Or in other words, if there is a prize why not bring the best?
Ok, so some context. Despite me not being that big intothe tournament scene and being mediocre at best, I have a reputation as a hardcore tournament player at my FLGS.
So, every month is a leaque, wherethe winner can get 50$ in cash if he/she wins. I have finally gotten an uninteruppted month of being able to go. So I went in with what I could fit at 1250, riptide wing and a stormsurge. My opponents than give me ALL the gak and start saying stuff. Stuff like "We are casual here, we play for fluff not to win" and the usual stuff. I then tell them "It is a game, with a winner and a loser, why should I not bring my best? You are welcome to bring your best aswell" and they then say they cant afford money to win and so forth.
So I ask, why should I not bring my best to this event if I there is money involved?
I would guess that for them, the fun of a casual league is worth more then the money.
Seems pretty straightforward to me. When I was at university we used to play board games for small amounts of money. We were all poor students though, so things used to get quite competitive as that small amount of money was a big deal for us.
These days occasionally I play board games for money with my now-adult friends, and the money changes nothing in the way we play. Winning $50-100 dollars at uni was huge.. these days its just the cherry on the cake of a good night of fun with friends. No one is going home missing the $5 they put in the pot, or getting upset because they didn't win, and we will still be silly and mess about even though there is money on the line.
So for me you just need to way up how much value each of the benefits have for you:
Is the money worth more then all of your collective fun?
Jimsolo wrote: If it's an event with a prize, it's competitive. If it's competitive, play to win. Period.
I'd counter with "When in Rome, do as the Romans do."
We all throw $10 in the pot for our golf game. Doesn't mean getting Tiger Woods as my partner is the right choice.
Jimsolo wrote: If it's an event with a prize, it's competitive. If it's competitive, play to win. Period.
This. If you don't want people to bring competitive lists and play competitively then don't have a cash prize. And make explicit rules for list building, don't just whine about how "we play for fun".
If it's a balanced game system, like X-Wing, I'm cool with it. If it's something like 40k, where balance is a joke, then I tend to embrace the "casual" stance.
Although to be honest the moment the put up prize support they invited someone coming in and cleaning house.
If there are ten people in the league and the other nine are bringing casual lists, being that one guy who MUST bring the best stuff is a low move. Stomping on puppies isn't a very fun game for the puppy and telling the puppy to grow big teeth so it can bite back doesn't change that. I get their annoyance.
It IS on the TO to set up some rules, or it's on the community to have a gentleman's agreement as to what is being brought though. If you're not the one and only person who isn't going with the flow, then they need to look at how they do this league instead. 40k is pay to win and if they can't or won't pay then they have to take the initiative to make a casual league clearly defined. You didn't break any rules of the game.
In general, if there is a prize, I expect the nasty stuff to come out. That’s why I generally avoid tournaments. And not just 40k, but back in my CCG days as well. Brings out the worst in people, myself included.
It sounds like the TO should change the name to include “friendly” or “casual”. That way there would be a little more guideline for the lists. If not actual restrictions.
I will echo the sentiment that if you are the odd man out, you might might to re-evalutate your playstyle. You might not be technically in the wrong, but you are going against the social grain, and that has consequences.
In general it's bad form to go to what you know will be a casual thing, and try to steamroll people. While normally you can't be faulted since by offering a prize it IS competitive by nature, if everyone else is still going to play casual, then you ARE the jerk by going with a powerlist to try and win it just because "hey it's $50".
You should temper your style to match the people playing with you; if it's a tournament where you can expect other competitive-minded players bringing out "the big guns" then by all means, go all out. But if you know it's going to be a casual event, prize or not, then I think it's a pretty donkey-cave move to go with the intent of crushing everybody because you know they'll play casual and you don't. Maybe come up with a list that has some strong elements (e.g. ONE Riptide or Stormsurge) and then do something that's powerful without being overt? Like, I'm not Tau expert but like, maybe an al lmechanized list (what used to be called "Fish of Fury") with a Riptide as heavy support could still be strong (let's assume it is for this discussion, since I don't know) but won't get the rolling eyes and cries of cheese like a bunch of Riptides will. You can still win the event but not just dominate a bunch of casuals.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Or in other words, if there is a prize why not bring the best?
Ok, so some context. Despite me not being that big intothe tournament scene and being mediocre at best, I have a reputation as a hardcore tournament player at my FLGS.
So, every month is a leaque, wherethe winner can get 50$ in cash if he/she wins. I have finally gotten an uninteruppted month of being able to go. So I went in with what I could fit at 1250, riptide wing and a stormsurge. My opponents than give me ALL the gak and start saying stuff. Stuff like "We are casual here, we play for fluff not to win" and the usual stuff. I then tell them "It is a game, with a winner and a loser, why should I not bring my best? You are welcome to bring your best aswell" and they then say they cant afford money to win and so forth.
So I ask, why should I not bring my best to this event if I there is money involved?
Bringing your best isn't the same as bringing a Riptide Wing and a Stormsurge at 1250.
I'm assuming you've only gone once so far, it kind of sounds like that from the OP. So it's not like you were actively a jerk or anything, you just assumed (as I would) that since there's money involved, people would actually be competing. Apparently that's not the case, and like Nevelon said, if you keep bringing firepower that they all have a silent rule against, there will likely be (social) consequences.
This is definitely an awkward situation, though. I have the same mindset as you, where I'm asking "Why are they not wanting to compete if there's an actual prize?" On the other hand, it really doesn't matter why, it just matters that that's the mindset they have.
As to your question, there is literally no reason you shouldn't bring your best if the intent is to win money, imo. They don't really have the right to tell you what to bring when there's literally money on the line. The awkward part is they're just going to think of you as the powergamer coming to clean house EVERY time you show up, because if they're actually giving you gak to your face, they're definitely complaining behind your back with each other as well. That kind of makes me think that would be a crowd I wouldn't want to be involved with anyway, depending on how they actually talked to you (but you said they were giving you gak, so I'm going with the assumption that they had an attitude about it).
I understand they may not be able to afford all these powerhouse things, but if it's basically just a gentlemen's agreement that they're not running powerful stuff, they can't really fault someone who just comes in and is able to participate for the first time bringing a list to win. It's literally 100% their fault that their lists are what they are, fluff preference or not.
There are ways to enforce a casual style of play, regardless of prize support, and the place opted out of them, so again I'm not sure where the fault becomes yours on day 1 when you take a list to win some money.
Now what sucks is there's going to be this social pressure to be more casual, or else you will probably have a harder time getting games outside of the league later on. People don't realize all the time that what I may bring to compete for money prizes is not what I bring for fun casual games/events.
So to kind of agree with what Wayniac said (how did you get your name changed, btw?), it comes down to the long-term. Do you want to be the powergamer who destroys everyone's casual list for 50 bucks? To go back to an earlier point, though, if they were legit being dicks about it (you'd have to tell me), I'd just do it if I had options outside this store (because feth these dudes talking gak to me for coming to actually win). If they were more along the lines of "Hey man, I know it's for money but we still play casual/fluffy," then I'd personally probably scale back a bit, just make a list that isn't completely a stompfest but is still competitive and hard for them to beat. Maybe bring a goof-off list once or twice if you get far enough ahead on points or however they measure success in the league.
Give in to social pressure, or get dat moolah. I usually decide things like this based on others' attitudes towards me.
Objectively, there is no reason you shouldn't bring your best to win. Subjectively, there's plenty going on here.
Jimsolo wrote: If it's an event with a prize, it's competitive. If it's competitive, play to win. Period.
I'd counter with "When in Rome, do as the Romans do."
We all throw $10 in the pot for our golf game. Doesn't mean getting Tiger Woods as my partner is the right choice.
Pretty much this, but you wouldn't know until you play there. There's no reason to not bring your A game if you don't know what to expect. But once you know they don't do that kind of thing in the store, you've got a choice. Bringing that kind of list is likely going to earn you the TFG title at the store. If that doesn't bother you, and you want that $50, then keep going. If it does bother you and you want to cultivate a decent social standing in the store, tone it down and play to their level.
No one can tell you how to play unless they specifically enforce house rules for this sort of thing. But as already said, there can be social consequences in the store. If that bothers you or not is up to you.
As a TO for a different game, I can say that trying to balance competitive and casual events that was a draw to both groups of players is hard. The main point of casual events is to draw in an audience, develop, cultivate and grow an existing group. They are usually designed to give some rewards, but not a lot compared to a competitive event which tends to have a bigger prize. Casual players like to feel accomplished and win prizes too.
I tend to personally challenge players in the casual by bringing their best. That doesn't necessarily mean a net-list or the current hot combination, but trying to utilize what they have to their best ability. Since I usually had more options than the average casual player, I would bring something new. When you win based on skill instead of imbalance it is a better win and you have a better opportunity to help grow your competitive pool by teaching players on how they can improve. Players tend to not listen, even if the observations are correct, when faced against what they feel is the "best net-list" at the time.
Even if you are a mediocre player, if you bring a stronger force that is favored because of imbalance and/or it counters the others lists the best... then you will get a reputation as a hardcore gamer from the casual gamers, whether you are one or not.
Casual tournament, yes they exist even with prizes, we run beginner tournaments with a lower prize pool at GenCon for some other games. The purpose is to grow and improve the community as a whole. If you don't care about improving the overall skill of the community, having some social fun... then yes you are hardcore gamer, again from their perspective. At that point you are only thinking about the prize and winning, while the prize is nice, it isn't the main purpose for the group. Although you are welcome to want to bring the best, you would be going against the social norm for the group.
I think it is perfectly reasonable for a club, league, or tournament, to regulate the kinds of play styles that group of players enjoys. Just because the event is competitive, doesn't mean that no holds-barred is automatically the only way to play. Steroids are banned from dozens of sports. Types of bats, balls, etc, are regulated. Just because money is involved doesn't mean strikes to the groin are fair-play. It's perfectly reasonable to want a certain type of play experience - and its also okay for you to disagree. Hopefully you'll be able to compromise with your group.
BossJakadakk wrote: I'm assuming you've only gone once so far, it kind of sounds like that from the OP. So it's not like you were actively a jerk or anything, you just assumed (as I would) that since there's money involved, people would actually be competing. Apparently that's not the case, and like Nevelon said, if you keep bringing firepower that they all have a silent rule against, there will likely be (social) consequences.
This is definitely an awkward situation, though. I have the same mindset as you, where I'm asking "Why are they not wanting to compete if there's an actual prize?" On the other hand, it really doesn't matter why, it just matters that that's the mindset they have.
As to your question, there is literally no reason you shouldn't bring your best if the intent is to win money, imo. They don't really have the right to tell you what to bring when there's literally money on the line. The awkward part is they're just going to think of you as the powergamer coming to clean house EVERY time you show up, because if they're actually giving you gak to your face, they're definitely complaining behind your back with each other as well. That kind of makes me think that would be a crowd I wouldn't want to be involved with anyway, depending on how they actually talked to you (but you said they were giving you gak, so I'm going with the assumption that they had an attitude about it).
I understand they may not be able to afford all these powerhouse things, but if it's basically just a gentlemen's agreement that they're not running powerful stuff, they can't really fault someone who just comes in and is able to participate for the first time bringing a list to win. It's literally 100% their fault that their lists are what they are, fluff preference or not.
There are ways to enforce a casual style of play, regardless of prize support, and the place opted out of them, so again I'm not sure where the fault becomes yours on day 1 when you take a list to win some money.
Now what sucks is there's going to be this social pressure to be more casual, or else you will probably have a harder time getting games outside of the league later on. People don't realize all the time that what I may bring to compete for money prizes is not what I bring for fun casual games/events.
So to kind of agree with what Wayniac said (how did you get your name changed, btw?), it comes down to the long-term. Do you want to be the powergamer who destroys everyone's casual list for 50 bucks? To go back to an earlier point, though, if they were legit being dicks about it (you'd have to tell me), I'd just do it if I had options outside this store (because feth these dudes talking gak to me for coming to actually win). If they were more along the lines of "Hey man, I know it's for money but we still play casual/fluffy," then I'd personally probably scale back a bit, just make a list that isn't completely a stompfest but is still competitive and hard for them to beat. Maybe bring a goof-off list once or twice if you get far enough ahead on points or however they measure success in the league.
Give in to social pressure, or get dat moolah. I usually decide things like this based on others' attitudes towards me.
Objectively, there is no reason you shouldn't bring your best to win. Subjectively, there's plenty going on here.
OT: Moderator can change your name, but it's a one-time thing. I use this name on like every other forum so switched for consistency.
