At the beginning of the year I asked several forums why we like to win casual games. The stated goal of the post was to get a range of opinions on the subject, but part of it also had to do with asking myself that same question and not having an answer. You guys gave me a lot to think about, so thank you again for that.

I'm excited to let you guys know about a series of articles I'll be doing about the subject over on my blog. It's not going to be objective in the least, so don't go in to it thinking otherwise. It'll be more about my journey as both a "super casual" and "jerky WAAC" player, and where my yo-yoing has put me. I think there will be something there for everyone to relate to, so I hope you guys will check it out and let me know what you think!

Part 1: What Is Casual (to me)?
Part 2: What is WAAC (to me)?
Part 3: Finding Balance.

Look into FAACers too, they are the real sad stories of wargaming.

What does FAAC stand for?

Fun at all costs.

That sounds awful.

and here i thought he mean fluffy at all costs...

If I'm correctly assuming your definition of Fun At All Costs, I discussed it in this first article. Too bad I didn't think to add the obvious acronym, as there's a lot I could have done with things being "FAACed up."

Im kinda WaaC. If my opponent starts to loose, Im not going to feel sorry for him. This is a game, if you want to have a cooperative game, play RPG's or Settlers of Catan. Yeah, I go to have fun, But I also go to win, which means someone who isnt prepared to loose shouldnt expect a fun game from me.
Just ask conan, What is best in life.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Im kinda WaaC. If my opponent starts to loose, Im not going to feel sorry for him. This is a game, if you want to have a cooperative game, play RPG's or Settlers of Catan. Yeah, I go to have fun, But I also go to win, which means someone who isnt prepared to loose shouldnt expect a fun game from me.
Just ask conan, What is best in life.

Then you may enjoy part 2 a bit more when it releases

Gotta love how everyone prefers being divisive instead of respecting other's playstyles and preferences.

Truth be told when I said "That sounds awful" I don't know if I was being sarcastic or not.

What does being a FAAC player entail?

My guess, He doesnt play the game much, just cares about laughs, doesnt know the rules much. And he chides players for being to focused on winning.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Im kinda WaaC. If my opponent starts to loose, Im not going to feel sorry for him. This is a game, if you want to have a cooperative game, play RPG's or Settlers of Catan. Yeah, I go to have fun, But I also go to win, which means someone who isnt prepared to loose shouldnt expect a fun game from me.
Just ask conan, What is best in life.

You are apparently playing Settlers of Catan with a very different rules set than I am...

I've seen it used for both Fluffy and Fun at all costs. In extremes the former will cry over anything they don't regard as fluffy and the latter will pack up or phone in when the game turns into a blow out...or they will keep smiling and playing on.

I've seen some self admitted WAACs, but never someone was either version of FAAC. A lot of people are into the fluff and most want to win, but I've never seen it go to the extreme of making the game miserable for the other player. I don't even know what the FAAC equivalent of rules lawyering or cheating would be...or if there even is an equivalent. I think it's mainly an internet concept fleshed out buy competitive players to lambast 'casuals'.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
My guess, He doesnt play the game much, just cares about laughs, doesnt know the rules much. And he chides players for being to focused on winning.

Why is ignorance a requirement for FAAC?

The problem is that it's hard to have two very different playstyles at the same table. In a civil discussion, I don't imagine the two extremes are genuinely upset at one another. Rather, they're upset at what the other represents, and especially what that opposite does (or has done) to their gaming sessions.

I spent a lot of my "casual games" playing fairly competitive people. The result was a bad game for both sides. They were too aggressive and rules-reliant for me, and I was too lackadaisical for them. In retrospect, neither style was particularly wrong, but we were indeed wrong to expect the other person to play our version of the game.

In part 3 or 4 I'll talk about my thoughts on the perceived dichotomy, and possibly how the two can coexist at the table. I hope you'll stick around to give some input on it!

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Truth be told when I said "That sounds awful" I don't know if I was being sarcastic or not.

What does being a FAAC player entail?

1. Relentlessly quoting Monty Python for the entire duration of any game.
2. Telling everyone about that hilarious thing your character did at your last Vampire the Masquerade session.
3. Wearing a shirt that tells everyone about your quirky sense of humour in case your mouth is full, or you just had serious dental work done and can't tell them yourself.
4. Playing a game may occur at some point, more likely if their army is themed around a meme or nostalgic reference.

 plastictrees wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Truth be told when I said "That sounds awful" I don't know if I was being sarcastic or not.

What does being a FAAC player entail?

1. Relentlessly quoting Monty Python for the entire duration of any game.
2. Telling everyone about that hilarious thing your character did at your last Vampire the Masquerade session.
3. Wearing a shirt that tells everyone about your quirky sense of humour in case your mouth is full, or you just had serious dental work done and can't tell them yourself.
4. Playing a game may occur at some point, more likely if their army is themed around a meme or nostalgic reference.

I'd say that's a pretty bitter view of them Although it does remind me of a guy I played with during a short-lived D&D campaign, complete with a character themed around some current joke.

"Because frak you that's why!" would be great for a chaotic crazy character.

Playing an army that is fluffy as hell and hasn't a hope of winning against an optimised list....and not caring because this is what you enjoy. Tends to drive the competitive crowd insane because they just can't wrap their head around playing a game that isn't optimised to win.

FAAC

I've played FAAC before. Still do sometimes, when the mood strikes me.

Normally i play a mid-range competitive list of one stripe or another, but sometimes i just have to run things like the Grot Army (180 grots on foot, Sag Meks, Kanz and Big Gunz) despite the fact they have a whelk's chance in a supernova of actually winning the game.

Winning isn't the only goal, after all Having a blast is more important to me, with winning being the icing on the cake.

Plus sometimes those grots will fool you, and rock a TH/SS termie squad in CC or assassinate Calgar with a torrent of fire

Back in the day i was a lot more WAAC.

As the song puts it

'i was so much older then, i'm younger than that now...'

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Truth be told when I said "That sounds awful" I don't know if I was being sarcastic or not.

What does being a FAAC player entail?

FAAC is Fluff or Fun at all costs.

Its that guy that gets really butt hurt when you're army doesnt match his idea of the fluff and will usually say things like "Calgar wouldnt show up for a skirmish!" or gets very offended when you take anything close to competitive, rolls his eyes alot when he loses and choses units based on the fact that he likes them and refuses to remove them even if they are a clear hinderence. Another case is the guy that makes up his own fluff and thinks you should know all about his "brony" (or whatever else) themed army and the individual names of each of his squads and their actions. They also tend to make up rules for "realism" and get pissed when you bring up abstract rules example: Getting a 5+ cover save for standing in open on the base of area terrian. Eldrad in none Ulthwe armies tends to really burn their ass, but they will get upset when you dont except their personal Tyranid-Eldar count as space wolf army.

Ive had more TFG moments with FAAC players then WAAC players, WAAC players you just need to know the rules as well and stand your ground and not be a afraid to call a judge or simply tell the guy he's a dink, FAAC players are akin to religious nut jobs that explode over the tiniest offense to their snow flake sensibilities.

EDIT: These are also the guys that create missions or campaigns with complete disregard for the rules and they end up being his personal little fantasies and a complete nightmare for everyone else, often resulting in utter failure.

Where is the line between "I've made up a scenario, who wants to give it a try?" and "I'm a FAAC player!" then?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Where is the line between "I've made up a scenario, who wants to give it a try?" and "I'm a FAAC player!" then?

Criticism

A FAAC player will not have it, its either his way or no way. Any cristicism is considered a personal offense.

I'll happily play something that someone has made up and tell them why and how it does or does not work. Some guys you just cant convince them their "baby" is broken.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Where is the line between "I've made up a scenario, who wants to give it a try?" and "I'm a FAAC player!" then?

The FAAC player is not playing to have fun, they're playing to have Fun. If you aren't playing to have the exact same Fun that they want you are What Is Wrong With The Game Today, and you need to immediately give up everything about the game that you enjoy and only have fun in the official approved ways. And winning is never approved. If you ever care more about winning than the FAAC player you are a WAAC TFG and you should just move pieces around the table having Fun until both players have had enough Fun and pack up the game for the day.

In short, the FAAC player is a cultist of Fun, the 5th chaos god.

I just play the game.

 Peregrine wrote:

If you aren't playing to have the exact same Fun that they want you are What Is Wrong With The Game Today

There's so much truth to this. Having been there, I remember that competitive players of any game were "what was wrong with the game." It's narrowminded in hindsight, but at the time you love "your" game so much that you don't want it to change.

An odd comment I have to add. I was very big into MTG tourneys, played and won cash a few times. I quit. There is a big issue in pushing competitive play and it is people. You reach a point were you keep striving to be better and players at the FLGS aren't good enough. Either you know the matchup and win, or you let the matchup beat you. Then you get bored and drop the hobby or go forward into a bigger scene. it may seem drastic but yes the competitive win at all costs means those not good enough will not win. this means friends may also drop the hobby you've become so competitive in. I really pushed a few away by trying to win every time. Now I'm happy as can be grabbing close games in 40K. While I do play my best the important part is seeing my friends and having a great time socially.

I'm sad to say I am stuck with a group of gamers who have a similar mindset to WAAC (well, there are a few WAACs but most of them are ok guys) players but there is a difference between playing to win and WAAC in my mind.

The difference between WAAC and playing to win is that WAAC player post on facebook that the answer to people spamming the best thing in their codex is not to play someone better than you. Ie that the problem is you're not good enough, rather than the person bringing the latest cookie cutter tourney list to a non tourney game.

I like playing to win, I do it all the time. But I make sure I have fun doing it, I make sure my opponent has fun doing it. I am not there to beat him, I am there to have some fun pushing models across a board and rolling dice. When I go to a tournament I don't make a fluffy list, I make one I think will win, fantasy isn't as broken as 40k but I will try and bring the stronger units in my book and ignore the weaker ones, I'll call up someone on rules if I think they are wrong, but I am not going to sit there and silently stare at the board or get grumpy when I lose.

