someone else's army. That aside some people just can't make up a TAC list or a mix and match of units and how they play so they have to resort to someone else making the army list.
Hmm kind of a ramble there...so to a point I wish to bring up; taking units that most armies can't counter is almost entirely a jerk decision. After all I can't think of many units that can counter flyers let alone 4 and up. Skyfire is too rare without resorting to buying a new set or resorting to a flyers type arms race. It's akin to taking 3+ LRs in 5th. Yes some armies could but that doesn't make it right. It's analogous to playing chess with more than one queen. Imagine the net listing of chess if you could take up to 3 (6 at higher model counts) of a certain piece.
mrwhoop wrote: It's analogous to playing chess with more than one queen. Imagine the net listing of chess if you could take up to 3 (6 at higher model counts) of a certain piece.
Incidently, chess with different "army-configurations" makes the game much more casual and less "skill-heavy" too, compared to the "fixed-stratagem" arms-race of "regular" mirror/balance chess. The reason: because it adds a "list-building" element to it (which in turn mitigates the importance of player-skill).
Wow thanks for the video Zweischneid. If 40k went that route (and I see the beginnings of it in some armies) that would help with the fixed lists/strategies...
60mm wrote: You challenging someone for reasons when they say they don't want to play is douchbaggery. Maybe they refuse a game because you come across as a douchebag in real life just as you do on forums.
P.S. Being a fratboy that drinks a lot and has to lie his way into panties is an inescapable symptom of being a douchebag. It seems many of your ailments may stem from this social disorder.
This I agree with, from what I have read in this tread it seems the OP may suffer from a serious case f the mentioned illness
Zweischneid wrote: Hell, 90% of the 40K games I played "back in the days" we didn't even count kill-points, objectives or whatever at the end to see who "won". Noone cared. What counts than is the "narrative" of the unfolding events. We also fudged like hell. Resurrecting IC's if their death was seen "uncinematic" or just having deepstrikers enter without die-roll, simply because "now would be a cool time".
Zweischneid wrote: But why is my "style" the peanut allergy and not yours? "Back in the day" (at least around where I am), the interactive narrative was the default to play 40K.
You've already provided your own answer to that; your way of playing requires that you essentially ignore the game's rules. If you have fun doing that, go ahead, but you're not actually playing Warhammer 40,000, which makes it rather irrelevant to a discussion of the game.
tyrannosaurus wrote: I would consider myself a casual gamer as it's much more about the social side for me than anything else - getting together with like minded people to talk about something we have a passion for, maybe a few beers and some crisps [not pretzels, who eats pretzels?], talk about girls/girlfriends/wives etc. The game almost becomes an excuse for my gaming group to get together [at least it does for me].
Which is perfectly reasonable, though it is worth adding that a "beer and pretzels" game is typically expected to be something cheap, easy to learn and quick to play; Warhammer 40,000 is none of these things, and a game which requires the expenditure of time and money that it does should be capable of offering to those who want it more tactical depth than, say, Kill Doctor Lucky or Munchkin.
Eh, I think I'm in the minority here, but the only kind of players whose lists I feel annoyed against are players who do something along the lines of play their Night Lords with the Blood Angels codex.
English Assassin wrote:
You've already provided your own answer to that; your way of playing requires that you essentially ignore the game's rules. If you have fun doing that, go ahead, but you're not actually playing Warhammer 40,000, which makes it rather irrelevant to a discussion of the game.
Which is was the point I was making. By emphasizing that 40K is principally a "game" (with the narratives of the fictional universe taking a back-seat to the "rules-section") you are already at odds with those that emphasize 40K as a "fictional universe" of different narratives (with the "rules section" taking a back-seat to the storytelling).
Both elements are in the book/hobby. It's not clear which trumps which.
It is not even a discussion that is unique to 40K. I vaguely remember that similar debates are always hot in D&D for example, where there are lively disputes between those that "play a story" (trumping the rules if in doubt) and those that "play a game" (trumping the story if in doubt).
If my point of view is irrelevant to you, feel free to ignore it.
The OP however explicitly asked for opinions from "the other side", so this makes my posts and opinions relevant to this discussion. If you are not interested in hearing a dissenting opinion, you have likely failed to understand the nature and purpose of both this thread and of an internet discussion forum more generally.
Outside of severely lopsided lists (all flyer, all X) most games come down to player skill.
Um... no, sorry, but it isn't.
40K is by and large a game about list-building in an environment akin to what this fantastic video from Extra Credits termed "perfect imbalance"
If GW were to shift the focus away from lists (and the models you need to keep buying to tinker with it) and towards a "skill-focused" game like Chess or Go, the entire hobby-aspect would likely soon go down the drain with a vengeance (because you wouldn't need new stuff or new stratagems.. 99,9% would simply need to familiarize themselves with the established stratagems from years upon years of plays in the way chess-players study "old games" to learn powerful moves.. e.g. improve their skill to play the game).
People buy the new shiney because it may be a bit better than what they used before, but it doesn't mean that it is enough of a difference to make up for skill.
A player who fields a couple of unoptimized units can still roll less experienced players or even other experienced players through effective use of focus fire, positioning, and movement. A net list won't make up for a player who cuts off their own lanes of fire, forgets objectives, or is able to be kited.
English Assassin wrote:
You've already provided your own answer to that; your way of playing requires that you essentially ignore the game's rules. If you have fun doing that, go ahead, but you're not actually playing Warhammer 40,000, which makes it rather irrelevant to a discussion of the game.
Which is was the point I was making. By emphasizing that 40K is principally a "game" (with the narratives of the fictional universe taking a back-seat to the "rules-section") you are already at odds with those that emphasize 40K as a "fictional universe" of different narratives (with the "rules section" taking a back-seat to the storytelling).
Both elements are in the book/hobby. It's not clear which trumps which.
In this instance, playing 40k by its rules doesn't require contradicting its background, and still generates a narrative (two armies meet, one wins, usually the Space Wolves), whereas what you describe explicitly ignores a significant portion of the game as published, so it is in fact pretty damned obvious. You might be having great fun "forging a narrative" in the Warhammer 40,000 universe while moving little lead men around, but you're not playing Warhammer 40,000; as such, anecdotes about doing so add nothing to a discussion of the game as written.
Zweischneid wrote:By "playing to win", rather than "playing to the narrative", an opponent would then undermine the entire point of the game (from the fluff-gamers perspective), no matter what he plays.
Oh, and because I missed this one the first time around, I feel obliged to enquire as to how trying to win, when put in the position of a general commanding an army in a universe in which "there is only war" could be in any way inappropriate to the tone or narrative of the setting?
Zweischneid wrote:It is not even a discussion that is unique to 40K. I vaguely remember that similar debates are always hot in D&D for example, where there are lively disputes between those that "play a story" (trumping the rules if in doubt) and those that "play a game" (trumping the story if in doubt).
And it's a sterile debate in D&D too, as it has been for decades. D&D as written (aside from nebulous XP awards for completing quests and a nigh-meaningless alignment system) has no story- or character-driven mechanics; it's a "gameist" game system with strongly-entrenched milestones and rewards for success, to which roleplaying and narrative are window-dressing left to the discretion of the players and GM. If people want to play a "narrativist" RPG, they should be playing Nobilis or Over the Edge, or some other system with rules built around narrative concepts, not D&D.
Exactly the same goes for Warhammer 40,000; there are wargames out there which successfully integrate narrative elements (Malifuax and Dark Age, for instance). There is even, in the form of Necromunda, a game set in the Warhammer 40,000 universe which does so. Warhammer 40,000 as written, however, is a game in which two players compete according to established rules to achieve mutually-exclusive victory conditions; it's a competitive game, and claiming otherwise is at best wishful thinking, and at worst deliberately misleading.
English Assassin wrote:
And it's a sterile debate in D&D too, as it has been for decades. D&D as written (aside from nebulous XP awards for completing quests and a nigh-meaningless alignment system) has no story- or character-driven mechanics; it's a "gameist" game system with strongly-entrenched milestones and rewards for success, to which roleplaying and narrative are window-dressing left to the discretion of the players and GM. If people want to play a "narrativist" RPG, they should be playing Nobilis or Over the Edge, or some other system with rules built around narrative concepts, not D&D.
Exactly the same goes for Warhammer 40,000; there are wargames out there which successfully integrate narrative elements (Malifuax and Dark Age, for instance). There is even, in the form of Necromunda, a game set in the Warhammer 40,000 universe which does so. Warhammer 40,000 as written, however, is a game in which two players compete according to established rules to achieve mutually-exclusive victory conditions; it's a competitive game, and claiming otherwise is at best wishful thinking, and at worst deliberately misleading.
The same argument can be thrown back at "competitive" gaming. 40K clearly isn't made for tournaments. People who want to play "competitively" should just play a game that supports tourney games (e.g. Dust Warfare.. or as it were Chess).
But that isn't how it works. People out there love their D&D, but want to play it "Nobilis-style". Other people out there love their 40K, but want to use it in tourneys. It's human nature.
I too have played in tournaments... including chess-tournaments (trust me, you will never hear a complaint of "unfluffy" ever again if you just go chess. It'll also teach you the true meaning of "skill").