Back on topic: I think there's sort of a weird gray area where people can learn from a powergamer, but they have to want to. Trying to "teach" a group of casual players is going to get you ostracized for impeding everyone else's fun. From the OP's post it sounds like he might be a regular but couldn't often play in events, but I still feel that if you know you're going into a league in a shop of mostly casual people, and you're the competitive type of gamer, it's on you to tone your list down a bit so you aren't doing anything that is really seen as bringing a crushing list to a regular game. That's not say you should basically play stupid, but like I said above try to play strong lists without reaching for things you know will illicit cries of "cheese". I also find if you're a competitive player in a casual meta, you can try to be more helpful and give people advice (not always "buy X because it's more powerful") to show that you're more than just trying to crush people.
Although, let's not beat around the bush here: This kind of problem basically only exists in Warhammer or with gamers who were originally weaned on Warhammer (I've seen similar attitudes amongst ex-GW players who gravitated to Warmachine)
Wayniac wrote: Although, let's not beat around the bush here: This kind of problem basically only exists in Warhammer or with gamers who were originally weaned on Warhammer (I've seen similar attitudes amongst ex-GW players who gravitated to Warmachine)
It doesn't exist with just Warhammer, it exists with quite a few games although more commonly with TCGs like MtG. There comes a point that where the latest net-list tends to be the most popular combination for various reasons. Those that have a larger amount of income are able to easily purchase and switch, while other players are still building or have access to a smaller pool of choices. A good portion of time those choices are what limits a casual player to a venue preventing them from successfully being in a competitive venue.
In MtG it happens quite a bit. It does come down to skill, but there are two different types of skills involved. There is the deck building or list, being able to have access to more potent combinations. Then there is actually understanding when to play and do what when, so the actual skill of applying what you have.
Wayniac wrote: Although, let's not beat around the bush here: This kind of problem basically only exists in Warhammer or with gamers who were originally weaned on Warhammer (I've seen similar attitudes amongst ex-GW players who gravitated to Warmachine)
It doesn't exist with just Warhammer, it exists with quite a few games although more commonly with TCGs like MtG. There comes a point that where the latest net-list tends to be the most popular combination for various reasons. Those that have a larger amount of income are able to easily purchase and switch, while other players are still building or have access to a smaller pool of choices. A good portion of time those choices are what limits a casual player to a venue preventing them from successfully being in a competitive venue.
In MtG it happens quite a bit. It does come down to skill, but there are two different types of skills involved. There is the deck building or list, being able to have access to more potent combinations. Then there is actually understanding when to play and do what when, so the actual skill of applying what you have.
I can't speak to MTG but I know in Warmachine I typically didn't see this "Oh no you brought a power list, you suck!" kind of approach; people usually relished being able to face a strong list because their opponent wasn't the kind of TFG who would gloat about it later, if they really stomped them they'd likely give points on how to counter it or like certain things their opponent could have done better. I only saw that idea of "X is too powerful, don't use it" in Warhammer and among the people who came from GW and went to Warmachine, but didn't go because it was a better overall game with a competitive focus, just because they didn't like GW and wanted something else.
I think situations like this are a little complex to be boiled down to a simple forum debate. I know I'd be inclined to different courses of action depending on how my opponents/the league talked to me about my list. If it was whiny and insulting, I'd be less inclined to change my list, but if it was a mature, pulled aside, discussion in private with another opponent, I'd likely compromise. Plus, how well I know them, how often I game there, so on and so forth, would impact how I feel about their complaints about my list.
That said, generally speaking, if there's money on the line, I'm probably not bringing a poorly put together army. I literally don't have the models to make a super competitive force anyways, but I'd be bringing the best I could do with my model selection using a better codex variant to make some more mileage. Though, if I was a long time member of such a group, I feel as though we'd all have worked out the generally agreed upon standards of play, so it likely wouldn't be an issue.
Social situations are complex, but unless you have other gaming groups to join with if this one falls through, I'd probably lean towards not making everyone dislike you if you still want to game and they're otherwise good gamers to be around.
If only the game was better and these petty arguments would be a non-issue.
MrDwhitey wrote: From OP it sounds like he's there regularly, but this was the first time he was able to be in the league full time.
Pretty much. I usually to hang out there and my best friend is the TO and has the mindset "If you paid money for a model, bring it, I dont care"
But too the idea that they cant afford to bring hard lists. Its a lie, my opponent has several armies, he just doesnt stay to them long. One has parents who Im sure are oil tycoons, but switchs armies more often than im sure he switches underwear.
Oil tycoons lol, it sure seems like it with some people eh?
@Wayniac: Yeah I agree on the "there's stuff to learn from hard lists" part, I kind of was feeling that point and never really said it. But yeah there's a lot to be said for looking a super strong army in the face and deciding this is going to be a learning experience - and not everyone wants to do that.
I personally wrestle with the casual nature of a lot of this still. I've been a powergamer for so long, then I start 40k and I'm like "Okay, I want to get actually good at this game, but I don't want to take things that are bad just because they fit the narrative." I'm not the WAAC type of person, I just look for strong combos and units, and want to have a real competition. So when money is involved, I expect the hard lists, and I expect to lose because of inexperience but to use that to get better. For my LGS narrative campaign, I bring whatever and have a lot of fun with those guys.
But yeah, even if they *can* bring hard lists, if that's just not what they do for this league, then we're right back to the social pressure/consequences, sadly.
On the other hand, if you're getting gak for something the TO explicitly says is okay, then the TO may need to have a word with the other players about politeness.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Or in other words, if there is a prize why not bring the best?
Ok, so some context. Despite me not being that big intothe tournament scene and being mediocre at best, I have a reputation as a hardcore tournament player at my FLGS.
So, every month is a leaque, wherethe winner can get 50$ in cash if he/she wins. I have finally gotten an uninteruppted month of being able to go. So I went in with what I could fit at 1250, riptide wing and a stormsurge. My opponents than give me ALL the gak and start saying stuff. Stuff like "We are casual here, we play for fluff not to win" and the usual stuff. I then tell them "It is a game, with a winner and a loser, why should I not bring my best? You are welcome to bring your best aswell" and they then say they cant afford money to win and so forth.
So I ask, why should I not bring my best to this event if I there is money involved?
Bringing your best isn't the same as bringing a Riptide Wing and a Stormsurge at 1250.
how is it not? I could fit those in the list, so i brought my best 1250 is more than enough.
On a serious note $50 isn't worth it to me to be red flagged at a local group. Money can bring out the worst in people and just don't need drama in my life. If it's not an charity event I just avoid them all together.
I can't speak to MTG but I know in Warmachine I typically didn't see this "Oh no you brought a power list, you suck!" kind of approach; people usually relished being able to face a strong list because their opponent wasn't the kind of TFG who would gloat about it later, if they really stomped them they'd likely give points on how to counter it or like certain things their opponent could have done better. I only saw that idea of "X is too powerful, don't use it" in Warhammer and among the people who came from GW and went to Warmachine, but didn't go because it was a better overall game with a competitive focus, just because they didn't like GW and wanted something else.
It exists in warmachine as well, but it's expression is different-the term is 'negative play experience'. Warmachine is generally a game of empowerment - generally speaking, if something is bothering you, you can go out and kill it in turn. Problem solved.
However, there are (or Rather, were! Mk2!) lists that no one likes to see play, and would be generally regarded as a 'douche move' on the part of the person playing them. Haley 2 and deneghra 2 in mk2 spring immediately to mind. Wormwood in mk3. A lot of the time, especially against the former, you needed very specific lists, coupled with a lot of luck to have even a small chance. Denny 2/body and soul was an abomination in mk2. Haley2 was probsbly mk2s most hated match up. And you always had to count haley2 as one of pretty much every cygnar players 2-casters. Often, if they'd go first, they had the scenario victory sown up by proxy, and you had a huge uphill battle to force the game back on anything even remotely close to your terms. There were means and ways to deal with them, but generally speaking it was a huge amount of hassle, and for the most part, rightly regarded as one of the most negative and unappealing aspects of the game.
Wayniac wrote: Although, let's not beat around the bush here: This kind of problem basically only exists in Warhammer or with gamers who were originally weaned on Warhammer (I've seen similar attitudes amongst ex-GW players who gravitated to Warmachine)
It doesn't exist with just Warhammer, it exists with quite a few games although more commonly with TCGs like MtG. There comes a point that where the latest net-list tends to be the most popular combination for various reasons. Those that have a larger amount of income are able to easily purchase and switch, while other players are still building or have access to a smaller pool of choices. A good portion of time those choices are what limits a casual player to a venue preventing them from successfully being in a competitive venue.
In MtG it happens quite a bit. It does come down to skill, but there are two different types of skills involved. There is the deck building or list, being able to have access to more potent combinations. Then there is actually understanding when to play and do what when, so the actual skill of applying what you have.
I can't speak to MTG but I know in Warmachine I typically didn't see this "Oh no you brought a power list, you suck!" kind of approach; people usually relished being able to face a strong list because their opponent wasn't the kind of TFG who would gloat about it later, if they really stomped them they'd likely give points on how to counter it or like certain things their opponent could have done better. I only saw that idea of "X is too powerful, don't use it" in Warhammer and among the people who came from GW and went to Warmachine, but didn't go because it was a better overall game with a competitive focus, just because they didn't like GW and wanted something else.
In MTG, the most obvious point of comparison is the Commander format, which operates under a social contract in most playgroups. It's highly variable multiplayer format where people usually build quirky and thematic decks, and prefer it that way, but if you set out to break it, you can also play highly predictable fast combo decks armed with some of the most degenerate combo engines the game has to offer. These two worlds seldom intersect, because players of one don't provide meaningful gameplay experience to the other (it'd be like playing solitaire using some of those "winning" decks, you'd win almost every single game with next to no interaction between people). This format's seldom played competitively, partially for practical considerations (game length is highly unpredictable) and partially because it'd result in a miserable experience to most people who play the format.
The parallels to casual 40k are obvious enough for me not to need to belabor the point, I trust.
Bringing your best isn't the same as bringing a Riptide Wing and a Stormsurge at 1250.
how is it not? I could fit those in the list, so i brought my best 1250 is more than enough.
I think what he' saying isn't that. You did, you brought 'Your Best', but it far outstripped what the little league was prepared for. You could say you brought a gun to a knife fight?
"Bring your Biggest and Best Knife for the knife fight man."
"Sure, I've got a 12-gauge that'll clean up nicely"
Bringing your best isn't the same as bringing a Riptide Wing and a Stormsurge at 1250.
how is it not? I could fit those in the list, so i brought my best 1250 is more than enough.
I think what he' saying isn't that. You did, you brought 'Your Best', but it far outstripped what the little league was prepared for. You could say you brought a gun to a knife fight?
"Bring your Biggest and Best Knife for the knife fight man."
"Sure, I've got a 12-gauge that'll clean up nicely"
Something like that I suppose.
More like "Fight at high noon! Bring weapons! Last man standing gets $50!" So he brought a gun and a box of ammo. Everyone else showed up with bats and knives and is complaining that they couldn't afford guns.
Chute82 wrote: I hope your claiming that $50 on your taxes
On a serious note $50 isn't worth it to me to be red flagged at a local group. Money can bring out the worst in people and just don't need drama in my life. If it's not an charity event I just avoid them all together.
$50 is peanuts especially in terms of GW games. Is peanuts worth unpleasant game? 40k doesn't work as a competive game anyway so pretending it is will just result in misery. Over peanuts...
More like "Fight at high noon! Bring weapons! Last man standing gets $50!" So he brought a gun and a box of ammo. Everyone else showed up with bats and knives and is complaining that they couldn't afford guns.
The metaphor still misses the point, I feel, because it puts too much emphasis on the prize money. As far as this hobby is concerned, nobody's actually turning a profit playing games. We all spend way more money than we could ever hope to recoup with our winnings (unless your particular playgroup has some serious gambling-on-the-side going on, or you're competing in some underground Dubai billionaire wargaming league).
Chute82 wrote: I hope your claiming that $50 on your taxes
On a serious note $50 isn't worth it to me to be red flagged at a local group. Money can bring out the worst in people and just don't need drama in my life. If it's not an charity event I just avoid them all together.
$50 is peanuts especially in terms of GW games. Is peanuts worth unpleasant game? 40k doesn't work as a competive game anyway so pretending it is will just result in misery. Over peanuts...
I fully agree. I just think the OP is just trying to make an excuse for being an arse. Simple as that. We all do it, just accept what you did, and make sure you don't do it again and no more being an arse. Stop making excuses. Simple as that.
