I have seen many a lively discussion on playing to the best of your ability: playing to win but devolves into nastiness... I do not want that here.
Can all that needs to be done is education?
This site has outlined many things I "knew" but did not put into words: I sincerely recommend reading this:
http://www.sirlin.net/ptw And before it gets all fun, and various "ethics of play" is bandied about: read about "scrubs" here:
http://www.sirlin.net/ptw-book/introducingthe-scrub
I understand that games can be for some like a form of RPG: to recreate situations from source material you would like to enter that time/world.
This is common in Napoleonic battles, re-enactments of famous engagements, some Star Wars battle seen on the big screen or some 40k scenario from a favorite book from the Black Library.
I get this and understand, this is why we paint stuff up, the epic display of it all.
BUT
I want a challenge.
I want to look at rules and find the optimum way to select and play the game in front of me.
I expect to get thumped as I learn, the experts and the weaker players all have something to teach me (again see Sirlin link).
People confuse real life behavior with games, I maintain it is not the same.
Life has a lot of grey area, laws, ethics, social norms we need to get along and there is no clearly defined means of "winning" so you balance it all as best you can.
Games have rules, defined winning criteria, subterfuge, misleading, keeping them guessing is the very nature of most games.
Other than a good frank discussion with your potential opponent of the expectation of how the game will be played: how can you play to your very best and try to mitigate the risk of hurting someone's feelings over a game?
I am happy to find a player to push it to the max (within game rules!), socially acting badly lends no advantage to a game and pretty much guarantees no repeat games so being nice and civil is a reasonable and necessary part of play.
How can ruthlessness within a game not be construed as being how you are in real life? I feel they do not reflect one another.
You are my peers and experts, there is a lot of love for game and to truly "play to win" appears to have a stigma attached that is only reserved for life and death situations.
Talizvar wrote: there is a lot of love for game and to truly "play to win" appears to have a stigma attached that is only reserved for life and death situations.
Talizvar wrote: there is a lot of love for game and to truly "play to win" appears to have a stigma attached that is only reserved for life and death situations.
Only in 40k.
Oh common!
That was "cheap" (funny though!)
I play other games, honest!
It can happen in other settings.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Ok, sorry, are we already on the 40k vs everything else 3 posts in?
If so I'll expand on that a little.
The WAAC/That Guy does, of course, exist in every game. 40k however is the only one unbalanced enough that those stigmas are attached to you purely for playing competitively. In other games it has nothing to do with the list you bring, it is all about your attitude. Being a donkey cave is never a good thing, but the other games dont give you the tools to make so absurdly OP lists, and while it still exists in some fashion, usually jokingly, there are not usually units that automatically label you a WAAC player for bringing.
To get rid of TFG/WAAC, you need a ruleset sufficiently well designed that the armies and strategies you want people to play are also the best armies and strategies. A fun army, a fluffy army and a competitive army should all be one and the same. Do that, and it doesn't matter whether you're a fluff bunny or a competitive gamer, you'll still have an effective army.
Talizvar wrote: there is a lot of love for game and to truly "play to win" appears to have a stigma attached that is only reserved for life and death situations.
Only in 40k.
I do agree with this. In just about every other game in any medium, from Monopoly to Call of Duty, there is an understanding that you're going to try to win. Discussions over whether you're "WAAC" or whatever never come into it, it's just assumed that people want to win and it doesn't get in the way of a good time.
So, I do wonder why it only seems to be in WH40K that "playing to win" is treated like a bad thing. It's a game so surely you wouldn't be playing if you didn't want to win at some level? Even people who play just to take part in a story surely still have their models move into cover and shoot in the right direction. Even if the scenario is intentionally skewed against you, as a last stand type of game, you're not just going to wait in a bunker for the Tyranids to come and eat you.
I would guess the reason it's such a problem in 40K (don't know about Fantasy) is because for a long time there have always been obviously better ways to skew things in your favour and there seems little effort on GW's part to ensure every army has access to such options. The new jetbikes are just one example, a fast, slippery unit that can pack a lot of firepower and it's a Troop choice. What have Orks, for example, got that can match all that? Another example would be the way that Tyranids couldn't ally with anyone in the last edition. Why should one army be denied access to a major new part of the game? Is it too much trouble to scribble a paragraph of fluff about Tau experimenting with putting mind control chips in synapse creatures, or whatever (to pick a completely random and half-thought out idea)?
I'll never say that someone should be forced to rewrite their list, or not be allowed to use the models they bought and paid for, just because the other player doesn't like it. As far as I'm concerned when you start a game you have to accept that the other player is entitled to bring anything as long as it's legal. I've played games where one list hardly stood a chance against the enemy list, but where civility and good humour made it bearable. But I also like to play games where we won't see an impossibly one-sided matchup, and where one army can't suddenly come along and overnight tower above every other. In a game with careful quality control and playtesting, there will still be exploitable combos, but they will be less common.
Talizvar wrote: there is a lot of love for game and to truly "play to win" appears to have a stigma attached that is only reserved for life and death situations.
Only in 40k.
WM has its fair share of people that cry "broken" a lot and use it synonymously with "I was just beaten".
It's not a 40k only phenomenon.
Also 2 posts in is pretty good for the 40k hate to start up. Gotta love Dakka.
Talizvar wrote: there is a lot of love for game and to truly "play to win" appears to have a stigma attached that is only reserved for life and death situations.
Only in 40k.
WM has its fair share of people that cry "broken" a lot and use it synonymously with "I was just beaten".
It's not a 40k only phenomenon.
But in WMH, trying to win isn't looked down upon as WAAC behavior.
Talizvar wrote: there is a lot of love for game and to truly "play to win" appears to have a stigma attached that is only reserved for life and death situations.
Only in 40k.
WM has its fair share of people that cry "broken" a lot and use it synonymously with "I was just beaten".
It's not a 40k only phenomenon.
But in WMH, trying to win isn't looked down upon as WAAC behavior.
It is in some circles. Go play at any shop where they don't hold regular tourneys.
In my area there's a clear cut line between the Competitive players and the (not my term) Casuals.
That line is further demarcated between the "local only" competitives, and the "national scene players".
AlexHolker wrote: To get rid of TFG/WAAC, you need a ruleset sufficiently well designed that the armies and strategies you want people to play are also the best armies and strategies. A fun army, a fluffy army and a competitive army should all be one and the same. Do that, and it doesn't matter whether you're a fluff bunny or a competitive gamer, you'll still have an effective army.
What, like chess or Risk? The second you move past identical armies for each player, people are going to figure out ways to optimize their armies and play styles. These competitive players will defeat most casual players in games. I literally cannot think of a game where this isn't so.
Rules balance isn't the answer. (Although it's an integral part of good game design.) (That being said, barring a return to Stratego and identical armies, perfect game balance is an impossibility.) It seems like fostering a good community where people don't go full-barrel competitive outside of tourneys, and where people don't take losing so hard, is much more important.
As I think about games that fit the bill I'm describing, I realize they all tend to be faster games. I wonder if streamlining the system (thus reducing the amount of time you invest into each game) would mean lower stress and a friendlier community?
The WMH players around here (back when WMH was a thing around here) definitely had casual players and WAAC types (who were definitely looked down on) so that might be situational.
I don't think this is quite accurate. 40k certainly has a higher percentage of "casual at all costs" players, but other games aren't immune the problem. It's one of the reasons why I stopped playing "casual" MTG, I got tired of having people act like I'm a bad person because my deck was more powerful than theirs. And it's especially bad in EDH/commander MTG, where the people in charge of the rules have an explicit GW-style policy of "you know our rules are broken and exploitable, so play 'casually' and leave the 'cheese' at home".
(This is why, even though the concept is interesting, I will never play EDH.)
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jimsolo wrote: These competitive players will defeat most casual players in games. I literally cannot think of a game where this isn't so.
But that's not really where "casual at all costs" behavior comes in. A relatively balanced game might have 60/40 odds for a game between a competitive player and a "fluff" player, but the "fluff" player is probably still going to enjoy the game and not worry too much about the fact that they're at a disadvantage. But when, as in 40k, you have odds that are more like "why did I even bother unpacking my army" people start to get frustrated with the fact that they can't play their army the way they want to and still have a decent chance of winning. And that gives the "casual at all costs" attitude an opportunity to exist as people look for someone else to blame for their frustration.
Like others have said, just stop playing GW. In any other game, utilizing units' strengths and fielding an effective force is admirable. In either of the Warhammer games, doing so means taking advantage of shoddily-designed rules and finding the most blatantly unfair combinations. The fact that 40K has "why did I bother unpacking my case" moments speaks to how poorly written a game it is. How many other game systems have choices that are so much better that you can determine a winner based on list choices alone?
Other games such as PP and Infinity have thriving competitive scenes, because the rules are well-balanced. Of course, there will always be people who complain when they lose a game. Outside of GW, the WAAC players are looked down upon because they're being jerks.
AlexHolker wrote: To get rid of TFG/WAAC, you need a ruleset sufficiently well designed that the armies and strategies you want people to play are also the best armies and strategies. A fun army, a fluffy army and a competitive army should all be one and the same. Do that, and it doesn't matter whether you're a fluff bunny or a competitive gamer, you'll still have an effective army.
What, like chess or Risk? The second you move past identical armies for each player, people are going to figure out ways to optimize their armies and play styles. These competitive players will defeat most casual players in games. I literally cannot think of a game where this isn't so.
No, a game where the developer bothered to do the optimisation first, and made sure that the right armies and play styles came out on top. For example, the rules for Warhammer 40,000 should be such that a Space Marine player trying to optimise their army would discover a Battle Company (60 Tactical / 20 Assault / 20 Devastator, plus transports and command) is already a top tier army.
AlexHolker wrote: To get rid of TFG/WAAC, you need a ruleset sufficiently well designed that the armies and strategies you want people to play are also the best armies and strategies. A fun army, a fluffy army and a competitive army should all be one and the same. Do that, and it doesn't matter whether you're a fluff bunny or a competitive gamer, you'll still have an effective army.
What, like chess or Risk? The second you move past identical armies for each player, people are going to figure out ways to optimize their armies and play styles. These competitive players will defeat most casual players in games. I literally cannot think of a game where this isn't so.
No, a game where the developer bothered to do the optimisation first, and made sure that the right armies and play styles came out on top. For example, the rules for Warhammer 40,000 should be such that a Space Marine player trying to optimise their army would discover a Battle Company (60 Tactical / 20 Assault / 20 Devastator, plus transports and command) is already a top tier army.
Or bothered to do play testing...or cared about the game.
You get overly competitive characters (I won't use WAAC because in truth a WAAC player will cheat to win, and I'm not including that element in this) in any activity where there is any sort of adversarial element and winners and losers.
The difference is, if you play one of these characters in most any other TT wargame currently widely played then all you'll likely get is a slightly awkward social experience where they're not terribly gracious in victory or magnanimous in defeat.
Only in 40K is this approach an actual playstyle rather than simply an attitude to the game.
Azreal13 wrote: Only in 40K is this approach an actual playstyle rather than simply an attitude to the game.
No, it's in other games. 40k is worse than average, but it's not alone. My previous post:
I don't think this is quite accurate. 40k certainly has a higher percentage of "casual at all costs" players, but other games aren't immune the problem. It's one of the reasons why I stopped playing "casual" MTG, I got tired of having people act like I'm a bad person because my deck was more powerful than theirs. And it's especially bad in EDH/commander MTG, where the people in charge of the rules have an explicit GW-style policy of "you know our rules are broken and exploitable, so play 'casually' and leave the 'cheese' at home".
(This is why, even though the concept is interesting, I will never play EDH.)
As a former WAAC and now "Casual Gamer" you can have Casual Competitive Play".
Most of it comes from the group you play with. My group plays to win, but we are not about ""The Best Unit/Army", we are about just building list based on what Models/Units/Armies [in that order] look like fun to play. We also talk about what are going to play before we even List Build. Now we are not talking about "List Tailoring", but some level of "Mata-Gaming". If Billy-Bob says he is going to play his Orks I know two things:
1] His Ork Army has no way to deal with AV14
2] Dakka-Jets
Now I could pull out my Triple Land Raider List and run around the table freely. However none of will have fun at that point. So I leave them at home and make sure I have a few Flyers of my own.
If Billy-Bob says he is going to play his Space Marines/Sisters I know there will be buckets of Melta, but lots of Rhinos and Razorbacks, but no real heave vehicles. So I have no issue dragging out my Land Raiders other than the Redeemer and Crusader will probably die at some point.
WAAC is also more of an attitude.
>If the guy pulls out 30 Scatter-Bikes and is a jerk about how he won, bragging about his victory for weeks, That is WAAC.
>If the guy pulls out the same list and goes "Do you mind?". He is not WAAC.
Azreal13 wrote: Only in 40K is this approach an actual playstyle rather than simply an attitude to the game.
No, it's in other games. 40k is worse than average, but it's not alone. My previous post:
I don't think this is quite accurate. 40k certainly has a higher percentage of "casual at all costs" players, but other games aren't immune the problem. It's one of the reasons why I stopped playing "casual" MTG, I got tired of having people act like I'm a bad person because my deck was more powerful than theirs. And it's especially bad in EDH/commander MTG, where the people in charge of the rules have an explicit GW-style policy of "you know our rules are broken and exploitable, so play 'casually' and leave the 'cheese' at home".
(This is why, even though the concept is interesting, I will never play EDH.)
No, I disagree, there's a world of difference between winning by being better at deck building and winning by exploitation of poorly written rules. It's perfectly acceptable to lose to someone who is better at the game, it is markedly less so to lose to someone who has been created better by wonky balance.
Azreal13 wrote: No, I disagree, there's a world of difference between winning by being better at deck building and winning by exploitation of poorly written rules. It's perfectly acceptable to lose to someone who is better at the game, it is markedly less so to lose to someone who has been created better by wonky balance.
But the point is that there's the same "casual at all costs" attitude as in 40k, where people whine endlessly about how something is "overpowered" because it beat them and add all kinds of unwritten rules about what "cheese" you're not supposed to use. The only difference between MTG and 40k is that the "casual at all costs" crowd is a lot less common in MTG, and a lot easier to avoid.
Peregrine wrote: But that's not really where "casual at all costs" behavior comes in. A relatively balanced game might have 60/40 odds for a game between a competitive player and a "fluff" player, but the "fluff" player is probably still going to enjoy the game and not worry too much about the fact that they're at a disadvantage. But when, as in 40k, you have odds that are more like "why did I even bother unpacking my army" people start to get frustrated with the fact that they can't play their army the way they want to and still have a decent chance of winning. And that gives the "casual at all costs" attitude an opportunity to exist as people look for someone else to blame for their frustration.
Really? You mentioned M:tG earlier, and my experience with that had always been that games were so swift, most people didn't get too horked about losing.
In games like Highlander or Fuzzy Heroes, I get my fanny handed to me on a regular basis. In these two game systems (and Magic, at least back when I played) the competitive builds/minis/decks trounced the fun/friendly ones four out of five times. But the games (or reset time, in the case of FH) were so fast that it didn't really leave a lot of time for sore feelings.
AlexHolker wrote: To get rid of TFG/WAAC, you need a ruleset sufficiently well designed that the armies and strategies you want people to play are also the best armies and strategies. A fun army, a fluffy army and a competitive army should all be one and the same. Do that, and it doesn't matter whether you're a fluff bunny or a competitive gamer, you'll still have an effective army.
What, like chess or Risk? The second you move past identical armies for each player, people are going to figure out ways to optimize their armies and play styles. These competitive players will defeat most casual players in games. I literally cannot think of a game where this isn't so.
No, a game where the developer bothered to do the optimisation first, and made sure that the right armies and play styles came out on top. For example, the rules for Warhammer 40,000 should be such that a Space Marine player trying to optimise their army would discover a Battle Company (60 Tactical / 20 Assault / 20 Devastator, plus transports and command) is already a top tier army.
I see what you're saying, at least in regards to fluff. However, I think a lot of players, myself included, find the greatest joy in trying to come up with a combination that is still competitive without being the one optimal build. When it comes to games where there's only one 'best' way to build, I think of World of Warcraft and realize that 40k could get a lot worse. Multiple options for success seem like they would be more fun than a single path to the top.
Still, I can definitely see how it would be more fun for fluff-oriented players to have fluffy builds also be competitive, by design. That should always be a priority for game designers.
Jimsolo wrote: Really? You mentioned M:tG earlier, and my experience with that had always been that games were so swift, most people didn't get too horked about losing.
Most people don't, which is why I said that the "casual at all costs" element is much smaller than in 40k. But you still have people who whine endlessly about "cheese" and "TFG netdecks" every time they encounter someone who doesn't comply with their self-imposed deckbuilding limits or cares more about winning than they do.
Jimsolo wrote: Really? You mentioned M:tG earlier, and my experience with that had always been that games were so swift, most people didn't get too horked about losing.
Most people don't, which is why I said that the "casual at all costs" element is much smaller than in 40k. But you still have people who whine endlessly about "cheese" and "TFG netdecks" every time they encounter someone who doesn't comply with their self-imposed deckbuilding limits or cares more about winning than they do.
Seems reasonable. Do you think the quickness of the games contributes to this? It seems like reducing the casual-at-all-costs hostility so that casual and competitive players can get along would be a big improvement to 40k. I'm feel like I'm walking on eggshells around casual players just to be welcome in my clubs.
Jimsolo wrote: Really? You mentioned M:tG earlier, and my experience with that had always been that games were so swift, most people didn't get too horked about losing.
Most people don't, which is why I said that the "casual at all costs" element is much smaller than in 40k. But you still have people who whine endlessly about "cheese" and "TFG netdecks" every time they encounter someone who doesn't comply with their self-imposed deckbuilding limits or cares more about winning than they do.
The interesting thing i've noticed about "casual at all costs" players is they tend to be a form of "win at all costs" players. Only they want others to follow their specific version of the rules (list building) when it comes to playing a game.
Peregrine wrote:But the point is that there's the same "casual at all costs" attitude as in 40k, where people whine endlessly about how something is "overpowered" because it beat them and add all kinds of unwritten rules about what "cheese" you're not supposed to use. The only difference between MTG and 40k is that the "casual at all costs" crowd is a lot less common in MTG, and a lot easier to avoid.
MTG keeps track of the most broken combinations and usually seek to correct this, e.g., by limiting the number, say, of x card-type that you can put in a deck (only one dark ritual, for example). No?
Traditio wrote: MTG keeps track of the most broken combinations and usually seek to correct this, e.g., by limiting the number, say, of x card-type that you can put in a deck (only one dark ritual, for example). No?
Yes, and that's one reason why people like you* are a minority in MTG. Well, that and the fact that bluffing is a major element of MTG strategy. Kant probably wouldn't approve of you playing it.
Talizvar wrote:And before it gets all fun, and various "ethics of play" is bandied about: read about "scrubs" here:
I simply disagree with the article you link. The purpose of games is leisure/relaxation. I have a friend who will play a video game rpg, and at the end of every level, he'll spend 10 minutes "optimizing" his gear. Er...I thought we were playing a video game?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Peregrine wrote:Yes, and that's one reason why people like you* are a minority in MTG. Well, that and the fact that bluffing**** is a major element of MTG strategy. Kant probably wouldn't approve of you playing it.
I think the fact that they frequently have new "standard" editions helps things out, plus the fact that there are inherent limitations in what can be spammed. Only 4 cards of the same title (barring lands) per deck.
****Whatever you may mean by "bluff," by a "lie" I understand the verbal expression of what is contrary to what is on one's mind. I know, for example, that Santa Claus does not exist. I tell a small child, however, that Santa Claus does exist (even though I know he doesn't). That is a lie.
I can't think of any situation in which I'd have to lie in Magic the Gathering.
As a professor I know often says regarding the matter:
You always must tell the truth. However, you don't always have to tell the truth."
Jimsolo wrote: Do you think the quickness of the games contributes to this?
Not really. The game itself is fast, but there's still the investment of building your deck. I think the biggest factor is just that MTG is a better game and there are fewer people who feel the need to wall off their personal variant of it and declare everything else to be Having Fun The Wrong Way.
Peregrine wrote:Not really. The game itself is fast, but there's still the investment of building your deck. I think the biggest factor is just that MTG is a better game and there are fewer people who feel the need to wall off their personal variant of it and declare everything else to be Having Fun The Wrong Way.
Plus, and I really think this is true, the fact that MTG forces deck variety. You can only have 4 of the same card (apart from lands) in your deck. They pretty much force players to customize and play different kinds of things. If a player says that he's playing red, even if I know all of the cards in the current edition, I still have no clue what cards are in his deck. If a "competitive" player tells me that he's playing Tau, I already know that I'm going to be facing riptide and broadside spam.
Traditio wrote: I have a friend who will play a video game rpg, and at the end of every level, he'll spend 10 minutes "optimizing" his gear. Er...I thought we were playing a video game?
And yet again you don't understand the concept of other people having fun doing things that you don't enjoy. For your friend that optimization is leisure/relaxation.
I can't think of any situation in which I'd have to lie in Magic the Gathering.
Then you aren't thinking very hard.
As a professor I know often says regarding the matter:
You always must tell the truth. However, you don't always have to tell the truth."
And that's a really stupid concept that fails utterly in real life. I really hope this isn't a philosophy professor telling you this in class.
Any attempt to deceive is a lie, Traditio. Leading someone to believe something which is not true (whether by word, action, implication, or omission) is lying.
Most games of competition (including 40k and Magic: the Gathering) involve deceit or obfuscation as to one's true motive or capabilities. This is a form of lying.
Traditio wrote: They pretty much force players to customize and play different kinds of things.
No it doesn't. Netdecking exists in MTG just like netlisting does in 40k.
If a player says that he's playing red, even if I know all of the cards in the current edition, I still have no clue what cards are in his deck.
Only if they're a "casual" player who deliberately avoids playing the best stuff and/or you don't pay enough attention to MTG strategy to learn the popular decks. If they're a competitive player you can guess the entire contents of their deck from little more than "red aggro", with maybe a few slight customizations (usually less than five cards) for the local metagame.
Jimsolo wrote: Do you think the quickness of the games contributes to this?
Not really. The game itself is fast, but there's still the investment of building your deck. I think the biggest factor is just that MTG is a better game and there are fewer people who feel the need to wall off their personal variant of it and declare everything else to be Having Fun The Wrong Way.
But what makes it a better game, specifically, I guess is what I'm driving at?
Peregrine wrote:And yet again you don't understand the concept of other people having fun doing things that you don't enjoy. For your friend that optimization is leisure/relaxation.
Oh, I'm quite sure that he's having fun. It simply doesn't make sense to me. The game (let us suppose) is about cutting goblins in half. Can't you fiddle with your equipment later?
Then you aren't thinking very hard.
Give me a concrete instance. What do you have in mind?
And that's a really stupid concept that fails utterly in real life. I really hope this isn't a philosophy professor telling you this in class.
He's a Thomist (someone who subscribes to the philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas).
Jimsolo wrote: But what makes it a better game, specifically, I guess is what I'm driving at?
Much better balance so that there are fewer situations where a fan of a particular deck/card feels like the only way they can have a decent chance of winning with that deck/card is to exclude the more powerful alternatives, and much better rule clarity so that the entire RAW/RAI argument is removed. Also, it's not really a case of better vs. worse, but the release cycle gets people used to the idea of changing their decks constantly instead of becoming attached to one specific decklist and having to protect their ability to play it successfully.
Peregrine wrote:No it doesn't. Netdecking exists in MTG just like netlisting does in 40k.
In practice, though, it's really not as common, is it? I mean, even the "competitive" players I know don't use net decks. Even the one player I'm friends with who actually does have this bizarre competitive mindset...he thinks up his own combinations.