As said, the OP specifically asked for an insight from the other side and I obliged.
And immediately, I was once again under attack for being supposedly outside the boundaries of what is "relevant" to 40K gameplay, while all I was trying to say that this very arrogance of "exclusion" on the basis of this sort of overbearing "rules are sacrosanct no matter what"-type of arguments ARE a large part of the problem to begin with.
A problem that... the OP at least, others less so... at least were trying to make sense of.
Proves my point in the saddest of possible ways really.
Grey Templar wrote: Yes, but neither should you look down on someone who gets joy from winning.
Winning is more fun then Losing, that will always be true.
This is untrue. For some people, myself included, the competition is what matters. I prefer to win than lose, this is true. But I prefer to lose a close match than win a landslide. In that instance, losing is preferable to winning.
This. I play to give great, cinematic, close endings the opportunity to develop. If I absolutely crush my opponents' Tyranid horde without the loss of a single guardsmen I feel cheated. I will have had no fun in tearing apart my opponent. Now if we had traded terrible blows to each others armies, and We both barely managed to avoid being tabled, I will have had a blast.
However, the only way for competition to be achieved at its greatest potential is by both parties playing to win.
I am competitive. It's in my nature as a human being. I will try to beat you if you set your army down on the other side of the table. But that doesn't mean I don't have feelings and that I only relish the idea of winning. It means that I'm not going to not charge my rough riders at you or not shoot my sentinels because you are losing. But it also means that I will appreciate when awesome things happen regardless of who it helps, and I'll remove huge swaths of my models with nothing but a smile and perhaps a joke if I can think of one.
60mm wrote: You challenging someone for reasons when they say they don't want to play is douchbaggery. Maybe they refuse a game because you come across as a douchebag in real life just as you do on forums.
P.S. Being a fratboy that drinks a lot and has to lie his way into panties is an inescapable symptom of being a douchebag. It seems many of your ailments may stem from this social disorder.
This I agree with, from what I have read in this tread it seems the OP may suffer from a serious case f the mentioned illness
Again, I suggest the whole community get along, and I'm a douche?
It seems to me that the people who can't get past the OP's previous posts in other threads and are not contributing to the discussion are choosing to highlight things that needn't be, or attacking his personality out of resistance of acceptance. They know that the community is polarized deep down, but are choosing to ignore it and claim there is no problem, and everything runs along as smoothly as it could.
Come on people, if it helps you, just imagine that your favorite Dakkanaut posted this or a mod.
I too have played in tournaments... including chess-tournaments (trust me, you will never hear a complaint of "unfluffy" ever again if you just go chess. It'll also teach you the true meaning of "skill").
Been there, done that, way back in my younger days (high school and college, which for me was the 70s................).
And the 'disappoint' comment was not ained at anyone in particular, just broadcast. Am I a competitive player? Hell yes. Even in 'casual' games, I'm going to try to win. Do i try to have fun at tournaments? Of course, and one of the events I have enjoyed the most over the years was the first US GWGT in Baltimore. i went 0-5 and had a BLAST! Ofver the years our club has had as many as 35 people in a single GT, and oddly, most of them have the same take on it I do. Play, have fun, try to win.
My point, casual gaming and having fun are not separate from playing in tournies. You really can do both. No one has to take a side. Don't like tournies? Fine, but don't bash those who do. Live for tournies? Fine, but don't bash those who don't like them. Seriously, I've never yet walked into a game store and asked if someone was a tourney player or a casual player. i just ask if anyone is looking for a game.
English Assassin wrote:
And it's a sterile debate in D&D too, as it has been for decades. D&D as written (aside from nebulous XP awards for completing quests and a nigh-meaningless alignment system) has no story- or character-driven mechanics; it's a "gameist" game system with strongly-entrenched milestones and rewards for success, to which roleplaying and narrative are window-dressing left to the discretion of the players and GM. If people want to play a "narrativist" RPG, they should be playing Nobilis or Over the Edge, or some other system with rules built around narrative concepts, not D&D.
Exactly the same goes for Warhammer 40,000; there are wargames out there which successfully integrate narrative elements (Malifuax and Dark Age, for instance). There is even, in the form of Necromunda, a game set in the Warhammer 40,000 universe which does so. Warhammer 40,000 as written, however, is a game in which two players compete according to established rules to achieve mutually-exclusive victory conditions; it's a competitive game, and claiming otherwise is at best wishful thinking, and at worst deliberately misleading.
But that isn't how it works. People out there love their D&D, but want to play it "Nobilis-style". Other people out there love their 40K, but want to use it in tourneys. It's human nature.
However, what those notional players - who are essentially playing a free-form RPG with D&D character sheets in front of them - are doing has little or no relevance in a discussion of what the game sold under the name of Dungeons and Dragons is.
Zweischneid wrote:The same argument can be thrown back at "competitive" gaming. 40K clearly isn't made for tournaments. People who want to play "competitively" should just play a game that supports tourney games (e.g. Dust Warfare.. or as it were Chess).
Firstly, stop conflating "competitive" with "tournament", it's simply misleading. Secondly, this must be some novel use of the word "clearly"; would you care to substantiate why 40k is so clearly neither of these things? While you're doing so, try to bear in mind that for the whole of the game's lifespan (until a few months ago) it was officially supported and promoted by its makers as a tournament game, and indeed that its writers have repeated proclaimed their game (examples below) to be a balanced, tactical challenge.
"The aim of Warhammer 40,000 is to fight battles against other players. Win or lose battles are entertaining challenges in which you try to out-think and out-play your opponent, taking advantage of what good luck comes your way, but ultimately relying upon sound tactics to win the day." Warhammmer 40,000 Rulebook 2nd Edition, page 4
"Whatever you chose within this total [points values], the battle will be a fair match, decided by good tactics and a little bit of luck." Warhammer 40,000 Rulebook 5th Edition, page ix
English Assassin wrote:
However, what those notional players - who are essentially playing a free-form RPG with D&D character sheets in front of them - are doing has little or no relevance in a discussion of what the game sold under the name of Dungeons and Dragons is.
As long as people like you cling to this view, the - quoting the OP - "incredibly unnecessary polarization" of the D&D (and 40K) community" will persist and fester.
I understand thecaptains point of view. I am by nature a competitive person I want to win every game I play. At the same time I run lists to make the games more enjoyable. At the same time it needs t be said that this is a game with dice in it for randomness. Take this weekend I played a necron player and bad rolls took what was supposed to be a close game and made it a run away
So in other words, no you can't substantiate the assertion that 40k has "clearly" never been a competitive/tournament game? I thought not, but I gave you the chance to.
So in other words, no you can't substantiate the assertion that 40k has "clearly" never been a competitive/tournament game? I thought not, but I gave you the chance to.
In other words, by pouring over the book like a pro-bono insurance lawyer to "win" an argument of what is the "true" "correct" or "proper" way to play the game or to "prove" what the game "is" or "not is", you have already forsaken the attempt to "let's get along nicely everyone" that you can only achieve by reaching out to the guy (or girl) at the other side of the table (not some book) and acknowledging that there is no "one" or "true" game, but likely as many different (all equally legitimate) "true" ways to 40K as their are players.
Reconciliation can only come if you accept other people's style as equal and equally legitimate on an equal footing, especially if it is radically different from yours.
As long as you are trying to build hierarchies of "true" and "less true" approaches to the game, you create schisms that aggravate people who feel slighted by your derogatory dismissal of their favourite hobby.
That what 2nd Edition (or any other Edition) truly was cannot be found in any book you can quote. A book is just a book; a bit of ink and the remnants of a dead tree. It is not the people that made and make the hobby and gaming community.
So in other words, no you can't substantiate the assertion that 40k has "clearly" never been a competitive/tournament game? I thought not, but I gave you the chance to.
More waah!
I haven't said a thing that's derogatory about your enjoyment of wargaming, only about the irrelevance of anecdotal claims when the only empirical evidence that all Warhammer 40,000's players can discuss together is what's printed in the rulebook. You, on the other hand, seem quite comfortable with insisting that I (and everybody else on the "competitive" side of the argument) have "clearly" been having the wrong sort of fun for all these years, and then acting offended when called upon to justify your assertion.
So are you going to do that? Or are ad hominem attacks all you've got?
English Assassin wrote:
I haven't said a thing that's derogatory about your enjoyment of wargaming, only about the irrelevance of anecdotal claims when the only empirical evidence that all Warhammer 40,000's players can discuss together is what's printed in the rulebook. You, on the other hand, seem quite comfortable with insisting that I (and everybody else on the "competitive" side of the argument) have "clearly" been having the wrong sort of fun for all these years, and then acting offended when called upon to justify your assertion.
So are you going to do that? Or are ad hominem attacks all you've got?
Where have I said that you were on the wrong sort of fun for all these years?
The entire point is that there IS (almost.. don't go hyperbole on me here) no wrong sort of fun in the hobby. It's a hobby. It's what you (or anyone) wants to do with it. There is no "better" or "worse" way. No "less" or "more" legitimate way to go about it. And this hobby does include a lot, lot more than just the rulebook. The rulebook may well be the most important element to some. But it doesn't necessarily have to come first in line, or second, or third, or even tenth for everyone).