I don't think a list makes someone as ass. Continually bringing such a list despite being politely and repeatedly told people are becoming tired and annoyed of playing against it, and it being such an outlier to the rest of the group's style of play, would make them an ass.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Or in other words, if there is a prize why not bring the best?
Ok, so some context. Despite me not being that big intothe tournament scene and being mediocre at best, I have a reputation as a hardcore tournament player at my FLGS.
So, every month is a leaque, wherethe winner can get 50$ in cash if he/she wins. I have finally gotten an uninteruppted month of being able to go. So I went in with what I could fit at 1250, riptide wing and a stormsurge. My opponents than give me ALL the gak and start saying stuff. Stuff like "We are casual here, we play for fluff not to win" and the usual stuff. I then tell them "It is a game, with a winner and a loser, why should I not bring my best? You are welcome to bring your best aswell" and they then say they cant afford money to win and so forth.
So I ask, why should I not bring my best to this event if I there is money involved?
Bringing your best isn't the same as bringing a Riptide Wing and a Stormsurge at 1250.
how is it not? I could fit those in the list, so i brought my best 1250 is more than enough.
Because the number of armies which can reliably handle a GMC is outshone by the number of armies that can deal with a Riptide Wing, let alone both of those, at 1250 points.
Ok, so I brought something that is toughtto fight, I still dont see the problem here. if the objective of a game is to win, why not bring something that facilitate winning?
hotsauceman1 wrote: Ok, so I brought something that is toughtto fight, I still dont see the problem here. if the objective of a game is to win, why not bring something that facilitate winning?
You said you play/hang out regularly with these people, yeah?
The objective, within a community, is not strictly to win a game but to facilitate enjoyment for both parties.
You didn't just bring something that is "tough to fight", you brought two somethings that for some codices? It's not just "tough to fight", it's virtually impossible for them to fight it within the constraints of 1250 points.
And putting it rather bluntly? It seems like the reason you're here on Dakka talking about this, rather than discussing it on a more local to you venue is that you want the validation of having done the right thing here when you know what you did was a jerk move.
Jimsolo wrote: If it's an event with a prize, it's competitive. If it's competitive, play to win. Period.
This. If you don't want people to bring competitive lists and play competitively then don't have a cash prize. And make explicit rules for list building, don't just whine about how "we play for fun".
100% agree.
The entire reason to play competitively with a prize is to pick the best you can for a win within the rules as written.
Not some nebulous ideas of "fair play" that fall outside of RAW.
By that "casual gaming" mindset, the guy who lost all his games "wins" because he had the good grace to nerf his army appropriately.
Plus, playing to the utmost we all get to know our rules cold, you have the pleasure of a fierce fight on our hands, the "gaming bullies" are too afraid to play since there are no victims to be found, most players play with good grace: you do not get proficient without losing a few times, you can learn a lot of interesting tricks to the game... it is all good.
So, fielding a Riptide wing and Stormsurge in a competition setting is being TFG... everyone else can do that too or play something even "worse" since it is allowed as per the rules what is the problem?
Say this is the BEST formation out there of all time, field a "hard counter" to it.
But maybe your opponent knows you could play that "hard counter" so he makes his army a little different to combat that.
This is what playing at your best is all about, don't be a scrub and read this: http://www.sirlin.net/articles/playing-to-win.
Competition to win is not a bad thing.
I approach this religiously with my taxes.
Jimsolo wrote: If it's an event with a prize, it's competitive. If it's competitive, play to win. Period.
Yep. I don't like that style of competitive environment, so rarely play in that sort of setting and perfer the casual atmosphere a league or w/e with a nominal prize creates, but if I do something with cash, you can sure bet I'll enter to win.
Chute82 wrote: I hope your claiming that $50 on your taxes
On a serious note $50 isn't worth it to me to be red flagged at a local group. Money can bring out the worst in people and just don't need drama in my life. If it's not an charity event I just avoid them all together.
$50 is peanuts especially in terms of GW games. Is peanuts worth unpleasant game? 40k doesn't work as a competive game anyway so pretending it is will just result in misery. Over peanuts...
50 bones is still 50 bones. Clearly, what you would do for a Klondike bar is much different than what I would do.
Chute82 wrote: I hope your claiming that $50 on your taxes
On a serious note $50 isn't worth it to me to be red flagged at a local group. Money can bring out the worst in people and just don't need drama in my life. If it's not an charity event I just avoid them all together.
$50 is peanuts especially in terms of GW games. Is peanuts worth unpleasant game? 40k doesn't work as a competive game anyway so pretending it is will just result in misery. Over peanuts...
I fully agree. I just think the OP is just trying to make an excuse for being an arse. Simple as that. We all do it, just accept what you did, and make sure you don't do it again and no more being an arse. Stop making excuses. Simple as that.
Going to a prize supported event with the desire to get that prize is being an arse now? Damn. I would just say that now he knows what everyone is looking for in the league to tone it down, but going after the prize on day 1? Wow. I need to reevaluate my whole life.
It's a COMPETITION, dude. Same first three letters as in COMBAT. If you're a finely-tuned pro warhammer athlete and they're a bunch of weakling scrubs...they should just feel lucky you don't steal their miniatures and girlfriends after you're done whomping on them.
Kanluwen wrote: The objective, within a community, is not strictly to win a game but to facilitate enjoyment for both parties.
What is the primary means of facilitating enjoyment for both parties in a war-game setting? Most people would agree a "close game" is the ideal, it can go either way, it is not a predetermined outcome: worst case is a "tabling". If we both agree to "bring our best" it should be awesome. As soon as you decide on a judgement call on what is "fair" not based on rules, you are lessening the experience and making it virtually impossible to create a close match. Unless you both agree to field the exact same army that is not the best you can field, it is a doomed game in regards to fun.
I think I am feeling old. Most competitions have the 1st place trophy or to be nice the gold-silver-bronze. It sounds like some people want to get very stern with the people holding the tournament not handing out participation trophies "because we are all winners!!". I am being rather pushy with this observation because it would have been far too easy for me to have sat back and been happy with what the world handed me. Competition provides personal improvement and not just letting others take from me without a "fight". I am seeing this being played out rather badly with my children where when they lose, it is a rage inducing event... it does not need to be, it can be a learning thing and to be taken with some measure of grace.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Despite me not being that big intothe tournament scene and being mediocre at best, I have a reputation as a hardcore tournament player at my FLGS.
If you want to farm casual players for prizes - you can. Just make sure you're a nice charismatic guy about it - and bring a beautifully painted force. Be an example of a veteran player as you run your list. Just make sure it's not the three coat minimum or proxy models. I've went to tournaments simply to play three or four games with new players - and win best painted every event.
Davor wrote: I fully agree. I just think the OP is just trying to make an excuse for being an arse. Simple as that. We all do it, just accept what you did, and make sure you don't do it again and no more being an arse. Stop making excuses. Simple as that.
I've lurking Dakka Dakka for a 5-6 years - Hotsauce's few year evolution from store kid to fairly large tournament guy has created one of the most interesting post histories I've ever read. At least the Pony phase is finished
HSM - Play in the league - just set a good example. Who knows - you may get defeated by another well painted local tournament player who joins in this week
Talizvar wrote: I think I am feeling old.
Most competitions have the 1st place trophy or to be nice the gold-silver-bronze.
It sounds like some people want to get very stern with the people holding the tournament not handing out participation trophies "because we are all winners!!".
I am being rather pushy with this observation because it would have been far too easy for me to have sat back and been happy with what the world handed me.
Competition provides personal improvement and not just letting others take from me without a "fight".
I am seeing this being played out rather badly with my children where when they lose, it is a rage inducing event... it does not need to be, it can be a learning thing and to be taken with some measure of grace.
Actually, when I play a board game or something like that with my kids, I find that there's a lot less rage and poor sportsmanship when I set the expectation that we're not taking it too seriously. That we're all trying to win, but explain that it's only a BOARD GAME, and that we're playing to have some laughs and easygoing fun.
My oldest has other outlets -- Little League, tae kwon do -- where things get a little more serious (although not too bad at his age) and there's more pressure on him. My younger son will start LL next year too and be introduced to organized team play and all that entails. But everything isn't life-or-death or a life lesson for them, and I don't think it should be. In other words, I think it's just as important to introduce the concept of perspective. There are times and places for things.
It is possible to be *that guy* by showing up to an event meant to be relaxed and treating it like warfare.
Remember him? The a-hole character? Do that...and you're him.
Hey 20 bucks is 20 bucks, just ask Griffith from Berserk
For me I guess it would depends on the setting. If it was a store of TFG's hell yeah i'd try to curb stomp them even if they where screaming ' DUDE TOTALLY CASUAL HERE!!!' because TFG's. If it was a group of friends who play at a store it would depend.
It really depends on the league. A league meant to get new players into the game would mean, "dont bring nasty stuff", and the second there is prize support that isnt something that doesnt support new players, (ei paints? paint brushes? basing material? even a small amount of gift card cash? a store could very, very easily charge the players for a portion of this and still profit while having prize support that targets its audience.) but like $50 dollars to only the top guy really, really discourages casual entry. The reason for the prize is to sort of 'formalize' the event, and if its only going to the top guy, then there is only reason to try your absolute best. In fact, there really isnt a reason to play more rounds after you lose due to there only being one prize, so in order to have the most amount of fun, you would try to bring the list that would allow you to play the most amount of rounds by winning more often. Another facet of this thinking would be to also bring the strongest list to counter anything that would table you, or at least be able to take on and deal with anything overly nasty other players might bring to ruin your day. Its literally just trying to play in the single prize league logically, and there is no reason to not bring your best. Even if its obvious that you will table the opponent, you can play sort of underhandedly or make mistakes in order to make the game a little more fun for your opponent, but it is incredibly difficult to try to compensate a weak list against some of the nasty stuff other players might bring. I mean, I guess a league isnt a real tournament, so going too hard would be sorta looked down on, so personally I always ask the organizer if my list is okay to bring, if I can summon or if I should tone it down or whatever, but I guess the biggest point is to clearly have the intention to have fun and not treat the game like beating up nerds and shoving them into lockers by bringing the most broken list around, that you know will dominate entirely.
The problem with clubbing baby seals is that eventually the seals stop coming to the beach you're at.
I love to play competitively, but I know enough to break out the nerf for the groups that can't (or won't) play hardball. I'd use that as an opportunity to play fluff bunny armies.
If they decide they want to try playing competitively, that's when I'd happily break out the tournament army and take them to school.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Ok, so I brought something that is toughtto fight, I still dont see the problem here. if the objective of a game is to win, why not bring something that facilitate winning?
You said you play/hang out regularly with these people, yeah?
The objective, within a community, is not strictly to win a game but to facilitate enjoyment for both parties.
You didn't just bring something that is "tough to fight", you brought two somethings that for some codices? It's not just "tough to fight", it's virtually impossible for them to fight it within the constraints of 1250 points.
And putting it rather bluntly? It seems like the reason you're here on Dakka talking about this, rather than discussing it on a more local to you venue is that you want the validation of having done the right thing here when you know what you did was a jerk move.
It isn't all that often I find myself agreeing with Kanluwen - but this is one of those times.
In general I think there's a difference between playing "hardcore" when it demands it (e.g. a tournament or a cutthroat scene) and not. It's a jerk move to go to an event, even one with a prize, where you know most people are casual/laid back and bring a hardcore list, doubly so if you intentionally do it because you know you won't face opposition. This is why I firmly believe that you tailor what you do based on your opponents, and/or if that fails choose your opponents. So competitive players don't play casual ones (assuming they know they are casual), and vice versa so you don't get someone expecting a fun casual game and gets steamrolled by a tournament-caliber list, and don't have someone bringing a tournament-caliber list to a casual event because they know that the "scrubs" won't be expecting it.
I'm facing the same problem right now. This is the third phase of league play, 1500, 1750 and now 2250 and its bring anything with rules. The last two had restrictions and allowed much more friendly play, but now the gloves are off and the titans are coming out. (I'm not joking about the titan part.) I played two games so far and absolutely killed my opponents. The last game I played the tau player brought 3 rip tides and a stormsurge. A great list, but I think there could have been some tactical choices on his part which would had made it a much better game. (We had an after action report which I believe only made him stronger and gave him some tactical tools to use.) From what I have heard, the players in this league are bringing their best, I just so happen to come across some who were looking for more friendly games, which I can't fault at all. I never know who I'm going to be facing so I'm prepared for the worst of it all.
So the gist of this thread is the debate on whether this is a wargame or a board game? I wonder if anyone has ever take a Snotling Horde to a tourney or competitive league.