Only if they're a "casual" player who deliberately avoids playing the best stuff and/or you don't pay enough attention to MTG strategy to learn the popular decks. If they're a competitive player you can guess the entire contents of their deck from little more than "red aggro", with maybe a few slight customizations (usually less than five cards) for the local metagame.
Really? I was under the impression that there was much more customization in Magic. Especially given the fact that, unless you're purchasing everything off the net, your cardpool is coming either from 1. premade decks or 2. random packs of cards.
Traditio wrote: Oh, I'm quite sure that he's having fun. It simply doesn't make sense to me. The game (let us suppose) is about cutting goblins in half. Can't you fiddle with your equipment later?
Why does it matter?
Give me a concrete instance. What do you have in mind?
*I draw a card*
"Well, that sucks, go ahead and kill me. Your turn."
*you attack with everything*
*I cast "destroy all attacking creatures"*
"Oops, I guess you lose now."
He's a Thomist (someone who subscribes to the philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas).
Well that's disappointing. I'm really surprised that someone would hire a professor with such obviously absurd beliefs in their professional field. That's like hiring a young-earth creationist to teach biology, or a geocentrist to teach physics.
Jimsolo wrote: Any attempt to deceive is a lie, Traditio. Leading someone to believe something which is not true (whether by word, action, implication, or omission) is lying.
Most games of competition (including 40k and Magic: the Gathering) involve deceit or obfuscation as to one's true motive or capabilities. This is a form of lying.
All lying is deception, but not all deception is lying. To lie is to try to deceive someone by telling him something that you know isn't true. That is what I mean by "lie." I think "x," but I say not "x."
Dissimulation covers other forms of deception. For example, I can say something true but ambiguous, in hopes that my interlocutor will misunderstand me. An example of this is one of the early Christian saints. The authorities, who were persecuting Christians, are chasing him down, and he's on a boat. They don't recognize him, and they ask him if he knows where so and so is. His answer? "He's not far!" Note, what he said is perfectly true...but he wanted the Romans to keep on walking, right?
That's not a lie.
Problems with dissimulation arise, however, when, for example, you have an obligation to tell the truth. If you dissimulate to your confessor, you're committing sacrilege.
Lying is intrinsically evil. Dissimulation can be justified at least in some circumstances.
Yeah, I'm no good at the bluffing game, but I don't see bluffing as
a negative thing to have in a game. I just prefer open information
type stuff. (Using tokens to hide characters, for example, drives
me nuts. Fanatics? Ugh).
Traditio wrote: In practice, though, it's really not as common, is it?
It's incredibly common, and the default in tournaments. The internet enabled such fast and effective playtesting that the best decks for the metagame are quickly discovered and optimized, and once that's done why play anything else? Occasionally someone will come up with a new idea, hide it carefully until the right tournament, and win, but their ideas will be copied and incorporated into the metagame by the next major event. Outside of that modifying decks for your own use is limited to making minor changes for a local metagame.
Really? I was under the impression that there was much more customization in Magic.
There is. It just happens in the first few days after a new set is released. Sure, once people have figured everything out you can still customize your decks, but you're almost always making it weaker.
Especially given the fact that, unless you're purchasing everything off the net, your cardpool is coming either from 1. premade decks or 2. random packs of cards.
It's 2015 and internet shopping exists. There might be occasional people who don't buy cards online (other than newbies just starting the game), but they're a tiny minority. Really the only reason to buy random packs is to play sealed/draft, and premade decks are almost always a waste of money.
It's cutting into the ork-killing fun time...which, again, let us suppose, is what the game is about.
*I draw a card*
"Well, that sucks, go ahead and kill me. Your turn."
*you attack with everything*
*I cast "destroy all attacking creatures"*
"Oops, I guess you lose now."
Whether or not what you said is a lie, it's not necessary for you to have said it. It's possible to play Magic the Gathering predominately in silence.
Well that's disappointing. I'm really surprised that someone would hire a professor with such obviously absurd beliefs in their professional field. That's like hiring a young-earth creationist to teach biology, or a geocentrist to teach physics.
1. It's a Catholic university.
2. Are you an expert in philosophy, that you are so quick to dismiss St. Thomas, especially in light of:
3. Aeterni Patris, in which Pope Leo XIII pretty much officially endorsed St. Thomas Aquinas' philosophy?
It's also a really bad example because it implies an obligation to tell the truth to people who are trying to persecute you. That's an absolutely insane belief to hold, and one that has absolutely no relevance in real-world scenarios. And it's an example of the kind of thing that makes people think philosophy contributes nothing to the world.
Lying, however, is intrinsically evil.
And I see we're back to discussing your absurd philosophical beliefs. Remember the example of lying to a child to surprise them with a birthday party?
Some people prefer to build up characters/armies/etc. You probably
spend more time actually killing orks than you do watching him
crunch numbers. Leave him be.
Peregrine wrote:It's also a really bad example because it implies an obligation to tell the truth to people who are trying to persecute you.
As I said: there's no such obligation. As I quoted earlier: you always must tell the truth. In other words, if you open your mouth to talk, what you say had better be true. But you don't have to open your mouth in the first place. You can remain silent.
And I see we're back to discussing your absurd philosophical beliefs. Remember the example of lying to a child to surprise them with a birthday party?
Yes, I recall that in the other thread. He wasn't telling the child that he and his wife were showing up, right? Again, that's not a lie. There's no such obligation to tell the child. However, if the child were to ask, "No, we aren't coming to your party" is not an acceptable answer. "We have plans," however, would be perfectly acceptable. Dissimulation is fine.
Traditio wrote: It's cutting into the ork-killing fun time...which, again, let us suppose, is what the game is about.
What it is about for you. Apparently for your friend the game is about gear optimization.
Whether or not what you said is a lie, it's not necessary for you to have said it. It's possible to play Magic the Gathering predominately in silence.
It's also possible to play MTG without ever playing any lands or casting any spells. Why you would want to remove huge parts of the game like that, I have no idea.
1. It's a Catholic university.
That explains a lot.
3. Aeterni Patris, in which Pope Leo XIII pretty much officially endorsed St. Thomas Aquinas' philosophy?
Why should I care what some random guy in a fancy hat has to say? His opinion on morality is no more relevant than mine, and his endorsement of something has absolutely no value to me.
Traditio wrote: In other words, if you open your mouth to talk, what you say had better be true.
And, again, in the real world this is clearly wrong. If someone says "I'm going to murder your friend, tell me where they are or I'll kill you" then you have no obligation to tell the truth or to sacrifice your own life to avoid lying. You can tell them a lie with a clear conscience.
malfred wrote: So...what does the lying have to do with the original topic?
Peregrine brought it up in the second to last post of the first page. He insinuated that I can't play Magic the Gathering because it is necessary to bluff, and by this, he insinuated that it is necessary to tell lies in order to play magic the gathering. I was simply pointing out that this isn't true.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Peregrine wrote:And, again, in the real world this is clearly wrong. If someone says "I'm going to murder your friend, tell me where they are or I'll kill you" then you have no obligation to tell the truth or to sacrifice your own life to avoid lying. You can tell them a lie with a clear conscience.
In concreto, it's not necessary. You are perfectly free to dissimulate. "You might find him at such and such a place. [In point of fact, you certainly won't find him there. But it's possible that you might have, if only he had been there! ] And where the only alternatives are 1. committing a moral wrong or 2. dying, it is always better to suffer evil than to do it.
malfred wrote: So...what does the lying have to do with the original topic?
Traditio's belief is that lying and and "exploiting" bad rules are moral crimes regardless of the circumstances, so things like playing with overpowered units (at least without voluntarily increasing their point costs to a level that he considers appropriate) are automatically TFG behavior even if both players are having fun doing it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Traditio wrote: In concreto, it's not necessary. You are perfectly free to dissimulate. "You might find him at such and such a place. [In point of fact, you certainly won't find him there. But it's possible that you might have, if only he had been there! ] And where the only alternatives are 1. committing a moral wrong or 2. dying, it is always better to suffer evil than to do it.
Ok, so instead of saying "it's ok to lie to a murderer to prevent them from murdering someone" you have to resort to a RAW argument where you didn't technically lie according to the most literal interpretation of your words? This is why Kant's moral philosophy is a joke.
(And really, it's better to die than to lie to a murderer to save your friend? Lol.)
Peregrine wrote:Ok, so instead of saying "it's ok to lie to a murderer to prevent them from murdering someone" you have to resort to a RAW argument where you didn't technically lie according to the most literal interpretation of your words? This is why Kant's moral philosophy is a joke.
There's a huge difference. In the one case, you committed an intrinsic moral evil. You told a lie. In the other case, you told the truth. Not a truth, perhaps, that the murderer is particularly interested in (I mean, you could tell him a billion places in which he may find your friend; for every contingent proposition, "possibly A" is a true statement). Still. You told the truth.
In fact, if you have a scrupulous conscience, you need not even speak in propositions. Ask him questions:
"Have you checked at x place [where I know that you won't find my friend]?" "How about y place [where I know for a fact that you'll never find my friend]?"
Questions don't even have a truth value!
Anyway, it's not just Kant. As much as even some Thomists will disagree about this, St. Thomas is pretty black and white on the subject. So is St. Augustine and a large number of Church Fathers and doctors.
(And really, it's better to die than to lie to a murderer to save your friend? Lol.)
In one case, something bad happens to you. In the other case, you do something bad and make yourself worse thereby.
As early as Plato, this truth found clear expression: it is better to suffer evil than to commit evil.
Traditio wrote: There's a huge difference. In the one case, you committed an intrinsic moral evil. You told a lie. In the other case, you told the truth. Not a truth, perhaps, that the murderer is particularly interested in (I mean, you could tell him a billion places in which he may find your friend; for every contingent proposition, "possibly A" is a true statement). Still. You told the truth.
This is all just RAW nitpicking. You told the truth RAW, but RAI you lied. You know perfectly well that when a person says "{person} may be in {place}" that it means "that's my best guess, but I'm not sure". And in fact you're counting on that understanding to mislead the murderer. So you communicated incorrect information that you knew was incorrect, regardless of the precise words you used to do it.
(Of course this isn't a problem at all for any sensible system of morality because it's obvious that the consequences of lying are good, while the consequences of telling the truth are bad. You just tell a lie without having to do all of this rules lawyering to justify it.)
Anyway, it's not just Kant. As much as even some Thomists will disagree about this, St. Thomas is pretty black and white on the subject. So is St. Augustine and a large number of Church Fathers and doctors.
And this is one of many reasons why I'm glad I'm an atheist. I can throw nonsense philosophy in the trash can where it belongs, and I don't have to pretend to respect the people who wrote it.
In the other case, you do something bad and make yourself worse thereby.
Only if you are obsessed with the purity of actions instead of the consequences of those actions. I'd feel pretty good about myself and be confident that I did good and made myself better by telling a lie to the murderer.
Peregrine, if you wish to pursue the matter at greater length, I can certainly do this. Feel free either to create a thread on the topic in the relevent forum, or else, PM me. However, I really don't want to drag this particular thread further off topic.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Peregrine wrote:Much better balance so that there are fewer situations where a fan of a particular deck/card feels like the only way they can have a decent chance of winning with that deck/card is to exclude the more powerful alternatives, and much better rule clarity so that the entire RAW/RAI argument is removed. Also, it's not really a case of better vs. worse, but the release cycle gets people used to the idea of changing their decks constantly instead of becoming attached to one specific decklist and having to protect their ability to play it successfully.
Another, on topic, observation: A magic deck doesn't require an investment in the vicinity of hundreds of dollars. And once you understand the rules, you don't have to keep buying new rule books.
So, yeah. When someone tells you that your deck sucks, your response is: "Oh, boo. I paid like 20 bucks for this."
If someone tells you that your warhammer army sucks...
Peregrine wrote:You must not play MTG if you think this is true.
I have like 5-7 old decks (I'm not really into the game any more). My favorite is an old pestilence deck. Basically, pestilence + urza's armor + cemetary gates is the primary win condition. I'm pretty sure that it's not a hundred dollar deck.
Traditio wrote: I'm pretty sure that it's not a hundred dollar deck.
Nor is it a very good deck (and it wasn't when you made it). Realistically if you want to play competitive MTG you're going to spend at least $1-200 per deck, though if you're good at anticipating the metagame and market trends you can recover some of that investment by selling a deck while it's popular and moving on to the next winning strategy. If you want to play vintage or legacy you're going to be spending thousands of dollars up front, though your ongoing expenses to maintain a deck will be fairly small. And even "casual" decks can get pretty expensive unless everyone in the group agrees to have a limited budget.
Actually, now that I think of it, I think that's basically what's wrong with "competitive" players. A "competitive" player is going to try to shut his opponent down. He's going to try to prevent his opponent from playing.
The street fighter player who spams throws, or the fighter-game player who keeps bouncing his opponent against the wall ad infinitum...he's the only one playing that game. There's nothing fun about watching your opponent play the game while you sit there basically twiddling your thumbs.
There's nothing fun about a game in which your opponent counters all of your spells, makes you sacrifice all of your lands, etc.
There's nothing fun about a game of warhammer in which your opponent only uses fliers, and I have no effective anti air.
You don't want me to cry OP or cheese? Then let me play the game. Don't turn it into a game in which I am basically just sitting in my chair twiddling my thumbs. I'm not saying "let me win." I'm simply saying: "Don't set out to play the game in such a way that you're the only one playing." That's all. Otherwise, I'm just engaging in an extravagent waste of my time. And...for what? For you to have the great and amazing honor of saying: "I win"? Really? Is my time worth so little?
Traditio wrote: Actually, now that I think of it, I think that's basically what's wrong with "competitive" players. A "competitive" player is going to try to shut his opponent down. He's going to try to prevent his opponent from playing.
Unless the other player is equally competitive, in which case neither of them is shut down.
The street fighter player who spams throws, or the fighter-game player who keeps bouncing his opponent against the wall ad infinitum...he's the only one playing that game. There's nothing fun about watching your opponent play the game while you sit there basically twiddling your thumbs.
Then get better at the game and fight back. And read http://www.sirlin.net/ptw/ for why this "cheese" is only "cheese" if you're a newbie who never tries to improve your fighting game skills.
There's nothing fun about a game in which your opponent counters all of your spells, makes you sacrifice all of your lands, etc.
Then get better at the game and fight back. Neither counterspell nor land destruction decks are unbeatable. If you're losing constantly to them you're probably either playing a weak deck or haven't learned things like how to bluff a spell through an opponent's counterspells.
There's nothing fun about a game of warhammer in which your opponent only uses fliers, and I have no effective anti air.
Then bring AA.
You don't want me to cry OP or cheese? Then let me play the game.
Alternatively, get better at the game and force me to let you play instead of crying about cheese.
And, furthermore, there is a reason that video games are called video games. They are a spectacle. There's nothing really spectular about watching you spam throws. There's nothing spectacular about watching you waste 10 minutes scrolling through your items list and trying to determine which sword you want to equip to your character.
Traditio wrote: And, furthermore, there is a reason that video games are called video games. They are a spectacle. There's nothing really spectular about watching you spam throws. There's nothing spectacular about watching you waste 10 minutes scrolling through your items list and trying to determine which sword you want to equip to your character.
And yet again you don't understand that other people enjoy different things about games. This is all just your personal preference, nothing more. You like the spectacle, some people prefer analyzing sword stats. So please stop presenting your subjective opinions as some kind of objective truth about gaming.
Peregrine wrote:Unless the other player is equally competitive, in which case neither of them is shut down.
Except, we're playing a game. Why would you intentionally set out to play a game in which your opponent isn't playing at all? That doesn't make sense. "But I want to win!" Sure. But that's not all that there is to a game. There's also...you know...the playing involved. That's kind of what games involve. Games are played.
Then get better at the game and fight back. And read http://www.sirlin.net/ptw/ for why this "cheese" is only "cheese" if you're a newbie who never tries to improve your fighting game skills.
I got pretty good at Dragon Ball Z budokai tenkaichi 3. My favorite character was majin vegeta. Basically, I would do some serious melee with that guy and would do some truly spectacular and extended attack chains. One day, my opponent is like: "Y'know, I can stop this." We each play 3 characters or whatever, maybe 5. I forgot. His selection? Robotic Cooler. Times 5. He spams a dash move. Basically, every time I stand up, I find myself caught in a cut scene.
"Really?"
"Yup."
Then get better at the game and fight back. Neither counterspell nor land destruction decks are unbeatable. If you're losing constantly to them you're probably either playing a weak deck or haven't learned things like how to bluff a spell through an opponent's counterspells.
The fact that you would play like that in the first place just strikes me as odd. Basically, the casual player says: "Here is what I want to do." The "competitive" player says: "Here's what I don't want my opponent to do. I want him to sit in his chair and twiddle his thumbs."
I am not amused. For one, my time is worth more than that, and if that's what you're (and not you in particular, of course, but the competitive player in general) going for, then frankly, I just think that you're (and again, I don't mean you in particular) pathetic. The fact that that is your idea of fun..."Hey, let's play a game!" "Ok...what's the goal?" "For you to sit there and do nothing while I laugh at you." "Oh...well feth you too, then. Go find a magnifying glass and some ants, creep. Or a therapist. "
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Peregrine wrote:And yet again you don't understand that other people enjoy different things about games. This is all just your personal preference, nothing more. You like the spectacle, some people prefer analyzing sword stats. So please stop presenting your subjective opinions as some kind of objective truth about gaming.
Then why is it a video game? Wouldn't the competitive player be better off doing math problems for fun?
Traditio wrote: Why would you intentionally set out to play a game in which your opponent isn't playing at all?
Because in non-40k games this nightmare scenario only applies when one player has a major skill advantage over the other. For example, in MTG a game against a counterspell deck involves things like playing a aggressive opening to win the game before the counterspell deck can get its defenses up, bluffing with weaker spells to draw a counter and leave an opening for your real threat, etc. It only consists of "can I cast this? Nope" over and over again if the non-counterspell player doesn't have the skill or experience required to play effectively. But when both players are at the same skill level the counterspell deck is an interesting matchup where both players are playing the game on multiple levels, even though one of them has cards that mostly consist of "you can't do that".
Since you don't understand this I'm going to guess that you never played MTG seriously enough to learn things like anti-counterspell strategy, or labeled them "cheese" immediately and excluded them from your group instead of learning their strengths and weaknesses.
I got pretty good at Dragon Ball Z budokai tenkaichi 3. My favorite character was majin vegeta. Basically, I would do some serious melee with that guy and would do some truly spectacular and extended attack chains. One day, my opponent is like: "Y'know, I can stop this." We each play 3 characters or whatever, maybe 5. I forgot. His selection? Robotic Cooler. Times 5. He spams a dash move. Basically, every time I stand up, I find myself caught in a cut scene.
"Really?"
"Yup."
So let me get this straight: this attack is unbeatable, and there is nothing you could have done to stop it? Is the game really that broken, or did you just give up in frustration because your "spectacular attack chain" didn't work?
PS: the goal of the game is to win, not to perform the most spectacular attack.
The fact that you would play like that in the first place just strikes me as odd. Basically, the casual player says: "Here is what I want to do." The "competitive" player says: "Here's what I don't want my opponent to do. I want him to sit in his chair and twiddle his thumbs."
The whole point of MTG is to tell your opponent that they can't do anything by killing them and winning the game. If you play a creature I play a creature kill spell, beat it in combat with my own creature, etc. If you play a spell to kill my creature I counter it. If you bring land destruction I bring a deck with low casting costs that can overwhelm you before you can destroy enough of my lands, denying you the ability to do your thing.
And really, I don't know why you're assuming that one player just passively accepts that they can't do anything instead of saying " you, I get to play my spells" and winning the game despite the counter-strategy. If you're sitting in your chair twiddling your thumbs instead of playing the game then honestly, it's your fault for not bothering to learn how to play the game better.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Traditio wrote: Then why is it a video game? Wouldn't the competitive player be better off doing math problems for fun?
I don't know, ask your friend why they enjoy optimizing gear so much. But please stop acting like your preferences are the One True Way To Play Games.
I don't see why some people can't see that being utterly destroyed is not fun and that some people just want to go and play a game for fun without being deeply involved in hours of detailed analasys of the maths, optimising lists and decks, concentrating several turns ahead. It is not something unique to 40k or to imbalanced games. It happens in boardgames too, and in card games and many other areas:
I know someone who plays poker at a competitive level. When he plays a "pro" (he is not a pro, but dose play against them) level he concentrates on every card, watches the other players, learns what he can about them before every game etc. If he played like this with friends he would destroy them, win every time and they would not play with him. Instead with friends he has a few beers, a chat, and just has a laugh. Yes, he normally comes out on top because he is automatically making better choices and picking up on things, but he dose not make them feel like they should just have handed him a tenner and gone home, and this is playing for money.
It's the same with 40k and MTG. No one should have a problem playing against a better player. The issue is not people being good, but bringing nasty lists or decks and exploring every little thing. Dial it back. I know someone else who played MTG in tournaments in the past. When he plays friends he does not bring the nasty decks that he knows will, for example, shut down an unsuspecting player and mean they feel impotent. I also know a guy who spends hours optimising 40k lists for every game night, Brings multiple tailord lists based on who he is playing and what they are likely to put on the table. He struggles to find a game and does not understand why despite people telling him time and again he is no fun to play against. It's not about the sore loosers, which there are some, but about people's expectations of how seriously a particular game is going to be played, be that MTG, 40K, poker or playing monopoly against your family at Christmas.
The issue seems to be to me an attitude of some people saying "well, the aim is to win" and "they should learn to play better". That's just justifying their behaviour. If one person is not having fun their is an issue. It could be that person is a sore looser, but if your going in to every game with the attitude of optimisation then it's probably not.
Peregrine wrote:Because in non-40k games this nightmare scenario only applies when one player has a major skill advantage over the other.
Be that as it may, that's what the competitive player is going for. You call it a "nightmare scenario." It's not a nightmare scenario for the competitive player. That's his dream scenario. That's what he specifically was going for.
I just think there's something wrong with that. Considered from that perspective, it just strikes me as sociopathic.
For example, in MTG a game against a counterspell deck involves things like playing a aggressive opening to win the game before the counterspell deck can get its defenses up, bluffing with weaker spells to draw a counter and leave an opening for your real threat, etc. It only consists of "can I cast this? Nope" over and over again if the non-counterspell player doesn't have the skill or experience required to play effectively. But when both players are at the same skill level the counterspell deck is an interesting matchup where both players are playing the game on multiple levels, even though one of them has cards that mostly consist of "you can't do that".
Seriously. It's a game. Why would you do that? Casual player: "Alright, we can play magic the gathering now!" Competitive player: "No you can't! Not with my deck. I'm going to do my best to make sure of that!" "But you just asked me if I wanted to play MTG..." "Yup!" "O...k.... "
Since you don't understand this I'm going to guess that you never played MTG seriously enough to learn things like anti-counterspell strategy, or labeled them "cheese" immediately and excluded them from your group instead of learning their strengths and weaknesses.
"Seriously"? I mean, I played MTG for a while. I was never really big on tournaments or anything, but it was a game that I played fairly regularly. I have like 5-7 decks from my high school years.
So let me get this straight: this attack is unbeatable, and there is nothing you could have done to stop it? Is the game really that broken, or did you just give up in frustration because your "spectacular attack chain" didn't work?
It turned into a chain of: Dash. Cut scene. Stand up. Dash. Cut scene. Stand up.
I don't remember whether or not there was a way out of it. But frankly, I don't care. I was getting caught in a cut scene everytime I got up from the last cut scene. There's nothing fun or interesting about that.
PS: the goal of the game is to win, not to perform the most spectacular attack.