Yes, I underlined my point with anecdotal claims from my own gaming-career. I am sorry if that confuses you.
But if you take my use of anecdotes to illustrate my point as excuse to close your eyes before the reality of many, many players (in both 40K, D&D, etc..) who feel slighted by this sort of legalistic approach to taking a rule-book as prime scripture, than your again not really trying to understand the other side.
If I am the sole and only outlier here, than there is no "polarization" in the gaming community in the first place and all is good.
If not, than your game "is" the the right and true sort of fun, just like everyone's else. Enjoy it!
And perhaps one day, you will extend the same respect and cutesy to all other players no matter how they approach the game (including those that look towards the "shared elements" of stories or miniatures, not the rulebook).
English Assassin wrote:
I haven't said a thing that's derogatory about your enjoyment of wargaming, only about the irrelevance of anecdotal claims when the only empirical evidence that all Warhammer 40,000's players can discuss together is what's printed in the rulebook. You, on the other hand, seem quite comfortable with insisting that I (and everybody else on the "competitive" side of the argument) have "clearly" been having the wrong sort of fun for all these years, and then acting offended when called upon to justify your assertion.
So are you going to do that? Or are ad hominem attacks all you've got?
Where have I said that you were on the wrong sort of fun for all these years?
The entire point is that there IS (almost.. don't go hyperbole on me here) no wrong sort of fun in the hobby. It's a hobby. It's what you (or anyone) wants to do with it. There is no "better" or "worse" way. No "less" or "more" legitimate way to go about it. And this hobby does include a lot, lot more than just the rulebook. The rulebook may well be the most important element to some. But it doesn't necessarily have to come first in line, or second, or third, or even tenth for everyone).
And yet despite this conveniently hazy and imprecise notion of what Warhammer 40,000 actually is, you can with all confidence assert that the game has "clearly" never been one for competitive or tournament play, despite the fact that I and good number of others have been playing it with a competitive mindset for more than twenty years, despite the game's designers themselves declaring it to be so, and the publisher promoting it as such. Do tell why?
And yet despite this conveniently hazy and imprecise notion of what Warhammer 40,000 actually is, you can with all confidence assert that the game has "clearly" never been one for competitive or tournament play, despite the fact that I and good number of others have been playing it with a competitive mindset for more than twenty years, despite the game's designers themselves declaring it to be so, and the publisher promoting it as such. Do tell why?
No really, answer the fething question.
You may find that "convenience" is the last thing that comes with my definition. Quite the opposite actually.
Also, I never (!!!!!) said that 40K wasn't made for tournaments. Get off it.
I believe what you are refering to is this post. Let's have a look at it again! I've added some colour to show you the "advanced" rhetoric at play here.
English Assassin wrote:
And it's a sterile debate in D&D too, as it has been for decades. D&D as written (aside from nebulous XP awards for completing quests and a nigh-meaningless alignment system) has no story- or character-driven mechanics; it's a "gameist" game system with strongly-entrenched milestones and rewards for success, to which roleplaying and narrative are window-dressing left to the discretion of the players and GM. If people want to play a "narrativist" RPG, they should be playing Nobilis or Over the Edge, or some other system with rules built around narrative concepts, not D&D.
Exactly the same goes for Warhammer 40,000; there are wargames out there which successfully integrate narrative elements (Malifuax and Dark Age, for instance). There is even, in the form of Necromunda, a game set in the Warhammer 40,000 universe which does so. Warhammer 40,000 as written, however, is a game in which two players compete according to established rules to achieve mutually-exclusive victory conditions; it's a competitive game, and claiming otherwise is at best wishful thinking, and at worst deliberately misleading.
The same argument can be thrown back at "competitive" gaming. 40K clearly isn't made for tournaments. People who want to play "competitively" should just play a game that supports tourney games (e.g. Dust Warfare.. or as it were Chess).
But that isn't how it works. People out there love their D&D, but want to play it "Nobilis-style". Other people out there love their 40K, but want to use it in tourneys. It's human nature.
1. See above, marked in orange, you make a rather ludicrous claim (which I have been trying to refute for some time) that certain games have to be played in certain ways.
2. Marked in blue, I purposfully made an equally ludicrous, equally wrong, equally misguided, equally offensive "faux-argument" of the sort that you made in the post I quoted. Note that this is not an opinion of mine, but a demonstration of how this sort of misguided argumentation from anyone can incite anger and aggravation.
3. Marked in green, I immediately disowned this very phrase, precisely because it is such an idiotic statement.
Therefore, if you have indeed felt slighted by this hyperbolic rebuttal of mine (which I don't support as my own opinion), than you can perhaps feel how others feel equally slighted and aggravated by your earlier versions of the very same type of argument.
The accusation that "you are not doing it right" does sting people, as it evidently has stung you. The wargaming world would without a doubt be a far, far better place if nobody ever uses this sort of argument ever, ever, ever again.
English Assassin wrote:And it's a sterile debate in D&D too, as it has been for decades. D&D as written (aside from nebulous XP awards for completing quests and a nigh-meaningless alignment system) has no story- or character-driven mechanics; it's a "gameist" game system with strongly-entrenched milestones and rewards for success, to which roleplaying and narrative are window-dressing left to the discretion of the players and GM. If people want to play a "narrativist" RPG, they should be playing Nobilis or Over the Edge, or some other system with rules built around narrative concepts, not D&D.
This was not intended as statement about "doing it right", except perhaps on a practical level. I'll try to convey my intentions more clearly: if you were playing a narrative- and character-driven game, then, even if you happened to have a D&D character sheet on the table in front of you, you would no longer in fact be playing D&D, because D&D as a game has no mechanics for doing so. Possibly you might be in fact simultaneously playing two games, one a highly gameist hack and slash RPG, the other a free-form arty narrativist one, almost certainly, you would be using the wrong tool for the intended job, because systems and rules shape the games we play. Moreover, what you would be playing would be sufficiently removed from "D&D" as generally understood as to be of little use as an example in discussing the game. Now just to reiterate, none of this is intended as elitist; it's a value-neutral observation on the nature of RPG systems, and one which, since we've spent enough time discussing D&D, I'd happily expand upon down in the RPG subforum.
In the light of this, consider your description of your 40k gaming. I'm in no way criticising you for not sticking to the rules, or for playing the game very differently from me, but I think your example in fact rather underlines the point that 40k is a fairly awful system with which to generate a narrative, since to do requires fudging and ignoring the rules to the extent that it is no longer the game others understand when you say "Warhammer 40,000"; something which significantly limits the usefulness of the example to a discussion of the game with others. Yes, gameplay begets emergent phenomena (narratives, metagames), but it is the rules as written which give rise to them, and which remain the primary common ground for discussion of that game.
Now, much as you may have intended "Warhammer 40,000 clearly isn't a tournament game" as a rhetorical exaggeration, you should be unsurprised that it should be taken at face value, since that very assertion has been uncritically parroted by every GW apologist since the last week of June. And obviously, 40k has always been a tournament game; it's just never been a very good one.
Which leads me neatly to a rather depressing conclusion: in fact I very strongly doubt that we should be playing the same game, because I very much doubt that any one system could adequately meet our very different expectations. Most of 40k's flaws (ignoring the ones which stem from GW's venality and incompetence, anyway) derive from the fact that the game strives to be two incompatible things - a watertight, streamlined, balanced tournament game, and a narrative-driven "cinematic" experience, and is doomed to fail badly at being either. Whilst I blame GW's recent mumblings of "less-competition, more narrative" for calling attention to it, and the casual players' and fanboys' "stop whining, go play something else if you don't like it" attitude for exacerbating it, that division has always been there, and the flaws and limitations to which it gives rise won't be corrected until GW make up their minds about what they want their game to be.
Before reading I should point out that as of yet I do not own the 6th ed rulebook due to financial difficulties that will shortly be solved, I.E. finally being offered a job after far too long being unemployed. So having only had a brief read I may be outdated on several aspects of the game, but given that the basis hasn’t changed in the last three editions than I’m going on what I know.
I’d like to start with the following quote, found on page 2 of the 5th ed rulebook.
“The most important rule then is that the rules aren’t all that important! So long as both players agree, you can treat them as sacrosanct or mere guidelines – the choice is entirely yours.”
I bring this up first due to a number of discussions that I have witnessed both online and in person. The section I quoted is, suitably enough, titled ‘The Most Important Rule’ which I feel is often forgotten between the many rules arguments that seem to be springing up more and more lately. Between strangers or when at a tournament following the rules as written ensures that everyone has a level playing field, however when it comes to a regular group than ‘house-ruling’ rules that often cause a ‘headache’ for everyone isn’t a bad thing.
Likewise coming up with an informal group code of conduct that limits, say, the number of flyers to only two or three is up to the players in that group. It may be that this doesn’t work for everyone, but as long as the group remembers this and so acts accordingly, i.e. bring a tough list, than this shouldn’t be a problem.
Regarding the tournament, competitive and casual discussion I’d like to quote the following from page 242 of the 5th ed rulebook.