 RayofPaintStudios wrote:
At the beginning of the year I asked several forums why we like to win casual games. The stated goal of the post was to get a range of opinions on the subject, but part of it also had to do with asking myself that same question and not having an answer. You guys gave me a lot to think about, so thank you again for that.

I'm excited to let you guys know about a series of articles I'll be doing about the subject over on my blog. It's not going to be objective in the least, so don't go in to it thinking otherwise. It'll be more about my journey as both a "super casual" and "jerky WAAC" player, and where my yo-yoing has put me. I think there will be something there for everyone to relate to, so I hope you guys will check it out and let me know what you think!

Part 1: What Is Casual (to me)?

TL: DR another person who is incapable of separating the concept of "playing to win" from "building a roflstomper cheesemonger list designed to exploit every rules loophole you can find and acting like a pedantic twit at every stage of the game".

If you really can't see the difference between playing to win, and playing to win at all costs, that's a bit of a shame, but here's an idea; rather than writing a self-aggrandising blog series which managed to reach "condescending" by the third paragraph of the first post, how about you just accept that people prefer a different style of play and stick to playing people who share your view?

 Amaya wrote:
I've seen it used for both Fluffy and Fun at all costs. In extremes the former will cry over anything they don't regard as fluffy and the latter will pack up or phone in when the game turns into a blow out...or they will keep smiling and playing on.

I've seen some self admitted WAACs, but never someone was either version of FAAC. A lot of people are into the fluff and most want to win, but I've never seen it go to the extreme of making the game miserable for the other player. I don't even know what the FAAC equivalent of rules lawyering or cheating would be...or if there even is an equivalent. I think it's mainly an internet concept fleshed out buy competitive players to lambast 'casuals'.

I'd also guess they're the people you see in arguments about balanced games, who like to imply that competitive players don't actually enjoy the game, and they're superior to competitive players because "at least I have fun!" or "who cares about the system being broken and the unit choices being horribly unbalanced, I had FUN with it.". If they lose, they'll try and claim a moral victory because your list crossed some subjective "too good" line,

Anecdote time; I played in a Warmachine tournament a couple of weeks ago. All the games were very "competitive" in that fluff wasn't really a factor, there were no takebacks, if you didn't get your turn done in the time limit it stopped right there, and the letter of the rules was all that mattered. And that had nothing to to do with how much I enjoyed playing against certain people; that was all down to the personal attitude of the opponent.

If the ruleset was tight, well written and well balanced then competitive, WAAC tournament style play would be awesome.

but with the lose, counter intuitive, unbalanced, "forge the narrative" outdated ruleset they give us, WAAC gaming detracts from or even completely ruins the game. With these rules, it's best just to play for fun i think.

the fact that they make things overpowered on purpose to sell models means to me that their crap game really shouldnt be taken too seriously. It will be funny when 7th makes fliers a pile of crap and GW comes up with a new thing you need to buy.

When i build my armys i tend to combine the winning and the fluff aspect of the game. For instance whilst im building my Warmachines army i have chosen to theme it around witches. so my 2 casters are Warwitch Deneghra and the Witch Coven and i am including Warwitch Sirens. the main units i am having in there are Thralls. the only pirates (Satyrxis Raiders) and their captian are in there as part of the crew of the ship that is being used to raid the coasts of western Immoren and to perform pinpoint and surgical strikes. I do believe in playing for pure fluff and coming up with scenarios but i dont believe in doing stupid things like blowing up at the first sign of critiscism. This hobby is a competative one and whilst that dosnt mean you cant play to have fun it does mean that you should be prepared to face your opponent and give as good as you get. I regulaly have close games where its a matter of a single dice roll between victory and defeat for both of us. this is good as it means that both players have had to fight hard and that even the loser can come off feeling that they have got something out of the game. To me a victory where i have walked over the opponent and pancacked them on turn 2 is a hollow victory. I wont deny that it isnt nice once in a while but it swiftly gets boreing. It should be noted that non of what i have said here is an excuse for WAAC players. If you are in the game purely to hammer your opponent into the ground and dont give a crap about the game or the fluff and the story then you really need to wake up and smell the roses. Sure massacring your foe and tossing their mangled corpse from the cliff is what the game is about but this is only one aspect and if you are purley designing lists that are meant to smash your foe and be unstoppable and you dont give a crap for their feelings or how much they enjoyed the game then you may want to try being WAAC,ed yourself.

 Elemental wrote:

 Amaya wrote:
I've seen it used for both Fluffy and Fun at all costs. In extremes the former will cry over anything they don't regard as fluffy and the latter will pack up or phone in when the game turns into a blow out...or they will keep smiling and playing on.

I've seen some self admitted WAACs, but never someone was either version of FAAC. A lot of people are into the fluff and most want to win, but I've never seen it go to the extreme of making the game miserable for the other player. I don't even know what the FAAC equivalent of rules lawyering or cheating would be...or if there even is an equivalent. I think it's mainly an internet concept fleshed out buy competitive players to lambast 'casuals'.

I'd also guess they're the people you see in arguments about balanced games, who like to imply that competitive players don't actually enjoy the game, and they're superior to competitive players because "at least I have fun!" or "who cares about the system being broken and the unit choices being horribly unbalanced, I had FUN with it.". If they lose, they'll try and claim a moral victory because your list crossed some subjective "too good" line,

Anecdote time; I played in a Warmachine tournament a couple of weeks ago. All the games were very "competitive" in that fluff wasn't really a factor, there were no takebacks, if you didn't get your turn done in the time limit it stopped right there, and the letter of the rules was all that mattered. And that had nothing to to do with how much I enjoyed playing against certain people; that was all down to the personal attitude of the opponent.

And the name of that player, was Richard Nixon.

Seriously though, were the games enjoyable or did the competitive environment hurt enjoyment?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
That sounds awful.

Yeah, I agree, is FAAC an oxymoron? How on earth can people be negative about someone who plays a game for... Heaven forbid.. The fun of it?

Judging by what's written here all chess players are WAACs. They don't give a darn about the background of the game and all they do is push their pieces around the board trying to smash their opponents. In fact most of them are not even there to "have fun" but participate with winning as the only thing on their minds.

I'm sorry but trying to win is part of the game to me. If you're not going to at least put up a good fight then don't show up. You're wasting my time and destroying my "fun".

 mattyrm wrote:
Yeah, I agree, is FAAC an oxymoron? How on earth can people be negative about someone who plays a game for... Heaven forbid.. The fun of it?

Because FAAC doesn't just mean having fun playing a game, it means defining "fun" as narrowly as possible according to what you personally like and getting outraged (complete with fake moral high ground) any time anyone dares to have fun in any different way. For example, FAAC players will often complain about "WAAC" players and accuse them of ruining everything because they have fun playing more competitively than the FAAC player. It's not enough for the FAAC player to simply decline to play in competitive games and spend their time doing something they enjoy more, they have to treat it as a moral issue and attempt to shun anyone who disagrees with their opinion.

Wow! I have to say I agree with much of what you are saying! I personally tend to play with a "themed" list in 40k. Meaning I take units that typically aren't the absolute greatest and fit within the army. However I also try to make it well rounded and give my opponent a hard time when we are playing. One of my friends once told me, "Ben, your fluffy lists are so stale that when a power gamer bites into them he chips a tooth!" I take this as a compliment because I feel that a themed list (in a non tournament setting) is the way to go. You can tone yourself down to have a fun game against a new opponent or kick it into overdrive to take on a competitive gamer! Just my 2 cents of course but I will be following this from now on!

On the FAAC view point. I can see this being equally irritating. I have a friend who loves 40k, but he likes to just play, "You drop down your army and I drop down mine, then we just kill." For him this is fun, and it really can be. BUT! It takes a lot away from the game if it is two guys just trying to blast each other without anyway of EVER telling who won. Just like i feel kinda iffy about multiplayer free for alls. Just my thoughts again!

I like my themed, fluffy lists.

But I like winning too.

I just hate when the codex cannot support the theme very well. Like Khorne players trying to actually use CSM to make their theme, because assault has been gimped, berserkers are horrible, and there's no way to assault within a good timeframe to actually be useful.

I like close games. Win or lose, they are more exciting than when either I table my opponent easily or they table me.

I always play fluffly lists too. I refuse to mix Gods in my Chaos armies. Something about it just seems wrong. That said it still has to be as competitive as I can make it within this restriction.

But I don't mind that every Ork player down the FLGs has Necron allies purely for the fliers. Wouldn't catch me with an army like that though.

If someone is truly WAAC, that'd mean they would rather win even if it meant they didn't enjoy the victory. Seems sad. :(

As one of those FAAC guys (more like semi-FAAC I guess), I have to say that what I see wrong with WAAC gamers isn't that they want to play to win, which is something even FAAC gamers want to do. The annoying thing is that there is this mentality in the game now that you should only cut and paste the latest net list.

I have been playing since second edition and one of my friends I used to play with at that time was what would today be called a WAAC gamer. The difference was, that since net lists didn't exist you didn't see everyone with them. it wasn't like you would show up to the table, see that someone was playing Space Wolves and you instantly knew the one or two list variants they would be using down to the details. There were some cheese lists to be sure, but a least it took effort and some creativity to do it. Now anyone can go to BOLS or Dakka get the latest cheese list that was made by someone else and run with it. Where is the fun, creativity or skill in that?

Samurai_Eduh wrote:

I have been playing since second edition and one of my friends I used to play with at that time was what would today be called a WAAC gamer. The difference was, that since net lists didn't exist you didn't see everyone with them. it wasn't like you would show up to the table, see that someone was playing Space Wolves and you instantly knew the one or two list variants they would be using down to the details. There were some cheese lists to be sure, but a least it took effort and some creativity to do it. Now anyone can go to BOLS or Dakka get the latest cheese list that was made by someone else and run with it. Where is the fun, creativity or skill in that?