Only if you're the kind of guy that likes to fry ants with magnifying glasses. I participate in games to play them. I may beat this level in Judge Dredd vs. Death by killing everyone instead of arresting them. But dang it, that's just not how you play Judge Dredd! You shoot the gun out of their hands and arrest them. All of them! Oh, here's a room full of thugs? Sure, I could take out my law rod and shoot them all into bits. Or I could throw a smoke grenade and arrest them, because that is more consistent with what Judge Dredd would do.
The whole point of MTG is to tell your opponent that they can't do anything by killing them and winning the game.
That's how the competitive player sees things. I just think this just displays serious problems with that player's mentality. "The goal of playing this game is to end it as quickly and painlessly (for me, anyway) as possible, and then relish in the glory of having burned ants with this magnifying glass." Uh...really?
Steve steveson wrote: The issue is not people being good, but bringing nasty lists or decks and exploring every little thing. Dial it back.
Why is it that the "competitive" player has the obligation to "dial it back" instead of the "casual" player having an obligation to improve their skills and compete at a higher level?
Steve steveson wrote: The issue is not people being good, but bringing nasty lists or decks and exploring every little thing. Dial it back.
Why is it that the "competitive" player has the obligation to "dial it back" instead of the "casual" player having an obligation to improve their skills and compete at a higher level?
I think it boils down to what I said earlier.
If your idea of me improving my skills and competing at a higher level is no longer playing the game, but rather preventing you from playing the game, then there's something wrong with that. I don't want to play a game in which we're doing our worst to prevent each other from playing. That makes zero sense.
And really, aren't there more time-effective ways of preventing your opponent from playing/winning the game? All you have to do is not ask him to play in the first place! He doesn't get to play. And you save a ton of time both for you and for him! I count that as a win!
But of course, you don't get to waste your opponent's time...so that's a win for him too, I suppose, and that's not really what the competitive player is after.
Play against someone who feels exactly the same way about the game as you do, wants the same thing from it. Simples! As the Meerkat says.
I once played in a doubles game of Infinity where one of my opponents made the statement "I want to blow up that man in the goat suit with this missile launcher." His partner could just not get his around why someone would want to do something like that, it had absolutely no tactical value and was a waste of a use of a powerful weapon. His colleague's answer was "how many opportunities am I ever going to get, in my life, to blow up a man in a goat suit with a missile launcher?"
You've got to both want the same thing from a game. If you don't, and the rules allow you to diverge significantly in terms of how you play (and I guess there is a lot more room for disparity with this in some games) then the chances are it's not going to be fun for either player. Unless you are that guy who wrote "I want to see my enemies driven before me, taste their tears" without the hint of any irony. Impose your own personal restriction order of 50 yards in those cases!
Pacific wrote: Play against someone who feels exactly the same way about the game as you do, wants the same thing from it. Simples! As the Meerkat says.
I once played in a doubles game of Infinity where one of my opponents made the statement "I want to blow up that man in the goat suit with this missile launcher." His partner could just not get his around why someone would want to do something like that, it had absolutely no tactical value and was a waste of a use of a powerful weapon. His colleague's answer was "how many opportunities am I ever going to get, in my life, to blow up a man in a goat suit with a missile launcher?"
I was just, a few hours earlier, playing a sniper game...in which my predominate goal was to ignore my sniper rifle as much as possible and shoot people with my side arm. They have assault rifles? Oh yeah? Well I gots this hand gun!
Traditio wrote: Be that as it may, that's what the competitive player is going for. You call it a "nightmare scenario." It's not a nightmare scenario for the competitive player. That's his dream scenario. That's what he specifically was going for.
No, you just have a rather poor understanding of MTG strategy. The competitive player isn't aiming for a one-sided "game" where their opponent can't do anything, they're expecting their opponent to bring a deck that is capable of fighting back against the counterspells and have a game of subtle move vs. counter-move, bluffing, etc. It's a nightmare scenario because it only happens when there's a huge skill mismatch, the better player doesn't anticipate it, and the weaker player is completely overwhelmed.
Seriously. It's a game. Why would you do that? Casual player: "Alright, we can play magic the gathering now!" Competitive player: "No you can't! Not with my deck. I'm going to do my best to make sure of that!" "But you just asked me if I wanted to play MTG..." "Yup!" "O...k.... "
Oh FFS, cards that say "you can't do that" are a fundamental part of MTG. Creatures are killed by creature removal spells. Spells are countered by counterspells. Etc. If your deck is so fragile that any attempt to attack it results in it being completely shut down and removing all fun from the game then the problem is your own lack of skill. But instead you're blaming the game and demanding that 90% of the game be removed so you can each play a game of solitaire and then talk about how awesome your deck was.
"Seriously"? I mean, I played MTG for a while.
Apparently not long enough to learn much strategy, because you're saying the exact same things that a lot of other inexperienced players have said.
I don't remember whether or not there was a way out of it. But frankly, I don't care. I was getting caught in a cut scene everytime I got up from the last cut scene. There's nothing fun or interesting about that.
Then find the counter to it. Don't just ragequit as soon as your opponent comes up with something that beats you, figure out how to beat it and win the game. Seriously, this article describes you perfectly (just don't take "scrub" as an insult): http://www.sirlin.net/ptw-book/introducingthe-scrub
Only if you're the kind of guy that likes to fry ants with magnifying glasses. I participate in games to play them. I may beat this level in Judge Dredd vs. Death by killing everyone instead of arresting them. But dang it, that's just not how you play Judge Dredd! You shoot the gun out of their hands and arrest them. All of them! Oh, here's a room full of thugs? Sure, I could take out my law rod and shoot them all into bits. Or I could throw a smoke grenade and arrest them, because that is more consistent with what Judge Dredd would do.
And there you are again, arrogantly telling everyone how your preferences in gaming are the One True Way To Play Games and everyone else is doing it wrong.
That's how the competitive player sees things.
No, it's how the game works. You win the game by destroying your opponent's stuff and dealing lethal damage to them. You don't play a game of solitaire where you cast a bunch of cool creatures and then talk about how awesome they are, which is apparently what you want to do.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Traditio wrote: If your idea of me improving my skills and competing at a higher level is no longer playing the game, but rather preventing you from playing the game, then there's something wrong with that. I don't want to play a game in which we're doing our worst to prevent each other from playing. That makes zero sense.
So then how do you play a game like MTG? Do you have an unwritten rule that you can never kill your opponent's creatures? Do you play a special version of 40k where you never destroy your opponent's units and remove their ability to play with them?
And let's not forget that your "not playing the game" idea is based on a newbie-level understanding of MTG. Those things that you call "not playing the game" actually involve a high level of skill and player interaction, even if you refused to learn enough about how the game works to see it. Sure, my opponent just countered my spell and "stopped me from playing the game", but that spell was actually a bluff and now that they used up their counterspell I just played my real threat and will win the game in a few turns. But I never would have figured out that kind of thing if I'd just ragequit as soon as my opponent played a counterspell.
Steve steveson wrote: The issue is not people being good, but bringing nasty lists or decks and exploring every little thing. Dial it back.
Why is it that the "competitive" player has the obligation to "dial it back" instead of the "casual" player having an obligation to improve their skills and compete at a higher level?
Because no one learns anything by being utterly destroyed. It's called pot hunting. It is frowned upon in professional sport too. The better player is much more able to play in a less agressive way than someone is to magicly learn to play better. It's like the sports teacher who thinks humiliating the kids who are bad at sports about their lack of skill gets them to want to play better when all it does is put those kids off. We are not talking about a better player out playing a worse player in a tournament here. We are talking about when people justify destroying someone as being "competitive". The "casual" player learns nothing. That's not fun for anyone.
Traditio wrote: Be that as it may, that's what the competitive player is going for. You call it a "nightmare scenario." It's not a nightmare scenario for the competitive player. That's his dream scenario. That's what he specifically was going for.
No, you just have a rather poor understanding of MTG strategy. The competitive player isn't aiming for a one-sided "game" where their opponent can't do anything, they're expecting their opponent to bring a deck that is capable of fighting back against the counterspells and have a game of subtle move vs. counter-move, bluffing, etc. It's a nightmare scenario because it only happens when there's a huge skill mismatch, the better player doesn't anticipate it, and the weaker player is completely overwhelmed.
I think we have some confusion here... Your now saying it only happens when there is this nightmare scenario, but that is exactly the scenario people have a problem with, except it is when the better player DOES anticipate it, and uses it to their advantage. That's where there is an issue, not where a better player wins or there is a lack of understanding.
In my opinion this is why 40k could do with more restrictions on list building.
3rd edition had the FOC, but since then list building has slowly become more and more lax. Losing the 0-1 limits on certain units, inclusion of allies and formations, superheavies, D weapons and unbound.
You see in my opinion once the dice start rolling everyone is playing to win, unless you are using the scatter dice to move your units, you are playing to the objective and trying to outsmart your opponent.
When I think about Necromunda I find you didn't get the WAAC problems, because list building (Gang creation) is largely the same for everyone.
My favorite games of 40K was when we used to play Combat Patrol all the time. And I think it was because of those restrictions on list building. I could build a list competitively, but the advantage it would give me was only slight, and meant games did not become forgone conclusions.
If only 40K could have some more restrictions on the list building again, bar house rules.
But we aren't just talking about newbies here, we're talking about the "casual at all costs" crowd that refuses to improve their lists/skills/etc because the competitive players are playing "the wrong way". Obviously you should tone things down if you're teaching a newbie, but that's a separate situation.
I think we have some confusion here... Your now saying it only happens when there is this nightmare scenario, but that is exactly the scenario people have a problem with, except it is when the better player DOES anticipate it, and uses it to their advantage. That's where there is an issue, not where a better player wins or there is a lack of understanding.
But how often is this really happening? Are there really that many "competitive" players who mercilessly crush helpless newbies because winning is all that matters? In my experience that's much rarer than the cases where the competitive player is expecting a competitive-style game and doesn't anticipate just how badly outmatched their opponent is.
One fix is to replay the match but switching sides.
Same army gets to go first in the 2nd game and deployment will be identical for forces (even if your opponent put his guys in a rough spot). Call it a historical refight or whatever but making it set piece and as near as possible identical conditions helps show if you win by rules wrangling or if you win because you actually are better at that specific game.
No winning the game because you figured out some CCG inspired combo list that breaks the thing. If you did bring that combo list, get ready to face it the next time---including any rulings on how your army's uber weapon can ignore cover or whatever else you lobbied for during the first game.
It's not a perfect solution but if taking eleventy Necron-Tau-Eldar-Wraith-King to crush your opponents is what you need, imagine the fun you'll have when you face them immediately after this game
HI folks.
I think if we are going to get anywhere in a objective discussion of the thread title we need to do a bit of clarifying and definition first.I will use my definitions, (to try to separate out game , game play, game play drivers etc.)If you know the proper definitions from game design please let me know.
The object of playing a game is to have fun, to have an enjoyable experience.We can all agree on this!
As people have fun in too many ways to list, there are about as many games invented by people as there are ways to have fun!
These games fall in to two basic types of game play.
Co-operative, where the players work together to achieve the same goal. Eg Save the world, survive an apocalypse, get the treasure from the dungeon,etc.
Competitive, where the players work against each other to achieve opposing goals.
This covers practically all war games I can think of.
Does every one agree with these two basic definitions of game play?
And do we agree that 40k has competitive game play?
Next we can look at the way the game play is driven.
Narrative games are all about the story or history of the event.
They are not concerned about a 'fair fight',(Very few historical battle of note were ever 'fair fights', and so the fictional scenarios people base them on are not 'balanced' either.)
Many players of narrative games swap sides to see if they can do better than their opponent did in the same scenario,
Victory conditions in these games are very narrative driven .(hence the description of narrative game.)
They are very rarely just about taking more ground, or killing more enemy then their opponent. And never have to use point values to achieve game balance, as these games do not have to be be that finely balanced.
Balanced games are all about seeing who would win in a fair contest.
These let players select elements up to a points total , within defined limitations.(Point value totals and using army/deck composition rules etc.)
This type of game play driver is ideal for random pick up games and tournament settings, and the only VALID reason to include point values .
Obviously you can used 'Balanced ' elements and put them in narrative scenarios.
(Knowing exactly how out numbered the heroes are in the last stand is not necessary .But it does not detract from the game play experience.)
So to answer the O.P.
As a player who wants to enjoy 'balanced' 'competitive game play'.Only play the rules that commit to support your preferred game play , and game play driver type.
EG clearly defined rules that are focused on resolving game play issues.
I am happy to find a player to push it to the max (within game rules!), socially acting badly lends no advantage to a game and pretty much guarantees no repeat games so being nice and civil is a reasonable and necessary part of play.
How can ruthlessness within a game not be construed as being how you are in real life? I feel they do not reflect one another.
Then, perhaps, the issue here is how you behave as you win? A lot of social interaction is empathy. If you stomp someone, try to empathise with them. I've seen a lot of people just be completely cold about it.
Other things include interacting with your opponent, not anyone else. That can be construed as rude. Yes, you may have just had an epic experience and you may want to go tell everyone about it...but wait til the game is done. Really, there are so many times that I've seen someone just run off and laugh, gloat, whatever and their opponent is still there, clearly unimpressed.
Really, to avoid being TFG you have to try to interact with your opponent and respect them. If you know they're less experienced than you are? Try to ease up on them a bit. Sure, defeat brings education but really, you need to teach them on the move. Give them offers, try to be polite and if they mess something up? Give them a chance to fix it. Don't try to lecture them, don't talk down to them and don't be particularly anal about one rule or another - particularly if a judge rules against you because your interpretation isn't the one they are going with.
The other way to look at this is how can we have a game, which both the casual player and the competative player both enjoy? The whole problem is that WAAC/competition play is not very compatible to casual play, Why don't both go and find other players who actually engage them in their chosen areas.
Gaming itself, for the casual player, is about the fun, about the spectacle, about not the conclusion, but the journey there. If you end up having your board wiped on turn 1 or turn 2 because you either cannot bring an optimal list,, cannot afford the army of the month, or you aren't a good strategist, shouldn't mean you have to essentially try and dial up your game, because thats just typically what a casual gamer doesn't want.
Essentially like the difference between plants vs zombies and Dark Souls in terms of difficulty. If I don't want to play dark souls, I won't. Find someone else to game with.
Talizvar wrote: I
Other than a good frank discussion with your potential opponent of the expectation of how the game will be played: how can you play to your very best and try to mitigate the risk of hurting someone's feelings over a game?
Respectfully, there is no other way. Whatever set of expectations you come up with on your own, unless you have a frank discussion with your opponent, it will never be clear what the expectations are for behavior, playstyle and competitive play. I completely understand the desire for standards and codes of behavior, but the hobby is diverse enough that the only way to really make sure that two players are playing the same game is to talk about it. Seems like every week someone posts a thread about a TFG, bad game, power-gamer, fluff bunny, etc and most times it seems obvious that the unpleasantness could have been avoided if they had first discussed their expectations with their opponent.
Of course the best tool for avoiding unpleasantness and hurt feelings is being willing to say "No Thanks" when after discussion it's clear that your aims for the game are irreconcilable.
I offer to do this in Kings of War fairly often, typically after I crush the opponent.
I do this for two reasons - the first is that it lets me play with something different.
The second is that I can find if the army does have a vulnerability that the other player will need to address.
(The third, unmentioned reason - it means that I can crush them with their own list.... (Joking))
Other times I can offer advice to new players before the game because it is obvious - when the enemy army is nothing but Hordes being the most frequent. (Maneuver is everything in KoW.) You need small units to protect the flanks of your larger units.
Another reason is working with my girlfriend to help her get a handle on Orcs.... New army - and I don't normally play orcs either. Things have gotten... squishy, on both sides. Orcs do not play a lot like our dwarf army. We went three months with nothing but draws when our dwarfs fought each other - so she started a new army.... Orcs have slaughtered dwarfs. Dwarfs have slaughtered orcs. Both armies have slaughtered each other in the same battle. The carpet would be running red if miniatures could bleed.)
The Auld Grump - I had the orc army for years, just planning on using the minis for Pathfinder....
"How can we have competitive play without being confused with TFG / WAAC?"
Pacific wrote: Play against someone who feels exactly the same way about the game as you do, wants the same thing from it. .....
There we go, that's the answer to the original question. Nice one.
So how do we go about playing the game in an inclusive community that welcomes more than one type of person, rather than becoming a clique of elitist d-bags who only play with 'our kind' of people?
AlexHolker wrote: No, a game where the developer bothered to do the optimisation first, and made sure that the right armies and play styles came out on top. For example, the rules for Warhammer 40,000 should be such that a Space Marine player trying to optimise their army would discover a Battle Company (60 Tactical / 20 Assault / 20 Devastator, plus transports and command) is already a top tier army.
Multiple options for success seem like they would be more fun than a single path to the top.
I agree. As long as the "good" army builds are among the top tier lists and any "bad" army builds (ones that are much less fun to play against - the Crippling decks of 40k) are weaker, the more the merrier.
Peregrine wrote:No it doesn't. Netdecking exists in MTG just like netlisting does in 40k.
In practice, though, it's really not as common, is it? I mean, even the "competitive" players I know don't use net decks.
At at least one tournament, six of the top eight players were all playing the same deck (Caw-Blade).
MtG is a game where you can buy power. When it still costs $300 for a playset of four copies of a card like Jace the Mind Sculptor, the guy who can afford to netdeck has a huge advantage over someone who doesn't have as much money to shovel into WotC's maw. And that's not fun. An "ethical" CCG only lets rarity buy complexity, not power. Giving newbies decks that are easy to play competently by putting cards that are simpler to understand in the lower rarities is a good thing. Giving newbies decks that are harder to play competently because rarer, more expensive cards they don't have are just flat out better (compare the Basic War Golem to the Legendary Dr. Boom in Hearthstone, for one blatant example) is just a dick move.
AlexHolker wrote: An "ethical" CCG only lets rarity buy complexity, not power.
To be far, MTG has also had its share of powerful commons and uncommons, and those expensive powerful rares are no rarer than the weak rares you can buy for $1 each. And none of them can be bought from WOTC directly. The price of expensive cards is entirely the result of the secondary market trying to get as much profit as possible.
To have a wider gaming community enjoying the same game in different ways.
The game has to be robust enough and have enough definition to cope with a wider range of play styles.
Basically ...
The rules need to be clear and concise.to prevent players mis-interpreting them.(Some times player do this to try to get an unfair ad vantage.)
Any point values used should be an accurate reflection of in game effectiveness.
Any force organization method should promote lists that are in synergy with the background and fun to play and play against.
Inclusion of more narrative based scenarios are helpful.
All these elements are very difficult to get right.That is why players buy rule sets from game companies to give them the maximum game play from the most straight forward rules .
if a rule set is not robust enough for all the players it is sold to, to enjoy it in the ways they want to.
Is not the fault of the players, but the company miss selling the game to players it is not suitable for.
Peregrine wrote: And none of them can be bought from WOTC directly. The price of expensive cards is entirely the result of the secondary market trying to get as much profit as possible.
That is untrue. Both supply and demand define the price of a card, and making a card more common both decreases demand on the secondary market (since you opened enough from your own booster packs, so you don't need to go looking for more) and increases supply (since once you've opened more than the four you can use, you might as well trade away the excess).
Using the latest set, Dragons of Tarkir, as an example:
A full playset of a specific common card comes once every 41 packs.
A full playset of a specific uncommon card comes once every 107 packs.
A full playset of a specific rare card comes once every 243 packs.
A full playset of a specific mythic rare card comes once every 480 packs.
Nobody would pay $100 for a playset of Dragonlord Ojutai if they could just pay $164 for a playset of Dragonlord Ojutai and another 611 cards.
Steve steveson wrote: The issue is not people being good, but bringing nasty lists or decks and exploring every little thing. Dial it back.
Why is it that the "competitive" player has the obligation to "dial it back" instead of the "casual" player having an obligation to improve their skills and compete at a higher level?
But, then they would have to understand how bad they are in the first place. To understand that they could get better.
The object of playing a game is to have fun, to have an enjoyable experience.We can all agree on this!
As people have fun in too many ways to list, there are about as many games invented by people as there are ways to have fun!
Most of us would agree with that. See a locked thread for the people who says it not important.
malfred wrote: So...what does the lying have to do with the original topic?
Because Peregrine and Traditio are destined to remain locked in an eternal struggle, like that one episode of Star Trek with the black / white and white / black aliens.
TFG exists is just about everything in life. From work to play it seems I run into TFG. Do your best and try to avoid TFG at all cost, at least that's what I do.
OK, back to the thread I started.
Oh, my.
Read it all, good points all around.
The correctness of deceit within a game I feel is irrelevant unless covered by rules and outside of game interaction "should" be honest: my opinion.
At least the concepts of good sportsmanship help enforce that line in the sand where poor manners begin.
Not understanding another person's form of enjoyment: can we just plain accept it?
They want to optimize gear or "farm" that bit longer, or hold you off with that "cheap" move for the fourth time: it is valid, you may not like it, but it is valid.
Anything you think is uninterruptible, unbreakable or unbeatable, "usually" means you did not do your homework. Rarely failing that: poor game design.
WAAC we meet them, but not following games rules is a failure to play as agreed with your opponent: rather disrespectful.
I would not include them as competitive: follow rules, failing that is a cheat.
Why people confuse playing within rules to the fullest as cheating is the mindset I am having a failure to understand. (or viewed as an equivalent)
TFG just seems to be a person in general with social interaction issues: an ineptness or lack of empathy that is hard on the nerves.
I think this unhappiness is found the most in gaming with a large following.
MTG has a HUGE following so some parallels can be found with 40k.
It does look like the discussion before a game is the way to go.
"Just to let you know I will be playing my best." (sorry?)
"You will be playing your best, right?"
"Try to destroy me in this game, OK?"
"Did you bring your cheese? I will not wine."
AlexHolker wrote: That is untrue. Both supply and demand define the price of a card, and making a card more common both decreases demand on the secondary market (since you opened enough from your own booster packs, so you don't need to go looking for more) and increases supply (since once you've opened more than the four you can use, you might as well trade away the excess).
Using the latest set, Dragons of Tarkir, as an example:
A full playset of a specific common card comes once every 41 packs.
A full playset of a specific uncommon card comes once every 107 packs.
A full playset of a specific rare card comes once every 243 packs.
A full playset of a specific mythic rare card comes once every 480 packs.
But the point is that each card of a certain rarity level has the exact same rarity, regardless of its power. A full playset of a powerful mythic rare comes once every 480 packs. A full playset of a garbage mythic rare that will sell for $1 at most comes once every 480 packs. A full playset of a powerful common that is better than the garbage mythic rare comes once every 41 packs. The price of the cards is determined entirely by the secondary market, not by WOTC.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Talizvar wrote: Why people confuse playing within rules to the fullest as cheating is the mindset I am having a failure to understand. (or viewed as an equivalent)
The basic problem is that the "casual at all costs" player comes up with their own arbitrary rules about how the game is meant to be played (no "spam" lists, no LoW, etc) and then expects everyone else to follow them. So in their eyes you are cheating because you're breaking their rules. Obviously this is a stupid attitude, but that's why it's so harmful to the gaming community.
I think the inclusion (in 40k) of the following rule would alleviate a lot of the bad feeling of facing ridiculously overpowered lists.
The rule is;
NO DANGER - (as in "There's no f****ing danger I'm standing here facing that for the next 3 hours")
Before the first unit is deployed roll off. Winner chooses which army they will control.
screaminskull wrote: Before the first unit is deployed roll off. Winner chooses which army they will control.
Correction:
Roll a D6. On a 4+ you get to rub your dirty hands all over your opponent's models, carelessly break them, etc, until they finally say " your stupid rule" and concede the game.
screaminskull wrote: Before the first unit is deployed roll off. Winner chooses which army they will control.