“As you and your gaming group explore the hobby, you may find yourself gravitating towards particular types of play. Some will enjoy the no-holds barred approach of tournament-style games, relishing every test of generalship and nuance of the rules. Others use their battles to tell stories, enjoying above all the chance to engage with the background.”
For the past fifth teen years I have always held to the belief that both fantasy and 40k are narrative competitive games. I have entered tournaments, campaigns and had my fair share of luck, good and bad. This belief has, as far as I’m aware, been the nature of 40k since RT, with various players leaning towards the narrative or competitive side based on their own preferences.
Human beings are by nature competitive, despite the BS that has started to permeate society that such a thing as winning is ‘bad’, to one degree or another. This isn’t a bad thing and all games have a winner and a loser, draws are nice, and personally I love it when a game ends in a draw if it’s been hard fought.
For the narrative side of the game, I should point out the vast, vast, lore, backstory and even fan fiction. I’ve rarely met anyone who doesn’t love a good story, and being able to make our own is a part of the game. Creating scenarios, special rules, or modifying existing rules to enact out this story is without a doubt well within the rule set, see The Most Important Rule.
I’d also like to mention that for what it’s worth I personally don’t feel that 40k, or fantasy, is a solid enough rule set for balance between factions. The time been codexs alone makes balance difficult when one or more editions can pass between updates. Internal balance is also a problem especially when a unit is considered too cheap for its points cost while a competitive unit is considered overcosted.
In conclusion I’d like to say this, it’s a game. Rather than get angry, spit and insult each other buy a beer, have a game of pool, read a book, or spend time with your loved ones. If you’re not happy about something than discuss it, saying he said, she said only cause’s further conflict.
P.S. I belief that online discussion should use the rulebook as written but that it should be remembered that due to this being a forum used world wise that opinions will differ between countries regarding how the game is played within areas, and even without different countries opinions can vary.
Now, much as you may have intended "Warhammer 40,000 clearly isn't a tournament game" as a rhetorical exaggeration, you should be unsurprised that it should be taken at face value, since that very assertion has been uncritically parroted by every GW apologist since the last week of June. And obviously, 40k has always been a tournament game; it's just never been a very good one.
.
Well, going on a random muse, but I believe GW (and most other hobby-games) were never ever intended to be tournament games (which doesn't preclude advertising tournaments in one form or another as a good tool to sell stuff and get people playing).
Did you have a look at the Extra Credits Video?
The problem is.. a "true" tournament game would almost by definition be a bad hobby game (e.g. like the tired Chess-example) because it literally would have no meta-game.
All games where the designers want you to keep playing/collecting/etc.. will necessarily need imbalances to create a meta-game, which can cycle through different phases over and over (for 40K, see Leafblower > Long-Fang Spam > Flyerlists, etc..) where the "skill" of the players isn't actually in the mastery of the game, but in the "list-building", e.g. the constant search for the "next" imbalance that creates an edge over their opponents, at least until this new edge is in turn widely known and/or replaced by the next "edge".
On a spectrum of extreme poles, you have (A) the perfectly balanced game (chess is likely very, very close to this hypothetical pole) that you can truly master. Here, the more "skilled" player will beat the less "skilled" players. The stratagems are universal and unchanging, as the game itself is balanced, free of meta-game and free of list-building. For such a game, it would make sense (as it does for chess) to truly make "true" tournaments (as in, a test of skill, rather than a sales-show).
On the other end of the spectrum, you have (B) a perfectly imbalanced game, where skill is not a factor. The winner of any given game will be the player with "the list" that is just up there with the latest and newest "edge" in the eternal meta-game cycle of imbalances. Skill at the game is irrelevant. What matters is keeping your "List" one step ahead of the competition in the meta-game.
Now, both "extremes" are hypothetical, but I think it is safe to say that 40K leans somewhat more towards the latter than the former. It is precisely the latter, which makes the game a lucrative business (ever noticed flyers being rather good recently? A unit that most people have comparatively few units off?.. noticed tanks being somewhat nerfed? After they sold like hot-cakes in 5th?).
To the degree that the role of "skill" as a variable in determining the outcome of any given game is becoming less and less important as you move from (A) to (B), the whole idea of a tournament (in the sense of a test of skill... not a sales-show) becomes increasingly foolish.
On that account, I believe that GW has strongly moved away from "tournament" (not necessarily including "tournament-styled" sale-shows featuring a roster and a few "prize-giveaways" for the largely random people who will end up on Table #1) and every hobby-game-company that seriously wants to build their business of constantly selling new update-books and new minis MUST follow suit.
My attitude to wargaming is summed up by Privateer Press' Page 5.
(1) thou shalt not whine. seriously, the constant whining and moaning of the 40k community drove me from the game before.
(2) Come Heavy or dont come at all. I want you, my opponent, to bring me your best game possible. play hard, give it your all, and even if you go down fighting, you've done yourself proud. Its what i do. Anything less is an insult to my opponent.
(3) Give as good as you get. Dont clobber the smallest kid. Take on the big dogs. Learn. Evolve. Grow as a player, painter and converter. if the fight is easy, you're not trying hard enough.
(4) Win Graciously and lose valiantly. If you win. be magnanimous. If you lose, dont cry. learn. grow. evolve. come back stronger. above all, shake hands over a battle well fought
(5) dont be a douche in the name of competition. we're all here for the same reason.
I suppose you need to know me as a person too. Despite being quite competitive, im actually a decent guy as well. Its something i am proud of; i've never had an opponent leave a game mad. personally, i like pushing myself. "be all you can be" and all that. i love running. cross country, endurance races all that. kickboxing too. its not about the fghting, its the mental discipline and pushing yourself as far as you can go, and then going a bit further. Sadly though, amongst dedicated nerds, this "all you can be" attitude seems to be somewhat lacking, i find. Maybe its society, upbringing, or being the dork in the back of the class. maybe its because the guys who pushed themselves pushed them around in school. In my experience though, this attitude of being all you can be is somewhat alien to a lot of gamers. they're happy to sit back and be invisible. they dont fight (not literally though, i mean it in the sense of "pushing themselves"). I remember being that way. I hated competition as a kid. I literally thought if i never competed i could never lose, and if i never lost, people could never have a go at me. so i was happy as a kid sitting in my room, on my own playing resident evil and other PS1 games on my own. i think this social stygma is brought by a lot of people into this world of nerds. and ultimately, amongst a small but quite vocal segment of the playerbase, winning, playing to win, and playing competitively are seen in a terrible light. winning means you're doing it wrong. trying to win is breaking the game. i think there is this idea that people dont (and shouldnt) want to try to win, it should just happen.
there is also this "idea" of 40k. rather, this ideal idea of what 40k "should be". Rather than what it is. People want the game to be so much more than what it is. In ways, its hugely admirable. How often do we see player creaded races, fandexes, conversions and unique characters and background? How often are there homerules. People in a lot of ways are inspired on this "vision" of what a perfect game is. Sadly though, they're blinded so much by what "could be" that they dont see the cracks in what is. And in a lot of cases, where they do see it, there is this whining and moaning. Its negative energy. Its deadspace. A group of 40k players is known as a whine for a reason. and all this negativity goes somewhere,. someone is to blame. that guy. he's ruining the game. why, it would be so much better if he couldnt do that! Whatever "that" is, and oftentimes, i think its that guy whose only fault is winning.
Ultimately though, i will also disagree on the notion that competitive players are doing it wrong, and that 40k isnt meant to be a competitive game. Its had competitive players and competitive streaks since rogue trader, for gods sake. I started this hobby 10 years ago, and the competitive players were there then, and quite happily spoke about competitive players from way back when. the idea that they've come to this wonderful game and ruined it is laughable. 40k is a user-defined kitchen sink setting. It is whatever you want it to be. thats its greatest strength, and its greatest weakness. Its a strength because everyone can find something in it that they want. the trick is to find other people who want the same. the weakness is the lack of direction, as the game doesnt exactly know what it wants to be. So its up to you to decide. there is no right way, or wrong way, but at least respect those who are enjoying it their way.
My attitude to wargaming is summed up by Privateer Press' Page 5.
(1) thou shalt not whine. seriously, the constant whining and moaning of the 40k community drove me from the game before.
(2) Come Heavy or dont come at all. I want you, my opponent, to bring me your best game possible. play hard, give it your all, and even if you go down fighting, you've done yourself proud. Its what i do. Anything less is an insult to my opponent.
(3) Give as good as you get. Dont clobber the smallest kid. Take on the big dogs. Learn. Evolve. Grow as a player, painter and converter. if the fight is easy, you're not trying hard enough.
(4) Win Graciously and lose valiantly. If you win. be magnanimous. If you lose, dont cry. learn. grow. evolve. come back stronger. above all, shake hands over a battle well fought
(5) dont be a douche in the name of competition. we're all here for the same reason.