That feels like more of a condemnation of the game than the gamer.

Then again, I feel like the only people who complain about "WAAC" in my experience tend to be guys who want to whine about someone who actually analyzes the game and makes a list accordingly, as opposed to just throwing random crap out there like you're "supposed" to do. It seems like the height of delusion to treat a 2-player game like an RPG, but that's just me.

Panzeh wrote:

Samurai_Eduh wrote:

I have been playing since second edition and one of my friends I used to play with at that time was what would today be called a WAAC gamer. The difference was, that since net lists didn't exist you didn't see everyone with them. it wasn't like you would show up to the table, see that someone was playing Space Wolves and you instantly knew the one or two list variants they would be using down to the details. There were some cheese lists to be sure, but a least it took effort and some creativity to do it. Now anyone can go to BOLS or Dakka get the latest cheese list that was made by someone else and run with it. Where is the fun, creativity or skill in that?

That feels like more of a condemnation of the game than the gamer.

Then again, I feel like the only people who complain about "WAAC" in my experience tend to be guys who want to whine about someone who actually analyzes the game and makes a list accordingly, as opposed to just throwing random crap out there like you're "supposed" to do. It seems like the height of delusion to treat a 2-player game like an RPG, but that's just me.

The problem is that 90% of the people running these list aren't doing any analysis at all. Sure, when a codex is new there are guys out there innovating and coming up with good lists. Everyone else see's what they have done and just take it wholesale and use it. Zero creativity, zero skill.

Samurai_Eduh wrote:

The problem is that 90% of the people running these list aren't doing any analysis at all. Sure, when a codex is new there are guys out there innovating and coming up with good lists. Everyone else see's what they have done and just take it wholesale and use it. Zero creativity, zero skill.

Isn't that just an indication that the game is degenerate and largely 'solved', then?

Just to point out, net lists are terrible in competitive play, they only work against average generals and noobs.

 Ravenous D wrote:
Just to point out, net lists are terrible in competitive play, they only work against average generals and noobs.

The new (now old) demon cheese, SW and BA Razor spam, Paladin spam at release and CronAir all disagree with you.

Nah, those are pretty crap.

Cronair is weak because most of its fire power is off the table most of the game, and you have to delpoy 50% of your force. two or three nightscythes arent bad but any more is just dumb.

Daemons I assume you mean screamer and flamer spam, Ive played it a few times, wasnt that big of a deal.

Paladins were pathetic, I ran the list because it was easy to paint and there are tons of counters to them, the most important was tank shock (before 6th) now without a 4+ FNP or cover and no wound allocation they die like any other terminator.

I wouldnt call the SW and BA (or even guard) spam lists net lists, that was just good use of points and using the rules. Net lists are gimmick lists, one trick ponies, like the dark angel triple crusader army is just bad, but it will slaughter people that arent very good.

Deldar Beastspam disagrees.

I would say that the pigeon holes could be narrower for both.

WAAC - Find out where their opponents live, kidnaps their families or loved ones. Forces opponent to throw the game.
Or just plain ups and murders their opponent.

FAAC - Ditto, except they will do very disturbing things to their captives or kill their opponent in the most oddball fashion imaginable.

Nothing wrong with bringing fluffy armies to the table the same as there is nothing wrong in someone bringing a fully optomized list.

Truly WAAC and FAAC types do have one thing in common - they are both douches.

Bingo

Its not the army, its the player.

Are you sure its just some people being utter douches ?

Is there no responcibility at the door of a company that pretends its marketing pamphlets are a game system?

And telling WAACs the game is supposed to be for them because there are points values , so they can work out the most cost effective units within minutes of getting a new codex.
(And sell them new models every relese,due to horrendous ballance issues.)

AND telling the FAACs the game is 'cinematic' and the 'rules are not all that important'.So just making stuff up and forcing other players to accept it is fine.
Because thats what the GW studio staff do, dont they?


I honestly do not see this level of dichotemy in other game systems.They have some players that have more background focused lists, and some players that are more focused on in game effectiveness.But when the two meet that still get to play the same game with similar chances to win-narrate the battle.
But most other games are focused on game play rather than short term sales...

The kind of players I can't stand are the LAAC players. They are the worst (literally!).

Lose at all costs? Is such a thing even real?

 Amaya wrote:
Lose at all costs? Is such a thing even real?

If you met some of the people I have, you might think so.

edit: LAAC is also a parody of WAAC, since the concept of WAAC is so out there. Most of the people labeled WAAC aren't. Seems only fair to throw the label the other way.

 mattyrm wrote:
Yeah, I agree, is FAAC an oxymoron? How on earth can people be negative about someone who plays a game for... Heaven forbid.. The fun of it?

The difference here mattyrm is that when I made that comment I didn't have a bunch of people clarifying what FAAC meant. You have that, yet you seem to have missed it.

 pretre wrote:
The kind of players I can't stand are the LAAC players. They are the worst (literally!).

For a second there I thought you were talking about this.

 pretre wrote:

 Amaya wrote:
Lose at all costs? Is such a thing even real?

If you met some of the people I have, you might think so.

edit: LAAC is also a parody of WAAC, since the concept of WAAC is so out there. Most of the people labeled WAAC aren't. Seems only fair to throw the label the other way.

It would be kind of fun to take a powerbuild against someone's extremely poorly built army and try to lose. See if the difference in list quality was enough to win.

 Amaya wrote:

 pretre wrote:

 Amaya wrote:
Lose at all costs? Is such a thing even real?

If you met some of the people I have, you might think so.

edit: LAAC is also a parody of WAAC, since the concept of WAAC is so out there. Most of the people labeled WAAC aren't. Seems only fair to throw the label the other way.

It would be kind of fun to take a powerbuild against someone's extremely poorly built army and try to lose. See if the difference in list quality was enough to win.

Or to build a cookie cutter internet tourney list, then get a game in against a complete noob where you play using each other's armies.

 Surtur wrote:
And the name of that player, was Richard Nixon.

Seriously though, were the games enjoyable or did the competitive environment hurt enjoyment?

It's a complex question.

I think the competitive environment worked because Warmachine is relatively good on the front of balance and clear rules. There were no rules debates that couldn't be solved by checking the book or grabbing a wandering organiser. That relative balance let people bring the best lists they could manage and be competitive, because there was no guilt or resentment based on someone playing a perceived "power list" or having to struggle with an army that hasn't been updated in five years. Army composition and efficient tactics didn't reflect on the perception of the players, only their actual behaviour did. Which is really as it should be.

I've met a few Fun At All Cost players. For example, every Ork/Orc player who insist on shouting WAAAAGH when they invoke such an effect in-game,

Their fun, of course, is not the fun of everyone else. In fact, it leads to the rest of the LGS cringing as yet another nail is hammered into the miniature gamer=socially awkward yet vocal idiot coffin by the FAAC player.

 Elemental wrote:

 Surtur wrote:
And the name of that player, was Richard Nixon.

Seriously though, were the games enjoyable or did the competitive environment hurt enjoyment?

It's a complex question.

I think the competitive environment worked because Warmachine is relatively good on the front of balance and clear rules. There were no rules debates that couldn't be solved by checking the book or grabbing a wandering organiser. That relative balance let people bring the best lists they could manage and be competitive, because there was no guilt or resentment based on someone playing a perceived "power list" or having to struggle with an army that hasn't been updated in five years. Army composition and efficient tactics didn't reflect on the perception of the players, only their actual behaviour did. Which is really as it should be.

We always play on time and use steamroller 2013 in my gaming group. We use Chess Clocks. There is no other way to play Warmachine/hordes if you ask us. When I play ordinary Chess I play on time also, most of the time. I care as much about the backstory of my models in Warmachine/hordes as I do my chess pices. I dont really get the fluff stuff, whats the point? If I want to play make believe I play pen and paper RPGS.. Boardgames are for competitive play and nothing ells for me and my friends. Its Deathclock time, or timed turns, Every Week... I dont play 40k/WHFB because the "fluff" comes in 2nd place for me, and you can't play a Broken system period its Zero fun. And a pointless waste of time. The King on the chess board is my equal to my caster in warmchine. Its a piece on the board that functions a certain way. I could replace the model with any holding piece, the function is what is interesting for me personaly. I think we have this playstyle because many of us are Chess players from the start. You want as little LUCK in a game as possible if you ask me, Pure skill is what counts. And you play games to win, that is what makes it fun. If you lose you learn something and that is also fun in it's own way. But it has to be competitive or the "FUN" stops for me, I would go back to playing 100% chess again, if my gaming group started playing for "Fluff" and putting the rules on the backburner.

The rules for "Though" in warmachine/hordes is one that I think needs to go for the next edition, it adds in an element of unpredictablility that I do not like.. The less dices you role the better a game is if you ask me..

Im kinda amazed that some of you play these games for the lore, or because the models look cool on the board etc.. I really cant get my head around how that could be fun? Feels like a massive waste of time, I would not waste my time if the competitiveness wasent there. But I dont get Carebares in videogames either, to me they just come of as scared of PvP...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kaptajn Congoboy wrote:
I've met a few Fun At All Cost players. For example, every Ork/Orc player who insist on shouting WAAAAGH when they invoke such an effect in-game,

Their fun, of course, is not the fun of everyone else. In fact, it leads to the rest of the LGS cringing as yet another nail is hammered into the miniature gamer=socially awkward yet vocal idiot coffin by the FAAC player.

LOLZ..

 Nucflash wrote:

 Elemental wrote:

 Surtur wrote:
And the name of that player, was Richard Nixon.

Seriously though, were the games enjoyable or did the competitive environment hurt enjoyment?

It's a complex question.

I think the competitive environment worked because Warmachine is relatively good on the front of balance and clear rules. There were no rules debates that couldn't be solved by checking the book or grabbing a wandering organiser. That relative balance let people bring the best lists they could manage and be competitive, because there was no guilt or resentment based on someone playing a perceived "power list" or having to struggle with an army that hasn't been updated in five years. Army composition and efficient tactics didn't reflect on the perception of the players, only their actual behaviour did. Which is really as it should be.