Correction:
Roll a D6. On a 4+ you get to rub your dirty hands all over your opponent's models, carelessly break them, etc, until they finally say " your stupid rule" and concede the game.
To clarify: Are you saying that you're a filthy, clumsy cretin who would break his opponent's models, or that everyone but you is a filthy, clumsy cretin who would break his opponent's models? Or both? There seems to be an implicit accusation here, I'm just not sue who it's aimed at.
Point being, if we want to play 40k Star Wars CCG style, then I trust you enough to touch my models, Peregrine. The main flaw in this idea seems more a time constraint than anything else.
Talizvar wrote: there is a lot of love for game and to truly "play to win" appears to have a stigma attached that is only reserved for life and death situations.
Only in 40k.
/thread.
I dunno what's been mentioned and argued and bickered after these first two posts, but yeah. What MWHistorian said. My take...
Talizvar wrote:
I want a challenge.
I want to look at rules and find the optimum way to select and play the game in front of me.
I expect to get thumped as I learn, the experts and the weaker players all have something to teach me (again see Sirlin link)...
I am happy to find a player to push it to the max (within game rules!)
... like I said somewhere else recently, I agree about looking for a challenge, learning the game, and finding an opponent to give you all that; but also that one big problem with 40K and WFB is that they're too much about 'looking at the rules to find the optimum way to select and play the game in front of you'. On one hand, you could call it strategy, and searching out canny combos and synergies. On the other hand, you (I) could call it listbuilding, mathammering, exploiting imbalance and loopholes, and the 'max' that you push it to comes with a 'min/' in front of it.
Not to say that TFGs absolutely never exist in any other game, but I haven't seen many games that so readily hand it to TFGS on a silver platter, in the same way as GW's core 2. That whole problem with the game revolving around listbuilding, combined with jaw-dropping rules churn, power creep, utter lack of playtesting (even faction bias?) and the resulting spectre of imbalance that hangs over the thing. Other games (not all, maybe, but plenty) actually pay at least some lip-service to balance and the necessary testing to iron out the wrinkles and achieve it. Other games don't pile on gratuitous special rules and random tables that bring big games this close to a screeching halt, and inherently create so many loopholes you could use 40K/FB to trawl for mackerel.
People complain that the more streamlined, abstracted rules of, say, Kings of War are boring, because they don't have all those gritty, scratchy, speedbumpy rules to create 'flavour'. Because the models and fluff are so flat and dull, they need all that, apparently. Me, I get bored by all the false control of move-shoot-specialrule-hit-pickdice-wound-pickdice-save-pickdice-specialrule-whack-pickdice-hit-pickdice-specialrule-wound-pickdice-save-pickdice-specialrule-woundmarkers-countranks-countbackrank-ooohnoI'veonlygotfour-countbanners-panic-specialrule-flee-pursue-specialrule-nowdoitwithalltheotherunits. Especially when other games are smoother, more elegantly compact, steer towards more tactical choice and in-game decisions (i.e. it's not the size of your gun['s stats], it's what you do with it that counts), and by extension are tighter and less prone to TFG exploitation as GW's two. (And Kings of War is but one of many games that do it this way.) No, the lesser dependence on listbuilding and the type of control that offers, and the increased focus on in-game judgement and on-the-spot risk assessment, will perhaps not appeal much to the young teens that are (or were) GW's bread and butter, and it'll be quite a culture shock for anyone immersed in GW's... idiosyncratic ways of gaming since that kind of age; but I think it'd also be a barrier to most people who play (legally, might I add) by spamming the biggest gunz from the most broken codex, and call it fair, competitive gaming.
Jimsolo wrote: To clarify: Are you saying that you're a filthy, clumsy cretin who would break his opponent's models, or that everyone but you is a filthy, clumsy cretin who would break his opponent's models? Or both? There seems to be an implicit accusation here, I'm just not sue who it's aimed at.
I'm saying that I don't trust other people to handle my thousands of dollars in FW stuff (some of it OOP) that I've spent countless hours painting, and a lot of other people feel the same way. A rule that says "on a 4+ you get to use my army" really means "on a 4+ we don't play the game". And that's on top of the fact that I built my army because that's the army I want to play, if I wanted to play with my opponent's army I would've bought that instead.
screaminskull wrote: Before the first unit is deployed roll off. Winner chooses which army they will control.
Correction:
Roll a D6. On a 4+ you get to rub your dirty hands all over your opponent's models, carelessly break them, etc, until they finally say " your stupid rule" and concede the game.
I want a challenge.
I want to look at rules and find the optimum way to select and play the game in front of me.
I expect to get thumped as I learn, the experts and the weaker players all have something to teach me (again see Sirlin link).
People confuse real life behavior with games, I maintain it is not the same.
Life has a lot of grey area, laws, ethics, social norms we need to get along and there is no clearly defined means of "winning" so you balance it all as best you can.
Games have rules, defined winning criteria, subterfuge, misleading, keeping them guessing is the very nature of most games.
Other than a good frank discussion with your potential opponent of the expectation of how the game will be played: how can you play to your very best and try to mitigate the risk of hurting someone's feelings over a game?
I am happy to find a player to push it to the max (within game rules!), socially acting badly lends no advantage to a game and pretty much guarantees no repeat games so being nice and civil is a reasonable and necessary part of play.
How can ruthlessness within a game not be construed as being how you are in real life? I feel they do not reflect one another.
You are my peers and experts, there is a lot of love for game and to truly "play to win" appears to have a stigma attached that is only reserved for life and death situations.
I think that against a random stranger at a game store there is really no way to mitigate the chances of being confused with a TFG/WAAC other than talking over what you want/expect from the game before you get down and play
some people game to win, some people game to immerse themselves in a game world, some game to drink beer and make Pew-Pew noises while pushing plastic toys across the table (or any combination of this and other reasons)
playing a hard core competitive list to the best of your ability may not be compatible with fun for them and if its not fun you risk being branded a WAAC (although plenty of folk will understand and merely choose not to play you again)..... and that's not counting the few (?) who always think the other player is a WAAC if they win no matter how poor the list or lucky their dice rolling was
In a more regular setting if you are a regular winner (either based on skill or list) you should probably explore alternate (weaker) lists to minimise the chances of a TFG accusation, you'd still get your competitive kicks but more from the in game manuvering/strategy rather than the pre-game list building.
Remember there may well be people who just can't get better at the game... most of us do have limits to our skills (whether gaming, maths, languages, sports etc) beyond which it is difficult to go (eg because it needs more practice than we have time for, because they don't have the maths or language skills, they don't have the money etc)
Pacific wrote: Play against someone who feels exactly the same way about the game as you do, wants the same thing from it. Simples! As the Meerkat says.
I once played in a doubles game of Infinity where one of my opponents made the statement "I want to blow up that man in the goat suit with this missile launcher." His partner could just not get his around why someone would want to do something like that, it had absolutely no tactical value and was a waste of a use of a powerful weapon. His colleague's answer was "how many opportunities am I ever going to get, in my life, to blow up a man in a goat suit with a missile launcher?"
I was just, a few hours earlier, playing a sniper game...in which my predominate goal was to ignore my sniper rifle as much as possible and shoot people with my side arm. They have assault rifles? Oh yeah? Well I gots this hand gun!
Doctadeth wrote:The other way to look at this is how can we have a game, which both the casual player and the competative player both enjoy? The whole problem is that WAAC/competition play is not very compatible to casual play, Why don't both go and find other players who actually engage them in their chosen areas.
Gaming itself, for the casual player, is about the fun, about the spectacle, about not the conclusion, but the journey there. If you end up having your board wiped on turn 1 or turn 2 because you either cannot bring an optimal list,, cannot afford the army of the month, or you aren't a good strategist, shouldn't mean you have to essentially try and dial up your game, because thats just typically what a casual gamer doesn't want.
I exclusively play british tanks in World of Tanks. Many in the lower-mid tiers are... not good. My latest acquisition was a Churchill Gun Carrier. Possibly the crappest tank in the game. Not saying there wasn't a lot of frustration with it (including the time a teammate called out to the enemy team, "Hey, an actual Churchill GC! You can tell your grandkids you got to kill one, at least once!") but also a bit of fun and satisfaction as I got to learn it's (many, many) foibles and how best to employ it.
I like that kind of thing, trying different things and 'learning' them, seeing how well I can do with them and pushing myself, which includes, bear with me, playing to win. I think more balanced games make this style of play more viable, more enjoyable, maybe not so much of a one-sided affair. The exact level and type of personal satisfaction might be debatable, if you can do well with poor resources in an unbalanced game, and someone with more experience should be able to do better with any level of resources, but I think it's not quite the same as - like Doctadeth and others say - getting utterly kerbstomped in every game just 'cos you didn't listbuild just right.
I offer to do this in Kings of War fairly often, typically after I crush the opponent.
I do this for two reasons - the first is that it lets me play with something different.
The second is that I can find if the army does have a vulnerability that the other player will need to address.
(The third, unmentioned reason - it means that I can crush them with their own list.... (Joking))
Other times I can offer advice to new players before the game because it is obvious - when the enemy army is nothing but Hordes being the most frequent. (Maneuver is everything in KoW.) You need small units to protect the flanks of your larger units.
Another reason is working with my girlfriend to help her get a handle on Orcs.... New army - and I don't normally play orcs either. Things have gotten... squishy, on both sides. Orcs do not play a lot like our dwarf army. We went three months with nothing but draws when our dwarfs fought each other - so she started a new army.... Orcs have slaughtered dwarfs. Dwarfs have slaughtered orcs. Both armies have slaughtered each other in the same battle. The carpet would be running red if miniatures could bleed.)
The Auld Grump - I had the orc army for years, just planning on using the minis for Pathfinder....
The way to bridge the gap - teach 'em how it works! That's got to be some kind of win-win: the 'casual' player gets to know more about their chosen list and what it can do in the framework of the game, and the 'competitive' player gets more of a challenge to test against. Although, in case there's anyone who hasn't picked up my train of thought yet, it'll work better in a balanced game with more tactical nous, where the viability of each troop choice and army list doesn't swing so madly.
That's even worse. If I have to stand there saying "move it over there, no, more to that side, a little more..." for the whole game then I'm just not going to play.
"How can we have competitive play without being confused with TFG / WAAC?"
Pacific wrote: Play against someone who feels exactly the same way about the game as you do, wants the same thing from it. .....
There we go, that's the answer to the original question. Nice one.
So how do we go about playing the game in an inclusive community that welcomes more than one type of person, rather than becoming a clique of elitist d-bags who only play with 'our kind' of people?
No idea, that's a different problem altogether. I'd imagine it'd have something to do with not being an elitest douchebag if it can be helped at all?
"How can we have competitive play without being confused with TFG / WAAC?"
Pacific wrote: Play against someone who feels exactly the same way about the game as you do, wants the same thing from it. .....
There we go, that's the answer to the original question. Nice one.
So how do we go about playing the game in an inclusive community that welcomes more than one type of person, rather than becoming a clique of elitist d-bags who only play with 'our kind' of people?
No idea, that's a different problem altogether. I'd imagine it'd have something to do with not being an elitest douchebag if it can be helped at all?
It's pretty easy actually, but it requires going one step beyond the initial discussion about play-style and entering into a gentleman's agreement. Perhaps something similar to:
"If I bring my cheeze to fight your cheeze this week, will you use some lists I write up to play a scenario of my devising next week?" Or some similar exchange of preferred game styles.
Also, as long as the folks are friendly and there are enough of each type of gamer (this assumes a relatively large player pool), it's not necessarily clique-inducing to mostly/only play against folks who are looking for a similar playstyle.
The 40k rules/game design lend themselves to this sort of nonsense. Games where opponents face off require balance. Games should come down to player skill / making less mistakes than your opponent.
Take WM/H for example. Are there bad match ups between casters? Yep.
Will a new player taking Haley2 (one of the most powerful casters in the game) win against a tournament player playing something like Scorscha2? Most likely not.
It's all about balance across factions with player skill being the ultimate driver of performance. When you have this with CLEAR rules, you tend to get out of the mindset of WAAC players and TFG mentality.
Now there will always be TFG's its just nature. However it has nothing to do with the list they bring in a balanced well thought out game.
It bugs me to know end when people talk about "fixing" their game by limiting what people can and can not bring. Shouldn't you expect the game maker to play test and figure this stuff out before they sell you a $100 rules book? Shouldn't you demand of the people your giving hundreds to thousands of dollars a year to, to get their collective heads out of their 4th points of contact and write you some rules that make sense?
I don't mind a system with imbalance when everyone has access to everything. In a video game, if a Pokemon is strong, you can go catch one. If a fighter is strong, you can go select hi at the character selection.
War hammer 40k is horribly unbalanced, and the balance is constantly changing. So forcing people to spend hundreds of dollars and hours to get the "new" units is not easily available to everyone... So when someone's models are invalidated due to a shift in the meta, what is the point in someone experienced enough to clearly understand the gross imbalance and crap rules to say "suck it up scrub, you should have bought a new codex and 1500$ of new models"
So when there is gross imbalance, unfair broken points values and the person with a bigger $$$ wallet has an advantage, it means that the true result of the game is not solely or even mostly determined by skill, which means "WAAC" is a fraudulent and hollow win.
Only when everyone has the same expectations (like months of lead up to a tourney vs rolling up to a random person at a club who can't afford new models when his codex is screwed) can the imbalance of $$$ and poor rules be negated and wins mean something.
screaminskull wrote: I think the inclusion (in 40k) of the following rule would alleviate a lot of the bad feeling of facing ridiculously overpowered lists.
The rule is;
NO DANGER - (as in "There's no f****ing danger I'm standing here facing that for the next 3 hours")
Before the first unit is deployed roll off. Winner chooses which army they will control.
This a nice idea but not really practical for pick up games. For the most part I'm happy for my friends to handle my models, they know how much effort I put in to them and they take care of them when handling them.
Some random kid at the local gaming store who brought their own models bouncing around together in an unpadded plastic bin, I don't really want them touching my models. It's bad enough when my opponent decides to "help" me by removing my casualties for me. I also don't want to be moving my models for them if they are using my army, that just sounds horrible.
But against opponents you trust, I think it's a great idea to swap armies... not practical as a general rule though.
"How can we have competitive play without being confused with TFG / WAAC?"
Pacific wrote: Play against someone who feels exactly the same way about the game as you do, wants the same thing from it. .....
There we go, that's the answer to the original question. Nice one.
So how do we go about playing the game in an inclusive community that welcomes more than one type of person, rather than becoming a clique of elitist d-bags who only play with 'our kind' of people?
Step 1: "It's okay to not like something, you don't have to be a about it."
You see just as many TFGs and WAAC players using fluffbunny lists. If anything, it's more prevalent there because a lot of these guys have less experience playing in the competitive scene.
The character of the game kind of depends on how you approach it. If a player views a game of 40k as a test of intelligence and overall worth, then he isn't going to have fun no matter what army he's running. If instead you view it as an experiment to see what kind of tactics Army A uses effectively against Army B, it can be a lot more enjoyable.
As competitive players, it's important to recognize the opponent's interests. I'll usually ask people if they want to play a full-on optimized army, or if they want something with a goofy theme, and have both types of lists ready. It's kind of hard to accuse someone of being TFG, interested only in grinding your face into the ground, if he's offering you a choice in what kind of power level you'll be facing.
One potential response to this would be that intentionally handicapping yourself in a game is stupid. It depends on the venue...for tournaments obviously people expect strong lists. For a casual game over beers with a friend, if he's not a competitive player (in which case it can be a hell of a lot of fun to test out experimental competitive builds in a failure-safe environment), you'll probably have a more entertaining experience is you aren't just stomping his face the whole time.
A lot of the flak against competitive armies comes from the fact that many of them are simply boring to play against; in that case, it's a legitimate criticism outside of tournament settings. Decurion is a pretty good example - it's downright boring to play against. Serpent spam is another one. Gunlines, of course, are never fun to play against. Given a choice, I'd rather use a suboptimal list against another suboptimal list than an optimized army against one of the aforementioned builds, even though the power levels are the same.
This is just my personal opinion on why 40k seems to have more 'player issues' that other game systems.
GW plc are not interested in game play.They just want to sell product in the short term.
GW plc use special rules and point values to constantly change the balance of the game to drive sales.
The amount of investment to get a playable army in 40k can be huge compared to other games.
So the players may expect a much higher return from the game play than they actually get.
This results in the name calling IMO.
Well written games with proper amounts of play testing allows more people to enjoy the game in more ways.
It does not stop people having anti social attitudes towards their fellow players.
But they do not facilitate and reward this type of behavior like the poorly written rules of 40k does,
Lanrak wrote: This is just my personal opinion on why 40k seems to have more 'player issues' that other game systems.
GW plc are not interested in game play.They just want to sell product in the short term.
GW plc use special rules and point values to constantly change the balance of the game to drive sales.
The amount of investment to get a playable army in 40k can be huge compared to other games.
So the players may expect a much higher return from the game play than they actually get.
This results in the name calling IMO.
Well written games with proper amounts of play testing allows more people to enjoy the game in more ways.
It does not stop people having anti social attitudes towards their fellow players.
But they do not facilitate and reward this type of behavior like the poorly written rules of 40k does,
Yeah pretty much this. These arguments are only a 40k thing. Anywhere else there's no such thing as WAAC and TFG if just a jerk player. Only in 40k is it blurred and degenerates into an argument of banning things. You still run into scrubs (Sirlin definition) in other games but never as bad as in 40k.
Ok, did not read every post so apologies if this has been mentioned.
The early versions of GW minis games were intended for a game master to moderate. It was a 3 player system. The game master would set up the battle or scenario and the players would play. I ran demos at cons many times and the battles were amazingly close and fun because I would specifically create forces that were able to interact with each other and give both players options and challenges. This is the classic story telling style of battles.
Current versions of minis games have done away with this. The variety of forces able to be chose by players can create some serious mismatches during a game. The best example was a game of WFB played years ago when my opponent could only be hit by magic weapons, and I did not have any magic weapons in my list. Another example would be someone taking no anti tank weapons and facing a lot of armor, or the player who takes a lot of anti armor weapons and runs in to an army with no tanks.
The method I choose to take a balanced force to be able to deal with most enemies usually loses. Why? Because a lot of people maximize one area, so if I have a force able to deal with all threats, it is not good at dealing with a lot of the same threat. The answer is then to play again and recreate my list choosing items to counter what my opponent brings.
I have told the story in the past about the last few games of WFB my friend and I played. He built a demonic army that was all blood demons. Blocks of 30, and he had 5 of them. I used my high elf army which had a range of archers, spearmen, swordmasters, and cavalry. The classic combined arms force. It was a 2000 point battle. I lost 2400 to nothing in 3 turns. (banners and table corners added to the points) His tactic consisted of moving forward.
Next week I took my dark elves to face his same army. I built multiple blocks of witches, and had corsairs with a banner to cause frenzy or some such. He approached and my elves sprang forward and utterly butchered his entire force. In seconds. Each of his blocks had the entire front rank wiped out and he never got to roll an attack back. ( this was previous version) The result was the same points but this time he lost.
We stopped playing. I understand the people who like building lists. I used to build Magic decks. It is fun.
I prefer playing a wargames. And that means I have something to do after the game starts besides just setting there and watching my list win or lose. I want to have to make decisions and roll dice to affect the result, not just buy models and build lists.
I am not trying to insult the people who are competitive players. I spent a lot of years cursing them and considering them the bane of the hobby. Now I understand that there are 2 distinct hobbies using the same models. My personal opinion is that I love one aspect of the hobby and would rather do my taxes than play the other style. While I NEVER play them, I do respect the guys who can make a deck or army list than can utterly splatter an opponent in minutes. I can do this too, but it is not a lot of fun to me. And I can assure you it is not a lot of fun to be splattered in seconds. I played a game where I lost about 75% of my army before I took my first turn. That was one hell of a magic phase thrown at me let me tell you. Imagine placing a Hot Pocket in the microwave, starting to play a wargame, and being finished with your game before the timer beeps and that pretty much summed up that battle.
But, to each his own and it is great we can all choose to play how we want to.
The problem is that competitive players have much better games out there but, for whatever reason, want to stick with 40k and try to shoehorn it into a playstyle that it doesn't support, arguably has never supported and by intent never will support.
If I want a competitive, fairly balanced game I'd get a lot more enjoyment out of Warmachine. Yet I constantly think of playing 40k because it's NOT meant like that (I do play Warmachine, I like it but sometimes it doesn't feel right), but people still want to try. I see the local 40k players trying to do tournaments and stuff and I shake my head because the game doesn't support that style, and yet they try.
If the people around me who play 40k played casual, narrative type of games I'd have no issue. But they want to pretend they can make 40k competitive, and try to play it competitively, and the game breaks down so I see no reason to bother trying to play in that manner in a game that won't support it properly.
That's it, isn't it? Ultimately there are still too many guys trying to pound nails with a wrench, while arguing how the wrench could be better optimized for nail driving. Meanwhile, hammers sit in the toolbox.
People can use wrenches however they want. But IMO there comes a point at which you need to step back and say "Okay, I really am not using this thing for its intended purpose." And it's amazing how many issues fall away with that simple acceptance. IMO.
gorgon wrote: That's it, isn't it? Ultimately there are still too many guys trying to pound nails with a wrench, while arguing how the wrench could be better optimized for nail driving. Meanwhile, hammers sit in the toolbox.
People can use wrenches however they want. But IMO there comes a point at which you need to step back and say "Okay, I really am not using this thing for its intended purpose." And it's amazing how many issues fall away with that simple acceptance. IMO.
I understand that people might like 40k's look or aesthetic or lore. But I think it's silly to try and pretend that the game is suitable at all for competitive play and try to shoehorn it in. It's a big reason I can't justify playing again, because the locals around me seem to want to try that. If they were really laid back and were doing a narrative campaign or low-key league, I'd be a lot more eager to throw down some cash to get an army. But as someone who would play fluffy/casually I cannot justify the money when people around me are dead set on pretending 40k can be made into a competitive game and want to play in that manner and ignore any alternatives that would actually give them that.
I have run into WAAC/TFG in every game I have ever played from AD&D to WH40k.
Literally every game ever.
What I think he probably should have said is 'more of a' rather than 'only'.
You definitely get it in some games more than others. SAGA I have encountered precisely zero TFG, but I have some in Infinity and some in Bolt Action. I haven't played in a 40k tournament since 5-6th edition, and even then it was a 'narrative' event (with team rather than individual scoring) so I assume less likely to attract full-on competition players.
I think the following criteria determine how likely you are to meet an arse in a tournament:
- Age demographic; it's not exclusive but I've found you get a lot more younger people trying to prove their manliness than someone who is 50+ and happily sat there playing while puffing on an electronic cigarette (would have been a pipe at one time, but this is 2015). It's generally the teenagers and younger guys you get strutting around behind the board, leaning over and making exaggerated movements.
- Type of game; ties in with the above, you definitely seem to get more aggressive, unpleasant games with sci-fi setting I have found. The whole thing ties in with poorly painted and prepared armies (where if they are painted at all, it is to bare minimum spec) and when they seem to care very little about the minis they are pushing about the tabletop. It's worse when that lack of care is often extended to your own minis, too.
- Rule mechanics. Perhaps part of the reason I have not met TFG in SAGA is because the rules are so clean, so finely balanced. If there is only one, clearly understood interpretation of a rule, no nasty 'loopholes' or combinations of things that don't seem in the spirit of the game, then the chances are you will be on an even playing field and both players will enjoy it as a result.