I suppose you need to know me as a person too. Despite being quite competitive, im actually a decent guy as well. Its something i am proud of; i've never had an opponent leave a game mad. personally, i like pushing myself. "be all you can be" and all that. i love running. cross country, endurance races all that. kickboxing too. its not about the fghting, its the mental discipline and pushing yourself as far as you can go, and then going a bit further. Sadly though, amongst dedicated nerds, this "all you can be" attitude seems to be somewhat lacking, i find. Maybe its society, upbringing, or being the dork in the back of the class. maybe its because the guys who pushed themselves pushed them around in school. In my experience though, this attitude of being all you can be is somewhat alien to a lot of gamers. they're happy to sit back and be invisible. they dont fight (not literally though, i mean it in the sense of "pushing themselves"). I remember being that way. I hated competition as a kid. I literally thought if i never competed i could never lose, and if i never lost, people could never have a go at me. so i was happy as a kid sitting in my room, on my own playing resident evil and other PS1 games on my own. i think this social stygma is brought by a lot of people into this world of nerds. and ultimately, amongst a small but quite vocal segment of the playerbase, winning, playing to win, and playing competitively are seen in a terrible light. winning means you're doing it wrong. trying to win is breaking the game. i think there is this idea that people dont (and shouldnt) want to try to win, it should just happen.
there is also this "idea" of 40k. rather, this ideal idea of what 40k "should be". Rather than what it is. People want the game to be so much more than what it is. In ways, its hugely admirable. How often do we see player creaded races, fandexes, conversions and unique characters and background? How often are there homerules. People in a lot of ways are inspired on this "vision" of what a perfect game is. Sadly though, they're blinded so much by what "could be" that they dont see the cracks in what is. And in a lot of cases, where they do see it, there is this whining and moaning. Its negative energy. Its deadspace. A group of 40k players is known as a whine for a reason. and all this negativity goes somewhere,. someone is to blame. that guy. he's ruining the game. why, it would be so much better if he couldnt do that! Whatever "that" is, and oftentimes, i think its that guy whose only fault is winning.
Ultimately though, i will also disagree on the notion that competitive players are doing it wrong, and that 40k isnt meant to be a competitive game. Its had competitive players and competitive streaks since rogue trader, for gods sake. I started this hobby 10 years ago, and the competitive players were there then, and quite happily spoke about competitive players from way back when. the idea that they've come to this wonderful game and ruined it is laughable. 40k is a user-defined kitchen sink setting. It is whatever you want it to be. thats its greatest strength, and its greatest weakness. Its a strength because everyone can find something in it that they want. the trick is to find other people who want the same. the weakness is the lack of direction, as the game doesnt exactly know what it wants to be. So its up to you to decide. there is no right way, or wrong way, but at least respect those who are enjoying it their way.
This. People assume that if you're a competitor, you're an insta-douche.
Kaldor wrote: When it leaves both players sour. Your opponent is pissed because he felt like he never had a chance. He bought his army, painted it, modeled it, brought it to the club and set it up just so you could effortlessly add another win to your tally.
He's understandably bitter about the whole affair. He wanted a close match. He wanted to feel like even if he lost, he could have won.
His attitude affects you. You don't understand why he's bitter, it confuses you and makes you angry. He should be happy he got a game at all, if he lost it's his own fault, so why is he upset? What's this guys problem?
THAT'S when fun becomes separate from winning. When you take a finely tuned list that takes advantage of anything it can, and effortlessly crush someone who has designed a list with a different focus, be it models they like, the background, or just what they have in their collection.
200% this. When my footslogging orks (that I run because it's the models I have, and it's usually fun to play) get blasted apart by 15+ missile launchers sitting inside a bastion within two or three turns I don't see how I could have enjoyed myself. Sure I could tailor a list against it, but that would require models I don't have, and I can't afford to go buy a new model every week. I don't need to win to enjoy myself, but I DO need to at least have a chance. Obviously, winning is better though.
The "perfect imbalance" argument is one with which I'm familiar, but I have to say I'm not wholly convinced of its applicability to 40k, or even necessarily to tabletop games as a whole. It does, however, oblige me (and others who frequently decry 40k's balance issues) to acknowledge that what is wanted is in fact not perfect balance (in any case probably impossible given the number of options, combinations and matchups 40k allows) but better balance (i.e. Long Fangs not costing 20% less than Devastators).
The impossibility (or indeed undesirability) of the former does not preclude the possibility (nor desirability) of the latter, and games which in their design explicitly acknowledge list-building and combo-assembling as part of competitive play (and indeed structure their background and narrative around this in such a way as to make any fluffy-competitive gap less apparent) such as Malifaux and Warmachine achieve this far better than 40k, to the extent that player skill - exploitation of and reaction to battlefield conditions - is a more relevant element in battles between experienced players of those games. That the former of those two integrates this with a more successfully-implemented narrative system says much for the advantages bestowed by thirty-odd years of improvements in game design, as well as those of creating an system and setting coherently and with well-defined objectives from the ground-up, rather than - as in 40k's case - inexpertly welding together separately-established systems and background, and piling atop them twenty-five years of emergent changes, many of them commercially- rather than design-oriented.
I'm not wholly convinced either by the relevance of the examples quoted; chess and Magic are both abstract games (one of strategy, the other of deck-building) with pasted-on themes; Warhammer 40,000, by contrast is a tactical game, which attempts explicitly to simulate events. Beyond all three being two-player games with a winner and a loser (a category broad enough to also include snakes and ladders and boxing), and all three having a "war" theme, there is very little common ground to make comparisons between them worthwhile. Indeed Magic has more in common with Dominion, despite that game being nominally themed around courtly intrigue, and chess more in common with Hey! That's My Fish, despite the latter having the ostensible theme of penguins collecting fish from an ice floe, than either does with 40k.
Magic does, however, at least operate under the same commercial pressures as 40k; Wizards need to sell cards just as GW need to sell plastic men. The Jedi curve is actually rather a nice example, and I'd agree that one can see the same principle applied by, for instance, the designers of Warmachine and other modern commercial wargames. I fear, however, that to apply it to the imbalances of 40k is doomed to be an overcomplicated (and overgenerous) explanation for what can be more simply be attributed to ineptitude, insufficiently-rigorous testing, and the accumulated quirks, exceptions and failings of a deeply old-fashioned, clunky system groaning beneath the weight of twenty-five years' worth of (often clumsily-applied) changes intended to twist it in differing (and often contradictory) directions to do a job very different from the one for which it was originally designed back in 1980 (that of a ranked unit-based fantasy game).
On cyclical imbalance, we are indeed all in agreement, though I would add that by it GW incur their players' displeasure in ways in which the makers of CCGs and MMOs do not, because the choices made redundant by edition changes represent not merely the expenditure of money but of time spent painting, and because a Space Marine player can't simply pay some real cash for "rare" Long Fangs to replace his "common" Devastators. Moreover, Long Fang spam, Guard leafblowers, Draigowing and a few other netlists (now joined by varieties of flyer spam and fortification spam) all remain very obviously superior (with varying degrees of modification) in 6th ed. over casual/fluffy lists to a far greater degree than that necessary to create an interesting metagame, and do so in ways which seem more the result of oversight than design. I wouldn't dispute that hard counters exist to all of the above, but they themselves necessitate further metagaming and diminish the impact of tabletop skill in a way that exacerbates the competitive-casual gap (and indeed by reducing the game to rock-paper-scissors, also that created incidentally by army choice and force selection between players of comparable skill and competitiveness).
Now I don't quite agree with your gloomy assessment of the level of skill (outside of list-building) required to play 40k; applying strategic choices to the tactical level - i.e. accommodating your list to the mission and terrain - still demands a measure of skill which can't be copy-pasted from the internet. That the same individuals consistently place highly in tournaments against other players using equally-optimised lists would seem to support that contention. I would agree, however, that list-building has become the dominant factor, probably quite intentionally (if perhaps indirectly so) on GW's part, since it represents the lowest common denominator of competition - i.e. anybody can copy that tournament list from the internet, whereas learning tactical skills takes time and practice - and because it maintains the desired flow of money in and plastic spacemen out every time a new release redefines the metagame.
Warhammer 40,000 could, with a less schizophrenic design approach be a better tactical game - indeed it has been a better one than it is now - it could likewise, with rather more work, be a better thematic game. It could, if Malifaux is anything to go by, be better at both things than it presently is. Successfully blending those two criteria in a mass-market game, however, requires a well-defined, coherent design vision maintained consistently over time. GW have succeeded in doing so, with both Space Hulk and Blood Bowl, and to a reasonable extent also with Epic 3rd ed. and Battlefleet Gothic; yet where are those games now? The former two, despite their Origins awards, simply couldn't generate enough money to be worthwhile, principally because they didn't lend themselves to cyclic imbalance, while the latter two failed horribly to impress GW's fanbase, not because the were poor games - indeed both were excellent, balanced tactical games - but because the thematic "chrome" to which players were accustomed had lost its customary prominence, and because they lacked any kind of meta to make playing them an ongoing, evolving experience.
Now, this rambling reply has gone on long enough already, but I shall try to reply to one last point. Your depressing prognosis on the 40k tournament circuit is probably correct. I’m not quite so convinced, however, that all others are bound to follow GW’s model. A gap now exists for a genuine (or more-genuine) tournament-level tactical game, and Warmachine, Infinity and even Kings of War are all being very deliberately promoted by their makers to fill it.