We always play on time and use steamroller 2013 in my gaming group. We use Chess Clocks. There is no other way to play Warmachine/hordes if you ask us. When I play ordinary Chess I play on time also, most of the time. I care as much about the backstory of my models in Warmachine/hordes as I do my chess pices. I dont really get the fluff stuff, whats the point? If I want to play make believe I play pen and paper RPGS.. Boardgames are for competitive play and nothing ells for me and my friends. Its Deathclock time, or timed turns, Every Week... I dont play 40k/WHFB because the "fluff" comes in 2nd place for me, and you can't play a Broken system period its Zero fun. And a pointless waste of time. The King on the chess board is my equal to my caster in warmchine. Its a piece on the board that functions a certain way. I could replace the model with any holding piece, the function is what is interesting for me personaly. I think we have this playstyle because many of us are Chess players from the start. You want as little LUCK in a game as possible if you ask me, Pure skill is what counts. And you play games to win, that is what makes it fun. If you lose you learn something and that is also fun in it's own way. But it has to be competitive or the "FUN" stops for me, I would go back to playing 100% chess again, if my gaming group started playing for "Fluff" and putting the rules on the backburner.

The rules for "Though" in warmachine/hordes is one that I think needs to go for the next edition, it adds in an element of unpredictablility that I do not like.. The less dices you role the better a game is if you ask me..

Im kinda amazed that some of you play these games for the lore, or because the models look cool on the board etc.. I really cant get my head around how that could be fun? Feels like a massive waste of time, I would not waste my time if the competitiveness wasent there. But I dont get Carebares in videogames either, to me they just come of as scared of PvP...

In what city/town do you live?

Panzeh wrote:

Samurai_Eduh wrote:

I have been playing since second edition and one of my friends I used to play with at that time was what would today be called a WAAC gamer. The difference was, that since net lists didn't exist you didn't see everyone with them. it wasn't like you would show up to the table, see that someone was playing Space Wolves and you instantly knew the one or two list variants they would be using down to the details. There were some cheese lists to be sure, but a least it took effort and some creativity to do it. Now anyone can go to BOLS or Dakka get the latest cheese list that was made by someone else and run with it. Where is the fun, creativity or skill in that?

That feels like more of a condemnation of the game than the gamer.

Then again, I feel like the only people who complain about "WAAC" in my experience tend to be guys who want to whine about someone who actually analyzes the game and makes a list accordingly, as opposed to just throwing random crap out there like you're "supposed" to do. It seems like the height of delusion to treat a 2-player game like an RPG, but that's just me.

This is pretty much it right here. Hit the nail on the head.

The problem is 40k is inherently unbalanced, and the majority of people who play the game, rather than take the company and/or game designers to task for their own mistakes, instead try to make excuses for them and shift blame to the player. "The game is just fine, you're just not playing it right." Instead of complaining to GW for putting out bogus rules and refusing to fix them after the fact, or even acknowledge that there are imbalances to begin with, we're trying to peer pressure people into showing "restraint" and just not using certain units or even entire armies, because the game has apparently degenerated so much that when this stuff hits the table it's literally not worth playing anymore, it's a foregone conclusion.

If a game depends on the player to act "responsibly" to make the game enjoyable, and fails to reward the player in any way for doing so, then the game is flawed. In this case, playing responsibly would be running a "fluffy"/random list, and your reward would be still being able to stand a chance with said list. You can't currently play this way unless you're absolutely sure your opponent is going to be doing the same, and even then it's not guaranteed since not all codices are equal, especially the ones that were written years ago, in a different edition with a different mindset. Chances are you'll be running into "net lists" when gaming with random people, and especially at tournaments, so if you don't like getting stomped over and over you'll have to play with optimized armies.

Want to run "fluffy" armies and have fun playing 40k again? Bitch at GW for being a "model company" first and a game company second, because that's why you can't. Don't point the finger at me or anyone else "ruining" your fun by playing optimized armies, because I'd love to be able to run the same kind of lists you do and just take whatever I want without having to worry about it, and be able to play a version of 40k where skill matters more than what OP crap I brought to the table, but GW doesn't allow for that without knowingly gimping yourself and I personally see no reason why I should have to do that.

Nucflash wrote:I care as much about the backstory of my models in Warmachine/hordes as I do my chess pices. I dont really get the fluff stuff, whats the point? If I want to play make believe I play pen and paper RPGS.. Boardgames are for competitive play and nothing ells for me and my friends.

I agree to an extent, if you're into story-telling and narrative play then you should really be playing RPGs, they're better-suited for that style of play and from what I hear FFG's 40k-themed games are pretty good. That said, I don't see the point in playing a competitive wargame if you literally don't care one iota about the fluff or even regard the models as anything more than better-detailed chess pieces. The game play matters a lot, especially if you want people to keep playing your game, but personally I like being able to get into the background of a game and reading about heroic characters and their deeds, etc., and personally I think cool models don't really need any explanation.

The models are usually the biggest draw of tabletop games like these, and probably the only reason why people even think about playing 40k anymore, because the game itself sure is a waste of fething time. I'm glad you find Warmachine a lot of fun, but I have to wonder why you bothered wasting your money on expensive models at all if you literally don't see any value in the hobby side of things. Wouldn't you have been better off just sticking with chess and spending the money on other worthwhile pursuits?

 Amaya wrote:
Deldar Beastspam disagrees.

In what edition? Because Dark Eldar anything in 6th is only worthy of being laughed off the table.

Maybe "beast spam" was playable in 5th (wouldn't ever call anything the DE codex could put out "broken", especially when GK came out merely half a year after DE) but sure as hell not anymore.

 Nucflash wrote:
Im kinda amazed that some of you play these games for the lore, or because the models look cool on the board etc.. I really cant get my head around how that could be fun? Feels like a massive waste of time, I would not waste my time if the competitiveness wasent there. But I dont get Carebares in videogames either, to me they just come of as scared of PvP...

So why don't you just play chess instead? If you don't care at all about the fluff or the painting or anything other than the rules why spend time on a game that is less competitive and balanced than chess? You have to have some appreciation for the fluff/models to give a context to the game mechanics, and I really doubt you'd play the game if you replaced all the models with cardboard counters ("piece #1", "piece #2") and removed all the fluff description of rules (characters are now "most important model type 31", their special abilities are now just "ability #1", etc).

PS: EVE player?

Nucflash wrote:I care as much about the backstory of my models in Warmachine/hordes as I do my chess pices. I dont really get the fluff stuff, whats the point? If I want to play make believe I play pen and paper RPGS.. Boardgames are for competitive play and nothing ells for me and my friends.

I agree to an extent, if you're into story-telling and narrative play then you should really be playing RPGs, they're better-suited for that style of play and from what I hear FFG's 40k-themed games are pretty good. That said, I don't see the point in playing a competitive wargame if you literally don't care one iota about the fluff or even regard the models as anything more than better-detailed chess pieces. The game play matters a lot, especially if you want people to keep playing your game, but personally I like being able to get into the background of a game and reading about heroic characters and their deeds, etc., and personally I think cool models don't really need any explanation.

The models are usually the biggest draw of tabletop games like these, and probably the only reason why people even think about playing 40k anymore, because the game itself sure is a waste of fething time. I'm glad you find Warmachine a lot of fun, but I have to wonder why you bothered wasting your money on expensive models at all if you literally don't see any value in the hobby side of things. Wouldn't you have been better off just sticking with chess and spending the money on other worthwhile pursuits?

[ "broken", especially when GK came out merely half a year after DE) but sure as hell not anymore.

The first part of your post explained exacly how I feel. I get sick and tired of people who play 40k/WHFB and try and justify it or say that "the game is just fine, you're just not playing it right", to the rest of us when we point out that it lacks balance and is poorly updated. I do like to paint Miniatures, but I keep my painting seperate from my gaming. I personaly dont think that the models of a game should come before it's rules when deciding to pick it up. That is why I brought up the Chess thing. In the end the game stops being "fun" for me when the rules get broken. And me and my friends really dont care about the lore. But for the die hard 40k/WHFB player this looks to be the reason for why they keep playing the game. And both the deathwatch RPG and 1st and 2nd edtion Warhammer fantasy roleplay games are exellent if you want to have fun with the LORE. But the Table-top games 40k/WHFB should not be the place where lore and setting trumps the rules.

And when you want to play competetive you get told " you are doing it wrong"... Because I cheese and destory others fun.. and instead of asking HOW I could do this. I get blamed and not the rules. I cant Chees and destroy in chess and I its much harder to cheese and destroy in warmchine. And when you play on time and with Steamroller 2013 rules the game is as fair as it gets.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Nucflash wrote:
Im kinda amazed that some of you play these games for the lore, or because the models look cool on the board etc.. I really cant get my head around how that could be fun? Feels like a massive waste of time, I would not waste my time if the competitiveness wasent there. But I dont get Carebares in videogames either, to me they just come of as scared of PvP...

So why don't you just play chess instead? If you don't care at all about the fluff or the painting or anything other than the rules why spend time on a game that is less competitive and balanced than chess? You have to have some appreciation for the fluff/models to give a context to the game mechanics, and I really doubt you'd play the game if you replaced all the models with cardboard counters ("piece #1", "piece #2") and removed all the fluff description of rules (characters are now "most important model type 31", their special abilities are now just "ability #1", etc).

PS: EVE player?

Yes I play EvE.. done it since 2004. I make people cry there too.... I like Mind Games... Where you have to outsmart your opponent

I play chess , But Warmchine is also a good game to be honest.. it has a few flaws but its well balanced and can be played on a timer.. So why cant I play both? I have zero issues with Warmachine. My Issue is with 40k/WHFB and the people who keep defending it like it's the second comming of christ.