No, I meant what I said. This idea that the game is so unbalanced that it's on the player to gimp themselves by bringing inferior units to avoid being labeled a WAAC/TFG is a 40k thing only, you don't see it in that way for any other wargame out there because they're actually written to not have gross imbalance in choices.
WayneTheGame wrote: No, I meant what I said. This idea that the game is so unbalanced that it's on the player to gimp themselves by bringing inferior units to avoid being labeled a WAAC/TFG is a 40k thing only, you don't see it in that way for any other wargame out there because they're actually written to not have gross imbalance in choices.
You may have meant to limit it to war games, but that isn't what you said.
And issuing only your specific definition of WAAC/TFG, even child's games like Risk and Monopoly still fall into those categories. There's usually one player that has to handicap himself to give other people a chance, and usually one player everyone has to gimp themselves to avoid offending by putting him out ten minutes in.
And it continues to crop up in WMH, STAW, every CCG since the dawn of time, every RPG I can think of, and every other wargame I've ever played.
Certainly there are WAAC types and TFGs in any and all games of any variety.
I've noticed there are a lot fewer in games where taking a strong list is not considered "WAAC", because those games are better balanced (not perfectly balanced, for sure) and have clear rules.
RatBot wrote: Certainly there are WAAC types and TFGs in any and all games of any variety.
I've noticed there are a lot fewer in games where taking a strong list is not considered "WAAC", because those games are better balanced (not perfectly balanced, for sure) and have clear rules.
Ironically the crowd I play WM/H with tend to have some of the 40k mentality e.g. taking X is OP and "unfun" and makes you "TFG" for using it, despite it not being anything over the top, but overall the mentality comes up a lot less in other wargames because the rules at least try to be balanced so some choices aren't far and away better than others.
I don't encounter it much at all in WMH, though there are definitely some things I don't like seeing (Butcher in 15 point games, that Ret tier list where the opponent can't run in the first turn that can also lay down a boatload of covering fire templates, apparently), but it's not like they're point-and-click win situations like I see in 40K.
I don't doubt your local meta is like that, though, every group is going to be different.
Coming from 40K I used to get a little mopey about certain things in Warmachine until I became more familiar with them, like rushing Titans and Eyeless Sight. I just learned to position better and to not over-extend.
RatBot wrote: I don't encounter it much at all in WMH, though there are definitely some things I don't like seeing (Butcher in 15 point games, that Ret tier list where the opponent can't run in the first turn that can also lay down a boatload of covering fire templates, apparently), but it's not like they're point-and-click win situations like I see in 40K.
I don't doubt your local meta is like that, though, every group is going to be different.
Coming from 40K I used to get a little mopey about certain things in Warmachine until I became more familiar with them, like rushing Titans and Eyeless Sight. I just learned to position better and to not over-extend.
The difference with WM/H is that player skill wins over list build.
I think the mentality of OP and WAAC are brought over from 40k converts. They see a powerful combo/feat and go right to the "Oh that's just OP cheese" etc... When you sit down and show them how to counter it and why positioning etc matters it can click for most. Some folks just never get out of that mentality.
The big thing is that we as players need to decide what we are looking for in a game. If you are looking for a fun night of narrative gaming and throwing lots of dice than 40k is for you. If you want something tactical with tight rules and a competitive game, which honestly can be a lot of fun (some of the best times I've had playing wargames have been really close games that could have gone either way), I would recommend WM, or other well written rules games.
However if you jump from 40k to another game, I would urge you to set aside your prejudices until you get a good feel and understanding of the new game. Things that seem OP when you start will probably not be once you learn to counter and anticipate them.
Peregrine, it occurs to me that your point basically condenses down to:
"If you wan't willing to waste a ton of money and time on this game, then don't blame your opponent for crushing you if he is."
From that perspective, my answer is: "Yes, I can blame my opponent for treating a game as though it weren't a game. That's unreasonable and exceeds the virtuous mean."
In fact, I may lose the game. But who's the real loser? [Hint: it's the dude who has nothing better to do with his time and money than buy little plastic toys.]
RatBot wrote: I don't encounter it much at all in WMH, though there are definitely some things I don't like seeing (Butcher in 15 point games, that Ret tier list where the opponent can't run in the first turn that can also lay down a boatload of covering fire templates, apparently), but it's not like they're point-and-click win situations like I see in 40K.
I don't doubt your local meta is like that, though, every group is going to be different.
Coming from 40K I used to get a little mopey about certain things in Warmachine until I became more familiar with them, like rushing Titans and Eyeless Sight. I just learned to position better and to not over-extend.
The difference with WM/H is that player skill wins over list build.
I think the mentality of OP and WAAC are brought over from 40k converts. They see a powerful combo/feat and go right to the "Oh that's just OP cheese" etc... When you sit down and show them how to counter it and why positioning etc matters it can click for most. Some folks just never get out of that mentality.
The big thing is that we as players need to decide what we are looking for in a game. If you are looking for a fun night of narrative gaming and throwing lots of dice than 40k is for you. If you want something tactical with tight rules and a competitive game, which honestly can be a lot of fun (some of the best times I've had playing wargames have been really close games that could have gone either way), I would recommend WM, or other well written rules games.
However if you jump from 40k to another game, I would urge you to set aside your prejudices until you get a good feel and understanding of the new game. Things that seem OP when you start will probably not be once you learn to counter and anticipate them.
True, I have left two groups [1 DD&D, 1 WH40k] because all of them wanted to play WAAC and two players quit the new group [1 DD&D, 1 WH40k] because we were not WAAC enough.
RatBot wrote: I don't encounter it much at all in WMH, though there are definitely some things I don't like seeing (Butcher in 15 point games, that Ret tier list where the opponent can't run in the first turn that can also lay down a boatload of covering fire templates, apparently), but it's not like they're point-and-click win situations like I see in 40K.
I don't doubt your local meta is like that, though, every group is going to be different.
Coming from 40K I used to get a little mopey about certain things in Warmachine until I became more familiar with them, like rushing Titans and Eyeless Sight. I just learned to position better and to not over-extend.
The difference with WM/H is that player skill wins over list build.
I think the mentality of OP and WAAC are brought over from 40k converts. They see a powerful combo/feat and go right to the "Oh that's just OP cheese" etc... When you sit down and show them how to counter it and why positioning etc matters it can click for most. Some folks just never get out of that mentality.
The big thing is that we as players need to decide what we are looking for in a game. If you are looking for a fun night of narrative gaming and throwing lots of dice than 40k is for you. If you want something tactical with tight rules and a competitive game, which honestly can be a lot of fun (some of the best times I've had playing wargames have been really close games that could have gone either way), I would recommend WM, or other well written rules games.
However if you jump from 40k to another game, I would urge you to set aside your prejudices until you get a good feel and understanding of the new game. Things that seem OP when you start will probably not be once you learn to counter and anticipate them.
True, I have left two groups [1 DD&D, 1 WH40k] because all of them wanted to play WAAC and two players quit the new group [1 DD&D, 1 WH40k] because we were not WAAC enough.
The group can make all the difference.
But should it? Again, the idea that you need to basically vet prospective opponents to determine if you'll have an enjoyable game playing them is almost entirely a 40k/GW phenomenon. It doesn't exist elsewhere and exists in 40k mostly in part due to GW's terrible rules and lack of balance. I've seen this mentality that "Other people should dumb down to my level" far too often. I saw it in D&D when you'd have the moron who took skills in basket weaving over combat skills, and then whined when someone who took combat skills did more damage, or someone who wanted to use a class in a new book instead of just using the PHB like the scrub did. I saw in WoW and other MMOs when scrubs refused to do research on their class and instead just fool around and not pull their weight in groups and then cry "elitist!" when it was pointed out, despite the fact that their lack of doing things properly was causing wipes and impeding progression. I see it in Warmachine with people whining how strong Butcher3 is or how some spammy theme forces shouldn't be used because they are too terrible to figure out a way to deal with or up their own game and improve their playstyle.
That kind of mentality has no place in a game. It's a PROBLEM in 40k that you have this big gap between "good" and "bad" and everything in between and you have to make sure your opponent isn't fielding one of umpteen different things that you wouldn't find fun. It's a flaw of the game if you have one person who wants to play a fluffy Space Marine company and take lots of Tactical Squads, no more than 20 Assault or Devastator marines and they come up against someone fielding nothing but Jetbikes with scatter lasers or Wraithknights or, even worse, someone who actually is playing a fluffy Saim-Hann force that should have jetbikes, and it's not their fault that jetbikes are really good and tac marines aren't.
This shouldn't be defended. That's the issue I have. 40k relies on this "decide with your opponent" nonsense that is bad enough when you don't factor in that, in the USA at least, most games are played at a shop and you don't know who is going to turn up on a given day. It's way too easy in 40k for two people to decide to play a pickup game and neither walk away having fun.
I personally do not want to spend a lot of money on a "game" where my enjoyment almost entirely depends on my opponent deciding to go easy on me because the company making the fething game has no clue on game design and would rather put out gak because people buy it up like fanboys. I'd rather not put time into a game where the things I like might be weaker than the things someone else likes, because reasons, when the game itself constantly reinforces the fact that I should be playing what I want or think is cool and not just what is good.
feth that. Why should I be punished if I want a fluffy Iron Warriors chaos army and want to take actual chaos marines and not shoehorn the Mark of Nurgle because it's better? Why should my opponent be rewarded for doing the same thing just because HE likes Saim-Hann Eldar and as a result gets jetbikes?
To answer the OP, you can have it by playing a game that actually has rules and balance. 40k caters to nothing but scrubs in the Sirlin sense; people who want to play their own rules and pretend that they're playing the same game, but in 40k's case you have to do that in order to make the game worth bothering with because the rules are so unbalanced by default that you can't make it usable without that.
RatBot wrote: I don't encounter it much at all in WMH, though there are definitely some things I don't like seeing (Butcher in 15 point games, that Ret tier list where the opponent can't run in the first turn that can also lay down a boatload of covering fire templates, apparently), but it's not like they're point-and-click win situations like I see in 40K.
I don't doubt your local meta is like that, though, every group is going to be different.
Coming from 40K I used to get a little mopey about certain things in Warmachine until I became more familiar with them, like rushing Titans and Eyeless Sight. I just learned to position better and to not over-extend.
The difference with WM/H is that player skill wins over list build.
I think the mentality of OP and WAAC are brought over from 40k converts. They see a powerful combo/feat and go right to the "Oh that's just OP cheese" etc... When you sit down and show them how to counter it and why positioning etc matters it can click for most. Some folks just never get out of that mentality.
The big thing is that we as players need to decide what we are looking for in a game. If you are looking for a fun night of narrative gaming and throwing lots of dice than 40k is for you. If you want something tactical with tight rules and a competitive game, which honestly can be a lot of fun (some of the best times I've had playing wargames have been really close games that could have gone either way), I would recommend WM, or other well written rules games.
However if you jump from 40k to another game, I would urge you to set aside your prejudices until you get a good feel and understanding of the new game. Things that seem OP when you start will probably not be once you learn to counter and anticipate them.
True, I have left two groups [1 DD&D, 1 WH40k] because all of them wanted to play WAAC and two players quit the new group [1 DD&D, 1 WH40k] because we were not WAAC enough.
The group can make all the difference.
But should it? Again, the idea that you need to basically vet prospective opponents to determine if you'll have an enjoyable game playing them is almost entirely a 40k/GW phenomenon. It doesn't exist elsewhere and exists in 40k mostly in part due to GW's terrible rules and lack of balance. I've seen this mentality that "Other people should dumb down to my level" far too often. I saw it in D&D when you'd have the moron who took skills in basket weaving over combat skills, and then whined when someone who took combat skills did more damage, or someone who wanted to use a class in a new book instead of just using the PHB like the scrub did. I saw in WoW and other MMOs when scrubs refused to do research on their class and instead just fool around and not pull their weight in groups and then cry "elitist!" when it was pointed out, despite the fact that their lack of doing things properly was causing wipes and impeding progression. I see it in Warmachine with people whining how strong Butcher3 is or how some spammy theme forces shouldn't be used because they are too terrible to figure out a way to deal with or up their own game and improve their playstyle.
That kind of mentality has no place in a game. It's a PROBLEM in 40k that you have this big gap between "good" and "bad" and everything in between and you have to make sure your opponent isn't fielding one of umpteen different things that you wouldn't find fun. It's a flaw of the game if you have one person who wants to play a fluffy Space Marine company and take lots of Tactical Squads, no more than 20 Assault or Devastator marines and they come up against someone fielding nothing but Jetbikes with scatter lasers or Wraithknights or, even worse, someone who actually is playing a fluffy Saim-Hann force that should have jetbikes, and it's not their fault that jetbikes are really good and tac marines aren't.
This shouldn't be defended. That's the issue I have. 40k relies on this "decide with your opponent" nonsense that is bad enough when you don't factor in that, in the USA at least, most games are played at a shop and you don't know who is going to turn up on a given day. It's way too easy in 40k for two people to decide to play a pickup game and neither walk away having fun.
I personally do not want to spend a lot of money on a "game" where my enjoyment almost entirely depends on my opponent deciding to go easy on me because the company making the fething game has no clue on game design and would rather put out gak because people buy it up like fanboys. I'd rather not put time into a game where the things I like might be weaker than the things someone else likes, because reasons, when the game itself constantly reinforces the fact that I should be playing what I want or think is cool and not just what is good.
that. Why should I be punished if I want a fluffy Iron Warriors chaos army and want to take actual chaos marines and not shoehorn the Mark of Nurgle because it's better? Why should my opponent be rewarded for doing the same thing just because HE likes Saim-Hann Eldar and as a result gets jetbikes?
True one should not have to adjust their play style to fit in with what ever is being played. I however am not going to play a game I don't enjoy and nobody else should either.
If I am the WAAC Player playing with a bunch of Casual Gamers and we are all having fun there is no problem. The true problem comes when people stop having fun.
One of the reasons I stopped showing up at my local Not-So-LFGS was people stopped playing me because I did not take The Game Serious Enough". I showed up to guzzle Mt. Dew, eat pizza and blow up, not pay at a "Tournament Level" 100% of the time. Yet at the same time they called me a "Band-Wagon-Spece-Wolf-Cheese-Player" when I pulled out my Space Wolf Army Codex [I had not even pulled my Army out of the box yet] when the 5th Edition dropped even though I was the "Local Space Wolf Player for years".
This why I always emphasize the META/Group over the Player.
It should also not take long for you to figure out what your local META/Group is like along with who is the local WAAC/TFG player(s) are and if you want to play them.
RatBot wrote: I don't encounter it much at all in WMH, though there are definitely some things I don't like seeing (Butcher in 15 point games, that Ret tier list where the opponent can't run in the first turn that can also lay down a boatload of covering fire templates, apparently), but it's not like they're point-and-click win situations like I see in 40K.
I don't doubt your local meta is like that, though, every group is going to be different.
Coming from 40K I used to get a little mopey about certain things in Warmachine until I became more familiar with them, like rushing Titans and Eyeless Sight. I just learned to position better and to not over-extend.
The difference with WM/H is that player skill wins over list build.
I think the mentality of OP and WAAC are brought over from 40k converts. They see a powerful combo/feat and go right to the "Oh that's just OP cheese" etc... When you sit down and show them how to counter it and why positioning etc matters it can click for most. Some folks just never get out of that mentality.
The big thing is that we as players need to decide what we are looking for in a game. If you are looking for a fun night of narrative gaming and throwing lots of dice than 40k is for you. If you want something tactical with tight rules and a competitive game, which honestly can be a lot of fun (some of the best times I've had playing wargames have been really close games that could have gone either way), I would recommend WM, or other well written rules games.
However if you jump from 40k to another game, I would urge you to set aside your prejudices until you get a good feel and understanding of the new game. Things that seem OP when you start will probably not be once you learn to counter and anticipate them.
True, I have left two groups [1 DD&D, 1 WH40k] because all of them wanted to play WAAC and two players quit the new group [1 DD&D, 1 WH40k] because we were not WAAC enough.
The group can make all the difference.
But should it? Again, the idea that you need to basically vet prospective opponents to determine if you'll have an enjoyable game playing them is almost entirely a 40k/GW phenomenon. It doesn't exist elsewhere and exists in 40k mostly in part due to GW's terrible rules and lack of balance. I've seen this mentality that "Other people should dumb down to my level" far too often. I saw it in D&D when you'd have the moron who took skills in basket weaving over combat skills, and then whined when someone who took combat skills did more damage, or someone who wanted to use a class in a new book instead of just using the PHB like the scrub did. I saw in WoW and other MMOs when scrubs refused to do research on their class and instead just fool around and not pull their weight in groups and then cry "elitist!" when it was pointed out, despite the fact that their lack of doing things properly was causing wipes and impeding progression. I see it in Warmachine with people whining how strong Butcher3 is or how some spammy theme forces shouldn't be used because they are too terrible to figure out a way to deal with or up their own game and improve their playstyle.
That kind of mentality has no place in a game. It's a PROBLEM in 40k that you have this big gap between "good" and "bad" and everything in between and you have to make sure your opponent isn't fielding one of umpteen different things that you wouldn't find fun. It's a flaw of the game if you have one person who wants to play a fluffy Space Marine company and take lots of Tactical Squads, no more than 20 Assault or Devastator marines and they come up against someone fielding nothing but Jetbikes with scatter lasers or Wraithknights or, even worse, someone who actually is playing a fluffy Saim-Hann force that should have jetbikes, and it's not their fault that jetbikes are really good and tac marines aren't.
This shouldn't be defended. That's the issue I have. 40k relies on this "decide with your opponent" nonsense that is bad enough when you don't factor in that, in the USA at least, most games are played at a shop and you don't know who is going to turn up on a given day. It's way too easy in 40k for two people to decide to play a pickup game and neither walk away having fun.
I personally do not want to spend a lot of money on a "game" where my enjoyment almost entirely depends on my opponent deciding to go easy on me because the company making the fething game has no clue on game design and would rather put out gak because people buy it up like fanboys. I'd rather not put time into a game where the things I like might be weaker than the things someone else likes, because reasons, when the game itself constantly reinforces the fact that I should be playing what I want or think is cool and not just what is good.
that. Why should I be punished if I want a fluffy Iron Warriors chaos army and want to take actual chaos marines and not shoehorn the Mark of Nurgle because it's better? Why should my opponent be rewarded for doing the same thing just because HE likes Saim-Hann Eldar and as a result gets jetbikes?
True one should not have to adjust their play style to fit in with what ever is being played. I however am not going to play a game I don't enjoy and nobody else should either.
If I am the WAAC Player playing with a bunch of Casual Gamers and we are all having fun there is no problem. The true problem comes when people stop having fun.
One of the reasons I stopped showing up at my local Not-So-LFGS was people stopped playing me because I did not take The Game Serious Enough". I showed up to guzzle Mt. Dew, eat pizza and blow up, not pay at a "Tournament Level" 100% of the time. Yet at the same time they called me a "Band-Wagon-Spece-Wolf-Cheese-Player" when I pulled out my Space Wolf Army Codex [I had not even pulled my Army out of the box yet] when the 5th Edition dropped even though I was the "Local Space Wolf Player for years".
This why I always emphasize the META/Group over the Player.
It should also not take long for you to figure out what your local META/Group is like along with who is the local WAAC/TFG player(s) are and if you want to play them.
And the thing is that 40k is the only wargame that has that happen regularly. Sure, you get the occasional ex-40k player in Warmachine who complains about Haley2 or Butcher3 or Bradigus, but 40k is the only game where you are "TFG" through no fault of your own. I wonder, how many Eldar players have been called that or treated badly when the new Codex dropped, just because they were an Eldar player? They didn't ask for an OP codex, GW gave it to them because GW is stupid. In your case you were probably one of if not the only Wolf players, and then all of a sudden an OP codex comes out and it's YOUR fault for playing the army, because GW can't write rules to save their lives.
That's my problem. That kind of crap only happens in GW games for the most part, at least with any regularity.
Traditio wrote: Peregrine, it occurs to me that your point basically condenses down to:
"If you wan't willing to waste a ton of money and time on this game, then don't blame your opponent for crushing you if he is."
From that perspective, my answer is: "Yes, I can blame my opponent for treating a game as though it weren't a game. That's unreasonable and exceeds the virtuous mean."
In fact, I may lose the game. But who's the real loser? [Hint: it's the dude who has nothing better to do with his time and money than buy little plastic toys.]
Win or lose, you still have to buy the toys though right ?
RatBot wrote: I don't encounter it much at all in WMH, though there are definitely some things I don't like seeing (Butcher in 15 point games, that Ret tier list where the opponent can't run in the first turn that can also lay down a boatload of covering fire templates, apparently), but it's not like they're point-and-click win situations like I see in 40K.
I don't doubt your local meta is like that, though, every group is going to be different.
Coming from 40K I used to get a little mopey about certain things in Warmachine until I became more familiar with them, like rushing Titans and Eyeless Sight. I just learned to position better and to not over-extend.
The difference with WM/H is that player skill wins over list build.
I think the mentality of OP and WAAC are brought over from 40k converts. They see a powerful combo/feat and go right to the "Oh that's just OP cheese" etc... When you sit down and show them how to counter it and why positioning etc matters it can click for most. Some folks just never get out of that mentality.
The big thing is that we as players need to decide what we are looking for in a game. If you are looking for a fun night of narrative gaming and throwing lots of dice than 40k is for you. If you want something tactical with tight rules and a competitive game, which honestly can be a lot of fun (some of the best times I've had playing wargames have been really close games that could have gone either way), I would recommend WM, or other well written rules games.
However if you jump from 40k to another game, I would urge you to set aside your prejudices until you get a good feel and understanding of the new game. Things that seem OP when you start will probably not be once you learn to counter and anticipate them.
True, I have left two groups [1 DD&D, 1 WH40k] because all of them wanted to play WAAC and two players quit the new group [1 DD&D, 1 WH40k] because we were not WAAC enough.
The group can make all the difference.
But should it? Again, the idea that you need to basically vet prospective opponents to determine if you'll have an enjoyable game playing them is almost entirely a 40k/GW phenomenon. It doesn't exist elsewhere and exists in 40k mostly in part due to GW's terrible rules and lack of balance. I've seen this mentality that "Other people should dumb down to my level" far too often. I saw it in D&D when you'd have the moron who took skills in basket weaving over combat skills, and then whined when someone who took combat skills did more damage, or someone who wanted to use a class in a new book instead of just using the PHB like the scrub did. I saw in WoW and other MMOs when scrubs refused to do research on their class and instead just fool around and not pull their weight in groups and then cry "elitist!" when it was pointed out, despite the fact that their lack of doing things properly was causing wipes and impeding progression. I see it in Warmachine with people whining how strong Butcher3 is or how some spammy theme forces shouldn't be used because they are too terrible to figure out a way to deal with or up their own game and improve their playstyle.
That kind of mentality has no place in a game. It's a PROBLEM in 40k that you have this big gap between "good" and "bad" and everything in between and you have to make sure your opponent isn't fielding one of umpteen different things that you wouldn't find fun. It's a flaw of the game if you have one person who wants to play a fluffy Space Marine company and take lots of Tactical Squads, no more than 20 Assault or Devastator marines and they come up against someone fielding nothing but Jetbikes with scatter lasers or Wraithknights or, even worse, someone who actually is playing a fluffy Saim-Hann force that should have jetbikes, and it's not their fault that jetbikes are really good and tac marines aren't.
This shouldn't be defended. That's the issue I have. 40k relies on this "decide with your opponent" nonsense that is bad enough when you don't factor in that, in the USA at least, most games are played at a shop and you don't know who is going to turn up on a given day. It's way too easy in 40k for two people to decide to play a pickup game and neither walk away having fun.