The big thing that while it's not 'wrong' when it comes to WAAC players and especially tournament/prize hounds. They tend to be people with income to chase the meta. Army x is powerful, they go out and buy Army x, slap paint on, base it, and go and win. Army Y gets an update and is suddenly better, his Army X is on ebay the next day and he shows up with Army Y.
There was a guy I gamed against fairly often, and from month to month, year to year he had a different army tailored to whatever was the 'best' at the time.
If you are a normal person though with a normal income that kind of buy, cut bait, and buy again style isn't feasible and it breeds a certain jealousy. This is especially true for people just getting started. Especially the 'first time out kid' that shows up with a starter set contents of Marines, and maybe another tank, with upgrades stretched way out to meet the points limit.
Normal gamer person isn't going to have a full knight titan army for example, or FW pieces, or a Riptide wing and a Stormsurge.
Hope that helps. I'll admit once I scrapped up enough to roll into a tourney and lay the hurt. I did it too. (Eldar Wraithlords! Chaos 3.5! etc.)
gorgon wrote: My oldest has other outlets -- Little League, tae kwon do -- where things get a little more serious (although not too bad at his age) and there's more pressure on him. My younger son will start LL next year too and be introduced to organized team play and all that entails. But everything isn't life-or-death or a life lesson for them, and I don't think it should be. In other words, I think it's just as important to introduce the concept of perspective. There are times and places for things.
It is possible to be *that guy* by showing up to an event meant to be relaxed and treating it like warfare.
The trick is, out of all that you say above, can you not expect you and your kids to do their "best"?
I want to see them try, otherwise it is not fair to their team and their skills do not improve if not giving it an honest go.
I can compare all the stuff my kids do but really, they have a variety of outlets and are not mini "TFG" in waiting.
I find the online gaming is the one I hear the most carrying on about due to "dishonorable" opponent behavior.
I played chess competitively as a kid.
I liked the guys who beat me, it made me learn more, when I eventually won against them, I would say they inspired me to get better and it was heart-felt.
But not everything is casual or a non-learning event, and I don't think it should be. In other words, there is a time and place for things (see what I did there?).
To proclaim "I am only playing for fun" is any number of strange messages: "I am playing casual so a win from me kinda doesn't count because I am not doing my best." or "I am playing an RPG dressed as a warfare, come role-play with me!" or maybe "I will do my best and be happy for the competition."
So in context, playing a tournament, doing your best would be a reasonable expectation.
To "throttle back" with rules outside of game rules unless agreed to with your opponent is playing a different game and not being fair to your opponent.
Just Tony wrote: So the gist of this thread is the debate on whether this is a wargame or a board game? I wonder if anyone has ever take a Snotling Horde to a tourney or competitive league.
No?
This gist, after reading the full thread, is more "Did bringing something heavy in a small points game make me TFG in a league with a $50 prize?" Depending on the view point, it can go either way.
I'm more interested in the $50 now. Was it just a 5 dollar fee collected from the ten players to play the games, or was it put up by the organizer and the league was free? The former way, makes it so it's sort of an incentive, but it's more of a bonus for coming and playing with everyone. The latter is incentive to bring good lists that will stomp your friends, even for just $50.
I don't know if we're getting the full story, but either way, Hotsauce should probably be a bit more careful in later leagues in this group, lest he get labeled the Tautide Bringer. Or something to that effect if the community is more relaxed.
Of course you try and do your best - you play to win. But that doesn't mean restrictions and unspoken conventions about what is acceptable and fair behavior don't also apply.
Is it fair for a heavyweight fighter to pound on a welterweight? Just because money is involved - somehow that makes it fair or okay? It's competition after all? I don't buy that at all.
The other league members likely felt like lightweights, wanting to play in a lightweight league. Bringing heavyweight lists to a lightweight fight is definitely gonna cause some hurt feelings.
I think the sooner people realize that "leagues" and "tournaments" are the nesting grounds for power gaming and stop whining when power gamers show up to a power gamer event, the better everyone will be.
If you participate in a league or any competitive event and the organizer has not outlawed min/max play, then you should expect it the same as you expect water to be wet.
If you want a "league" or "tournament" that caters to casual lists, then the organizer needs to put the work in to define what exactly that means.
Just Tony wrote: So the gist of this thread is the debate on whether this is a wargame or a board game? I wonder if anyone has ever take a Snotling Horde to a tourney or competitive league.
No?
This gist, after reading the full thread, is more "Did bringing something heavy in a small points game make me TFG in a league with a $50 prize?" Depending on the view point, it can go either way.
I'm more interested in the $50 now. Was it just a 5 dollar fee collected from the ten players to play the games, or was it put up by the organizer and the league was free? The former way, makes it so it's sort of an incentive, but it's more of a bonus for coming and playing with everyone. The latter is incentive to bring good lists that will stomp your friends, even for just $50.
I don't know if we're getting the full story, but either way, Hotsauce should probably be a bit more careful in later leagues in this group, lest he get labeled the Tautide Bringer. Or something to that effect if the community is more relaxed.
It is the latter, we do pay 5$, but it goes to store credit for ourselves.
Here is the thing, im not asking for validation. I dont need that. Im just trying to understand the mindset that you go into a league, knowing there is a prize for those who win. Why think that people will not bring the best?
It is the latter, we do pay 5$, but it goes to store credit for ourselves.
Here is the thing, im not asking for validation. I dont need that. Im just trying to understand the mindset that you go into a league, knowing there is a prize for those who win. Why think that people will not bring the best?
Whenever I do play a league, rather than a tourney, I go to have fun. I will try to win, but I'm not bringing the only competitive list Tyranids have. Flyrant spam is not fun to play or play against. The prize isn't worth it if the games weren't fun/enjoyable.
I know others find it fun to bring broken combos (Riptide isn't broken, just extremely hard to deal with at 1250), and deathstars with rerollable 2+ or whatever. But That isn't fun unless both you and your opponent want that kind of game. I think the Rule and Restrictions should have been clear, rather than work on unwritten rules of the community, which can change over time. Not entirely sure how your community is, but from what you've said it's not competitive for the most part.
Imo, it's all up to TO to decide whether the league is a friendly league or a competitive one. If the TO specifically asks for everyone not to bring cheese and some guy still brings cheese - he's a...well. If there's no such 'limitations' - it's all up to players.
Here is the thing, im not asking for validation. I dont need that.
Yes you are. You are making excuses. First stop making excuse like "it's for money" or "money is the prize so people MUST play their best".
Im just trying to understand the mindset that you go into a league,
Because a lot of people like to play for fun and don't need to win.
knowing there is a prize for those who win.
here you are again, making excuses. So yes you are looking for validation. You have been told by a few people who said you were wrong. You were also told by a few people who agreed with you but yet you are still going on about the "money prize". People have different opinions. Some people are like you, bring your best, other people play for fun no matter what. I am one of these people who play for fun and be damned if there is a money prize or not.
I get it now. Maybe it's not about validation, you just want to be proven correct and other people are wrong now. Just put it we all have different opinions and play differently. Some people love anchovies, others don't. Some people love eating sardines out of a can, a lot of people don't. Does that mean the people who do love eating it are wrong because they have a differing opinion because the other people don't?
Why think that people will not bring the best?
Because they don't want to. They want to play for fun prize or no prize they still want to play casually and for fun.
Okay, given your multiple comments against competitive play, we well know your opinion Davor. Here's a question for you: if you have no desire to win and have no fun playing in a competitive environment, why would you enter into one of those events in the first place? If you would, don't you kind of expect every type of play, ESPECIALLY competitive play, to be present?
Lol, I didn't even know there was prize support for the last tournament I went to. I thought it was just an entrance fee to help support the FLGS.
Meh. Even if I did want to bring my best, I couldn't physically do it since I don't have the models for it or even the right faction. That's what's frustrating about 40k at the moment is the guys who tend to beat out the competition are the guys with the biggest wallets who can cherry pick the best units in any faction whenever they feel like it. "Oh, you bought hundreds of dollars worth of tanks? Well feth you bro, you should have gone bikes or drop pods with some eldar and tau sprinkled in. Lol, you actually bought an Ork army? Are you an idiot?"
That's why 40k tournaments and leagues should be composed of like minded individuals who are on the same page in terms of competitive levels. The hardcore tournament guys should stick to themselves while the semi-competitive guys who do try to win, but throw some fluff units for the sake of liking the models/lore should work with their group. It's unfortunate, but segregation is the best way to play 40k without getting too frustrated by the other party half. Community should be divided into three classes
1) Competitive: Play to win any means necessary with no boundaries
2) Semi Competitive/Casual: Try to win, but has boundaries, will take some models they like, and would prefer a close to even game with their opponent
3) Narrative: Don't really care about winning as much as just telling a story and taking models they love
Just Tony wrote: Okay, given your multiple comments against competitive play, we well know your opinion Davor. Here's a question for you: if you have no desire to win and have no fun playing in a competitive environment, why would you enter into one of those events in the first place? If you would, don't you kind of expect every type of play, ESPECIALLY competitive play, to be present?
Well, to be fair, a league is not a tournament. It's a way to organise a series of games over a longer period of time, and generally have many more ways of scoring points than just winning. There's a prize at the end, and obviously some people will game it to get that prize, but it should involve much more than just winning games.
If you brought the OP's mindset to a tournament, I'd understand. A tournament is that environment where 'bring your best' is expected. But a league? No.
This vid is probably the best advice. The trick is to win and have fun at the same time. The ultra competitive stuff turns the game into statistics so a lot of the time people don't want to build their army that way, it's not their concept of fun.
I guess I've never seen a league not be competitive. The only difference to me with a league and tournament is a tournament is one or two days long and a league is weeks or months long.
I've never in 20+ years seen a non competitive league run. They have always competitive events where I am.
I think it's important to distinguish between out and out competitive play events and a more sedate journeyman league format.
The former is obvious wring all the advantage from lists that you can and go at it. The latter is about creating a simple on-going community event without the complexity and crunch of a campaign.
I would imagine the prize money is only there to show that it is a non-profit exercise and to establish and retain commitment in the group.
So taking a well known OTT min/max list at a 1250point event is just poor form, justifying it by saying that there is money at stake only adds an element of greed to it.
I mean you often get some dong that inadvertently tries (benefit of the doubt) to min/max, it's just this time the OP was the dong.
If you want to be the best player/take the biggest challenge then you should be able to take any average list and perform well with it. Skewing the odds from the start isn't bringing any sort of "game" or whatever daft notion you want to use especially in a community event.
I think it depends on the league. They aren't all cutthroat "bring your best or don't come at all" type things, but they can be (and there's something cool about a "high stakes", not in reward, type of event to see who's the best of the best). Usually I consider a league to simply be a way to structure games versus just showing up and seeing who else turned up wanting a game; in the past leagues have been very laid back with maybe some basic house rules setting a points limit, but that's it. It's a very hands-off way of providing some sort of structure around the game, basically like trying to emulate FNM but usually not on a set day.
Sure I can see that. I live in a very competitive region though. We do regular narrative campaigns but there is ALWAYS a ton of politics and nasty comments going back and forth because there are a lot of people present that don't think you should be doing that with wargames and that it teaches people "to play wrong".
Thats why my experience with leagues is that they are always competitive, because in my region that has been the case.
auticus wrote: Sure I can see that. I live in a very competitive region though. We do regular narrative campaigns but there is ALWAYS a ton of politics and nasty comments going back and forth because there are a lot of people present that don't think you should be doing that with wargames and that it teaches people "to play wrong".
Thats why my experience with leagues is that they are always competitive, because in my region that has been the case.
auticus wrote: Sure I can see that. I live in a very competitive region though. We do regular narrative campaigns but there is ALWAYS a ton of politics and nasty comments going back and forth because there are a lot of people present that don't think you should be doing that with wargames and that it teaches people "to play wrong".
Thats why my experience with leagues is that they are always competitive, because in my region that has been the case.
Jesus. Narrative is a legit way to play. Sound like the most fun bunch.
It teaches people "to play wrong" because you'd have new players not using tournament sanctioned scenarios and you'd have house or comp rules that they shouldn't be using.
You'd be deviating from RAW, which is "playing wrong".
auticus wrote: It teaches people "to play wrong" because you'd have new players not using tournament sanctioned scenarios and you'd have house or comp rules that they shouldn't be using.
You'd be deviating from RAW, which is "playing wrong".
All the facepalms aren't enough. Seriously, people who feel that way should go feth off and play another game, there are plenty that are great for tournament style play and don't require house rules at all. Warhammer (any incarnation) is not that game.
auticus wrote: It teaches people "to play wrong" because you'd have new players not using tournament sanctioned scenarios and you'd have house or comp rules that they shouldn't be using.