I really don't mind either mindset of fluff or competitive play. I'm more of a fluf player myself but since I'm starved for games were I live I just want to play a game. You can happily smash my armies face if I can just get a game in and have someone with a common interst to talk with. As far as you personally, you said you prefer blunt honesty so here goes. I'm accounted with you from reading your various post on other topics. You come across as rude and abrasive. Wether you mean it as a joke or not it doesn't translate well. I suspect that you mean it and only backtrack when your called on it. Specifically for shock value or to start an argument. This isn't meet as an attack just letting you know what it seems like from someone else perspective.
wowsmash wrote: As far as you personally, you said you prefer blunt honesty so here goes. I'm accounted with you from reading your various post on other topics. You come across as rude and abrasive. Wether you mean it as a joke or not it doesn't translate well. I suspect that you mean it and only backtrack when your called on it. Specifically for shock value or to start an argument. This isn't meet as an attack just letting you know what it seems like from someone else perspective.
Check out my sig, or the second paragraph of the OP. Who/how I am has no bearing on anything here. This is a topic about the 40k community as a whole, and it just happens to be written by someone that isn't afraid to have a strong stance on things.
English Assassin wrote:I haven't said a thing that's derogatory about your enjoyment of wargaming?
No but you are replacing all posts you quote of his with 'Wah' or whatever it is, which shows you have no respect for him or his opinion, and that's worse. For the record, I am a competitive player and agree many fluff players are overly fascist about how the rest of us should play the game, but let's (a) not lump everyone into the same barrel here just for being a fluff gamer, and (b) not disrespect one another while doing so.
TheCaptain wrote:Check out my sig, or the second paragraph of the OP. Who/how I am has no bearing on anything here.
I've noticed you saw this a lot on various threads; the fact that you 'act up' or whatever to get a reaction in itself disproves what you are saying above. It's a vicious cycle, and maybe somewhat oxymoronic, but if you are a nice guy offline, and then act up online to get a reaction and then claim you are really a nice guy, this act in itself just says that all of that is a lie, because you have to be a jerk (and kind of sad) to intentionally try and antagonise people on the internet (presumably because you feel you will never have to deal with them IRL).
There is a huge difference between being strongly opinionated and being disrespectful or rude. Note this is not in reference to anything you have said here as such, but a response to the above excuse that you have made a habit of pointing out.
There is a huge difference between being strongly opinionated and being disrespectful or rude. Note this is not in reference to anything you have said here as such, but a response to the above excuse that you have made a habit of pointing out.
I agree. The thing is, most of the people who find me rude are the same users who are just a little bit too "sensitive" for the internet. Every strong opinion is going to ruffle someone's feathers, mine are just stronger and ruffle-ier.
Defending yourself on dakka is exhausting. Especially when the attackers are too opinionated to see reason or take a breath and relax. This is the internet, nothing is that serious. If you do not understand this, you are either new here, or you need to lighten up your temper towards random people on the internet. If I come up to you in person and say "Your list is crap and you're ugly" then fine, take a swing at me, but on the internet, what else do you expect? To all; take what you will from my posts, you may choose to be immature and ignore them because "Captain is a jerkface" or you may be adult and look past my tone, one that you may or may not like, and take in the substance. For those that opt the former, I leave you with this.
English Assassin wrote: if you were playing a narrative- and character-driven game, then, even if you happened to have a D&D character sheet on the table in front of you, you would no longer in fact be playing D&D
I can't say I agree.
A player, while following all the rules of D&D, can have a narrative and character driven game.
It's kinda like playing Skyrim. I can make two characters: The first one has maxed out perks, and abuses the ability to enchant items that fortify my alchemy skill, and create potions that increase my enchanting skill, to create items that exponentially increase my abilities. I can grind out hundreds and thousands of enchanted Iron Daggers to create the most powerful character that galivants around the country side one-shotting giants and roflstomping dragons.
The second character has items that look cool, perks taken because they match the characters background, and has spent literally no time grinding out levels, instead just letting them increase naturally as I progress through the storyline.
One character is clearly only designed with power in mind, and will enable to player to stomp the crap out of anything that gets in his way. The other will provide the player with a narrative and character driven gaming experience. Both are in the same game.
Similarly to 40K, you can create an army that represents characterful selections, models you like the look of, models you have, etc. Or you can create a powerful, tweaked and maxed out list that deliberately takes advantage of any imbalances in the codexes. Both people are playing 40K, both people are equally justified in the way they choose to play. But when they play each other they're going to have a bad time. It therefore becomes reasonable for players to compromise, the narrative driven player should make an effort to make a list that still has some punch. The competitive player should tone it down a little.
Basically, the imabalances in the list make, as you observe, the list building skill extremely important, and we should all be asking for tighter control. Not perfect control or perfect balance, but better balance. As it is, for everyone to have a good time we all need to be able to indentify and rate imbalances in the codexes, and use or ignore them accordingly so we are all on a comparable level of power. If those imbalances are minimised, players would be free to choose whatever they want without having to worry about their ability to enjoy a close game.
There is a huge difference between being strongly opinionated and being disrespectful or rude. Note this is not in reference to anything you have said here as such, but a response to the above excuse that you have made a habit of pointing out.
I agree. The thing is, most of the people who find me rude are the same users who are just a little bit too "sensitive" for the internet. Every strong opinion is going to ruffle someone's feathers, mine are just stronger and ruffle-ier.
Defending yourself on dakka is exhausting. Especially when the attackers are too opinionated to see reason or take a breath and relax. This is the internet, nothing is that serious. If you do not understand this, you are either new here, or you need to lighten up your temper towards random people on the internet. If I come up to you in person and say "Your list is crap and you're ugly" then fine, take a swing at me, but on the internet, what else do you expect? To all; take what you will from my posts, you may choose to be immature and ignore them because "Captain is a jerkface" or you may be adult and look past my tone, one that you may or may not like, and take in the substance. For those that opt the former, I leave you with this.
I'm not offended by anything on the internet, and in fact played the troll on occasion back in the 90's when it was fresh and I was young.
I find your word choice, picture choice, signature choice, and woe is me attitude to be very rude and counterproductive to the supposedly ironic approach you state you are trying for. You aren't pulling it off, you do come off as arrogant and dismissive. You should listen to the poster you quoted, they have good advice for you.
Similarly to 40K, you can create an army that represents characterful selections, models you like the look of, models you have, etc. Or you can create a powerful, tweaked and maxed out list that deliberately takes advantage of any imbalances in the codexes. Both people are playing 40K, both people are equally justified in the way they choose to play. But when they play each other they're going to have a bad time.
Eh; I kind of disagree. Well, I really disagree. I've already voiced this, but I don't think the outcome of the game should have any bearing on who is having what levels of fun. If this is the case, I think the players themselves are placing too much value on the models actions, and not on their own.
I have before tabled a kid at my FLGS. Like, absolutely wrecked him. It was 1500 points, and I wasn't even running a particularly crazy list; just mechvets and some tanks. Long story short, I had the best rolls I've ever had ever, and only lost one guardsman. To 'Gets Hot'. The kid was laughing harder than I was by the end, and we've been regular opponents since; he's getting much better by the way.
I find your word choice, picture choice, signature choice, and woe is me attitude to be very rude and counterproductive to the supposedly ironic approach you state you are trying for. You aren't pulling it off, you do come off as arrogant and dismissive.
I am not trolling sir; you mistake me, I simply know better than much of Dakka, and make it my life's work to save them from their ignorance. The problem is so many resist it. I'm like the Inquisition. I'll save you from yourself, but you won't be very happy about it.
Also.
You say you read my sig, which actually has pretty plainly written a request to PM me with any lamentations to my "Online person", yet you arrogantly dismiss it.
You say you read my sig, which actually has pretty plainly written a request to PM me with any lamentations to my "Online person", yet you arrogantly dismiss it.
Hmm...
I didn't realize you had standing to tell others what to do, if you had worded it as a request I would have honored it.
Back on topic:
I really hate the directions that are always given to cater to someone else's needs. I figure if I am a good sport, shake hands after matches, participate in polite discourse, maintain a calm demeanor, and don't argue ridiculous rules interpretations I should be able to get along with anyone as well.
No, I don't need to 'tone down' lists or throw games because the other player doesn't play well, nor am I required to have Golden Demon quality models when my opponent doesn't remember how rapid fire weapons work, or how terrain works, or their own special rules. It always drives me crazy when someone complains that I have a basecoated model because it isn't 'doing all of the parts of the hobby' when they fail to read the rulebooks or take the time outside the game to understand how it works as a basic level either. I guess my time painting is more important in a two player game than their understanding of the rules?
I didn't realize you had standing to tell others what to do, if you had worded it as a request I would have honored it.
No need for defense, snoogie, I told no one what to do. There's a please there, implying it is a request, and not a demand.
"Please"
adverb
1.(used as a polite addition to requests, commands, etc.) if you would be so obliging; kindly: Please come here. will you please turn the radio off?
I didn't realize you had standing to tell others what to do, if you had worded it as a request I would have honored it.
No need for defense, snoogie, I told no one what to do. There's a please there, implying it is a request, and not a demand.