I personally do not want to spend a lot of money on a "game" where my enjoyment almost entirely depends on my opponent deciding to go easy on me because the company making the fething game has no clue on game design and would rather put out gak because people buy it up like fanboys. I'd rather not put time into a game where the things I like might be weaker than the things someone else likes, because reasons, when the game itself constantly reinforces the fact that I should be playing what I want or think is cool and not just what is good.
that. Why should I be punished if I want a fluffy Iron Warriors chaos army and want to take actual chaos marines and not shoehorn the Mark of Nurgle because it's better? Why should my opponent be rewarded for doing the same thing just because HE likes Saim-Hann Eldar and as a result gets jetbikes?
True one should not have to adjust their play style to fit in with what ever is being played. I however am not going to play a game I don't enjoy and nobody else should either.
If I am the WAAC Player playing with a bunch of Casual Gamers and we are all having fun there is no problem. The true problem comes when people stop having fun.
One of the reasons I stopped showing up at my local Not-So-LFGS was people stopped playing me because I did not take The Game Serious Enough". I showed up to guzzle Mt. Dew, eat pizza and blow up, not pay at a "Tournament Level" 100% of the time. Yet at the same time they called me a "Band-Wagon-Spece-Wolf-Cheese-Player" when I pulled out my Space Wolf Army Codex [I had not even pulled my Army out of the box yet] when the 5th Edition dropped even though I was the "Local Space Wolf Player for years".
This why I always emphasize the META/Group over the Player.
It should also not take long for you to figure out what your local META/Group is like along with who is the local WAAC/TFG player(s) are and if you want to play them.
And the thing is that 40k is the only wargame that has that happen regularly. Sure, you get the occasional ex-40k player in Warmachine who complains about Haley2 or Butcher3 or Bradigus, but 40k is the only game where you are "TFG" through no fault of your own. I wonder, how many Eldar players have been called that or treated badly when the new Codex dropped, just because they were an Eldar player? They didn't ask for an OP codex, GW gave it to them because GW is stupid. In your case you were probably one of if not the only Wolf players, and then all of a sudden an OP codex comes out and it's YOUR fault for playing the army, because GW can't write rules to save their lives.
That's my problem. That kind of crap only happens in GW games for the most part, at least with any regularity.
Actually it is not.
BattleTech has some real issues, most of them depends on what time period you play. I saw the Level two break up groups (Especially with the people who wanted to play the Clans vs. those who do not.] If you do not plan in advance games can quickly get one sided.
D&D has that with one group of played only wanting the most powerful vs those who want to put more non-combat into their characters.
Even what I call one of the more perfect games Star Fleet Battles, it is easy to make a game one sided with out the players talking at first and deciding what time period/optional rules are used.
And all of them suffer from WAAC/TFG Syndrome, it is just easier to see with WH40k while on a WH40k Discussion Site.
Absolutely agreed with WayneTheGame and Darefsky. Exalted. Some of you, espousing a view like Traditio's here:
Traditio wrote: my answer is: "Yes, I can blame my opponent for treating a game as though it weren't a game. That's unreasonable and exceeds the virtuous mean."
In fact, I may lose the game. But who's the real loser? [Hint: it's the dude who has nothing better to do with his time and money than buy little plastic toys.]
None of you see anything inherently weird about the attitude that a game played between two opposing players shouldn't be competitive? (Traditio, I'd say you don't treat it as a game so much as a tea-party. What do these kind of players do, like, declare "Oh I say old chap, frightfully sorry my model killed yours there. Here, I'll place my HQ character in the open and let you have a free shot at it with your lascannons..."?) None of you see any problem with a game that has balance so wretched that it practically demands segregation between viable lists and scrub lists (especially when the game revolves around listbuilding), which somehow creates the attitude that the latter is the 'reasonable', 'intended' and even the 'virtuous' way to play? That just comes over like a sour grapes rationalisation to me. Where's the declaration from GW that this is the way they intended it to be played, anyway? If that is what they intended, why do they make the game so that the 'unintended', highly exploitative, unbalanced, non-scrub lists are perfectly legal, relatively easy to bash out, and widely played? Quite a few smaller operations with fewer resources don't seem to have much bother crafting a game so that people (must) play it the way it was intended to be played, even according to whatever veneer of background they might apply to it.
Oh and Talisvar, thanks for the Sirlin link in the OP. It's proving to be an interesting read. The bit about scrubs playing to their own made up rules resonates at this point in time. Also, the More on Losing chapter with it's 'losing attitudes', and this one bit in particular:
“This game is dumb / too random / too boring.”
In all fairness, sometimes the game is dumb or too random or too boring. In that case, you should stop playing it altogether and find something better to do with your time.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Anpu: I'd say that deciding which time period to play is not a balance problem inherent in the game. It'd be like a Bolt Action player crying 'foul!' because he brought along his pikemen and musketeers.
40k seems to want to encourage the "scrub" as David Sirlin describes in his book:
A scrub is a player who is handicapped by self-imposed rules that the game knows nothing about. A scrub does not play to win.
While in 40k this a something that IMHO has to happen due to unbalanced rules, it's still an issue. You have to add additional rules (e.g. restricting choices) to the game, but by doing so you become a scrub.
(re: good players beating scrubs when they inevitably meet):
This is because the scrubs have not been playing the same game. The experts were playing the actual game while the scrubs were playing their own homemade variant with restricting, unwritten rules.
The biggest problem is that this is supposed to be a bad thing. Playing like a scrub is meant to be discouraged. But with 40k it seems you can't, because the game itself is so unbalanced by default. Playing 40k is like the equivalent of taking several small children and asking them what their favorite color is. One child answers "Red" and is given a red-colored box; when he opens it up it has a slice of chocolate cake. The other child answers "Blue" and is given a blue-colored box; he opens it up and there's a plate of brussel sprouts because, for whatever reason, GW decided that red is better than blue. Meanwhile, the child who answered Green gets five M&Ms and a chicken nugget, and the one who answered Yellow gets a ham sandwich. That's essentially how picking a 40k army goes.
The child who likes red is rewarded, the child who likes blue is punished for liking the wrong thing. Sorry Little Timmy, you should have liked red instead of blue!
Vermis wrote:None of you see anything inherently weird about the attitude that a game played between two opposing players shouldn't be competitive?
It should be competitive...after the game starts, i.e., once the dice start rolling.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Rayvon wrote:Win or lose, you still have to buy the toys though right ?
No, that's perfectly true. But if I spent $20 on my magic deck and you spent $200...
Sure. I may lose the game. But you paid $200 on a deck of cards. Congrats.
On the other hand, suppose that you and I each only spent $20 on a magic deck.
Look at what magically happens:
1. The game becomes much more competitive (i.e., there's actually a chance of either one of us winning, actually depending upon how we play).
2. Neither one of us wasted $200 on a deck of cards.
No you end up with 2 people playing decks they really don't want to play. Or in your case 1 person happy the other unhappy as for some reason you don't care what YOU play and can be happy with a per-made deck or one of oddball random cards. That is what magically happens, thanks for try to choose for us but your wrong.
Is that your real issue is you just don't like people spending more on the game the you? So the only way to fix the problem as you see it, is to JUDGE how others play the game. The treat the symptom while the virus eats the host mentality, will only lead to the death of the game.
Traditio wrote: It should be competitive...after the game starts, i.e., once the dice start rolling.
And there you go again with your bizarre assumption that the game begins when dice start rolling instead of the actual beginning of the game, when you write your army list/build your deck/etc. You might as well argue that the game starts on turn 3, so at the end of the first two turns the player with fewer points surviving gets to add models to their army to make up the difference and the objective scores for both players are reset to zero.
Sure. I may lose the game. But you paid $200 on a deck of cards. Congrats.
I.e., one person loses a game. The other person just is a loser.
Oh, so now you're going to resort to insulting anyone who doesn't play games the way you do. I guess you don't think that following forum rules is necessary?
1. The game becomes much more competitive (i.e., there's actually a chance of either one of us winning, actually depending upon how we play).
Not really. Games with $20 decks can still be completely "uncompetitive" by your definition because deckbuilding is still a skill. A well-built $20 deck will absolutely crush a poorly-built one, by almost as much of a margin as the $200 deck will.
2. Neither one of us wasted $200 on a deck of cards.
Let's say the same about 40k then: games should always consist of one tactical squad with no upgrades against another tactical squad with no upgrades. Now the game is perfectly "balanced" and nobody had to spend more than $20 on toy soldiers.
Or maybe you could finally understand that people enjoy things that you don't, and that includes being willing to spend lots of money on a hobby they enjoy.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Traditio wrote: Peregrine, it occurs to me that your point basically condenses down to:
"If you wan't willing to waste a ton of money and time on this game, then don't blame your opponent for crushing you if he is."
No, my point is that your personal desires (like "I want to be able to play on a budget of $X per month") about the game are just that: your personal desires. They aren't objective truth, and the fact that people enjoy playing the game in other ways doesn't make them bad people.
My point about MTG is simply this: you have no clue what you're talking about. You clearly never learned much about how the game works, and everything you've said about MTG strategy is hilariously ignorant. And yet you're willing to judge people and accuse them of moral offenses based on your incredibly flawed understanding of MTG strategy.
From that perspective, my answer is: "Yes, I can blame my opponent for treating a game as though it weren't a game. That's unreasonable and exceeds the virtuous mean."
And this where you get it wrong: your opponent playing the game in a way that you don't enjoy doesn't make them Evil (while you, of course, are Good), it just means the two of you enjoy different things. And there's nothing wrong with enjoying different things. The problem is that you can't leave it at that, you have to take your bizarre moral high ground and lecture everyone on how they're Bad People because they enjoy the "wrong" things.
For me it has always been about understanding who you are playing against and reaching a mutual understanding on what type of game you want to play at any one point in time. I know guys that I would certainly call WAAC/TFG who when I say I'd like to play a fluffy, story driven game are completely accommodating to my request. I have also played them in serious games to help them test their lists for tournaments. It's all about understanding IMO.
I wish Dakka had some sort of tangent thread capability; I could read this banter between Peregrine and Traditio all day. :-)
The articles linked in the OP, while a little overly self-righteous in tone, are correct. There are "scrubs" in every game; people who limit themselves with their own imaginary rules and then are off-put by people who don't honor those same rules.
That being said, I think it's condescending to call them "scrubs." I played a lot of different games, particularly CCGs, competitively for years. There's nothing wrong with people who play the game casually and just want to have fun. I could name quite a few friends with that mentality who I played with over the years. As long as everyone was respectful and showed good sportsmanship, we could all co-exist and mutually understand each other's goals. They would be great opponents if I wanted to experiment or play some goofy deck for fun.
The flip side, though, is that there's also nothing wrong with playing a game with a goal of self-improvement. That's where Traditio's mentality offends me, because he seems to think that anyone who wants to be better the second time the play a game than they were the first is TFG. Your friend is spending time optimizing his gear because he wants to make sure he's as good at slicing up orcs as he can be -- he wants to put his best foot forward (spending ten minutes may be a bit excessive, though -- perhaps you should respectfully ask him to limit it to just a couple minutes?).
But should it? Again, the idea that you need to basically vet prospective opponents to determine if you'll have an enjoyable game playing them is almost entirely a 40k/GW phenomenon. It doesn't exist elsewhere and exists in 40k mostly in part due to GW's terrible rules and lack of balance.
I would disagree with this. You won't find me praising GW rules, but the necessity to discuss with a potential opponent is not just a 40k thing. Most historical games require quite a bit of discussion to get the scenario and forces worked out. On a more popular level, take FoW for example. If you want to play a game with someone, you're going to have to nail down what theater and era, and then decide whether you're going to take historically representative lists or just play at points and let someone take as many Tigers as they want.
You're also disregarding the fact that some folks might not want to play a competitive game, but might want to play a scenario or game based on fluff and background with units chosen because they fit the story, not because they have great synergy. Most historical games are this way. Regardless of balance or imbalance choosing:
"_____ unit because of how well it interacts with ______ commander and _______ unit in ______ manner"
is mostly confined to tournament-style fantasy and sci-fi games. You're not going to see a napoleonic players choosing:
"the _____ grenadiers and the _______ Dragoons with the_________ light horse because they function most effectively with commander_____"
Rather, the choice of units is mostly dependent on the history and/or narrative. Balance barely comes into it.
slowthar wrote: I wish Dakka had some sort of tangent thread capability; I could read this banter between Peregrine and Traditio all day. :-)
The articles linked in the OP, while a little overly self-righteous in tone, are correct. There are "scrubs" in every game; people who limit themselves with their own imaginary rules and then are off-put by people who don't honor those same rules.
That being said, I think it's condescending to call them "scrubs." I played a lot of different games, particularly CCGs, competitively for years. There's nothing wrong with people who play the game casually and just want to have fun. I could name quite a few friends with that mentality who I played with over the years. As long as everyone was respectful and showed good sportsmanship, we could all co-exist and mutually understand each other's goals. They would be great opponents if I wanted to experiment or play some goofy deck for fun.
The flip side, though, is that there's also nothing wrong with playing a game with a goal of self-improvement. That's where Traditio's mentality offends me, because he seems to think that anyone who wants to be better the second time the play a game than they were the first is TFG. Your friend is spending time optimizing his gear because he wants to make sure he's as good at slicing up orcs as he can be -- he wants to put his best foot forward (spending ten minutes may be a bit excessive, though -- perhaps you should respectfully ask him to limit it to just a couple minutes?).
The problem with scrubs isn't that they play casually, it's that they invent their own restrictions that hamper them and then call anyone who doesn't play by those same restrictions cheesy/unfair/cheap and try to claim moral superiority. In Warmachine for example I see people who say that X caster is OP or refuse to play against things, that's 100% scrub mentality if you play someone who doesn't want to look for advice, doesn't want to improve their game but wants to just fool around (as Sirlin puts it in the context of fighting games, "ignorantly mashing buttons with little regard to actual strategy") and then cries foul when they play somebody who doesn't put artificial restrictions on themselves. On the same token, if I choose to not use a good caster in my faction I will be unlikely to really improve and evolve my game because I'm purposely making choices that prevent it. I can't play the game properly if I want to just screw around and pick stuff at random and then hope it works and call anyone who plays with tried-and-true combos (e.g. netlists) cheap because they're using better stuff than me; I have access to the good stuff too I just decided that I want to be a special snowflake and not use it and claim moral superiority for not "listening to forums" as a result. It's the act of crying foul when someone uses better options than you, when you have access to the good options and refuse to use it, a scrub. There's nothing wrong with trying things out, including "not as good" options, but IMHO the line gets crossed when it's a deliberate "I won't listen to anything said online" mentality that you tend to see crop up a lot in various games.
The context of that definition and theory in 40k is a bit off though because the game by default is so unbalanced that you need to have some sort of scrub mentality bleed through to fix the glaring holes with the game itself. You can't just use the default because there's such a huge discrepancy between sides; in a fighting game it would be the equivalent of letting one person pick Akuma and another pick a character that could only do Low attacks and had only one special move.
Coldhatred wrote: For me it has always been about understanding who you are playing against and reaching a mutual understanding on what type of game you want to play at any one point in time. I know guys that I would certainly call WAAC/TFG who when I say I'd like to play a fluffy, story driven game are completely accommodating to my request. I have also played them in serious games to help them test their lists for tournaments. It's all about understanding IMO.
Sounds like a pretty mature and responsible way to handle things.
I don't think "I want my 1500 point army to be reasonably balanced with other 1500 armies and not be forced to spends thousands of dollars and huge time sinks monthly to play the game" is unreasonable, uncommon or stifling you with arbitrary rules in the face of a corrupt and ignorant gaming system.
The problem is with the imbalanced system, and those who wish to rely on the imbalance to win and then claim skill are frauds. Do you really think it is reasonable to expect "everyone" who plays 40k to codex hop to statistically superior units every 6 months in order to follow the rules and play the game to ignorantly bad imbalance in a game which arguably can never be played competitively?
And reasonable people who don't have Aspergers can both understand balance and have empathy for those who lose do to an imbalanced system and decide when something is out of control. There is a reason by mega rayquaza and wobuffet have no place in Pokemon play. Doesn't mean everyone is a scrub, Nintendo gak the bed on those two. Also doesn't prevent people from being able to recognize the tiers.
40k is garbage and the imbalance is so great, anyone who pretends no one has any legitimate complaints and say "lern2playnoob" show they are either liars who are defending an unfair advantage of a broken system or have a form of Autism which means they lack understanding of simple human social interactions.
malfred wrote: If that's all you want, then just play draft.
Problem solved.
Not really, Traditio's argument is that using more powerful rules than your opponent is inherently a moral offense. So you can play draft, but after you draft your cards you'd be obligated to reveal the cards you drafted and remove the most powerful ones until the power level of your cards is equal to or less than the power level of the cards your opponents have. Forget about using that "bomb" rare you opened, unless everyone else in the draft opened something equally powerful. And if you violate these rules you're a bad person and god will burn you in hell for your sins.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
WayneTheGame wrote: The problem with scrubs isn't that they play casually, it's that they invent their own restrictions that hamper them and then call anyone who doesn't play by those same restrictions cheesy/unfair/cheap and try to claim moral superiority.
Exactly. Having your own goals for the game is fine. Telling everyone who doesn't follow your self-imposed rules how they're a horrible person (even if they're playing against other people who don't want to follow your rules and everyone is having fun) is a problem.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
nkelsch wrote: I don't think "I want my 1500 point army to be reasonably balanced with other 1500 armies and not be forced to spends thousands of dollars and huge time sinks monthly to play the game" is unreasonable, uncommon or stifling you with arbitrary rules in the face of a corrupt and ignorant gaming system.
Having budget limits is fine. Wanting your 1500 point army to be as powerful as other 1500 point armies is fine. The problem is when you assume that your 1500 point army is the standard by which everything should be judged, and anyone who goes beyond your power level is a WAACTFG. You asking your opponent to tone down their army to match your power level is no more reasonable than them asking you to improve your army to their power level.
The problem is with the imbalanced system, and those who wish to rely on the imbalance to win and then claim skill are frauds.
Recognizing and using the most powerful options is part of being good at a game.
Do you really think it is reasonable to expect "everyone" who plays 40k to codex hop to statistically superior units every 6 months in order to follow the rules and play the game to ignorantly bad imbalance in a game which arguably can never be played competitively?
No, but it isn't reasonable to expect that people not codex hop and play the best units/armies. Neither one is an inherently superior way of playing.
And reasonable people who don't have Aspergers can both understand balance and have empathy for those who lose do to an imbalanced system and decide when something is out of control.
Nice to see you have to resort to insults to "win" your argument. I guess the forum rules don't apply to you?
Thing is that 40ks rules are so unbalanced you need to do those kind of things to fix it. But yes the issue is when someone who thinks X is cheese wants to stop everyone from using X or says how X is wrong.
The problem with 40K isn't so much that people want to play it " a certain way" it is that they want to play it with figures that they invested tremendous amounts of time and effort in, that at one time were useful and fun to play with and now are not.
I like competitive 40K quite a bit, but not that the price of acquiring and painting 6 riptides.
Personally, I would gladly accept a rules set where, for example, units were less unique if they were better balanced. If each type of unit (infantry, heavy infantry, monstrous creature, tank, etc.) was fairly similar and had somewhat unique roles the game could focus on using those skillfully and modeling, rather than acquiring new models.
For the price of GW rules I expect my opponent to be able to bring whatever the heck they want and the game to still be worth unpacking the figures for on both sides, fluffy or waac.
A MTG game takes what, half an hour, $20-200 for a deck and maybe an hour of prep? A 40K game takes 3-4 hours to set up and play, or more, plus as much as a grand for figures and hundreds of hours of painting. It isn't really worth it unless you're pretty sure you're going to have fun.
Really, how long before someone writes a good enough "not 40K" system for it to catch on and get us off the codex/new edition/new death unit bandwagon?
I used to be very good with 1st person shooters.
Played a tiered competition and won with like minded players I knew at work.
I kept playing and progressively handicapped myself by disallowing higher level weapon use.
Most exciting moment for me was beating the guy with the rocket launcher with a hand weapon.
I have met much better players since then who could kill with a toothpick if it was programmed in.
I guess it is how do you play a "weaker" player and set a handicap for yourself and not buy into the scrub mentality?
Not wanting to change goals of the OP but maybe getting it closer to a solution of getting challenge but may get into bad habits.
Talizvar wrote: I used to be very good with 1st person shooters.
Played a tiered competition and won with like minded players I knew at work.
I kept playing and progressively handicapped myself by disallowing higher level weapon use.
Most exciting moment for me was beating the guy with the rocket launcher with a hand weapon.
I have met much better players since then who could kill with a toothpick if it was programmed in.
I guess it is how do you play a "weaker" player and set a handicap for yourself and not buy into the scrub mentality?
Not wanting to change goals of the OP but maybe getting it closer to a solution of getting challenge but may get into bad habits.
I can tell you what I do in WM/H.
I am playing in a Journeyman league right now with 6 brand new players and 2 others that are not new but not great. I bring strong lists with good synergy and I go over them with my opponents. I let them read the cards and have them ask me questions. I try to get them to come up with a strategy on how they can beat me. We talk about things like target priority, objectives they need to focus on, threat ranges etc. During the turns when they are going I let them know what will happen if they do x,y, or z, and let them choose what they want to do. I show them what I am doing during my turn and why I am doing it. I TEACH them to be better players. That way win or lose we both have a good time, and I am sewing the seeds for better games down the road.
Talizvar wrote: I guess it is how do you play a "weaker" player and set a handicap for yourself and not buy into the scrub mentality?
The easiest way to not buy into the "scrub" mentality is to understand the difference between "I'm going to impose rule X on myself to make the game more challenging/because I enjoy playing that way/etc" and "I'm going to impose rule X on myself, and you're a bad person if you don't do the same". The key part of the "scrub" is that they judge other people for not playing the game according to their personal rules, remove that and you don't have a "scrub" anymore.
Also, it probably helps to ask yourself why you're playing the game against this weaker person. Are you helping them learn the game? Are you friends with them and playing against them because of a social obligation? Are you bored that weekend and attending a "fluff" tournament where you know the lists will be weak? Etc.
Peregrine wrote:And there you go again with your bizarre assumption that the game begins when dice start rolling instead of the actual beginning of the game, when you write your army list/build your deck/etc. You might as well argue that the game starts on turn 3, so at the end of the first two turns the player with fewer points surviving gets to add models to their army to make up the difference and the objective scores for both players are reset to zero.
With all due respect, Peregrine, we have a fundamental disagreement about this. To an extent, you are entirely correct. List-building matters. If I run a magic the gathering deck with no lands or any other mana sources, that's my fault. Your reasoning, however, only goes so far. I'm simply not convinced by what you are saying.
Oh, so now you're going to resort to insulting anyone who doesn't play games the way you do. I guess you don't think that following forum rules is necessary?
I'm not insulting you, the person to whom I'm responding or anyone else. I was not talking about you or anyone else in particular. I am making a general claim: if you (you in general, let us note) spend all of your time and money on games, then you are a loser. You are failing at life. Period.
If I ask you what your whole life is about and you start talking about games and how good you are at them and how much time and money you invest in them, then you are a failure as a human being. Period.
Again, I have no idea what your personal circumstances or anyone else's are. This point is not directed to you or anyone else in particular. I am just stating a general fact.
And note, I am not saying this to flame anyone. I am saying this as my "professional" judgment as a person who knows a thing or two about ethical philosophy and rational anthropology.
I don't think I am making a generally controversial point here. If I were a wagering kind of person, I would bet that most respectable people historically would agree with me.
Not really. Games with $20 decks can still be completely "uncompetitive" by your definition because deckbuilding is still a skill. A well-built $20 deck will absolutely crush a poorly-built one, by almost as much of a margin as the $200 deck will.