As I have stated before I do like to paint models. But the Models do not make or break the game for me. And What I am getting at is that to some people the Miniature is the draw and not the game. So then the rules dont mather so much. But when a competetive player (like myself) spots cracks in a systems, if they just agreed and said you are Right, the rules suck, but we like to paint models, and build cool looking armies. I would keep my mouth shut. But that is not the case, instead you get lots of whining and crying and defending.. And then we find ourselfs here.. you understand what I am getting at?

And for most of my buddies the lore comes secondary, and painting is not the top priority for them..

There is a reason why Games Workshop has drawn away its suport for competative play you know. The game is broken and they know it.... Its just heartbreaking that some of the fans themselves have not cought up jet :(

On another note I have a few chess sets, One in stone, one in Marble.. A few finly carved from diffrent types of wood. And I have made and painted a few myself. I take great care that my chess sets look Nice. And I take great care that my Modells on a wargaming table look nice. That dosent change the fact that I dont care about the lore behind the model. The stats on the Queen on a chess board is what counts. And what my Warbeast do in Warmachine/hores is more important then if it looks like a wolf or an elephant, If its pose looks like crap, or the miniature isn't as good looking as another games models. It all takes second place to the rules for me.

So all I am asking is this; if you picked the game because of the models and the lore and not the rules. Own up to it, dont defend it with comments like " you are playing it wrong". or "winning dosen't mather to me so it should not mather to you etc".. or " we like to play cinimatic games"... It just wont fly... Becuause I cant undestand logic like that..

Part two is up.It's not nearly as thought-provoking as the original, and may not resonate as much with wargamers since I was a WAAC player before discovering wargaming. However, I hope you guys still enjoy it in all its long-winded glory!

I don't really get the point of difference between FAAC and WAAC. Or I actually doubt that FAAC is a meaningful term as an opposite of WAAC.
WAAC are FAAC, they just have a different definition of "fun".

I see the difference between someone who is WAAC, playing Cheese, using rules gaps or even cheating to win, and someone who is a bit more relaxed, who plays the game for more than one reason (being in a social situation, getting to know the game, trying some weird stuff, presenting and looking for nice paintjobs/conversions/tables on the way etc etc etc).
But in competitive games, by definition of the word, both players play to win, and to win against the opponent.
(There are some pure "race games", i.e. where you do not need to confront your opponent at all in order to win the game (you play in parallel), but those are rare.)

It seems to me that some competitive people think when someone is not a WAAC, than the problem lies with the "W", when in fact it is with the "AAC".

I have never met someone who would actively sabotage a game (other than by being a cheating WAAC). I have met a lot of people who did not know how to play correctly, or who preferred a fluffy list and went to see what they could do with it, or just played with what they had at hand, or who showed an certain amount of laxity when dealing with rule conflicts, but neither of these cases qualifies as "FAAC".
I understand that highly competitive players feel that casual, newb or "fun" players do decrease the amount of pleasure they gain from playing (they would expect an equally competitive player who can give them a challenge - just not enough to make them lose, of course!), but so do they to them.
Because lamenting over wrong or slow moves or lack of rules knowledge, for example, or being pushy, sneering and negative, is nobody's idea of having an enjoyable pastime.

The best thing one can do is being open about ones motivation and goal in playing upfront, and find a gaming partner/opponent who shares these motivations. Otherwise it will be no fun for either one.

You clearly dont know any FAAC people then.

 Sidstyler wrote:

 Amaya wrote:
Deldar Beastspam disagrees.

In what edition? Because Dark Eldar anything in 6th is only worthy of being laughed off the table.

Maybe "beast spam" was playable in 5th (wouldn't ever call anything the DE codex could put out "broken", especially when GK came out merely half a year after DE) but sure as hell not anymore.

If you're going to knock something, at least know what it is the person if referring to.

If I win I like to win because I out played someone, not due to a crappy rule or luck, if I loose due to him having obscene luck or cheesy list it sucks as it takes the skill out of it. Maybe at some point I'll get jaded and do a WAAC list of GK or guard or something..

 RayofPaintStudios wrote:
Part two is up.It's not nearly as thought-provoking as the original, and may not resonate as much with wargamers since I was a WAAC player before discovering wargaming. However, I hope you guys still enjoy it in all its long-winded glory!

I think that's a fairly bold foot to put forward with such an admission of wrong doing. But i also think that the WAAC mentality that you describe affects only a small portion of gamers and even then it is infrequent. I know I went through some growing pains as well. It's a very frustrating thing when you spend so much time before gaming to get to a game and feel that luck is kicking your ass. It hurts even more when you don't have emotional or social support to fall back on as can happen with our community. I think there's something to be said for the root causes of WAAC behavior, rather than just the outcome. I think much of it can be tied back to social/emotional problems that aren't addressed and we just don't care to ask questions. We would rather judge and label. But I'm postulating from observations and personal introspection.

I've met WAAC players, and while they exist, they're far more uncommon than people think. Usually, you will see "WAAC" used derogatively to refer to competitive players, which is somewhat ironic, since both player types are largely exclusives.
If you enjoy competition, you want challenge and the satisfaction of winning because you've outplayed your opponent, not because you used an exploit or a loophole to turn the battle into a one-sided affair. A one-sided win is just as boring for a competitive player as a one-sided loss. If you can call the game before it starts, why even bother with actually playing it out.

Having said that, while WAAC are fairly easy to spot and ignore, FAAC players are far sneakier, and just as toxic for a community, if not more. I speak from experience. We're talking about people who basically think reading the rulebook before playing the game is cheating. You may think I'm exagerating, and I am, but not as much as you'd think.

 HudsonD wrote:

Having said that, while WAAC are fairly easy to spot and ignore, FAAC players are far sneakier, and just as toxic for a community, if not more. I speak from experience. We're talking about people who basically think reading the rulebook before playing the game is cheating. You may think I'm exagerating, and I am, but not as much as you'd think.

I've definitely met a few people who play bad but 'fluffy' lists, and are quite proud of that, then get a little grumpy when their fluffy list loses to a competitive list but I haven't yet played a guy who has tried to tell me not to use a rule for the sake of fun or anything along those lines.

 RayofPaintStudios wrote:
Part two is up.It's not nearly as thought-provoking as the original, and may not resonate as much with wargamers since I was a WAAC player before discovering wargaming. However, I hope you guys still enjoy it in all its long-winded glory!

After reading that I feel sorry that you needed to "soft cheat". Reason I prefer chess to all other games in the world is becuase the cheating potential is ZERO. The luck Factor is Almost Zero, and depends on a mistake by your oppnent (if you can even call that luck).

Winning games by exlopting rules, or finding loopholes in the system is "NEVER OKEY" in my book. Reason i throw so much crap Towards Games Workshop is because they allow this to happen. Often when we play in my gaming group we have a third person watching the game. Because people do miss things, and you need a neutral third party to point out stuff sometimes. In Warmachine/hordes, this can be anything from keeping an Eye on Control zones for frenzy cheacks. To watching that Focus is dealt with correctly, and that noone does a mistake by accident.

Keeping Games clean and keeping all forms of cheating away, is very Important in my book. Being able to Exploit flawed game design is never okey.. And that has brought our hole gaming group to abandon Warhammer 40k and WHFB...

We like to play competative, but I think we need to clear up what competative is... Winning at all cost, in my book does not mean you have to Cheat to do so. Or exploit the fine lines in a rulebook. Sadly my experince is that WAAC thing is a symtom of Games Workshop games. Sabotaging the FUN for your oppnent can only happen if you do some Cheese thing that totaly Ruins a game. I think its hard to explain to people who have limited experince of diffrent Table-top systems, that if there is no real Way to Power Game and Cheese your way to victory the hole WAAC thing becomes a non-issue.

Also having 11 and rolling two dices and you need to get over say 15.. and you can use an ability that makes your base value go up by +2... So now you have 13 and can only miss on snake Eyes.. Takes away alot more randomness then Rolling 20 six sided dices and trying to get 3+ to hit on them. If you compare systems the Randomness of Warmachine/hordes and many other Table-top system has much less "Luck factor" then the heavily flawed games workshop system..

So my reasoning is this.. Play better wargames and the "WAAC" issue will become non-existent

 jonolikespie wrote:

 HudsonD wrote:

Having said that, while WAAC are fairly easy to spot and ignore, FAAC players are far sneakier, and just as toxic for a community, if not more. I speak from experience. We're talking about people who basically think reading the rulebook before playing the game is cheating. You may think I'm exagerating, and I am, but not as much as you'd think.

I've definitely met a few people who play bad but 'fluffy' lists, and are quite proud of that, then get a little grumpy when their fluffy list loses to a competitive list but I haven't yet played a guy who has tried to tell me not to use a rule for the sake of fun or anything along those lines.

Personally, WAAC players fall into a description similar to Jonolikespie has, only the opposite of FAAC players....

I have an extremely fluffy (ish) Nurgle marine army, a somewhat "net listed" parking lot guard army (I came up with the list, and first time I run it in the lgs, I am accused of pulling the list off the net... really I based it on my first ever actual unit in the army), etc.

To me, the WAAC player is the one that, while playing their "tourney net list" or "uber cheese list" that they bring, when your squad of grots kills their ultimate deathstar combo unit, they get all pouty... Or as soon as you knock them off of an objective from some very luckily good dice rolls. Basically, if they dont FEEL like they are winning, they arent having any fun whatsoever. Just like FAAC players can get mopey if they are getting roflstomped, truly WAAC players are almost only happy if they are roflstomping their opponent.

If you don't like Warhammer for the models or the fluff, then why not play the game with cardboard pieces? I honestly don't understand why you wouldn't.

If "WAAC" is an issue I think it reeks far more of an issue with the game's rule set, balance & general design that it does about the player base or particularly individualizing "WAAC"ing. In order for a term like this to exist your rules either have to be confusing/ambiguous enough that they can change readily depending on who is interpreting them, or the game has to be so unbalanced nothing outside some very approaches can win.