"Please"
adverb
1.(used as a polite addition to requests, commands, etc.) if you would be so obliging; kindly: Please come here. will you please turn the radio off?
I haven't ignored a single person's sig since starting this thread.
Example set.
Seriously though; you and everyone else needs to get over it. I'm abrasive, rude, and arrogant; whatever. Do any of you think that will change because you give me a digital lecture? Probably not. Instead, how about contributing to this awesome, insightful thread, that actually has led to some excellent discussion amongst the community.
I contributed a pretty solid thread surfacing a lot of relevant, important opinions from users. Like me or not; I think that's a pretty good move.
TheCaptain wrote: I don't think the outcome of the game should have any bearing on who is having what levels of fun. If this is the case, I think the players themselves are placing too much value on the models actions, and not on their own.
I have before tabled a kid at my FLGS. Like, absolutely wrecked him. It was 1500 points, and I wasn't even running a particularly crazy list; just mechvets and some tanks. Long story short, I had the best rolls I've ever had ever, and only lost one guardsman. To 'Gets Hot'. The kid was laughing harder than I was by the end, and we've been regular opponents since; he's getting much better by the way.
I can't comment on your example, as I wasn't there.
But if you are consistently fighting at a significant disadvantage because the other persons list is much more powerful than yours, then you are going to have a bad time. You're going to get frustrated and sad, and you're not going to want to play. Sure, you can still have a good time when you're getting tabled. But not when you get tabled every game, or when you can look at your opponents list and know before the game starts, how it's going to end.
I tabled an opponent a few weeks ago. The only models I lost died in an explosion when I blew up one of his vehicles in close combat. But it was a smallish game (750 points) which hinged on a few tactical errors on his part, some good luck on mine, and a poor list decision on his part. I hadn't taken a fully optimised list, he still had a solid chance, and if he'd made a few different decisions during the game it would have been much closer.
This is a very different thing to someone taking their hormagaunt horde (because they think a horde of CC beasties is very thematic, and they like the models) and getting trounced by flier spam or longfang spam without ever having a chance.
The moral of the story is that not all tablings are equal, I guess.
snooggums wrote: No, I don't need to 'tone down' lists or throw games because the other player doesn't play well
But if you know before hand that your opponent is taking a weak list, not because they don't understand how to build a strong list, but because they want to build a weak list for whatever reason, it is only reasonable to tone your list down.
I tabled an opponent a few weeks ago. The only models I lost died in an explosion when I blew up one of his vehicles in close combat. But it was a smallish game (750 points) which hinged on a few tactical errors on his part, some good luck on mine, and a poor list decision on his part. I hadn't taken a fully optimised list, he still had a solid chance, and if he'd made a few different decisions during the game it would have been much closer.
This is a very different thing to someone taking their hormagaunt horde (because they think a horde of CC beasties is very thematic, and they like the models) and getting trounced by flier spam or longfang spam without ever having a chance.
The moral of the story is that not all tablings are equal, I guess.
But this implies that someone with a fluffy army has no chance of playing another player with an equally fluffy army. There is nothing stopping the "fluff" player from actively seeking out a player with a more 'friendly' list. Many players at my FLGS go as far as having multiple lists, usually a competitive one, a fluffy one, and one to play 'new' players.
snooggums wrote: No, I don't need to 'tone down' lists or throw games because the other player doesn't play well
But if you know before hand that your opponent is taking a weak list, not because they don't understand how to build a strong list, but because they want to build a weak list for whatever reason, it is only reasonable to tone your list down.
Why must I always cater to the other player, why can't they bring a moderately powerful list? I don't go all out strong or anything, no max fliers/etc and I don't know their list before playing a pickup game.
snooggums wrote: No, I don't need to 'tone down' lists or throw games because the other player doesn't play well
But if you know before hand that your opponent is taking a weak list, not because they don't understand how to build a strong list, but because they want to build a weak list for whatever reason, it is only reasonable to tone your list down.
Why must I always cater to the other player, why can't they bring a moderately powerful list? I don't go all out strong or anything, no max fliers/etc and I don't know their list before playing a pickup game.
You don't have to, but you'll have more fun when the other player is having fun. You don't need to have two whole sets of models or anything, but having a "Wreck faces" list and a "Don't table the poor kid" list written up will make it easier to ensure everyone is enjoying themself; it's a matter of consideration.
Plus a second, less powerful list lets you try out some of the less optimal codex choices guilt-free.
I can't take a deathstrike missile and a couple sentinels in a Tourney list; because they're remarkably average in incredibly valuable slots, but they sure are fun and I love the chance to use them.
You don't have to, but you'll have more fun when the other player is having fun. You don't need to have two whole sets of models or anything, but having a "Wreck faces" list and a "Don't table the poor kid" list written up will make it easier to ensure everyone is enjoying themself; it's a matter of consideration.
Plus a second, less powerful list lets you try out some of the less optimal codex choices guilt-free.
I can't take a deathstrike missile and a couple sentinels in a Tourney list; because they're remarkably average in incredibly valuable slots, but they sure are fun and I love the chance to use them.
Everyone includes me, why my I always cater to the other player instead of being able to promote a culture of improved play?
Some examples:
I regularly took Sentinels as IG in 4th/5th and Dreadnaughts as SM to little effect
I primarily field Missile/flamer Tactical Squads
I field Assault Marines, even though the SM ones aren't very good for their points
I fielded a 5 man assault termie squad, flootslogging in most games
As IG I normally fielded flamers and grenade launchers
But I field a couple Leman Russes and a Hellhound in 2k - whining about overpowered
A single indirect fire artillery - whining from players who field the same thing in the same game
Why should I actively gimp myself just to please the other player who is likely complaining about something that isn't even correct because they don't understand the rules? Is it really unreasonable to assume the other player should bring a basic understanding of the rules when they play instead of just going with whatever interpretation they happen to come across that helps their own army?
snooggums wrote: Why must I always cater to the other player, why can't they bring a moderately powerful list?
It should always be a compromise. The 'competitive' player should tone his list down a bit, while the 'fluffy' player should tune his list up a little, and hopefully they'll meet somewhere in the middle.
Pick up games are always going to be a problem because you won't know what sort of player your opponent is until the game starts, and by then it's too late to do much about it. Sometimes you'll get lucky, and sometimes you won't. My recommendation, for what it's worth, is to bring a moderately powerful list to blind pick-up games. Then you shouldn't be so underpowered as to be unable to cope with powerful lists, and hopefully not so overpowered as to crush fluffly lists without breaking a sweat. You gotta aim for that sweet spot.
But in regular groups, you should be able to gauge the way people play, and build a list accordingly. If they're all hardcore tournament players and you just pick models that look nice, you're going to have to tune up your list, get used to losing a lot, or find another group. If they're all fluffy players who take themed lists and don't aim for powerful builds, then you're going to have to tone down your list, get used to being called TFG as you roflstomp everyone, or find another group.
TheCaptain wrote: But this implies that someone with a fluffy army has no chance of playing another player with an equally fluffy army. There is nothing stopping the "fluff" player from actively seeking out a player with a more 'friendly' list. Many players at my FLGS go as far as having multiple lists, usually a competitive one, a fluffy one, and one to play 'new' players.
Absolutely. And everyone will have the most fun if they try their hardest to play games with likeminded individuals.
TheCaptain wrote: to put it bluntly, because a lot of 40k players happen to be socially stunted neckbeards
Ok, I'm just a random lurker, but I feel like I have something to say about this. 40k is a game. Games are about fun. And let's face it, there are a lot of units in a lot of codexes that just aren't good. Like Possessed for example. Now, if someone really enjoys using Possessed, they have every right to use them without getting flak from anyone, because that's how they enjoy the game. But, at it's core, 40k is a competitive game. Whether you "play for fun" or are a tournament player is completely irrelevant. You play against other people: by definition it is a competitive game. Now, back to the guy in the first example. He should play his Possessed if he wants to, but the guy is still playing a competitive game, and if he is willingly and knowingly bringing a knife to a gunfight, he has no right getting mad at his opponent for bringing a gun. Playing someone who enjoys the game the same way as you is always the best option.
Why should I actively gimp myself just to please the other player who is likely complaining about something that isn't even correct because they don't understand the rules? Is it really unreasonable to assume the other player should bring a basic understanding of the rules when they play instead of just going with whatever interpretation they happen to come across that helps their own army?
It isn't to say that whining can be perfectly avoided by toning down or 'going easy', but if you truly tried to keep your "cheese" low and were respectful the entire game, then what is important is that by every fair standard you were a good opponent; then any complaints can be simply attributed to your opponent being a poor sport that should be avoided.
Then again, I've never felt right complaining at all. If a player tables me or overwhelms me with cheese, I don't blame him. He obviously had a better list than me; it is my fault my list wasn't up to his speed.
People calling out players for having lists that are too good are equivalent to a Baseball player whining that the pitcher is throwing too fast.
bardiel0192 wrote: if he is willingly and knowingly bringing a knife to a gunfight, he has no rights getting mad at his opponent for bringing a gun.
By the same token, knowingly taking a gun to a knife fight is a bit of a dick move.