Sure. There's always going to be that guy who is going to search through whatever card pool he has trying to try to find the most broken combos available (because he has no life and absolutely nothing better to do with his time). I have a friend who is that guy, and it annoys me to no end.
Oh, you picked a pilot in x-wing and this particular wargear, and this gives you...oh up to 4 focus counters per turn on that one guy alone, they don't go away at the end of the turn, and you can put them on whoever you want?
Oh. Brilliant. Excellent fething combo.
But my life doesn't revolve around x-wing. I was just playing a game to kill time, and frankly, I have no desire to spend that much time trying to optimize a load out. I just want to get to the part where we start moving and shooting.
Seriously, why the need to stack the dice before the game even starts? Just play the fething game.
Or maybe you could finally understand that people enjoy things that you don't, and that includes being willing to spend lots of money on a hobby they enjoy.
No, no. I fully understand that there are such people. I also fully understand that they are losers and failures at life, since you and I both know that "lots of" means "unreasonable and disproportionate quantities."
IMHO it comes from the balance issues in 40K, the balance has always been wonky, but in the past my impression was that my middle of the road list could hold its own, now there are so many loopholes in the game that would make a lawyer envious.
I have been crushed in Warmahordes several times but there it is more like waow never saw that feat used with that ability before.
Traditio wrote: With all due respect, Peregrine, we have a fundamental disagreement about this. To an extent, you are entirely correct. List-building matters. If I run a magic the gathering deck with no lands or any other mana sources, that's my fault. Your reasoning, however, only goes so far. I'm simply not convinced by what you are saying.
I know you aren't convinced, because that would mean conceding that you are wrong. That's the problem with trying to present your personal preferences about gaming as universal truth backed by moral philosophy, if you concede that you're wrong you have to admit that your entire system of morality was wrong.
I am making a general claim: if you (you in general, let us note) spend all of your time and money on games, then you are a loser. You are failing at life. Period.
No, you don't get to be dishonest and pretend you said something else. Your words are right there for anyone to see (and if you go back and edit your post they're still in my quote), you said that spending $200 on a deck of cards makes you a loser. Don't try to change "spending $200" to "spending all of your time and money".
Sure. There's always going to be that guy who is going to search through whatever card pool he has trying to try to find the most broken combos available (because he has no life and absolutely nothing better to do with his time). I have a friend who is that guy, and it annoys me to no end.
You don't even have to look for the most broken combos, you just have to have basic deckbuilding strategy. But, as we've already established, you don't know anything about how MTG works.
Oh, you picked a pilot in x-wing and this particular wargear, and this gives you...oh up to 4 focus counters per turn on that one guy alone, they don't go away at the end of the turn, and you can put them on whoever you want?
Oh. Brilliant. Excellent fething combo.
Well, thanks for conceding that you also don't know anything about how X-Wing works. The Kyle + Moldy Crow "combo" isn't very strong, and the fact that you're using that as an example of something "broken" just proves that you're the kind of person described in the "scrub" article. You rush to call something "cheese" without bothering to understand how it works or learn how to counter it, while everyone else figures out how it works and beats it.
Seriously, why the need to stack the dice before the game even starts? Just play the fething game.
They ARE playing the game. They just aren't complying with your arbitrary rules about how to play X-Wing, which seem to consist of "never take named pilots or use upgrades".
No, no. I fully understand that there are such people. I also fully understand that they are losers and failures at life, since you and I both know that "lots of" means "unreasonable and disproportionate quantities."
And once again you have to insult anyone who doesn't like the things you like. Spending $200 on a MTG deck does not make you a loser and a failure at life. The only thing I don't understand here is how you keep insulting people and blatantly violating forum rules without getting banned.
Peregrine wrote:And there you go again with your bizarre assumption that the game begins when dice start rolling instead of the actual beginning of the game, when you write your army list/build your deck/etc. You might as well argue that the game starts on turn 3, so at the end of the first two turns the player with fewer points surviving gets to add models to their army to make up the difference and the objective scores for both players are reset to zero.
With all due respect, Peregrine, we have a fundamental disagreement about this. To an extent, you are entirely correct. List-building matters. If I run a magic the gathering deck with no lands or any other mana sources, that's my fault. Your reasoning, however, only goes so far. I'm simply not convinced by what you are saying.
Oh, so now you're going to resort to insulting anyone who doesn't play games the way you do. I guess you don't think that following forum rules is necessary?
I'm not insulting you, the person to whom I'm responding or anyone else. I was not talking about you or anyone else in particular. I am making a general claim: if you (you in general, let us note) spend all of your time and money on games, then you are a loser. You are failing at life. Period.
If I ask you what your whole life is about and you start talking about games and how good you are at them and how much time and money you invest in them, then you are a failure as a human being. Period.
Again, I have no idea what your personal circumstances or anyone else's are. This point is not directed to you or anyone else in particular. I am just stating a general fact.
And note, I am not saying this to flame anyone. I am saying this as my "professional" judgment as a person who knows a thing or two about ethical philosophy and rational anthropology.
I don't think I am making a generally controversial point here. If I were a wagering kind of person, I would bet that most respectable people historically would agree with me.
Not really. Games with $20 decks can still be completely "uncompetitive" by your definition because deckbuilding is still a skill. A well-built $20 deck will absolutely crush a poorly-built one, by almost as much of a margin as the $200 deck will.
Sure. There's always going to be that guy who is going to search through whatever card pool he has trying to try to find the most broken combos available (because he has no life and absolutely nothing better to do with his time). I have a friend who is that guy, and it annoys me to no end.
Oh, you picked a pilot in x-wing and this particular wargear, and this gives you...oh up to 4 focus counters per turn on that one guy alone, they don't go away at the end of the turn, and you can put them on whoever you want?
Oh. Brilliant. Excellent fething combo.
But my life doesn't revolve around x-wing. I was just playing a game to kill time, and frankly, I have no desire to spend that much time trying to optimize a load out. I just want to get to the part where we start moving and shooting.
Seriously, why the need to stack the dice before the game even starts? Just play the fething game.
Or maybe you could finally understand that people enjoy things that you don't, and that includes being willing to spend lots of money on a hobby they enjoy.
No, no. I fully understand that there are such people. I also fully understand that they are losers and failures at life, since you and I both know that "lots of" means "unreasonable and disproportionate quantities."
I don't want to be insulting... but you're espousing the 'scrub mentality' talked about in the OP. You've set what you personally think are reasonable rules (don't worry about list building, define a 'reasonable' amount of time and money to spend on the game) and you're deriding and insulting people who play the game without conforming to your rules.
Peregrine wrote:I know you aren't convinced, because that would mean conceding that you are wrong. That's the problem with trying to present your personal preferences about gaming as universal truth backed by moral philosophy, if you concede that you're wrong you have to admit that your entire system of morality was wrong.
I make no pretensions to asserting that my idea of "when" a game begins is somehow established on any moral philosophy.
No, you don't get to be dishonest and pretend you said something else. Your words are right there for anyone to see (and if you go back and edit your post they're still in my quote), you said that spending $200 on a deck of cards makes you a loser. Don't try to change "spending $200" to "spending all of your time and money".
If you spend $200 on a deck of cards, you are probably a loser. If cards mean that much to you, then you seriously need to re-evaluate your priorities. Again, of course, not you in particular. The "you" is general.
You don't even have to look for the most broken combos, you just have to have basic deckbuilding strategy. But, as we've already established, you don't know anything about how MTG works.
Because, of course, this is not an insult or even an implied insult? And totally consistent with the first rule of the forums, yes? And I'm pretty sure that your "you" was particular, not general.
Well, thanks for conceding that you also don't know anything about how X-Wing works. The Kyle + Moldy Crow "combo" isn't very strong, and the fact that you're using that as an example of something "broken" just proves that you're the kind of person described in the "scrub" article. You rush to call something "cheese" without bothering to understand how it works or learn how to counter it, while everyone else figures out how it works and beats it.
I'm using that as an example of what a power gamer comes up with. The fact that someone even comes up with that combo is just ridiculous.
They ARE playing the game. They just aren't complying with your arbitrary rules about how to play X-Wing, which seem to consist of "never take named pilots or use upgrades".
You know, it's times like these that I more appreciate the chess clock. There should be an equivalent in on-the-spot list constructions and player-turns.
And once again you have to insult anyone who doesn't like the things you like. Spending $200 on a MTG deck does not make you a loser and a failure at life.
I'm inclined to think that only a failure at life and a loser would pay $200 on a MTG deck. Why? Because only a loser and a failure at life would value a deck of magic cards that much.
You disagree with me? Then please. Explain to me how a magic the gathering deck could be worth $200 to someone who isn't a loser and a failure at life.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Trasvi wrote:I don't want to be insulting... but you're espousing the 'scrub mentality' talked about in the OP. You've set what you personally think are reasonable rules (don't worry about list building, define a 'reasonable' amount of time and money to spend on the game) and you're deriding and insulting people who play the game without conforming to your rules.
You say "scrub." I say "normal, reasonable human being who does not have borderline sociopathy, megalomania, obessive compulsive disorder and/or a napolean complex...or, in a word, anyone who isn't either mentally disturbed or a complete and utter loser who is compensating for the fact that he has absolutely nothing else going on in his life" [Note, of course, that I am not saying these things about any posters in this thread; if any of my readers should feel as though these comments apply to him or her in particular, then do not take offense; I'm not talking about you in particular; you should, however, seriously reconsider whether or not you have your life in order and re-evaluate your life priorities.]
I think attitude means everything: there is a subtle but important difference between playing to win because you love games, and needing to win because you hate losing.
I love Sirlin's "play to win" article, and I think everything he says is absolutely spot on. However, there is an equally important quote (often attributed to game designer Reiner Knizia) which goes something like: "The objective of the game is to win; the point of the game is to have fun". These two 'philosophies' often find themselves at odds when the "playing to win" debate crops up, but I don't think they are at odds at all. In fact, I think they aught to go hand-in-hand, because they essentially approach the same idea from different angles... enjoying games for what they are, and being a good sport about it.
There are people out there who are just sore-losers. They hang too much ego and emotion on "needing to win", until they become so preoccupied with the outcome of games, they aren't really able to enjoy a game itself for what it is (a fun game). These kind of people are obviously more prone to cheating because their focus is not on the game, but on the ego validation they get from winning (WAAC). Sometimes they will play fair, but start swearing and throwing a tantrum when they lose (TFG). And sometimes... they will cry "cheap" and "unfair" when their opponent beats them using a perfectly good and legal strategy (The Scrub). While some of these people are perhaps more extreme than others, what they all have in common is a bad attitude.
Sirlin, above all else, is an advocate of playing "fair". He has even written pieces on "playing to win, and cheating" where he flatly condemns cheating. In fact, his entire play to win article could be described as an explanation of what "playing fair" really truly means. It's a call to arms, empowering people not to be guilt-tripped and suckered into whatever a scrub's notion of "fair" happens to be. In many ways, a scrub adding his own rules, isn't all that different from a cheat breaking the rules. Both are attempting to alter the rules in order to win on their own terms.
Personally, I consider myself someone who does indeed "play to win". In every game I play, I play seriously, and I derive great pleasure from trying to figure out the best strategy, and "solve" the game like it were a puzzle. However, I really hate when people call me "competitive", because even though I do play to win, I don't need to win for my ego. In fact, I don't really enjoy seeing other people lose. Nothing makes me happier than seeing my friends all smug and gloating because they beat me at something. Especially if I've been trash talking and winding them up (which I tend to do a lot). I always try to be a generous loser and congratulate people where they played well, and just have fun enjoying the game. That attitude is really important, and I don't think anyone considers me TFG, or someone who "isn't fun" to play games with, just because I try to play well.
With regards to 40k... Sirlin does say that some games just aren't good. Oftentimes a game being bad and you being a scrub can look very similar, but if the game is truly broken then the only winning move is not to play. I think 40k is such a game, and I'm not really interested in playing it anymore. There are so many other good games out there that are deserving of your time, why waste it trying to "fix" a game that isn't.
Traditio wrote: If you spend $200 on a deck of cards, you are probably a loser. If cards mean that much to you, then you seriously need to re-evaluate your priorities. Again, of course, not you in particular. The "you" is general.
And there you go again, breaking forum rules by insulting anyone who doesn't play games the way you do. Why do you insist on doing this?
Because, of course, this is not an insult or even an implied insult?
It's not an insult, it's just simple fact. You don't know anything about how MTG works, and you've demonstrated that over and over again. That's only insulting if you feel that knowing how MTG works is somehow an essential part of being a good person. On the other hand, most reasonable people understand that not knowing how a particular game works isn't really anything to feel bad about. There are many games that I don't know anything about, and I'll openly admit it.
I'm using that as an example of what a power gamer comes up with. The fact that someone even comes up with that combo is just ridiculous.
And the point is that it's a terrible example. It isn't something a "power gamer" comes up with because it isn't a very good combo. Nor is it ridiculous that someone came up with it because the HWK expansion pack (which both cards come in) pretty much says "play these two cards together", and FFG (the game publisher, in case you don't know) even suggested using it in their preview article about the ship.
I'm inclined to think that only a failure at life and a loser would pay $200 on a MTG deck. Why? Because only a loser and a failure at life would value a deck of magic cards that much.
Yep, another (entirely predictable) insult.
You disagree with me? Then please. Explain to me how a magic the gathering deck could be worth $200 to someone who isn't a loser and a failure at life.
For the same reason that ANY hobby can be worth that much. Why is a toy soldier army worth $200 when you can get a bag of toy soldiers from your local Walmart for $1? Why is a piece of art worth $200 when you can print a copy from the internet for less than $1?
Also, $200 really isn't that much money for a hobby. In fact, one of the conventional standards for succeeding at life is having a high-paying job. And if you're a successful doctor/engineer/lawyer/etc the answer to "why spend $200 on a deck of cards" is nothing more than "because it's a rounding error in my budget".
You say "scrub." I say "normal, reasonable human being who does not have borderline sociopathy, megalomania, obessive compulsive disorder and/or a napolean complex...or, in a word, anyone who isn't either mentally disturbed or a complete and utter loser who is compensating for the fact that he has absolutely nothing else going on in his life" [Note, of course, that I am not saying these things about any posters in this thread.]
And of course, more insults. It's amazing how many assumptions you're willing to make about a person's morality and mental health based on nothing more than an example of what kind of lists/decks/etc they use in a game.
Traditio wrote: I'm inclined to think that only a failure at life and a loser would pay $200 on a MTG deck. Why? Because only a loser and a failure at life would value a deck of magic cards that much.
You disagree with me? Then please. Explain to me how a magic the gathering deck could be worth $200 to someone who isn't a loser and a failure at life.
Because they get more value from $200 worth of Magic Cards than anything else that is on Traditio's list of Approved Fun Products For Winners At Life?
$200 for a hobby isn't much money. Considering you're in this thread talking about 40k and wargaming... $200 is less than any wargame will cost you, and Magic provides roughly the same category of fun to the people participating. It costs $200 in rulebooks alone to play any 40k army and another $500+ of miniatures on top of that: Magic looks like an absolute bargain in comparison. A 50pt Warmachine army of any variety will cost you $200 easily. 100pts of X-Wing at even a vague level of competitiveness is getting close to $200.
People like to spend their money in different ways than you. People like to have fun in different ways than you - even if you're playing the same game. Claiming that you have spent the One True Amount on your army and know the One True Level Of Cheese, and everyone else who spends differently or uses different tactics is a complete loser at life... thats the scrub mentality.
slowthar wrote:The flip side, though, is that there's also nothing wrong with playing a game with a goal of self-improvement.
If you want to improve yourself, playing magic the gathering, video games or warhammer (or any of its varieties or equivalents) isn't what I would recommend.
That's where Traditio's mentality offends me, because he seems to think that anyone who wants to be better the second time the play a game than they were the first is TFG.
Do you seriously not see the difference between:
1. Figuring out how the game works and playing "the best you can" based on the general structuring of the game
and
2. Taking little bits and pieces of the game and trying to "break" the game.
The "scrub" who figured out all of the combo moves was doing the former.
The loser/megalomaniac was doing the latter. He was spamming throws.
That's just not how you play the game (but it's legal, but it's within the confines of the rules, but that's how you win...and bla...bla...bla).
The fact is, I simply agree with the old maxim: "It's not whether you win or lose that counts: it's all about how you play the game."
Your friend is spending time optimizing his gear because he wants to make sure he's as good at slicing up orcs as he can be
At the expense of actually slicing up orcs.
If he doesn't stop every 5 minutes to scroll through his items, will he suddenly just start dying left and right?
If he switches out the second wraithknight for an avatar of khaine, will he suddently be gauranteed a loss instead of a victory or a tie?
Traditio wrote: Do you seriously not see the difference between:
1. Figuring out how the game works and playing "the best you can" based on the general structuring of the game
and
2. Taking little bits and pieces of the game and trying to "break" the game.
The point here is that you're taking pieces of #1 and moving them into category #2 because you don't like those elements of the game. And in most of your examples you're doing it without ever really understanding how the game works. Kyle + Moldy Crow and MTG counterspells are both clearly elements of #1. The only reason you've put them into category #2 is because you encountered them once, decided that they were "cheese" instead of trying to understand them, and made your arbitrary rule that Good People don't use those things. IOW, exactly what the "scrub" article describes.
The "scrub" who figured out all of the combo moves was doing the former.
The loser/megalomaniac was doing the latter. He was spamming throws.
Only because you've invented this completely arbitrary definition of the "true nature of the game" that includes combos but doesn't include throws. This definition is not found anywhere outside of your personal preferences, no matter how many times you try to pretend otherwise.
At the expense of actually slicing up orcs.
If he doesn't stop every 5 minutes to scroll through his items, will he suddenly just start dying left and right?
And, again, who cares? Your friend has fun doing what they're doing. Why is it so important for you to present that as somehow being the Wrong Kind Of Fun and insist that they change how they play the game?
Peregrine wrote:The point here is that you're taking pieces of #1 and moving them into category #2 because you don't like those elements of the game. And in most of your examples you're doing it without ever really understanding how the game works. Kyle + Moldy Crow and MTG counterspells are both clearly elements of #1. The only reason you've put them into category #2 is because you encountered them once, decided that they were "cheese" instead of trying to understand them, and made your arbitrary rule that Good People don't use those things. IOW, exactly what the "scrub" article describes.
Read the back of any video game box you want. I'll quote the back of Judge Dredd: Dredd vs. Death:
"You are the Law! Welcome to Mega-city one, a city of over 400 million people - every one of them a potential criminal. It is the third decade of the 22nd century, and unemployment is widespread, bordedom is universal and only the judges can prevent total anarchy. Take on the role of the most feared and respected of all the Judges, Judge Dredd, as he attempts to overcome the sudden outbreak of vampires in the city - could this be the work of the malevolent Dark Judges?"
Read any video game box you want. Please. Read me the one that says anything about spamming throws.
Traditio wrote: If you spend $200 on a deck of cards, you are probably a loser. If cards mean that much to you, then you seriously need to re-evaluate your priorities. Again, of course, not you in particular. The "you" is general.
Why are you here? Other than trying to purposely rile people up, because personally I refuse to believe anyone could seriously possess the mindset that you do and willingly come here to engage in discussion thinking that it's actually going to go anywhere.
I think it's cute that you think continuously pointing out that your "you's" are "general" and that you're not singling anyone out in particular means a god-damned thing. You're on a forum where the vast majority of members have spent many hundreds, thousands even, on this hobby (or others). I wouldn't hesitate to say that you're probably the only one here who hasn't, assuming this isn't just an elaborate troll, anyway (I would honestly be stunned). You are basically insulting the entire forum, calling all of us "losers", "failures at life", or otherwise insinuating that we have no moral code simply because we're spending money on non-essential items, and thinking you can get away with it because you didn't name any names. Bullgak. You know full well where you are and what we do here, and no one is so stupid as to think that your insults aren't being directed at them.
I'm awful curious though, what isn't considered a waste of time and/or money in your world, anyway? What's on the aforementioned "Traditio's List of Approved Fun Products For Winners At Life"? And based on your comments in other threads I certainly hope that list is actually empty, that the vast majority of your income goes to charity, and that you live in a shack without decoration and only the absolute barest necessities for living, otherwise you're a monster just like the rest of us. The fact alone that you have a computer is an outrage, since the money you spent on that, plus the internet bill, and the time you're wasting to call all of us trash could have been better used assisting the homeless population in your hometown.
Traditio wrote: Read any video game box you want. Please. Read me the one that says anything about spamming throws.
Why do I care about a one-paragraph summary on the back of a box? That's not even close to being the entire game.
PS: I don't have the box to any of my HWK-290s anymore, but the preview article for the ship (a pretty clear statement of the designer's intent for the game) explicitly suggests the Kyle + recon specialist + Moldy Crow combo you labeled "TFG cheese" that only a "failure at life" would ever use.
Traditio wrote: It's a brief summary of the entire game: what it is, what it is about and what the game designers intended.
What part of "brief" is so confusing? A back-of-box summary never covers the entire concept of a game because it's a brief summary. And most of the time it is written by the marketing department, not the game designers.
PS: I don't have the box to any of my HWK-290s anymore, but the preview article for the ship (a pretty clear statement of the designer's intent for the game) explicitly suggests the Kyle + recon specialist + Moldy Crow combo you labeled "TFG cheese" that only a "failure at life" would ever use.
Peregrine wrote:PS: I don't have the box to any of my HWK-290s anymore, but the preview article for the ship (a pretty clear statement of the designer's intent for the game) explicitly suggests the Kyle + recon specialist + Moldy Crow combo you labeled "TFG cheese" that only a "failure at life" would ever use.
The article in the OP was about street fighter. I specifically asked about video games.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Smacks wrote:Are you saying the designers didn't intend to add throws?
Traditio wrote: The article in the OP was about street fighter. I specifically asked about video games.
I know you're trying to avoid admitting that you were wrong about X-Wing. But I'm not going to let you do it. The X-Wing example is exactly the same as the Street Fighter example.
Peregrine wrote:What part of "brief" is so confusing? A back-of-box summary never covers the entire concept of a game because it's a brief summary. And most of the time it is written by the marketing department, not the game designers.
Traditio wrote: In other words: you can't meet my challenge.
No, because it's a stupid challenge that has nothing to do with game design. It's like if I were to ask you to find me a copy of a game box saying "Peregrine is awesome", and if you fail to provide one you have to concede that I'm right about the Eldar codex being perfectly balanced.
PS: you still haven't admitted that you were wrong about X-Wing. Could you please admit defeat so I can stop reminding you?
Peregrine wrote:I know you're trying to avoid admitting that you were wrong about X-Wing. But I'm not going to let you do it. The X-Wing example is exactly the same as the Street Fighter example.
Disanalogous. In one case, the designers are saying: "Hey, this stuff is meant to be used together." I may very well have been wrong about x-wing.
But disanalogous to streetfighter. Did the game designers put, in the rulebook, "spam throws"?
Traditio wrote: I may very well have been wrong about x-wing.
No, you were indisputably wrong about X-Wing. And you were wrong in a way that clearly demonstrates the kind of thinking described in the "scrub" article. You encountered something in a game, immediately labeled it "TFG cheese", and declared that anyone who uses it must be a Bad Person. And you were indisputably wrong.
Did the game designers put, in the rulebook, "spam throws"?
Who cares? Is the only valid strategy in a game the one the designers explicitly tell you to use? Do you really need someone to hold your hand and tell you everything about how to play the game?
I have seen your previous comments, but you aren't making much sense. The designers "intention" was that there should be throws in the game. They went to a lot of trouble animating throws and everything. That was clearly what was intended.
Some characters like Zangief have a whole array of different throws "intentionally". Why would you then assume that doing lots of throws wasn't an intentional part of the game?