Seriously, if degenerate rules or models aren't running rampant people trying their hardest to win isn't going to result in feel-bads outside minority of mechanics and large skill gaps.

Saying that there should be constraints on how you try to win within the legal rules of the game, that is you need constraints other than "Don't Cheat" in order for the game to "work" or be enjoyable, means your rule set isn't robust enough to support a game with a "Win" and a "Lose" condition.

Read both your articles. I applaud your journey of trying to find balance. However, I think you fail to really take into account the other player. You don't have to force yourself to be WAAC, casual, or strictly down the middle, you just need to find out what kind of game your opponent is looking for.

-There are lots of players out there who want a game that is tooth and nail, with every rule in the rulebook open to exploitation and the most meta-mini-maxi-death-net-crafted lists are par for their course.

-There are a fair number of players who want a fluffy game with lists that come from codex fluff sections and BL novels, player created scenarios and a/or just a good laugh.

-There are of course others that want a middle of the road game. Either because that's who they are, or maybe they just can't afford to trick out their army with all the trimmings.

All 3 kinds of gaming are equally valid ways to play, but when mismatched can someties result in fun for 1 or neither player.Of course this means that you may have to take 2 lists, or have some deck-mods or alternate decks. However this kind of ability to accommodate your opponent is the real key to balanced gaming and gaming where all players find enjoyment in the experience.

Of course this requires actually discussing with your opponent what kind of game you want to play BEFORE you start playing.

Eilif wrote:
Read both your articles. I applaud your journey of trying to find balance. However, I think you fail to really take into account the other player. You don't have to force yourself to be WAAC, casual, or strictly down the middle, you just need to find out what kind of game your opponent is looking for.

-There are lots of players out there who want a game that is tooth and nail, with every rule in the rulebook open to exploitation and the most meta-mini-maxi-death-net-crafted lists are par for their course.

-There are a fair number of players who want a fluffy game with lists that come from codex fluff sections and BL novels, player created scenarios and a/or just a good laugh.

-There are of course others that want a middle of the road game. Either because that's who they are, or maybe they just can't afford to trick out their army with all the trimmings.

All 3 kinds of gaming are equally valid ways to play, but when mismatched can someties result in fun for 1 or neither player.Of course this means that you may have to take 2 lists, or have some deck-mods or alternate decks. However this kind of ability to accommodate your opponent is the real key to balanced gaming and gaming where all players find enjoyment in the experience.

Of course this requires actually discussing with your opponent what kind of game you want to play BEFORE you start playing.

Just steal the thunder of my final post, why don't you

@nectarprime.
At our games club we often proxy minatures .(Kings of War was played with cardboard units for a while, until got around to buying minatures.)
IF the rule set delivers great game play we invest in minatures for the game if required.

If 40k did not have such a strong asthetic appeal , it would be dead in the water IMO.
The current rule set is over complicated, diffuse and counter intuitive.(Yet the game play is very restricted and lacks complexity.)

The rule set is the instructions on how the game is played.
This can be objectively assessed , and compared to other game mechanic and resolution methods...

The asthetics are just subjective, which will be based purely on personal opinion.

When the rule set is developed based on opinion not objective comparison the game is in trouble...

@Eilif.
It is important to talk with your opponent about how you playstyles and objectives.

However, most other games tend to have far more focus on game play than 40k does.So the difference in play style is less of an issue.

 RayofPaintStudios wrote:

Just steal the thunder of my final post, why don't you

Hi Eilif.
I tend to view game play as the amount of options/interactions ' in game'.

If a game relies heavily on 'having to pick a specific unit for a specific task' .To the point where the list you bring to the table has more impact on the result of the game than what you do with the units during the game...

The then focus is more on 'promoting the sale of toy soldiers' than creating a game people want to play, IMO.

But I tend to play more historical /generic rule sets, where there is not as much 'For our game you MUST use our minatures...'
Also most other rule sets tend to imply the type of play style the rules are written for.

Warmachine, is quite clear at saying its mainly for competetive play..So the option to narrate and customise is a bit more limited, than some games.

Stargrunt II is obviously more for narrative play , as it does NOT have any points values!And the rules introduction makes it quite clear that its for narrative co-operative play.

It was obvious to the fan base that 40k was ' a sandbox for you to play in...'.
When the dev team was in frequent contact with the players...and WD actually had game supplements in it...

But as the '...we had a slight problem with some escaped Snottlings in the word processors at the GW Dungeon, so the following corrections should be made to page X..'

Sounded less '' professional'' than the prices GW corperate management wanted to charge for rules ...

The studio staff were silenced beyond .'Here are the latest Erratas & FAQs.'

And without implied play style direct from the devs , and the enthusiastic sales men in the stores.

Every players assumes their own personal play style is the 'right' way to play..

My point is most games tend to be more open about what sort of play style is more suitable for the game..40k appears to try to hide this to maximize sales IMO.

The imbalance in the 40k rules is purposely used to promote short term sales.
As the more competetive players easily find the most cost effective units and combinations, and try to 'belittle ' everyone else for picking 'less than optimal units'.

With the effect the other players stick to the 'less than optimal units' simply trying to prove a point...

And the division in the player base rolls on, and 40k rules get worse and worse.
(In the respect of balance and ratio of game play to pages of rules.)

 Nucflash wrote:

 RayofPaintStudios wrote:
Part two is up.It's not nearly as thought-provoking as the original, and may not resonate as much with wargamers since I was a WAAC player before discovering wargaming. However, I hope you guys still enjoy it in all its long-winded glory!

After reading that I feel sorry that you needed to "soft cheat". Reason I prefer chess to all other games in the world is becuase the cheating potential is ZERO. The luck Factor is Almost Zero, and depends on a mistake by your oppnent (if you can even call that luck).

Winning games by exlopting rules, or finding loopholes in the system is "NEVER OKEY" in my book. Reason i throw so much crap Towards Games Workshop is because they allow this to happen. Often when we play in my gaming group we have a third person watching the game. Because people do miss things, and you need a neutral third party to point out stuff sometimes. In Warmachine/hordes, this can be anything from keeping an Eye on Control zones for frenzy cheacks. To watching that Focus is dealt with correctly, and that noone does a mistake by accident.

Keeping Games clean and keeping all forms of cheating away, is very Important in my book. Being able to Exploit flawed game design is never okey.. And that has brought our hole gaming group to abandon Warhammer 40k and WHFB...

We like to play competative, but I think we need to clear up what competative is... Winning at all cost, in my book does not mean you have to Cheat to do so. Or exploit the fine lines in a rulebook. Sadly my experince is that WAAC thing is a symtom of Games Workshop games. Sabotaging the FUN for your oppnent can only happen if you do some Cheese thing that totaly Ruins a game. I think its hard to explain to people who have limited experince of diffrent Table-top systems, that if there is no real Way to Power Game and Cheese your way to victory the hole WAAC thing becomes a non-issue.

Also having 11 and rolling two dices and you need to get over say 15.. and you can use an ability that makes your base value go up by +2... So now you have 13 and can only miss on snake Eyes.. Takes away alot more randomness then Rolling 20 six sided dices and trying to get 3+ to hit on them. If you compare systems the Randomness of Warmachine/hordes and many other Table-top system has much less "Luck factor" then the heavily flawed games workshop system..

So my reasoning is this.. Play better wargames and the "WAAC" issue will become non-existent

Yeah, Nucflash - every one of your posts point to you being a very risk-adverse player. Someone who has to stack the cards in their favor as much as possible and can't cope when something "unexpected" happens. Like whiffing an attack.

Since dice-based games like GW's can force you to constantly form and reform your strategies based on inherent risks, I can see how you deem them unplayable. Stick to chess. Or challenge yourself instead.

Swan-of-War wrote:
Since dice-based games like GW's can force you to constantly form and reform your strategies based on inherent risks, I can see how you deem them unplayable. Stick to chess. Or challenge yourself instead.

You kind of missed the point there.

Good dice-based games involve randomness, but done in such a way that the randomness follows a nice bell curve (for example, shooting bolters with a full tactical squad) which allows you to intelligently make decisions based on risk vs. reward. The outcome of a given individual event is in doubt, but complete surprises are rare and in the long run everything converges on the average with the player who makes better decisions winning the game.

Bad dice-based games involve randomness with wild swings (which threaten to impact the game more than player decisions), lack of predictability (you can't make strategic plans beyond "roll the dice and hope they like you"), or things that should be player choices (picking warlord traits). The stronger these elements are the less player skill and decisions matter and the more the game becomes little more than an exercise in throwing dice and seeing what happens.

Unfortunately GW thinks that the latter kind of randomness is "cinematic" and has been moving strongly in that direction with 6th edition. This is not a good thing.

No Peregrine, I think you and I are on the same level - balancing risk-management through strategy and manuevering while still playing with a level of randomness. The type of player I'm reading Nucflash as is someone who can't tolerate ANY sort of randomness or risk at all and to put yourself in a situation that requires it is ludicrous.

I.E. - I MUST always have this exact spell so I MUST always take Teclis / Balthasar and I can't comprehend why someone would ever take anything else...

I.E. - Unit A will ALWAYS perform better than Unit B and anyone who takes Unit B simply because they like the models or want the challenge should never be allowed to sit at the table...

I also agree with you on the "over-randomness" of 8th Edition, but that's another tangent.

Alright DakkaDakka folks, the final post is up. If there are any parts that literally make no sense, please let me know. I wrote this while I was down with the flu, and when I went back to edit, some things were a bit... oddly worded.

Thanks again for the great discussion in this thread. I know casual vs competitive gets a bit heated, but I appreciate the overall respect you have brought to this conversation!

 Nucflash wrote:
Im kinda amazed that some of you play these games for the lore, or because the models look cool on the board etc.. I really cant get my head around how that could be fun? Feels like a massive waste of time, I would not waste my time if the competitiveness wasent there.