You'd be deviating from RAW, which is "playing wrong".
Doesn't 40k have a few tournament scenes who have to vote/determine what a ruling on a rule/rule interaction is?
Also, sanctioned scenarios? Nothing in the BRB says anything about "Tournament Sanctioned Scenarios" as far as I know. If I recall, they push making up your own and giving a narrative and having fun games. The scenarios provided are used as templates and creative launchpoints from what I've seen.
When that was brought down on one of my campaigns it was 2012 or so. I think 5th edition was still the thing.
The "tournament standard" in my area then was the core rulebook scenarios and nothing else.
We were doing one of the Imperial Armor campaigns that year as a public event. Because the scenarios were not balanced, it caused a lot of heat against the campaign group and a lot of nasty commentary which even bled onto public forums.
auticus wrote: It teaches people "to play wrong" because you'd have new players not using tournament sanctioned scenarios and you'd have house or comp rules that they shouldn't be using.
You'd be deviating from RAW, which is "playing wrong".
Maybe tournaments should spend less time "sanctioning scenarios" and more time weeding out the behaviors that makes people consider "competitive" players to be jerks?.
I guess it comes down to what is competitive vs. what is OTT. Back in the heyday of 3rd Ed. you'd have people running Biel Tan armies that ran multiples of one or two aspects and that's it. I faced a Dark Reaper army with multiple Star Cannon War Walkers supporting and a Banshee squad in Wave Serpent to finish off any stragglers. Comp wise, that army was completely fair, and to the credit of the balances of that edition, would have died in droves vs ANYTHING horde. However, pretty much anybody with any level of vehicle support in their army or any of the MEQs were less than thrilled against it. The list is technically fluffy as well. Where do you draw the line?
I think the two parties at fault here are the TO and the whiny players not the OP. And that is coming from a player who wouldn't be caught dead at a tourney/competitive league.
Personally I think 40k is a horrible vehicle to pretend to use as a balanced test of skill. It isn't designed to be a sport. Leagues and tournaments presented as balanced contests for a prize are in denial from the get go for most part because the game has many balance issues.
However if you insist on running a league/tourney you had better make it very clear what is and isn't allowed with whatever house rules and restrictions to lists that you deem fit for your event/community.
Likewise if you enter an event presented as a competition for a prize then expect to encounter nasty stuff allowed by the event rules/restrictions (or lack thereof).
If you fail to present comprehensive guidelines then you have failed as a TO.
If you are a player that whines at other players for bringing what the event/TO allows you have failed as well.
The OP has done nothing wrong.
I don't play tournaments/leagues because I don't enjoy that style of play and the types of players/armies it typically attracts, but if I did decide to play in one It would be pretty lame of me to then complain that people are trying to win an activity whose primary focus is to declare a winner.
Just Tony wrote:Okay, given your multiple comments against competitive play, we well know your opinion Davor. Here's a question for you: if you have no desire to win and have no fun playing in a competitive environment, why would you enter into one of those events in the first place? If you would, don't you kind of expect every type of play, ESPECIALLY competitive play, to be present?
Funny we just wrapped up our league and not one person was competitive and we were all to have fun playing, win or loose. I am not alone here. I am saying it can be done, and is being done. Not everyone plays or thinks like the Original Poster.
auticus wrote: It teaches people "to play wrong" because you'd have new players not using tournament sanctioned scenarios and you'd have house or comp rules that they shouldn't be using.
You'd be deviating from RAW, which is "playing wrong".
"Do you even ITC or Nova, bro?" Every major tournament uses houserules and FAQs because the core 40k rules are vague on many issues and the scenarios are imbalanced in others.
When that was brought down on one of my campaigns it was 2012 or so. I think 5th edition was still the thing.
The "tournament standard" in my area then was the core rulebook scenarios and nothing else.
We were doing one of the Imperial Armor campaigns that year as a public event. Because the scenarios were not balanced, it caused a lot of heat against the campaign group and a lot of nasty commentary which even bled onto public forums.
Core scenarios aren't any better. Eternal war naturally favors death stars and gunlines while maelstrom of war favors fast armies and MSU like eldar. And of course narrative campaign scenarios are imbalanced because they're designed to be fun and tell a story. It doesn't sound balanced that I want to do a siege battle against heavily entrenched units while mixing in some beer pong and throwing pieces of paper onto the table to generate strength 8 AP3 ordnance large blasts, but it's a heck a lot of fun and I'm going to do it as long as the other people think it's fun too. The problem is people seriously need to communicate better and get on the same page as to what they expect in a group or campaign. If you don't want any imbalance, then stay the heck away from narrative campaigns where the GM's are open to do whatever they want. Also stay away from DnD because us DMs would absolutely hate having to deal with people who can't go with the flow for the sake of "balance".
CT GAMER wrote: I think the two parties at fault here are the TO and the whiny players not the OP. And that is coming from a player who wouldn't be caught dead at a tourney/competitive league.
Personally I think 40k is a horrible vehicle to pretend to use as a balanced test of skill. It isn't designed to be a sport. Leagues and tournaments presented as balanced contests for a prize are in denial from the get go for most part because the game has many balance issues.
However if you insist on running a league/tourney you had better make it very clear what is and isn't allowed with whatever house rules and restrictions to lists that you deem fit for your event/community.
Likewise if you enter an event presented as a competition for a prize then expect to encounter nasty stuff allowed by the event rules/restrictions (or lack thereof).
If you fail to present comprehensive guidelines then you have failed as a TO.
If you are a player that whines at other players for bringing what the event/TO allows you have failed as well.
The OP has done nothing wrong.
I don't play tournaments/leagues because I don't enjoy that style of play and the types of players/armies it typically attracts, but if I did decide to play in one It would be pretty lame of me to then complain that people are trying to win an activity whose primary focus is to declare a winner.
^^This. OP did nothing wrong. If the TO and other players didn't want to see the kind of list he brought, they should have said so before the league started and imposed specific rules to ban it. "Unspoken" rules are not rules.
CT GAMER wrote: I think the two parties at fault here are the TO and the whiny players not the OP. And that is coming from a player who wouldn't be caught dead at a tourney/competitive league.
Personally I think 40k is a horrible vehicle to pretend to use as a balanced test of skill. It isn't designed to be a sport. Leagues and tournaments presented as balanced contests for a prize are in denial from the get go for most part because the game has many balance issues.
However if you insist on running a league/tourney you had better make it very clear what is and isn't allowed with whatever house rules and restrictions to lists that you deem fit for your event/community.
Likewise if you enter an event presented as a competition for a prize then expect to encounter nasty stuff allowed by the event rules/restrictions (or lack thereof).
If you fail to present comprehensive guidelines then you have failed as a TO.
If you are a player that whines at other players for bringing what the event/TO allows you have failed as well.
The OP has done nothing wrong.
I don't play tournaments/leagues because I don't enjoy that style of play and the types of players/armies it typically attracts, but if I did decide to play in one It would be pretty lame of me to then complain that people are trying to win an activity whose primary focus is to declare a winner.
^^This. OP did nothing wrong. If the TO and other players didn't want to see the kind of list he brought, they should have said so before the league started and imposed specific rules to ban it. "Unspoken" rules are not rules.
This is exactly what a "proper" competitive player wants.
Give me ALL the rules not some self imposed unwritten ones I have no idea on.
A competition is not "life or death" but could you imagine any of this madness being applied to ANY competitive sport?
The rules define the game.
What makes a player awesome is how they play within those rules.
For the casual gamer, the object is to have fun but we must recognize that we all do not agree on what ingredients of the game make it fun for them.
Just Tony wrote:Okay, given your multiple comments against competitive play, we well know your opinion Davor. Here's a question for you: if you have no desire to win and have no fun playing in a competitive environment, why would you enter into one of those events in the first place? If you would, don't you kind of expect every type of play, ESPECIALLY competitive play, to be present?
Funny we just wrapped up our league and not one person was competitive and we were all to have fun playing, win or loose. I am not alone here. I am saying it can be done, and is being done. Not everyone plays or thinks like the Original Poster.
Well, yeah. But did you set up the ground rules going in, do you all know each other, or did you just get lucky in that everyone involved had the same mindset? You having an example doesn't set the rule of law.
Jacksmiles wrote: Win a tabletop game without much effort? Might as well kill some small animals. They're basically interchangeable.
Nether would require much effort sooo sure why not.
Maybe because one is a game designed to have a winner and a loser, and the other is killing small baby animals.
What is life but a game of winners and losers.
Ether way if you want a more on topic analogy its like a middle school basketball player going up against Lebron james. if he goes ham and dunks the kid right out of their lunch money then everyone would have a field day calling him out as a jerk.
Jacksmiles wrote: Win a tabletop game without much effort? Might as well kill some small animals. They're basically interchangeable.
Nether would require much effort sooo sure why not.
Maybe because one is a game designed to have a winner and a loser, and the other is killing small baby animals.
What is life but a game of winners and losers.
Ether way if you want a more on topic analogy its like a middle school basketball player going up against Lebron james. if he goes ham and dunks the kid right out of their lunch money then everyone would have a field day calling him out as a jerk.
I do like that one better, thanks
I just like animals and don't see equivalency between stomping someone in a game and actually forcefully ending life.
Jacksmiles wrote: Win a tabletop game without much effort? Might as well kill some small animals. They're basically interchangeable.
Nether would require much effort sooo sure why not.
Maybe because one is a game designed to have a winner and a loser, and the other is killing small baby animals.
What is life but a game of winners and losers.
Ether way if you want a more on topic analogy its like a middle school basketball player going up against Lebron james. if he goes ham and dunks the kid right out of their lunch money then everyone would have a field day calling him out as a jerk.
I do like that one better, thanks
I just like animals and don't see equivalency between stomping someone in a game and actually forcefully ending life.
This whole train of logic doesn't make sense to me. Right now in Washington State there's a high school football team that is so good, they won their first three games by a combined total of 170-0, and their next three games were won by default after all three teams forfeited. So far, I haven't seen any commentary calling those guys "jerks" or expecting them to throw games or tone things down. Most of what I've seen are comments suggesting that the other teams are poor sports for forfeiting after they agreed to the rules and structure of the division, and that just quitting gives a bad lesson to the players.
Now obviously this situation can't continue like this in the long run - it's patently clear that this team needs to move into a higher division - but for the current league they are operating fully within their rights and there's no reason to punish them for simply being better than their peers. If the league wants things to be different next year, they need to be the ones to make changes (i.e. reshuffling divisions, etc), not ask the team to "play dumb" so that other people won't forfeit.
IOW, if you are running a league and can't be bothered to write down your unwritten rules (or in my experience, it's usually people wanting to avoid responsibility for taking a hardline stance and just hoping that things will "work out"), then you really shouldn't turn around and complain when somebody has a different interpretation of what's okay to bring and what isn't.
This whole train of logic doesn't make sense to me. Right now in Washington State there's a high school football team that is so good, they won their first three games by a combined total of 170-0, and their next three games were won by default after all three teams forfeited. So far, I haven't seen any commentary calling those guys "jerks" or expecting them to throw games or tone things down. Most of what I've seen are comments suggesting that the other teams are poor sports for forfeiting after they agreed to the rules and structure of the division, and that just quitting gives a bad lesson to the players.
Now obviously this situation can't continue like this in the long run - it's patently clear that this team needs to move into a higher division - but for the current league they are operating fully within their rights and there's no reason to punish them for simply being better than their peers. If the league wants things to be different next year, they need to be the ones to make changes (i.e. reshuffling divisions, etc), not ask the team to "play dumb" so that other people won't forfeit.
IOW, if you are running a league and can't be bothered to write down your unwritten rules (or in my experience, it's usually people wanting to avoid responsibility for taking a hardline stance and just hoping that things will "work out"), then you really shouldn't turn around and complain when somebody has a different interpretation of what's okay to bring and what isn't.
Well your whole example is more the likes of a competitive event (high school football) everyone is there to try hard and win as a team and Washington state is like the best around. no one can fault them for winning as thats what their goal is. and it is poor sportsmenship for the other teams to forfeit as they are expected to try hard (at the high school level).
Casual is a different game all together. its like middle school flag football they are just there to have fun and learning how to play the game. then suddenly they have to play Washington state and get owned super hard because they didnt meter them selves.
And to keep it with the OP, there may be a trophy involved at the end but winning it is nothing to be proud of if you had to run through a bunch of kids to get it. if you dont care you dont care but you will still look like a jackcave.