I have seen your previous comments, but you aren't making much sense. The designers "intention" was that there should be throws in the game. They went to a lot of trouble animating throws and everything. That was clearly what was intended.
Some characters like Zangief have a whole array of different throws "intentionally". Why would you then assume that doing lots of throws wasn't and intentional part of the game?
The only reason I kind think of to not like throw spam is if you failed to figure out the counter.
Noir wrote:The only reason I kind think of to not like throw spam is if you failed to figure out the counter.
Spamming one move is unsportsmanlike conduct. Spamming one move specifically because your opponent doesn't know how to counter it is unsportsmanlike conduct.
It's unfriendly. It's not fun to play against. It's not fun to watch.
Traditio wrote: Spamming one move is unsportsmanlike conduct.
Only because you've invented a bizarre rule where playing the game the "right way" involves using lots of different moves. This is exactly what is described in the "scrub" article, you've invented a rule, insisted that people follow it, and labeled anyone who doesn't a Bad Person.
It's not fun to play against. It's not fun to watch.
Why do you keep having so much trouble understanding that other people enjoy doing things that you don't think are fun? For them it is fun to play against and to watch.
Noir wrote:The only reason I kind think of to not like throw spam is if you failed to figure out the counter.
Spamming one move is unsportsmanlike conduct. Spamming one move specifically because your opponent doesn't know how to counter it is unsportsmanlike conduct.
It's unfriendly. It's not fun to play against. It's not fun to watch.
It's just annoying to be involved in it.
If you are that guy, then shame on you. Stop it.
Yeah, that one button takes a lot to figure out. Try learning the game before you start to call stuff broken.
Noir wrote:The only reason I kind think of to not like throw spam is if you failed to figure out the counter.
Spamming one move is unsportsmanlike conduct. Spamming one move specifically because your opponent doesn't know how to counter it is unsportsmanlike conduct.
It's unfriendly. It's not fun to play against. It's not fun to watch.
It's just annoying to be involved in it.
If you are that guy, then shame on you. Stop it.
Its like you read the article about scrubs, and are now acting out every aspect of the scrub described in the article. And I quote:
The loser usually takes the imagined moral high ground by sticking to his Code of Honor, a made-up set of personal rules that tells him which moves he can and cannot do. Of course, the rules of the game itself dictate which moves a player can and cannot make, so the Code of Honor is superfluous and counterproductive toward winning. This can also take the form of the loser complaining that you have broken his Code of Honor. He will almost always assume the entire world agrees on his Code and that only the most vile social outcasts would ever break his rules.
Trasvi wrote:Its like you read the article about scrubs, and are now acting out every aspect of the scrub described in the article. And I quote:
The loser usually takes the imagined moral high ground by sticking to his Code of Honor, a made-up set of personal rules that tells him which moves he can and cannot do. Of course, the rules of the game itself dictate which moves a player can and cannot make, so the Code of Honor is superfluous and counterproductive toward winning. This can also take the form of the loser complaining that you have broken his Code of Honor. He will almost always assume the entire world agrees on his Code and that only the most vile social outcasts would ever break his rules.
The article basically took the non-megalomaniac/non-sociopathic/normal, reasonable human being position and gave it a bad name, ie., "scrub." He then said: "But, in point of fact, the only point of playing the game is winning. Repent, scrub, repent."
My answer: winning is not the only goal of a game. In fact, it is better to lose than to win in a cheap, unsportsmanlike way.
Traditio wrote: The article basically took the non-megalomaniac/non-sociopathic/normal, reasonable human being position and gave it a bad name, ie., "scrub."
So unless you invent your own arbitrary rules about how a game is "meant" to be played and insult anyone who doesn't follow those rules you're a sociopath? Makes sense to me...
PS: implying that anyone who disagrees with you is a megalomaniac or sociopath is a blatant violation of rule #1. Please stop doing this.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Traditio wrote: I would take this point seriously, except for the fact that we're talking about spamming throws.
What's so bad about spamming throws, besides your arbitrary rule that it's not how the game is "supposed to be played"?
Peregrine wrote:So unless you invent your own arbitrary rules about how a game is "meant" to be played and insult anyone who doesn't follow those rules you're a sociopath? Makes sense to me...
PS: implying that anyone who disagrees with you is a megalomaniac or sociopath is a blatant violation of rule #1. Please stop doing this.
I didn't say either of those things. I'm saying that if you read the article that you keep citing so fondly, Peregrine, the guy's manner of speaking and thinking strike me as frankly sociopathic. Compare this to the article that you keep citing. If that writer isn't a sociopath, then he sure writes like one.
Peregrine wrote:So unless you invent your own arbitrary rules about how a game is "meant" to be played and insult anyone who doesn't follow those rules you're a sociopath? Makes sense to me...
PS: implying that anyone who disagrees with you is a megalomaniac or sociopath is a blatant violation of rule #1. Please stop doing this.
I didn't say either of those things. I'm saying that if you read the article that you keep citing so fondly, Peregrine, the guy's manner of speaking and thinking strike me as frankly sociopathic. Compare this to the article that you keep citing. If that writer isn't a sociopath, then he sure writes like one.
Traditio wrote: I'm saying that if you read the article that you keep citing so fondly, Peregrine, the guy's manner of speaking and thinking strike me as frankly sociopathic.
Only because, in your world, "sociopath" seems to be a synonym for "someone who disagrees with me". Nothing in that article has anything to do with the concept of a sociopath as defined by the rest of the world.
You constantly judge people. You called anyone who spends $200 on a MTG deck a "failure at life", you accuse anyone who doesn't pay your "Kant would say you're a bad person if you don't voluntarily add 50 points to your unit's cost" tax on Wraithknights of being a WAACTFG, etc. In fact, it would be hard to find a post from you that doesn't judge people.
Peregrine wrote:Only because, in your world, "sociopath" seems to be a synonym for "someone who disagrees with me". Nothing in that article has anything to do with the concept of a sociopath as defined by the rest of the world.
Oh, yes, of course. Because the article didn't display, and just to name a few things:
Lack of empathy
Cold, calculating nature
Shallow emotions
Narcissism
Grandiose self image
Lawfulness (and here, in particular, I quote: "despite popular belief, a sociopath is not likely to be a problem to the law in later life, but rather will seek to find loopholes, to rise to a position of power, or to move to another area so that their behavior is tolerated"; in other words, "Tolerate me!!! Spamming throws is technically legal!")
Smacks wrote:So is crying "cheap" whenever someone beats you, instead of admitting that maybe they're just better at the game and you need practice.
I would take this point seriously, except for the fact that we're talking about spamming throws.
If you aren't able to counter something as obvious and announced as the same move done over and over again, then I would say there is a very good chance you are bad at the game. So complaining that your opponent is "cheap" just because they beat you with one move sounds incredibly petty and unsportsmanlike.
Instead of moaning and being a sore-loser, why not learn to counter? Then they'll probably stop doing it.
Smacks wrote:If you aren't able to counter something as obvious and announced as the same move done over and over again, then I would say there is a very good chance you are bad at the game. So complaining that your opponent is "cheap" just because they beat you with one move sounds incredibly petty and unsportsmanlike.
Instead of moaning and being a sore-loser, why not learn to counter? Then they'll probably stop doing it.
If you're playing with the same people (a friend, let us assume), and you beat him by spamming throws the first time, that's fine. That's a laugh. Haha.
You (you in general, let us note) do it a second time, and that's pushing it. I think I got the message the first time. You can beat me by spamming throws. Very good. Let us move on with our day, thank you very much.
You do it a third time, and you're not worth playing against any more. Because at this point, you're just out to win. Not to have a fun time with your friend.
And if that's the case, you're not worth hanging out with. At least, I wouldn't want to hang out with you.
Traditio wrote: Oh, yes, of course. Because the article didn't display, and just to name a few things:
Lack of empathy
Cold, calculating nature
Shallow emotions
Narcissism
Grandiose self image
Lawfulness (and here, in particular, I quote: "despite popular belief, a sociopath is not likely to be a problem to the law in later life, but rather will seek to find loopholes, to rise to a position of power, or to move to another area so that their behavior is tolerated"; in other words, "Tolerate me!!! Spamming throws is technically legal!")
No, it really doesn't display any of those things. Nor does it say that spamming throws (or whatever other overpowered thing) is something that everyone should passively accept regardless of whether they enjoy it. The whole point of the article is that the scrub isn't just a low-skill player or someone who enjoys a particular strategy, they're someone who makes up arbitrary rules for how to play the game and then criticizes other people for not following them while bragging about how they're the "real" winner. The scrub cares obsessively about winning, they just define "winning" in a way that makes sure that they always win and everyone else is always wrong. In short:
Playing a character you like and asking your opponent to pick a character/strategy that doesn't completely dominate your character = legitimate preference in game style.
Playing a character you like, losing the game, and whining endlessly about how your opponent was "cheap" and how you're the "real" winner = scrub.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Traditio wrote: Let us move on with our day, thank you very much.
Why is your opponent TFG for continuing to spam throws instead of "moving on with our day", but you aren't TFG for continuing your strategy that is easily countered by spamming throws instead of "moving on with our day" by learning how to beat throw spam? And why does your definition of "fun to hang out with" include "allows me to win games without ever having to change my strategy"?
Peregrine wrote:Why is your opponent TFG for continuing to spam throws instead of "moving on with our day", but you aren't TFG for continuing your strategy that is easily countered by spamming throws instead of "moving on with our day" by learning how to beat throw spam? And why does your definition of "fun to hang out with" include "allows me to win games without ever having to change my strategy"?
False dichotomy. The dichotomy that you are presenting is:
1. Spam throws
2. Let me win.
Except, there's a middle ground. Attempt to beat me without resorting to spamming throws.
Smacks wrote:If you aren't able to counter something as obvious and announced as the same move done over and over again, then I would say there is a very good chance you are bad at the game. So complaining that your opponent is "cheap" just because they beat you with one move sounds incredibly petty and unsportsmanlike.
Instead of moaning and being a sore-loser, why not learn to counter? Then they'll probably stop doing it.
If you're playing with the same people (a friend, let us assume), and you beat him by spamming throws the first time, that's fine. That's a laugh. Haha.
You (you in general, let us note) do it a second time, and that's pushing it. I think I got the message the first time. You can beat me by spamming throws. Very good. Let us move on with our day, thank you very much.
You do it a third time, and you're not worth playing against any more. Because at this point, you're just out to win. Not to have a fun time with your friend.
And if that's the case, you're not worth hanging out with. At least, I wouldn't want to hang out with you.
Well if you're a friend who is new at the game, and I'm supposed to be teaching you how to play, then yeah. Spamming throws might not be the most effective way to teach you.
However, if you play all the time then you shouldn't keep on expecting your friend to go easy on you (or else you call him cheap). At some point it becomes your responsibility to learn how to play properly and counter the throw.
If you decided to go play in a local tournament with prize money then people wouldn't hold back. So it would be for your own benefit ultimately.
Smacks wrote:Instead of moaning and being a sore-loser, why not learn to counter? Then they'll probably stop doing it.
One final point. As I read this post again, it really annoys me that you accuse the "scrub" of being a sore loser.
The "scrub" isn't sore about the fact that he lost. He's sore about how he lost. What annoys me isn't the fact that I lost, say, at a game of street fighter. What annoys me, say, is the fact that my opponent beat me by spamming throws.
Let us both perform a variety of moves, avoid spam and create a visual display, and I lose, then so what? It was exciting and fun both to play and to watch. I lost, but frankly, we both won out for having playedi t.
You spam throws? That's a different story entirely.
Traditio wrote: Except, there's a middle ground. Attempt to beat me without resorting to spamming throws.
Why do I have the obligation to change my strategy when you have no matching obligation to change yours?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Traditio wrote: As I read this post again, it really annoys me that you accuse the "scrub" of being a sore loser.
Why? That's exactly what they are. That's why the scrub has to go on and on about how they're the "real" winner. They can't accept the fact that they lost, and have to find some way to twist the situation into giving them a "win".
Smacks wrote:Well if you're a friend who is new at the game, and I'm supposed to be teaching you how to play, then yeah. Spamming throws might not be the most effective way to teach you.
However, if you play all the time then you shouldn't keep on expecting your friend to go easy on you (or else you call him cheap). At some point it becomes your responsibility to learn how to play properly and counter the throw.
If you decided to go play in a local tournament with prize money then people wouldn't hold back. So it would be for your own benefit ultimately.
I feel as though this last bit really betrays your mentality and general mindset.
With all due respect, I don't care about tournaments. It is not the case that every instance of every game is just tournament preparation. Sometimes, a game is just a game.
If more people realized this, the world would be better off.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Peregrine wrote:Why do I have the obligation to change my strategy when you have no matching obligation to change yours?
Depends upon why we're playing. Chances are, if we're playing a video game, it's in a casual social exchange. Part of that implies not acting in a way which is unduly offensive, unpleasant, etc.
There is nothing unduly offensive, unpleasant, etc. about the mode of play that I am describing (unless, of course, you are a power playing TFG).
About your mode of play, however (not yours in particular, but, rather, what you are describing)...that's a different story.
Why? That's exactly what they are. That's why the scrub has to go on and on about how they're the "real" winner. They can't accept the fact that they lost, and have to find some way to twist the situation into giving them a "win".
I've already addressed this. See my earlier comment. The simple fact is that you are thinking in WAAC categories and attempting to superimpose it onto "scrubs."
WAAC: winning and losing is all that counts. The scrub, when I beat him, insists that I played unfairly and didn't win in a proper/fair way. Therefore, all that he's concerned with is winning and losing, and he's really just a sore loser.
Again, no. That's just a WAAC superimposition onto the "scrub."
Traditio wrote: Chances are, if we're playing a video game, it's in a casual social exchange.
Maybe for you. For other people playing in a competitive tournament is more common.
There is nothing unduly offensive, unpleasant, etc. about the mode of play that I am describing (unless, of course, you are a power playing TFG).
IN. YOUR. OPINION. Maybe I find your way of playing unduly offensive and unpleasant because your favorite character has really ugly animations and I don't enjoy having to carefully monitor my choice of moves to make sure that I'm not crossing your "cheese" threshold.
About your mode of play, however (not yours in particular, but, rather, what you are describing)...that's a different story.
Please, tell me exactly how spamming throws is "unduly offensive, unpleasant, etc" without any reference to subjective lists of what things you personally enjoy.
The simple fact is that you are thinking in WAAC categories and attempting to superimpose it onto "scrubs."
No, I'm just observing their behavior and stating the obvious. If someone spends a lot of time complaining about how they "really" won the game instead of just accepting the loss and moving on with life then it's a pretty clear statement that they're a sore loser. Someone who isn't a sore loser doesn't share the scrub's compulsive need to loudly tell everyone around them how they're the "real" winner.
Claims to not judge people. Says anyone that spends $200 on a hobby is a loser. Seems legit.
and then makes up rules for games and expects people to follow made up rules or claims they are sociopathic.
Okay.
Peregrine wrote:Maybe for you. For other people playing in a competitive tournament is more common.
What percent of people who play any given fighting game play in tournaments?
I'm willing to bet that tournament players are in the slim minority.
IN. YOUR. OPINION. Maybe I find your way of playing unduly offensive and unpleasant because your favorite character has really ugly animations and I don't enjoy having to carefully monitor my choice of moves to make sure that I'm not crossing your "cheese" threshold.
In this case, for "unduly offensive," I can appeal to general custom. In this case, all that requires is a general show of hands from the general player base. Given the fact that a guy needed to write an article to defend his uncouth manner of playing, and given the fact that you feel such a need to defend it...I'm reasonably sure about how such a show of hands would go.
Please, tell me exactly how spamming throws is "unduly offensive, unpleasant, etc" without any reference to subjective lists of what things you personally enjoy.
Custom has the force of law. See above.
No, I'm just observing their behavior and stating the obvious. If someone spends a lot of time complaining about how they "really" won the game instead of just accepting the loss and moving on with life then it's a pretty clear statement that they're a sore loser. Someone who isn't a sore loser doesn't share the scrub's compulsive need to loudly tell everyone around them how they're the "real" winner.
Then why are you accusing me of being a scrub? I'm not claiming that I won the match against the $200 dollar deck. When I say that he's probably a loser, I mean that he's probably a loser as a human being, not in terms of the game that we actually played.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
MWHistorian wrote: Claims to not judge people. Says anyone that spends $200 on a hobby is a loser.
"Anyone who commits capital murder, presupposing no mitigating circumstances, deserves capital punishment."
Am I making a claim about this or that defendent when I say this?
Edit: Also, get the facts straight. I didn't say "on a hobby." I said "on a MTG deck."
Traditio wrote: What percent of people who play any given fighting game play in tournaments?
I'm willing to bet that tournament players are in the slim minority.
I don't know, and I don't care. Unlike you I don't need to judge the motivations of everyone I meet.
Given the fact that a guy needed to write an article to defend his uncouth manner of playing
You completely missed the point of the article. It isn't about defending a way of playing, it's about pointing out bad behavior from people who whine endlessly about how they "really won" every time they lose a game.
Custom has the force of law. See above.
No it doesn't.
Then why are you accusing me of being a scrub?
Because you do exactly what the article describes. Look at your own complaints about the Kyle + Moldy Crow combo in X-Wing, or counterspells in MTG. You encountered something that beat you, you immediately labeled it "cheese" without really understanding it, you created your own rule that "good people" don't use those things, and you accused everyone who doesn't obey your rule of being WAACTFGs/failures at life/sociopaths/etc.
I'm not claiming that I won the match against the $200 dollar deck. When I say that he's probably a loser, I mean that he's probably a loser as a human being, not in terms of the game that we actually played.
Yes, and that's textbook "scrub" behavior. You lost the game, but you're the "real" winner because your opponent is probably a "failure at life" or a "sociopath" or whatever. You've redefined "winning" to mean something that has nothing to do with the outcome of the game so that you can be the "winner".
I want a challenge.
I want to look at rules and find the optimum way to select and play the game in front of me.
I expect to get thumped as I learn, the experts and the weaker players all have something to teach me (again see Sirlin link).
People confuse real life behavior with games, I maintain it is not the same.
Life has a lot of grey area, laws, ethics, social norms we need to get along and there is no clearly defined means of "winning" so you balance it all as best you can.
Games have rules, defined winning criteria, subterfuge, misleading, keeping them guessing is the very nature of most games.
Other than a good frank discussion with your potential opponent of the expectation of how the game will be played: how can you play to your very best and try to mitigate the risk of hurting someone's feelings over a game?
At it's most simple, take an indubitably weak, even supremely weak list. If you do...
- you have your challenge.
- you will need to play the rules and games in an optimum way to win.
- you will have a satisfyingly steep and long learning curve.
- nobody will ever accuse you of being in for the smugness of "winning" as opposed to the challenge.
On the other hand, if you take a strong (possibly overpowered) list from a strong codex...
- you will not be challenged.
- you will win even when playing suboptimally
- you will have no learning experience/curve.
- most peoples assumption (probably correctly) will be that you'e there for the smug feeling of "winning", not the competitive challenge of earning a victory with skills instead of exploiting GWs sub-par rules (which every 5-year-old can do).
Traditio wrote: "Anyone who commits capital murder, presupposing no mitigating circumstances, deserves capital punishment."
Am I making a claim about this or that defendent when I say this?
Oh FFS, are you serious? The only reason you're not making that claim about a specific person is because a particular defendant isn't necessarily guilty of murder, and you can speak in general terms about it on this forum without it applying to anyone since there probably aren't any murderers here. However, there are people here who have spent $200 on MTG decks. I've done it, and I seriously doubt I'm the only one. So when you say "anyone has spent $200 on a MTG deck is a failure at life" what you're also saying is "Peregrine, you're a failure at life".
Now, the only question here is whether you're going to admit that you insulted me and apologize, or find some way to dishonestly claim that you didn't really say that anyone who spends $200 on a MTG deck is a loser despite the fact that you clearly did.
People complain about the words "play like you've got a pair" a lot but it's entirely out of context, reading the whole thing it is, imo, the best advice you can give for a game if you want it to be competitive. It actively discourages highly competitive players from picking on people just looking to throw some dice, as well as telling people they can't expect anyone to self nerf to play on their level.
Peregrine wrote:I don't know, and I don't care. Unlike you I don't need to judge the motivations of everyone I meet.
Do you realize how ridiculous these exchanges are?
"It's socially unacceptable, at least, in casual social exchanges."
"Not among tournament players."
"Er...who said anything about tournament players? How many people are tournament players?"
"Don't know! Don't care...I don't need the judge the motivations of everyone I meet."
Really?
You completely missed the point of the article. It isn't about defending a way of playing, it's about pointing out bad behavior from people who whine endlessly about how they "really won" every time they lose a game.
This paragraph says it all, to my mind, and hammers in my point about the author sounding like a sociopath:
"I once played a scrub who was actually quite good. That is, he knew the rules of the game well, he knew the character matchups well, and he knew what to do in most situations. But his web of mental rules kept him from truly playing to win. He cried cheap as I beat him with 'no skill moves' while he performed many difficult dragon punches. He cried cheap when I threw him five times in a row asking, 'Is that all you know how to do? Throw?' I gave him the best advice he could ever hear. I told him, 'Play to win, not to do ‘difficult moves.’' This was a big moment in that scrub’s life. He could either ignore his losses and continue living in his mental prison or analyze why he lost, shed his rules, and reach the next level of play."
For someone who accuses me of holding to "The One True Way of Having Fun," you don't seem to notice that the author does the exact same thing. He literally holds to the WAAC mentality.
No it doesn't.
When figuring out what constitutes unduly unpleasant, socially unacceptable, etc., you look at custom. A show of hands, I am pretty sure, would agree with me that the author is is a fething jerk...or, if he isn't...at least writes like one.
Because you do exactly what the article describes. Look at your own complaints about the Kyle + Moldy Crow combo in X-Wing, or counterspells in MTG. You encountered something that beat you, you immediately labeled it "cheese" without really understanding it, you created your own rule that "good people" don't use those things, and you accused everyone who doesn't obey your rule of being WAACTFGs/failures at life/sociopaths/etc.
I'm saying that the author writes like a sociopath. Have you read the article? Reread it.
Yes, and that's textbook "scrub" behavior. You lost the game, but you're the "real" winner because your opponent is probably a "failure at life" or a "sociopath" or whatever. You've redefined "winning" to mean something that has nothing to do with the outcome of the game so that you can be the "winner".
You're speaking through stereotypical WAAC lenses. "The only winning that counts is in the game that I play competitively and wish to win at. There is no other standard."
Still going eh?
If you want to play competitively against other competitive players, fill your boots. Improve your game to your hearts content.
If you want to play Fluffy, casual games, play other fluffy casual gamers.
These players can swap over as they fell like BTW, there's no rule in any book that says anyone has to stay exactly the same all the time.
I play both types of game quite happily. I am training myself up for a small tournament at the end of the year, so am optimising my faction to the best of my ability, also learning some sneaky "best practice" tactics. But I also play lots of casual, fluffy, non-competitive games, where I don't actually give a monkey's if I win or not.
However, If you do inadvertently cross over, and find yourself with your fluffy list and inbuilt aversion to spam, going up against captain competitive, or alternatively, you stroll into a store on a Saturday afternoon with your tournament tuned 1850 point destroyer list, try not to be too upset when your opponent thinks you're a bell-end.
] And where the only alternatives are 1. committing a moral wrong or 2. dying, it is always better to suffer evil than to do it.
"
you, I get to play my spells" and winning the game despite the counter-strategy. If you're sitting in your chair twiddling your thumbs instead of playing the game then honestly, it's your fault for not bothering to learn how to play the game better.
"