You're right, playing with like minded people is the best option, but when not possible I think it's only reasonable for everyone to compromise. Don't take a knife to a gunfight, and don't take a gun to a knifefight. Both of them should try and meet somewhere in the middle.
Why should I actively gimp myself just to please the other player who is likely complaining about something that isn't even correct because they don't understand the rules? Is it really unreasonable to assume the other player should bring a basic understanding of the rules when they play instead of just going with whatever interpretation they happen to come across that helps their own army?
It isn't to say that whining can be perfectly avoided by toning down or 'going easy', but if you truly tried to keep your "cheese" low and were respectful the entire game, then what is important is that by every fair standard you were a good opponent; then any complaints can be simply attributed to your opponent being a poor sport that should be avoided.
Then again, I've never felt right complaining at all. If a player tables me or overwhelms me with cheese, I don't blame him. He obviously had a better list than me; it is my fault my list wasn't up to his speed.
People calling out players for having lists that are too good are equivalent to a Baseball player whining that the pitcher is throwing too fast.
That is to say that they are illogical babies.
This is the type of SM list I would field (except a whirlwind in place of the Predator because that is what I had at the time) for pickup games: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/471491.page I posted it up today before I started to redo the paint job.
TheCaptain wrote: People calling out players for having lists that are too good are equivalent to a Baseball player whining that the pitcher is throwing too fast.
That is to say that they are illogical babies.
I can't agree with that, as it implies that having a strong list is preferrable to having a weak list.
Both are valid ways to play the game, and both types of list should compromise to meet somewhere in the middle. The best option is for people with weak lists to only play likeminded people, and vice versa for people with strong lists, but for mixed groups and pick-up games, it's only reasonable to expect everyone to have a bit of compromise.
TheCaptain wrote: People calling out players for having lists that are too good are equivalent to a Baseball player whining that the pitcher is throwing too fast.
That is to say that they are illogical babies.
I can't agree with that, as it implies that having a strong list is preferrable to having a weak list.
Both are valid ways to play the game, and both types of list should compromise to meet somewhere in the middle. The best option is for people with weak lists to only play likeminded people, and vice versa for people with strong lists, but for mixed groups and pick-up games, it's only reasonable to expect everyone to have a bit of compromise.
It's not to say that it's preferrable, but if a player is knowingly fielding a weak list, they have to make certain concessions, frequent victory being one of those.
Playing fluffy is one thing; there are still ways to have a competitive, fluffy list; albeit not as competitive as one outright ignoring or disregarding fluff.
Continuing with the examples of IG; if you want to run a fluffy footguard list, go right ahead, but run it well; use powerblobs, use good special weapons, and have some tank/transport support (IE. Cadian 8th, arguably one of the most famous Infantry Regiments). You may not win all your battles, but a fluffy list can still win games if you're smart about it.
If you reject special weapons, vehicles, special characters, and simply run 200 lasgun-guardsmen, well...you either have poorly written fluff, or your fluff better include your regiment losing every engagement horrifically.
bardiel0192 wrote: if he is willingly and knowingly bringing a knife to a gunfight, he has no rights getting mad at his opponent for bringing a gun.
By the same token, knowingly taking a gun to a knife fight is a bit of a dick move.
You're right, playing with like minded people is the best option, but when not possible I think it's only reasonable for everyone to compromise. Don't take a knife to a gunfight, and don't take a gun to a knifefight. Both of them should try and meet somewhere in the middle.
I agree to a point. If two players agree to a nice, chill game and one of them brings his Terminators-pouring-out-of-every-orifice Draigowing list, then yeah, he's a dick. But I would think that with 40k being a competitive game, everyone would assume it was a gunfight. I guess for me it really all depends on how the other player approaches it. Like, if a dude I was playing told me he wasn't running a super competitive list, I would probably think that I don't need all of those Long Fangs or Oblits, but if that same player takes one look at my SW and immediatly starts crying cheese, I intend to tune his ass up....that situation is taking place in a world where I'm actually good at 40k of course.
EDIT: or....exactly what TheCaptain said in the previous post....
200% this. When my footslogging orks (that I run because it's the models I have, and it's usually fun to play) get blasted apart by 15+ missile launchers sitting inside a bastion within two or three turns I don't see how I could have enjoyed myself. Sure I could tailor a list against it, but that would require models I don't have, and I can't afford to go buy a new model every week. I don't need to win to enjoy myself, but I DO need to at least have a chance. Obviously, winning is better though.
What you're talking about is less of a problem with the players and more of a problem with the game itself, but that's another discussion entirely.
I'm currently working on my Ork army.An army I chose specifically to have fun with.
All the units are something I wanted to paint.There is little to no synergy, tactics or guile.
The army will be based on a Speed Freek fuel depot. The terrain for my table will enhance this theme.
Just a quick rundown of units and the reason I chose them:
Warboss (Thinking about using the FW Grotbot to make the Big Mek look more important). By taking him I can use a squad of Nobs as troops. This means less boys to paint.
Big Mek. This army is his. He's in charge of maintaining the Ork vehicles and equipment.
Grots (2 units of 15). Every Mek Shop needs a swarm of gretchin hard at work.
Nobz. As mentioned before, less boys.
Boys. One unit of 12. In a trukk because they're supposed to be Speed Freeks (and the boss needs someone to kick around).
Deffdread and 2 Kanz. Current projects the Mek is working on.
Dakkajet. My terrain will include an air-strip. Reconisance vehicle for the Mek Shop.
Deffkoptaz. See above.
Burnaz in a looted wagon (Da Burny Bus). The Mek needs help with all the metal cutting and welding.
Lootaz. They watch the skys for trouble (they just forget to watch the horizon sometimes).
A Battlewagon. The Meks ride.
You'll notice this list is horrible. But it will be beautiful. And full of units that do interesting things... minus the Boyz.
My plan is to lose... alot. But at least thats's my intentions. I want to have fun with my small band of Orks defending their gas pumps from waves of enemies.
They army (and table) will have a clear theme and my opponents will feel like they really are attacking a poorly defended Ork outpost.
Before choosing this army I was concidering Orcs and Goblins purely to make a list that included as much ramdom die rolls as possible. Just so I couldn't control my own army.
This is purely a fluffy army except one problem. Why would a Boss and Nobz just guard an outpost when there's fightin' goin' on somewhere else?.
Didn't read the whole thread but what strikes me from the OP is - shouldn't the fluffy players, never caring about winning or loosing, be euphoric about facing an all flyers list? What a story, entire army bombarded to hell but trying their best, or if chaos laughing madly and dancing between laser shots etc. WAAC is happy, HAAC is happy, joy - "Wow you tabled me, thanks man, was an absolute blast!"
And no, don't blame the nerd and the nerdy hobby, blame GW. It's them who written those easily abusable, unbalanced rules. "We should all make a gentle list because we all know the balance is crap to the point of unplayable, let's fix the game for GW through not finding best possible combinations but just throw what we like and see what happens". Really what a sad game.
Btw I ran 3 carnifexes in 5th edition, just I hate the anti competitive mindset and the idea of WAAC, I play numerous games and meet over ambitious people all the time bt guess what, I like it because they often give me hard matches and those are the rare occasions I'm happy if winning, seeing how unberable the loss is for the guy, natural born winner. But, the hard match is where you learn the most and if you learn nothing because you had no chance, the game is just crap. Last time I checked the "WAAC lists" were legal.
Competitive gamers have a greater tendency (if they care about fluff) to make fluff fit their list, not the other way around.
Casual gamers make their list fit the fluff.
Both don't like losing and casual gamers will lose more frequently against competitive gamers because competitive players 'exploit' broken rules (ie Plague Bomb, wound shenanigans, Hammerhand Halberds, etc) and the simple fact that the fluff is not entirely accurately represented in the rules.
Oh, and the OP bragging about how he drinks constantly, is a frat boy, and lies to girls is both hilarious and pathetic. This is the wrong thread for that.
Oh, and the OP bragging about how he drinks constantly, is a frat boy, and lies to girls is both hilarious and pathetic. This is the wrong thread for that.
It was a joke playing to the idea of breaking concepts, you smelly neckbeard. Not to mention I said I drink d6 days a week. Who's to say it's not always 1, and my rolls are just pathetic? Then again, you found it hilarious, so even if it was due to your own self-imposed ignorance and judgmental stereotyping, you are welcome. Though even if it was true, by taking it the way you did, you directly miss the point of the thread in that we all have fun differently, and a good human being accepts that and learns to co-exist with it.
And the term is Fraternity Man. Frat boy is derogatory.
I believe that "We should all get along and enjoy 40k together" even though its something a hippy would say.
But seriously though, wargaming is meant to be about fun, not who wins.
For example my last game would be a less lot friendly if not for stuff like "ah okay its only 1/2" difference, just shoot that rokkit launcha" or my opponent after knocking over my assault marines placing them slightly further.
Whats the point of playing just to win? unless its some kind of a tournament the only thing you will get for winning is satisfaction.
that's a fair inference.
] and I hate the hard sell from the employees who try to get me to start whatever army my gaze happens to fall upon. I probably wouldn't play in a tournament either because I don't think I would enjoy the competitive environment but never say never.