It seems that you know now that this league/tournament doesn't play too competitively (even with money being involved). An option would be to just ask for clarification for next time and adjust your playing style instead of following "the rules" to the word (these seems to be quite loose and more implied than written in stone from your post). That way you don't end up being labeled TFG by the rest of the group. From now on that would be kinda understandable from their point of view as you know about their unwritten house rules (and can inform yourself). It was the first time you could participate, you didn't know, and they expected you to intuit it (somehow?). That was unfortunate as your styles clashed. You will have to do the adjusting as there's a slim chance the whole group will adjust to your playing style.
No, I always knew that some felt that way, But I told my friend(Who is the TO) that I was bringing it. He said it was fine. I even told people I was coming in with the singular intent to win it. Which me and my partner already are going to win because we are leagues Ahead, with 2 wins, if we Tie next week, we will win the league.
Im just confused. It is a game with a winner and a loser. Why should people be faulted for brining their best?
hotsauceman1 wrote: No, I always knew that some felt that way, But I told my friend(Who is the TO) that I was bringing it. He said it was fine. I even told people I was coming in with the singular intent to win it. Which me and my partner already are going to win because we are leagues Ahead, with 2 wins, if we Tie next week, we will win the league.
Im just confused. It is a game with a winner and a loser. Why should people be faulted for brining their best?
Hey man, you're not wrong, there are winners, and losers... but aiming to have fun means everyone wins. Sometimes it's just the right attitude. You may win the prize, but helping others have fun is great too. It's a game, it's for fun. It's not just about winners and losers.
If you guys are going to win, why don't you tone it down some and not completely stomp the opposition, try to have fun. If they start winning, go back to kicking their toys over if it bothers you.
Your friend being the TO and Sanctioning your lists may legitimize it, but from everything that's been said, the rules weren't posted. I know my own store has a page laminated and stood up on the front counter for our league. Maybe ask him to do something similar so everyone has a better framework to make lists in. After that, anything done, made, played, etc. is completely legitimate and without dispute.
hotsauceman1 wrote: No, I always knew that some felt that way, But I told my friend(Who is the TO) that I was bringing it. He said it was fine. I even told people I was coming in with the singular intent to win it. Which me and my partner already are going to win because we are leagues Ahead, with 2 wins, if we Tie next week, we will win the league. Im just confused. It is a game with a winner and a loser. Why should people be faulted for brining their best?
Hey man, you're not wrong, there are winners, and losers... but aiming to have fun means everyone wins. Sometimes it's just the right attitude. You may win the prize, but helping others have fun is great too. It's a game, it's for fun. It's not just about winners and losers. If you guys are going to win, why don't you tone it down some and not completely stomp the opposition, try to have fun. If they start winning, go back to kicking their toys over if it bothers you.
Your friend being the TO and Sanctioning your lists may legitimize it, but from everything that's been said, the rules weren't posted. I know my own store has a page laminated and stood up on the front counter for our league. Maybe ask him to do something similar so everyone has a better framework to make lists in. After that, anything done, made, played, etc. is completely legitimate and without dispute.
I think you hit the nail there. People are selfish. Some people don't care if others have fun as long as they have fun. Others be damned. That is how I see the original poster. He can only see his way and not other people's way even though it was explained to him many times. It should only be his way and no other way. People's opinions or fun be damned.
As for "legitimizing it", it's another excuse the Original Poster is saying to have his "view" proven correct.
*edit*
As I said. The Original Poster made a mistake. Own up to it. Damn you are starting to sound like my kids now when they made a mistake and trying to prove they never make mistakes. You know, you can have still done no wrong but still have erred. Nothing wrong with that. Everyone does it. I am almost thinking this is Sheldon from Big Bang Theory and trying to prove how he is always right and never makes a mistake and his way is the only or proper way of things should be.
Davor wrote: I think you hit the nail there. People are selfish. Some people don't care if others have fun as long as they have fun. Others be damned. That is how I see the original poster. He can only see his way and not other people's way even though it was explained to him many times. It should only be his way and no other way. People's opinions or fun be damned.
I can guarantee there are people out there that are completely in it for stomping people.
I tend to find they are the exception to the rule however.
The rest of the time is usually a misunderstanding or mismatch of expectations.
Having posted rules for army selection by the TO to mitigate power levels would be helpful rather than someone trying to figure out an unwritten "nice" army list.
As for "legitimizing it", it's another excuse the Original Poster is saying to have his "view" proven correct.
*edit*
As I said. The Original Poster made a mistake. Own up to it. Damn you are starting to sound like my kids now when they made a mistake and trying to prove they never make mistakes. You know, you can have still done no wrong but still have erred. Nothing wrong with that. Everyone does it. I am almost thinking this is Sheldon from Big Bang Theory and trying to prove how he is always right and never makes a mistake and his way is the only or proper way of things should be.
I have a kid who has mild autism with AD/HD..
He IS a mini-Sheldon.
It is pretty common (they no longer call it Aspergers) and can have some rather infuriating behaviors.
The common response with them when you tell them something is "I know.", it is like you tell them something, they store the memory, they find it and come back to you with this new knowledge as old.
Weird I know.
I usually have to start with "Do you know the answer to this, yes or no?" BEFORE I tell them the answer.
It keeps me sane and our relationship OK.
They can be very black and white: parallelisms are lost to them, sometimes words of similar meanings are "not right" to them and have zero issues "correcting" you.
Anyway, due to my experience, I tend to play people like this because I understand them and can keep it "fun" for them because I do not confuse the heck out of them like the rest of you "crazy" people.
Again, it can be a difference of viewpoint or thought process rather than evil intent of the other person, nasty people DO exist and I think it is quite important to ensure your hobby experience is good or it will have consequences in other parts of your life: this is your hobby to relax to after all.
MrDwhitey wrote: The thing is, validation online wont help when everyone you play against ends up refusing to play you.
This.
It doesn't matter how "right" you are if you drive off all your potential opponents. Sometimes I want to play a tough, nail bitting game. Sometimes I want to push toy soldiers around and BS with my friends. If you approach the game one way and your opponent approaches in the other, neither of you are going to enjoy the experience.
Typically, it all boils down to at least being socially amiable.
If you like mixing headgames with your competitiveness, I think games would dry up pretty quickly.
I have been utterly destroyed by an opponent that knew his stuff and would play him again: he was fun and he laughed at my Black Knight joke (come back here, I can still bite!).
The social elements of the game can be a great Band-Aid for a game that went all wrong.
I like people who play well, I learn much more from them than the other way around.
If the person is not the type who lives for "destroying" their opponent, they would be upset it was not a closer game.
It is important to put the big boy pants on, take it on the chin and enjoy it anyway.
hotsauceman1 wrote: No, I always knew that some felt that way, But I told my friend(Who is the TO) that I was bringing it. He said it was fine. I even told people I was coming in with the singular intent to win it. Which me and my partner already are going to win because we are leagues Ahead, with 2 wins, if we Tie next week, we will win the league. Im just confused. It is a game with a winner and a loser. Why should people be faulted for brining their best?
Hey man, you're not wrong, there are winners, and losers... but aiming to have fun means everyone wins. Sometimes it's just the right attitude. You may win the prize, but helping others have fun is great too. It's a game, it's for fun. It's not just about winners and losers. If you guys are going to win, why don't you tone it down some and not completely stomp the opposition, try to have fun. If they start winning, go back to kicking their toys over if it bothers you.
Your friend being the TO and Sanctioning your lists may legitimize it, but from everything that's been said, the rules weren't posted. I know my own store has a page laminated and stood up on the front counter for our league. Maybe ask him to do something similar so everyone has a better framework to make lists in. After that, anything done, made, played, etc. is completely legitimate and without dispute.
I think you hit the nail there. People are selfish. Some people don't care if others have fun as long as they have fun. Others be damned. That is how I see the original poster. He can only see his way and not other people's way even though it was explained to him many times. It should only be his way and no other way. People's opinions or fun be damned.
As for "legitimizing it", it's another excuse the Original Poster is saying to have his "view" proven correct.
*edit*
As I said. The Original Poster made a mistake. Own up to it. Damn you are starting to sound like my kids now when they made a mistake and trying to prove they never make mistakes. You know, you can have still done no wrong but still have erred. Nothing wrong with that. Everyone does it. I am almost thinking this is Sheldon from Big Bang Theory and trying to prove how he is always right and never makes a mistake and his way is the only or proper way of things should be.
There was no mistake on the part of the OP. The mistake was the rest of the league believing it to be something it is not, as evidenced by the TO explicitly stating it is not, and them trying to enforce their desires of how they want to play something that isn't what they thought it was through rude statements and social pressure.
Both parties are wrong. Casual Carl was wrong because he tried to make a league a casual league without telling anyone. Bitching about lists doesn't fix the problem. Calmly explaining the expectations before the league begins does.
Stomping Steve was wrong for doubling down on the "money involved, letter of the law" argument. It's fully within the rules for me to sound an air horn continually during your movement phase. It's fully within the rules for me to look up your Facebook page, find out your dear Mother Gladys is single, take her on a lovely date, and tell you all the details of our hot, sweaty, animal sex during your psychic phase.
I mean, fifty bucks is on the line.
There's no rule that says I can't.
PourSpelur wrote: It's fully within the rules for me to look up your Facebook page, find out your dear Mother Gladys is single, take her on a lovely date, and tell you all the details of our hot, sweaty, animal sex during your psychic phase.
I mean, fifty bucks is on the line.
There's no rule that says I can't.
PourSpelur wrote: Both parties are wrong. Casual Carl was wrong because he tried to make a league a casual league without telling anyone. Bitching about lists doesn't fix the problem. Calmly explaining the expectations before the league begins does.
Stomping Steve was wrong for doubling down on the "money involved, letter of the law" argument. It's fully within the rules for me to sound an air horn continually during your movement phase. It's fully within the rules for me to look up your Facebook page, find out your dear Mother Gladys is single, take her on a lovely date, and tell you all the details of our hot, sweaty, animal sex during your psychic phase.
I mean, fifty bucks is on the line.
There's no rule that says I can't.
40k is a permissive rule set. Stomping Steve has permission to bring stompers. You need permission to break my mother's heart.
PourSpelur wrote: It's fully within the rules for me to look up your Facebook page, find out your dear Mother Gladys is single, take her on a lovely date, and tell you all the details of our hot, sweaty, animal sex during your psychic phase.
I mean, fifty bucks is on the line.
There's no rule that says I can't.
PourSpelur wrote: Both parties are wrong. Casual Carl was wrong because he tried to make a league a casual league without telling anyone. Bitching about lists doesn't fix the problem. Calmly explaining the expectations before the league begins does.
Stomping Steve was wrong for doubling down on the "money involved, letter of the law" argument. It's fully within the rules for me to sound an air horn continually during your movement phase. It's fully within the rules for me to look up your Facebook page, find out your dear Mother Gladys is single, take her on a lovely date, and tell you all the details of our hot, sweaty, animal sex during your psychic phase.
I mean, fifty bucks is on the line.
There's no rule that says I can't.
hotsauceman1 wrote: No, I always knew that some felt that way, But I told my friend(Who is the TO) that I was bringing it. He said it was fine. I even told people I was coming in with the singular intent to win it. Which me and my partner already are going to win because we are leagues Ahead, with 2 wins, if we Tie next week, we will win the league.
Im just confused. It is a game with a winner and a loser. Why should people be faulted for brining their best?
Because, apparently, the implicit expectation of the people playing in the league does not overlap with your expectations (or what the TO thought would happen). You started a whole thread about it. You might be technically in the right but socially and culturally in the wrong (or lacking information about their customs). When people visit other places they can mess up interactions if they don't know the local protocol, it can even happen if they know it but revert to their own habits. It doesn't matter which side is wrong or right because in the end you have to deal with the resulting friction.
It could be that your friend (the TO) said it was okay because you are friends and the reasoning could be anything from not wanting to create friction between you two to expecting that you won't curb stomp everyone as you know how they play in this league and adapt a bit (even if you aim to win it). The TO is not the only person participating, others could feel differently and this league/tournament seems to be a regular thing. You are the new one seemingly not acting along expected patterns.
At the moment it feels like you are a predator that got transferred to a new region where the local fauna has no way of surviving that. You will only end up starving (for opponents, in this case) after rampaging through the ecosystem if nobody wants to play against you. I think all of you need to talk and find a consensus or you might end up dividing your local group into people who are willing to play against you and those who avoid you. What if they all start avoiding the tournament next month because it's not fun for them anymore? That would not be good for anyone's playing situation, would it?