I can’t get my head around why you’d only play competitive games. Seems like it would lose its allure after some time (I know it did for me – my days of list-tweaking and playing all games as if it were a life-or-death tournament have long since passed).

I prefer the lore, and using games to tell stories. It’s why I play so much of FFG’s 40K stuff these days.

But chess clocks? Timed turns? Seems you’re adding in extra things to make it more interesting. That speaks to a weakness in the game more than anything else.

Nucflash wrote: But I dont get Carebares in videogames either, to me they just come of as scared of PvP...

You’re going to need to explain that one.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Nucflash wrote: But I dont get Carebares in videogames either, to me they just come of as scared of PvP...

You’re going to need to explain that one.

Carebear = a person who plays EVE Online, a PvP-focused game, but refuses to ever engage in PvP and often whines on the forums about how much PvP ruins the game and how the developers need to make even more changes to protect them from unwelcome PvP.

I've never played EVE, but does that mean there's no PvE in EVE?

Uhh... PvPPvEEVE... *head explodes*

I do not know about a care bears on EVE online but The Battle of Asakai is something interesting.
http://kotaku.com/eve-online

As far as the writings of the OP? I find them interesting to say the least.

Just don't be a motherFAAC'er

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I've never played EVE, but does that mean there's no PvE in EVE?

There is PvE. A carebear isn't just someone who enjoys PvE sometimes, they're defined by refusal to ever PvP and (usually) demands to take away any element of risk (one of EVE's basic principles is that everywhere is a PvP area and you're never 100% safe) that might get in the way of them grinding PvE and getting rich.

 Nucflash wrote:
Im kinda amazed that some of you play these games for the lore, or because the models look cool on the board etc.. I really cant get my head around how that could be fun? Feels like a massive waste of time, I would not waste my time if the competitiveness wasent there. But I dont get Carebares in videogames either, to me they just come of as scared of PvP...

I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume you don't read books?

Games with storylines or otherwise worlds to immerse yourself in are akin to reading a book. It's escapism entertainment. For a single player videogame with a story, such as Uncharted, you're playing the story through. In the case of an MMO, usually devoid of story, you are immersing yourself in an online world. Don't get me wrong, there's entertainment value in purely competitive games. I love a good few rounds of Counter Strike to offset immersing myself in Tyria for a few hours or playing through Nathan Drakes latest exploits. Tabletop games are the same - you obviously get your fun out of being as competitive as possible. People with a tad more imagination might be visualising an ongoing story with their game, playing the game for the same reason one might play through the story of Uncharted 2 - to play out a narrative.

There' no reason to start bringing derogatory terms for either players into the discussion.

 -Loki- wrote:

 Nucflash wrote:
Im kinda amazed that some of you play these games for the lore, or because the models look cool on the board etc.. I really cant get my head around how that could be fun? Feels like a massive waste of time, I would not waste my time if the competitiveness wasn't there. But I dont get Carebares in videogames either, to me they just come of as scared of PvP...

... might be visualising an ongoing story with their game, playing the game for the same reason one might play through the story of Uncharted 2 - to play out a narrative. There' no reason to start bringing derogatory terms for either players into the discussion.

This is my point of view as well. I respect folks who love the PvP and competition. I'm just not one of them. Sure I play wargames vs others, and the occasional Mario Kart or somesuch, but most of my computer gameplay is basic single player games. As for tabletop gaming, I play to win, but I definitely fall on the narrative/modeler side of the spectrum.

Just because some folks don't understand "carebears" or PvE (or whatever semi-insulting term they choose to use) doesn't mean that it isn't an enjoyable and valid way to play. That some think such playstyles are a sign of being "scared" or a "waste of time" only reflects on their own inability to respect other's way of enjoying a game.

The "scared" label is particularly humorous. There are plenty of things in the world to be scared or wary of. None of them are in online gaming.

I had a friend say to me the other day, concerning a video game: "Dude.... if you're not playing to win, then why play at all?"

I just kind of shook my head. I simply cannot comprehend making everything into a competition. Sure, wargames are competitive, and it is fun to win, but to me it's always been about much more than that.

Oh yeah... this friend doesn't read books either! Looks like there is something in common amongst people with this point of view.

I don't understand why people with such a mindset would even enjoy Warhammer. It's all about the story and the models!! Play freakin chess or poker if you want to compete!

@nectarprime.
For you its all about the story and the models.
So you would be fine if GW removed ALL of the PV from the game, and just published example senarios.
And they focused on the narrative completely at the detriment to any sort of game balance.

And others would prefer GW to remove ALL the narrative , reduce the lists to achive better balance and make the game more suited to competative play.

But rather than be honest about the rules, and just sell their game to players with the same mind set as the developers.

They infer 40k is suitable for all types of player , all play styles , all ages, to maximize short term sales....

A lot of other table top games minature games are more suitable to competetive play.AND have a great deal of background to allow narrative to flow(Battletech for example.)

Well defined intuitive rules appeal to ALL player types.They allow better game balance , easier transposing into narrative campains, and help to bring ALL play styles closer together.

GW gets away with poor rules writing because the player base is too busy blaming each other for playing the game wrong.

Ok? I play this game to have fun. That's it. Winning doesn't automatically make a game fun for me.

I guess I should have added, I don't play 40k, just Fantasy. And I think the rules aren't that bad

Lanrak wrote:
GW gets away with poor rules writing because the player base is too busy blaming each other for playing the game wrong.

Ooof! Now that's a gutpunch of a post.

Couldn't agree more.

i like to have fun - hell if i'm going to spend as much as i do on this game then i'm going to have fun even if i have to play al by myself

Lanrak wrote:
@nectarprime.
For you its all about the story and the models.
So you would be fine if GW removed ALL of the PV from the game, and just published example senarios.
And they focused on the narrative completely at the detriment to any sort of game balance.

And others would prefer GW to remove ALL the narrative , reduce the lists to achive better balance and make the game more suited to competative play.

But rather than be honest about the rules, and just sell their game to players with the same mind set as the developers.

They infer 40k is suitable for all types of player , all play styles , all ages, to maximize short term sales....

A lot of other table top games minature games are more suitable to competetive play.AND have a great deal of background to allow narrative to flow(Battletech for example.)

Well defined intuitive rules appeal to ALL player types.They allow better game balance , easier transposing into narrative campains, and help to bring ALL play styles closer together.

GW gets away with poor rules writing because the player base is too busy blaming each other for playing the game wrong.

A well made Point.. and I personaly dont have anything against carebares or people who play for the sake of cool armies. I do take issue with marketing a game to make people think it can be played competetivly though... I would be much happier if GW just admited they could not make "RULES". And stop giving out codexes and rulebooks... They are a Miniatures making company after all. They said so themselves...

What exactly constitutes a "carebear" in a tabletop game?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Nucflash wrote:
Im kinda amazed that some of you play these games for the lore, or because the models look cool on the board etc.. I really cant get my head around how that could be fun? Feels like a massive waste of time, I would not waste my time if the competitiveness wasent there.

I can’t get my head around why you’d only play competitive games. Seems like it would lose its allure after some time (I know it did for me – my days of list-tweaking and playing all games as if it were a life-or-death tournament have long since passed).

I prefer the lore, and using games to tell stories. It’s why I play so much of FFG’s 40K stuff these days.

But chess clocks? Timed turns? Seems you’re adding in extra things to make it more interesting. That speaks to a weakness in the game more than anything else.

Nucflash wrote: But I dont get Carebares in videogames either, to me they just come of as scared of PvP...

You’re going to need to explain that one.

If you play Warmachine/hordes with the Steamroller ruleset, you play on Time, turns or deathclock. Its the rules of the game, might be strange for people who havent tried it. Same goes when you play Chess. Chess has a highly competetive nature to it. I dont like to tveak lists in Games workshops Games because its just so Unbalanced I will only "Spam" what is good and take the most OP stuff I can find. I just cant help myself. And when it comes to stories and lore we play the Deathwatch RPG and many other RPG games. Role playing games in general are a much more fun way of telling stories then any Table-top game if you ask me. This is my personal prefernce, but the "FUN" part comes when i play a boardgame to win. The challenge comes from outsmarting a human opponent. I dont like to play against people who dont have the same mindset as me. There is no "FUN Factor" in beating someone who is not giving his best to try and beat me. And who wont care if he lose or not.

The thing I find worse with WH40k is that I can win the match in the list building stage.. What happens on the game board mathers less then what I did before the game. For me that takes away much of the fun. Because I know that the overpowerd stuff I have will beat my opponent, before we even start rolling the dice. 6th edition when you can premesure everything there is not real skill involved anymore..

And about the Carebare remark.. In video games the people who prefer the LORE/Player versus the AI, and what the developers have made for them to play with OVER trying to fight your fellow players are called Carebears... They are generaly looked down on as they come off as scared or lacking in skills to fight other players.. Prefering the safty and the predictability that the developers give them when they go up against computer controlled enemies..


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 nectarprime wrote:
What exactly constitutes a "carebear" in a tabletop game?

Those that prefer cinimatic GW games, and dont play to win.. Find it much more fun to paint armies then playing the game. Like the casual feel that you can get with WH40k. For example many people I know had a hard time to transition over to Warmachien/hordes, because they had to "THINK" every move.. And moving and trying to figure out if something could hit or not before mesuring was alot more work. Having to activate one model and do something and then activate another to set of the right Combo, also involves alot more "Planing". Overall some people just prefer to push their models forward and dont have to bother with facing or having to calculate in your head in advance if the shot will actually reach the target. In a game like warmachine you have to think all the time, Facing, will something reach the target.. when should I use my feat.. What models do I activate first etc...

If you just like to have fun with your friends.. roll some dice and dont really care about winning or losing. You like the LORE more then the Rules of the game. And you dont like to have to think that much in general you are a Tabletop Carebear..

 Nucflash wrote:


And about the Carebare remark.. In video games the people who prefer the LORE/Player versus the AI, and what the developers have made for them to play with OVER trying to fight your fellow players are called Carebears... They are generaly looked down on as they come off as scared or lacking in skills to fight other players.. Prefering the safty and the predictability that the developers give them when they go up against computer controlled enemies..