@Mario: I keep thinking of that idea of how "invasive species" are so competitive that the local wildlife cannot survive when they get transplanted.
The competitor was never meant to be there and the local fauna are adapted to their environment. Time for a lesson in survival of the fittest?? I am glad he is not from Australia, he could have potentially killed them all.
What troubles me is a group will host a "competition".
So you compete... to win... I assume...
I am sure if it is a competition to be well liked I would pick the worst list possible.
It would be terribly fun to try to play the game so you lose all matches and everyone else is trying to do the same. What is the worst thing I can pick for 20 points?
You could always generate a campaign and the wins and losses move forward some kind of narrative if you want to take all the stress out of it.
It is just strange to take a game that is so random in nature so that much of it is not a sure thing and then adding the need for nerfing lists to a given perceived power level that you must guess at. You have to really know the group you are playing before you can hope to match what they field.
I honestly think if you cannot at least publish some kind of house rules so you all can play nice, the alternative seems rather unfair of having to guess.
What troubles me is a group will host a "competition".
So you compete... to win... I assume...
I don't know what the solution is but both sides need to talk and find a balance if they want this to work in the long term. The setup itself is kinda strange: A GW rules (not that balanced) based monthly competitive tournament/league that seems to be more on the casual side, seems to be okay with somebody using a murder list, yet then complains about it after the fact.
You could always generate a campaign and the wins and losses move forward some kind of narrative if you want to take all the stress out of it.
Handicap systems can be quite effective in making long term leagues feel less "already decided" if one messes up a few games. Of course you need to balance that (a bit harder on top of GW's recent rules) so it doesn't incentivise people to lose. You probably don't want the blue shell of wargaming but something that softens the blow of losing and keeps the losing army viable. Maybe giving the loser more EXP ("you learn more from your mistakes") for whatever is left of the army (and a cheaper recruiting option for new untrained recruits) while the winner gets away with more troops and whatever victory points are distributed (money, lands,…?).
You know I find it funny that we need to "compete" but it's with Plastic Toy soldiers, with no excuses, but if we do it with REAL competition, it is with excuses.
Want real competition put of football gear and get on in the grid iron and PROVE your MANLINESS. Or pick up a baseball bat and glove, or hockey gear or soccer/futball/football gear and prove your manhood that way.
Why are we making excuses to prove our manhood with plastic toy soldiers? Especially in a game that is so unbalanced and not fair we need to prove something?
You really DO have this unhealthy obsession with perceived overcompensation. Maybe the problem isn't with the ruleset OR with competitive play...
Or maybe it is how I see people act in person that they are trying to be macho with plastic toy soldiers.
This could have changed. The GW stores that were close to me and or I visited have closed down. Some people were acting like sport jocks, but with plastic toy soldiers. But now that they have closed down I don't can't tell if that has really changed. Now that we have a new store opened up, I can see the sport jock mentality is gone. Sad part is I see it hasn't changed on the internet and this is a perfect example here of it going on right now.
Someone trying to prove themselves or get validation for how he acted.
Again and someone already said this what I did. You can have done now wrong, but still not be correct. To keep on it, what are you trying to prove now?
My purpose for posting in this thread was to point out that, by its very nature, the game is a competitive game, and only stops being so when people set out to make it so. As much as I detest sports, and would gladly abolish most if not all of them if I were world dictator, I have to liken it to sports insofar as there is ALWAYS a clear and concise winner/loser relationship by the nature of the competition. If that isn't acceptable, then maybe Tic Tac Toe or some other less winner/loser game is in order. Something RPG, which mostly doles on without clear cut winner/loser relationships. If you're playing a war game with the winner/loser dynamic, then yes, you need to play to win. If not, why are you playing it in the first place?
My purpose for addressing you directly is because of the high percentage of your posts, since my arrival here, decrying any competitive aspect of the game along with several references to "manliness", "manhood", and even "nerd wiener" as in your sig. I'm suggesting that maybe the issue isn't the nature of the game. I'm suggesting that YOUR issue is YOU, not the game, and projecting onto someone who DOESN'T think the way you do is kind of a jerk move, especially when your language is permeated with such... colorful metaphor...
@OP: You're perfectly within your right to "bring your best", but you also have to keep in mind that you're not playing this game all by yourself, or against a machine; you're playing against another human being, which means that every action you take has consequences for them as well (as cringe-worthy as that may sound).
Of course, there's a difference between something like an ITC tournament and a monthly league organized at your FLGS; in the former, everyone is expected to bring their absolute best unless they enjoy losing everything all day, while in the latter this isn't always the case, which can lead to the situation you've described.
I can't say I agree with the argument that "because money's involved, I can bring my absolute best". I mean, what if the prize is only 10 euros? Are you still going to bring your hard tournament-winning list to the table every month for that? And if not, where do you draw the line? And then I'm not even talking about the other player, who may not have as much cash to spend on his miniatures or who simply doesn't want to participate in a wargaming arms race.
Which brings me to my first point again: you're not playing this game by yourself. Everyone has a different reason to play this unbalanced mess of a game, and some groups are simply not as competitive-minded as others. They're not wrong if they want to play fluffy casual lists and neither are you wrong if you want to play competitive lists instead. But you (as in, you and the people you play against) are going to have to find a compromise between the two if you plan on gaming with one another a lot.
Has anyone thought that maybe the group he is in, that people don't have money to "bring in the best"? Maybe the OP has the money to do so but a lot of the people don't and it's another reason why it's a casual crowd. Even when it's a tournament or what not, since a lot of people don't have money it's still causal and they want to play a tournement even though they can't bring their best. At least a tournement will let people play a bit differently than the usual they do during regular play and they want to experience it.
It's like someone already said it's like Le Braun James going to grade school and playing their and crushing all the little kids and then saying "it's a competition, we are expected to win".
Before I comment any more I just want to make sure if this is the case, the players there don't have a lot of money but love to model and play with what they have and the OP has the money to buy what he wants.
Quite the opposite actually. Im the only one there who ISNT working fulltime(Barring the Teens but they are a minority there)
I mean yeah, I have more forgeworld, but that came from my graduation money I spent.
You can bring a great list that will let you win without upsetting your opponents and bringing stuff that's impossible for some armies to play against. If the only two pieces of information you have going into this is that it's 1250 points and that it's a casual-style FLGS tournament that happens every month maybe leave the power list at home. You also knew that the people at your store consider your a hardcore gamer even though you don't, so that should have given you a good idea as to what you were going to be facing even though there weren't any restrictions on list building. 50 bucks is 50 bucks, which, honestly, in this day and age, is nothing. That doesn't even buy you most model kits to play this game. If you're playing for your rent or something, it's understandable, but if that's the case you should probably be putting the army up on ebay, not playing games for chump change. Sounds like it's on the TO for not laying down any list building rules, but do you really want to be the guy that makes that a necessity in a group that don't feel they need restrictions?
If you're having trouble understanding why people think this way, it's this: not everybody likes or wants to play the current best armies, they'd rather play an army because they like the models or they like the fluff. This is a very expensive hobby and most people aren't going to throw their money away to win a board game with models they don't like painting or looking at on the shelf at home. These players accept that they're maybe going to lose a lot of games, but they want to have the CHANCE of winning, because that's what makes the game, or any game, fun.
I don't know man, maybe you wanna find a more competitive group to play with if your version of fun is making sure you win before you even get to the table. If you really like playing with these dudes at this store maybe you might think about bringing a nerfed list. I think what you're doing is fine but there's a time and a place, and it sounds like you're not playing in the right environment.
Yeah... umm... it's a luxury hobby where they're competing for a cash prize. I'm not going to play the economic disparity card on this one. (And most of my gaming collection is others' refurbished trash that I've salvaged on the cheap and picked through to build decent collections-- I completely understand one can be gaming on a budget.)
It's 100% reasonable for there to be "casual, don't bring your A-game or A-list or rules-lawyery BS or just giant fancy toys" club, league, or shop rules. But it should be stated. Even if not in any particularly great detail, a league rules sheet (IDK, games should be X size to score, scoring conditions incl. stuff like hobby or sportsmanship points, sportsmanship rules, league length and, if applicable, "this is a casual thing- don't play like a tournament" or whatever... But, for emphasis, they've got to be stated.
Also, I think that it was a particular misstep to have a cash prize at something that's supposed to be non-competitive.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Quite the opposite actually. Im the only one there who ISNT working fulltime(Barring the Teens but they are a minority there) I mean yeah, I have more forgeworld, but that came from my graduation money I spent.
That doesn't answer the question. A lot of people work. All that means is you have more spare money to spend than they do. Do you pay rent? Do you pay hydro? Do you pay insurance? How do you know the money they earn doesn't have to go and help out the family and therefore don't have the spare money like you do?
Davor wrote: Why are we making excuses to prove our manhood with plastic toy soldiers? Especially in a game that is so unbalanced and not fair we need to prove something?
Sit down, ready your timer and show me you got a pair and play chess?
Games with a nod of the head to war games have been around for centuries.
Proving manhood that would be the wrong game, having a brain for tactics and strategy is a different matter.
This is still competition, just lacking the emphasis on physical aspects.
You cheapen the game, or shall I state that the sports you quote are mindless efforts?
I would suspect many of us have physical hobbies, sometimes you want to challenge the mind a wee bit more though..
40k does prove to be a challenge to derive any true competitive play especially when people get upset with doing your best.
Davor wrote: Why are we making excuses to prove our manhood with plastic toy soldiers? Especially in a game that is so unbalanced and not fair we need to prove something?
Sit down, ready your timer and show me you got a pair and play chess?
I suck at chess. You wouldn't have fun playing me.
Games with a nod of the head to war games have been around for centuries.
I am sure they are more balanced than 40K.
Proving manhood that would be the wrong game, having a brain for tactics and strategy is a different matter.
Nope same thing. For a lot of people they can't do stuff psychically so they use their brains. Still the same thing. They have to prove they are better than someone else.
This is still competition, just lacking the emphasis on physical aspects.
Yes a competition where the rules/codices are not balanced and fair. Chess is balanced. Chess is fair. 40K is not.
You cheapen the game, or shall I state that the sports you quote are mindless efforts?
Why? Do I say you cheapen the game because you have to bring your best in an unbalanced, unfair game? Mindless efforts? Let's go on the street and do a poll and start telling non geeks and nerds how playing with toy soldiers is to challenge the mind? I am sure a lot of those people would say that is wasted effort, time and money. So now because someone disagrees instead of coming up with a counter we have to start now with name calling or shaming? Waste efforts? I am sure for many people physical sports is not wasted efforts. Sadly I am not one of them.
I would suspect many of us have physical hobbies, sometimes you want to challenge the mind a wee bit more though..
So true. thing is when you want to challenge the mind, 40K is not it. Again how can someone claim a challenge when they play an "easy" army and claim victory over someone who plays a "difficult" army? Where is the challenge in that? That is where you have Chess. Even checkers. 40K has become "Pew pew, I shot you!" "No you didn't" "YES I DID!" "NO YOU DIDN'T. On page 55 this rule go to page 104 to see how this effects the rule, go on that book on page 43 the go back to the main rule book on page 8 and you will see I missed." Well I guess you are correct. I will give you that. That would challenge the mind.
40k does prove to be a challenge to derive any true competitive play especially when people get upset with doing your best.
Yes because it's unbalanced and not pointed correctly. In chess, both sides play by the same rules. In sports, both sides play by the same rules. In poker, both sides play by the same rules. In 40K, both sides don't play by the same rules. At least in sports everything is in the same currency when playing by a cap. In 40K when playing by a cap, the currency are not balanced or the same so, it's not a level playing field.
Davor wrote: Yes because it's unbalanced and not pointed correctly. In chess, both sides play by the same rules. In sports, both sides play by the same rules. In poker, both sides play by the same rules. In 40K, both sides don't play by the same rules. At least in sports everything is in the same currency when playing by a cap. In 40K when playing by a cap, the currency are not balanced or the same so, it's not a level playing field.
We could argue some teams can better "pay to win" than others.
40k we have the BRB and can buy any codex we want right?
So I can play any army you can right?
We ARE playing to the same rules, your choice if you like an army composition less than optimal.
Here is the kicker:
A game to be competitive does not have to be balanced (grab the best the meta allows and have at it).
You pick the best the game has to offer, playing the type of strategy that "wins" while keeping in mind others could pick the same.
But for games to be "fun" (pick the army you like) they need to be balanced.
It is terribly easy to play a "balanced" game when the composition is the same for both sides.
I suspect many would be unhappy playing only marines with different colors and no other difference.
Composing balanced armies is breaking components into elements of rock-paper-scissors.
Combinations of strengths and weaknesses.
Troops die to cavalry, artillery dies to mêlée, etc.
Food for thought here: http://www.sirlin.net/ptw-book/how-far-should-you-go-to-win Balance and "matchup charts" where some armies that lose "every time" signal the game designer "why should anyone bother with that?".:
http://www.sirlin.net/articles/game-balance-and-yomi
The game is fair from a competitive viewpoint: you can field anything I can.
It is not fun when your much loved Sisters of Battle struggle mightily with the Eldar with the same points cost never mind the long overdue model updates.
You watch what you type, buddy. Some of us still fly the flag here on Dakka. #MLP4Life #TwilightSparkle2016
As for OP, I do think that if they are offering a cash prize and haven't really set any army building limits beyond a maximum points value then whatever fits into that framework is fair game. I think that the onus is on the TO to ensure that they place army limits which the group finds reasonable and fair if they want to limit peoples army choices, rather than some "unwritten rules" which people will expect you to abide by.
PourSpelur wrote: Both parties are wrong. Casual Carl was wrong because he tried to make a league a casual league without telling anyone. Bitching about lists doesn't fix the problem. Calmly explaining the expectations before the league begins does. Stomping Steve was wrong for doubling down on the "money involved, letter of the law" argument. It's fully within the rules for me to sound an air horn continually during your movement phase. It's fully within the rules for me to look up your Facebook page, find out your dear Mother Gladys is single, take her on a lovely date, and tell you all the details of our hot, sweaty, animal sex during your psychic phase. I mean, fifty bucks is on the line. There's no rule that says I can't.
40k is a permissive rule set. Stomping Steve has permission to bring stompers. You need permission to break my mother's heart.
The disconnect here is that "bring your best" is a bastardisation of "bringing your best game".
Yes you can bring the most unbalanced cheese you can muster (afford even) but that is gaming the system the most.
The "best" that a player brings is her/his ability to play the game. By bringing the known unbalanced list you are effectively reducing the level you need to compete at to win.
You curb-stomped a bunch of casuals and want us to validate your feels.
Yes, you can technically bring whatever you want. However, you also have to deal with the fall out of a bunch of players that might turn you down on the next 'Open Night".
However, the majority of the blame belongs on the shoulders of the TO, in this instance. He should known his players wanted a fluffier event and should have stated this in the tournament announcement/rules.
notprop wrote: The disconnect here is that "bring your best" is a bastardisation of "bringing your best game".
Yes you can bring the most unbalanced cheese you can muster (afford even) but that is gaming the system the most.
The "best" that a player brings is her/his ability to play the game. By bringing the known unbalanced list you are effectively reducing the level you need to compete at to win.
Bringing your best the OP's example was not.
To compete is to bring the best available to you.
Of course a game IS gaming the system (you do not see this in organized sports at all that is mainstream?).
Skill, allowable equipment...
Where do you draw the line where good or optimal leads to cheese?
Your best is all things that the rules allow, period.
I am so sick and tired of hearing "I play casual" or about the super fluffy bunny list: can you at least give the impression you are trying to put up a fight?
It IS a wargame after all.
I don't care if you or I win or lose as long as we tried our best (even better if it is a close game), please tell me there is nothing wrong with that?
It would be a letdown for an Eldar player to take-on CSM in a supposed competition the way their rules stand now (never mind the drumming the CSM player would take).
To play in a "League" is to have some understanding of playing at a similar power level.
People are very hung-up on the concept that "every army (they have) MUST be viable" when we know darn-well they are not.
Tau and Eldar are the obvious leaders in this but I guess no-one wants to play a league of only those two armies.
Since GW does not take ownership, anyone setting up a league really needs to set down some rules to try to get the various armies to the same power level or it just will not work.
I feel it is a fallacy to expect players to adjust their army lists to some nebulous level.
Anyone who plays with or against these armies know where the problems are for each army to some degree and can adjust (still talking about organizer responsibility here).
I think then the true competition can be seen as players adjust to these rules and have to choose more carefully.
It is still the least random element part of the game where the player has the most control so you will not eradicate carefully selected lists.
I am an advocate of just taking away certain elements (1 or two special rules) that make particular units or formations OP.
No rules or agreements laid down will save a player from selecting all vanilla troops or some strange points wasting choices.
Lazy, thoughtless efforts not a competition make.
Unless you want to hand out participation trophies, at some point people need to take some responsibility for what they field in a "competition".
Starting out in chess was BRUTAL till I got to figure out / read-up the various starting moves and their counters and then other follow-up moves.
Like with the 40k armies, each unit has an optimal method of attack and it is a matter of getting everything into position at the right time.
I think that is why so many people (and rules specifically manage) the first turn "alphastrike" since positioning with timing is hard to do.
If certain models are good at all things, strategy really does not matter much.
So to have a good game we have to collect and chase what is currently good to have a good game. And then when their rules start to decline we need to dump them and chase the next good army to have a good game.
Davor wrote: Yes because it's unbalanced and not pointed correctly. In chess, both sides play by the same rules. In sports, both sides play by the same rules. In poker, both sides play by the same rules. In 40K, both sides don't play by the same rules. At least in sports everything is in the same currency when playing by a cap. In 40K when playing by a cap, the currency are not balanced or the same so, it's not a level playing field.
We could argue some teams can better "pay to win" than others.
40k we have the BRB and can buy any codex we want right?
So I can play any army you can right?
We ARE playing to the same rules, your choice if you like an army composition less than optimal.
Here is the kicker:
A game to be competitive does not have to be balanced (grab the best the meta allows and have at it).
You pick the best the game has to offer, playing the type of strategy that "wins" while keeping in mind others could pick the same.
But for games to be "fun" (pick the army you like) they need to be balanced.
It is terribly easy to play a "balanced" game when the composition is the same for both sides.
I suspect many would be unhappy playing only marines with different colors and no other difference.
Composing balanced armies is breaking components into elements of rock-paper-scissors.
Combinations of strengths and weaknesses.
Troops die to cavalry, artillery dies to mêlée, etc.
Food for thought here: http://www.sirlin.net/ptw-book/how-far-should-you-go-to-win Balance and "matchup charts" where some armies that lose "every time" signal the game designer "why should anyone bother with that?".:
http://www.sirlin.net/articles/game-balance-and-yomi
The game is fair from a competitive viewpoint: you can field anything I can.
It is not fun when your much loved Sisters of Battle struggle mightily with the Eldar with the same points cost never mind the long overdue model updates.
I am sorry I don't see what your point is. I can agree yes you can field what ever I field so therefor it's a balanced system. Then you go onto how much it's not fun when the Sisters of Battle struggle against Eldar. Did you just admit the game is not balance and not fair in a "competitive" environment?
Davor wrote: I am sorry I don't see what your point is. I can agree yes you can field what ever I field so therefor it's a balanced system. Then you go onto how much it's not fun when the Sisters of Battle struggle against Eldar. Did you just admit the game is not balance and not fair in a "competitive" environment?
Sorry don't see your point here.
Okay, "fair" is you can do anything I can do right?
Nothing is preventing you from getting any army fielded every bit as strong as my choices.
When it comes to playing competitively, those Sisters of Battle are not even a consideration.
They are meaningless, pointless, a losing army vs a top-tier army.
BUT GW has failed as a designer to not look for that balance because people "want" to play that army, happen to like it and may have worked hard to make it look good.
The game "should" play-out like a game of StarCraft.
What I point out here is not a matter of "fair" it is a matter of a missed opportunity where pushing for a "casual", low power game is the only way these armies can be "fun" by having a close scrap and not being tabled.
I am the absolute worst of representatives for both sides of this discussion.
I have a bunch of "sucky" armies that are not very competitive because I "like" them by story and look.
BUT I like to play competitively and plan the living heck out of my (SM) army lists which happen to beat Eldar and Tau if the player was not trying too hard.. Birthday is coming and I think two Tau starter army boxes are coming my way so I am unsure if I will then be firmly placed into the "TFG" realm until I get a few Riptides...
Davor wrote: I am sorry I don't see what your point is. I can agree yes you can field what ever I field so therefor it's a balanced system. Then you go onto how much it's not fun when the Sisters of Battle struggle against Eldar. Did you just admit the game is not balance and not fair in a "competitive" environment?
Sorry don't see your point here.
Okay, "fair" is you can do anything I can do right?
Nothing is preventing you from getting any army fielded every bit as strong as my choices.
When it comes to playing competitively, those Sisters of Battle are not even a consideration.
They are meaningless, pointless, a losing army vs a top-tier army.
BUT GW has failed as a designer to not look for that balance because people "want" to play that army, happen to like it and may have worked hard to make it look good.
The game "should" play-out like a game of StarCraft.
What I point out here is not a matter of "fair" it is a matter of a missed opportunity where pushing for a "casual", low power game is the only way these armies can be "fun" by having a close scrap and not being tabled.
I am the absolute worst of representatives for both sides of this discussion.
I have a bunch of "sucky" armies that are not very competitive because I "like" them by story and look.
BUT I like to play competitively and plan the living heck out of my (SM) army lists which happen to beat Eldar and Tau if the player was not trying too hard.. Birthday is coming and I think two Tau starter army boxes are coming my way so I am unsure if I will then be firmly placed into the "TFG" realm until I get a few Riptides...
That is my point though my friend. We should be able to play the army we want and everything be balanced instead of playing the army we want and someone else plays an army because they will have an easier time to win with. So if one person is playing an army he wants, like how GW encourages you to start (or any company for that matter) they shouldn't be handicapped because of it.
But if you are seeing You can pick anything and I can pick anything, we are now not becoming Plastic Toy Soldier Jocks, but now becoming Plastic Toy Soldier General Managers and trying to get the best "free agents" to make our team. I can't argue with that. You are correct. Great point, I never saw it that way.
Davor wrote: That is my point though my friend. We should be able to play the army we want and everything be balanced instead of playing the army we want and someone else plays an army because they will have an easier time to win with. So if one person is playing an army he wants, like how GW encourages you to start (or any company for that matter) they shouldn't be handicapped because of it.
GW had backed out of the tournament scene so they have used "forge the narrative" a little more strongly than in prior years.
They have pretty much admitted that balance is not really a consideration for them (yet points values continue to be used that infer balance.).
If they continue with this "trend" they should put in the Big Rule Book the words "These rules are intended to simulate engagements in the world of 40k and lend them structure, at no time are these rules intended for competitive play due to the complexity of events being simulated.".
That should end once and for all these kinds of discussions and our insistence of holding tournaments or leagues with prizes for "winning" battles.
I think Leagues could offer prizes for assembling and painting units as it progresses, that would go nicely for furthering the hobby.
I would hold a rules quiz and those with the most correct answers get a prize.
But if you are seeing You can pick anything and I can pick anything, we are now not becoming Plastic Toy Soldier Jocks, but now becoming Plastic Toy Soldier General Managers and trying to get the best "free agents" to make our team. I can't argue with that. You are correct. Great point, I never saw it that way.
You are still holding onto the idea that you actually have a specific "team".
You pick the best team that wins AND also find the best free agents to make that winning team even better.
A competition with a prize is play to win, not "half attempt at it" (without going out of your way to be unsportsmanlike... it is a game!).
Man, I sound like a jerk spelling this out this way but I LIKE being challenged, I actually smile when I get thumped when I have done my best: it means I have something to learn.
It guarantees me asking that in a few weeks time we have another go to see if I can manage a win or I have more to learn yet...
If I win every time it is not good because it means I am not playing similar minded people who will get me to sharpen my tactics (plus it is not so much fun for them).
I still enjoy the opportunity with people I know to say "Do you trust me to try to create a "balanced" game/ scenario for our armies to play?" and give the understanding they can switch for my army if they want or veto the whole thing altogether no hurt feelings?
This is what people are trying to propose within that League play: I either handicap or buff what is needed to try to get an even power level with the intent of a close game = fun.
Too bad GW could not be bothered to do that (yet?).
notprop wrote: So its been a few weeks so the OP will have been and played again. What was the follow-on reaction?
We won the third game meaning we are locked into winning. Our Opponents loved playing use, with out 6 Imperial Knight list, we had fun kiling, and they had fun blowing up all out big toys.
If you want to farm casual players for prizes - you can. Just make sure you're a nice charismatic guy about it - and bring a beautifully painted force. Be an example of a veteran player as you run your list. Just make sure it's not the three coat minimum or proxy models. I've went to tournaments simply to play three or four games with new players - and win best painted every event.