Trust me... PVPers are equally 'looked down upon'. Anyone who is aware of 'twinking' in WoW can see the flip side of people who look down on the PVP from the PVE side of the fence... And I do like the idea that somehow raiding is being 'too scared' when that is the exact argument used against twinks who have high levels run them through Gnomeregan and wailing caverns to get gear which will blow away regular level 19 players in their dust... they are 'too scared' to not have a gear advantage and just like 'facerolling'. They prefer the safety and predictability of being overgeared and oneshotting noobs and calling it skill. As someone who did both Raiding and twinking, I can tell you Twinking takes zero skill.

And I can tell you that even PVPers will claim made up rules and call 'PVPers 'scared' because some people only see PVP as 1vs1 and when people work as a team with pocket healers and such, they call it cheap or cheating and so on because REAL PVP is duels...

While raiding does have predictability, it still takes coordinated effort of a dozen or so people to all do exactly what they are supposed to do. It is like 10 people playing rock band and all having to play their part. It has nothing to do with 'being scared' it is just a different type of game. It is a precision and endurance test with puzzles built-in to many of the boss fights. It is collaborative gameplay which appeals to many people.

See? That door swings both ways. The thing is, the game creators make different things for different folks so both ways of play can be explored... but it seems to kill some people to know somewhere on the server there is someone playing the game 'WRONG'. So many arbitrary rules which are not even universal on 'how to play the game' as there are so many different ways to play PVE and PVP.

Wargames are the same way... There are so many ways to play and so many ways to enjoy from narratives, mega battles, tourneys, team play and so on that there is no 'right way'. But hey, the best way to make sure there is a 'right way' is to begin unsulting whole groups of players... calling them scared or making up cute insulting nicknames like 'baby seals' or 'fluff bunnies'.

Focusing on having fun over winning makes you a carebear.... amazing.

 Nucflash wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 nectarprime wrote:
What exactly constitutes a "carebear" in a tabletop game?

Those that prefer cinimatic GW games, and dont play to win.. Find it much more fun to paint armies then playing the game. Like the casual feel that you can get with WH40k. For example many people I know had a hard time to transition over to Warmachien/hordes, because they had to "THINK" every move.. And moving and trying to figure out if something could hit or not before mesuring was alot more work. Having to activate one model and do something and then activate another to set of the right Combo, also involves alot more "Planing". Overall some people just prefer to push their models forward and dont have to bother with facing or having to calculate in your head in advance if the shot will actually reach the target. In a game like warmachine you have to think all the time, Facing, will something reach the target.. when should I use my feat.. What models do I activate first etc...

This is what puts me off to warmachine, They are WAAC players to the maximum, to the point of not even talking to anyone during the game.
Also i resent that you think 40k doesnt take skill or thinking, it does. And Warmachine does have the same list building aspect too it, you have to think. You have to coordinate wverything in your army into the right places, you have to take gambles. And timed turns? You know how that favors people with less models right? Im slightly slow so i dont get to do turns very fast because of the way my brain works.

 Nucflash wrote:
Im kinda amazed that some of you play these games for the lore, or because the models look cool on the board etc.. I really cant get my head around how that could be fun? Feels like a massive waste of time, I would not waste my time if the competitiveness wasent there. But I dont get Carebares in videogames either, to me they just come of as scared of PvP..

Ya know what I can't get my head around? People who can't get their head around the idea that other people don't like to have fun the same way they do and feel the need to be derogatory towards others for how they choose to have fun.

How someone likes to play a game says NOTHING about how competitive they actually might be. Personally, I'm a very competitive person in my "real life" endeavours. I'd go as far as saying I'm a competition driven person, I did as well as I did in school because I wanted to do better than the people I saw as the smart kids. I'd like to say it was because I tried my hardest, but reality is it was because there were smart kids who I wanted to beat and if there weren't I probably wouldn't have done as well :p Now in my job I still remain quite competitive.

When it comes to games, ie. the things I do for fun to get away from real life, I lose a lot of my competitiveness because there's less point to it. I am still competitive and still play online games and such, but I prefer to play coop if there's an option, if I'm playing with friends I tend to prefer to have them on my side rather than compete against them.

The idea that people are "scared" because they don't want to be competitive IN A GAME is flat out silliness. The idea of inventing names like "carebears" for people who don't like to play competitively IN A GAME is flat out silliness.

40k is not the best games for purely competitive play, I agree, it never has been. Is it GW's fault for not making a proper ruleset? Of course it is. But if all you are capable of doing in 40k is breaking the ruleset to try and win, YOU'RE PLAYING THE WRONG GAME. Just because YOU are playing the wrong game DOES NOT mean EVERYONE ELSE is also playing the wrong game by playing 40k, to think and express so is just being self centered and shallow.

Hey Nucflash, how old are you?

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
This is what puts me off to warmachine, They are WAAC players to the maximum, to the point of not even talking to anyone during the game.
Also i resent that you think 40k doesnt take skill or thinking, it does. And Warmachine does have the same list building aspect too it, you have to think. You have to coordinate wverything in your army into the right places, you have to take gambles. And timed turns? You know how that favors people with less models right? Im slightly slow so i dont get to do turns very fast because of the way my brain works.

I think we should play warmachine with one another. I'm not a big fan of timed turns and i like to talk during games. I also like long walks along the beach and intimate dinners. I mean uh...

 Nucflash wrote:
And about the Carebare remark.. In video games the people who prefer the LORE/Player versus the AI, and what the developers have made for them to play with OVER trying to fight your fellow players are called Carebears... They are generaly looked down on as they come off as scared or lacking in skills to fight other players.. Prefering the safty and the predictability that the developers give them when they go up against computer controlled enemies.

That's ludicrous. Some people don't like multiplayer. Not everything needs to be a competitive person v person affair.

For the record I'm a very competitive player. I Top 8'ed in 3 M:tG tournaments and even attended the Philippine Nationals. That doesn't mean I'm a dick or I try to cheat or do a tantrum when I lose any game, but I'll do my best to win. When I lose, I congratulate my opponent, discuss the game and learn how and why I lost both from my perspective and his/hers.

AND I also enjoy narrative gameplay. This is why I like Infinity--the gameplay is very narrative and victory depends on your skills on the board rather than the list you bring. I like doing campaigns, both tabletop RPGs and wargaming. I enjoy fluff. When I still played 40k I wrote my own fluff for my army and, while it's the usual Vulkan list, I made it my own by conversion, painting and making up the story behind these guys who are definitely not Salamaders (tbh I never really liked the Salamaders fluff).

Yet I'm the same person. You can both enjoy competition and fluff/narrative gameplay. And calling another person's fun as "the wrong kind of fun", no matter what side, is very narrow-minded. People don't think alike, and calling people idiots for not thinking like you is extremely prejudiced.

I don't think there are too many WAAC players. I met a guy once who lied to a tournament judge to win a game, despite quite a lot of generosity on the part of his opponent. But I suspect that that kind of behavior is limited. That is "All Costs" in my opinion.

Other than that once the minis are on the table, everyone is trying to win. Usually with whatever tactics, maneuvers and skills they have available.

What I heavily dislike, is the way GW games encourage people to try and win the game, before the game.

I had never understood this, always playing to win with an army I enjoy, until I explained my frustrations to a friend.

I was informed that this is why GW games are fun. And that its all about "The Meta" and trying to build an army to out do your friend's constantly evolving army.

So this brings me to WAA$. And this is no players fault, just because they are playing exactly the way GW intends.

Makes perfect business sense for GW, its the CCG strategy. CCG's actively try to break the status quo every iteration to encourage more card buying.

I don't like that system. The best game I have played thus far is Kings of War. No unit is better than its points costs. Units have things that they do well, and do poorly but in the hands of a skilled tactician any army can win, but will still be challenged. My spearmen are always good spearmen. There isn't going to be an edition that makes cannons 3X effective so I should buy more cannons and ebay my spearmen, only for the next edition to have giant monsters resistant to cannons become the norm invalidating my army yet again. And naturally I have a choice between constantly paying GW for my army to continue to be valid, or be accused of not playing properly.

Fun

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Nucflash wrote:
And about the Carebare remark.. In video games the people who prefer the LORE/Player versus the AI, and what the developers have made for them to play with OVER trying to fight your fellow players are called Carebears... They are generaly looked down on as they come off as scared or lacking in skills to fight other players.. Prefering the safty and the predictability that the developers give them when they go up against computer controlled enemies.

That's ludicrous. Some people don't like multiplayer. Not everything needs to be a competitive person v person affair.

Before getting sucked into a "discussion" with Nucflash, have a gander at his post history.

It's time everyone just accepts the awful truth.

NO MATTER WHAT YOU DO, SOMEONE ON THESE FORUMS WILL INSULT YOU FOR IT.

Welcome to the internet.

That was a highly useful post. An excellent contribution.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
That was a highly useful post. An excellent contribution.

But sadly almost always true

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
This is what puts me off to warmachine, They are WAAC players to the maximum, to the point of not even talking to anyone during the game.

I wouldn't take Nucflash as representative of the average WMH player, hotsauceman1 - the people playing WMH are the same sort of mix of people you get playing WFB/40k/Infinifty/Malifaux/etc.

Here is a bit of speculation ...
IF the game play is quite shallow, eg what happens in game is mainly decided by choices before the game.

Some players will focus on adding 'narrative depth' to compensate.
Some players will focus on optimizing pre- game choices to improve the only basic element of the game play left, trying to win.

Does this sound familiar?A false dichotemy caused by 'poor' rules writing...

In my experience games with more in game choices (tactical decisions.)Appeal to a wider spectrum of gamers , as there is more focus on game play, and less on play style.

Learning to use the units you select , to the best of your ability is a major part of playing war games IMO.
So making ALL options viable choices is very important in this respect.