Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Hey guys, heres a link to my newest blog post -

http://bloodandchitin.blogspot.com/2011/10/why-so-serious_21.html

This post is about my views on ''Competitive'' play and fun gaming.

When I started playing I just got the models I liked the look of, and thought the rules were pretty cool. But a friend introduced me to ''competitive'' list making and once you know how to do it, It decends upon you like a dark mist, sucking ALL the fun out of playing. Be that using the list, or playing against it.

As a new player, I'm trying desperately to avoid this type of gaming, atleast for now. I can't tell you how many games I've taken up because it seemed like fun, but the moment some obsessively number-crunching stats guy whispered in my ear, all the fun was gone. The best games are the ones where anyone can jump in, get a primer on the basics of play, and enjoy themselves.

The game should be, ''who is the better player'' and not ''I can counter 99% of your list, checkmate, you lose''.

I agree. Unfortunately, many of these games are designed in the rock/paper/scissors style, so you'll always have players who worry more about countering than just jumping in.

I'm still new so I don't know, but is there a current wargame that either randomizes units allowed by the player or has predetermined army the player must use?

FWIW, I'm pretty sure more people would look at your blog from this topic if you explained what your post was about at least. Myself included.

From what Temidien has quoted, you make it sound like being a good player, and making the most strongest list are mutually exclusive. It depends how challenging you want the game to be. It really depends how you have fun playing the game.

Drk_Oblitr8r wrote:FWIW, I'm pretty sure more people would look at your blog from this topic if you explained what your post was about at least. Myself included.

Seriously dude,
Is it that hard to put up a proper topic title and description intro in the OP?

I do resonate with a few of your observations, but heeding the above advice will make it much more likely that you will be taken "seriously".

Im new to the blogging thing, so thanks for the responses guys, ill put more of a ''description'' either in the Title or in the OP, thanks again

Temidien wrote:

The game should be, ''who is the better player'' and not ''I can counter 99% of your list, checkmate, you lose''.

I agree. Unfortunately, many of these games are designed in the rock/paper/scissors style, so you'll always have players who worry more about countering than just jumping in.

I'm still new so I don't know, but is there a current wargame that either randomizes units allowed by the player or has predetermined army the player must use?

I think the best place to find this is Historical games. I know the Polemos system (which has sets for ACW, Naps, ECW, ECW, GNW, FPW, and WSS) has a method where one first rolls for what units will be in their army, and then what rating those units will have (Raw, Trained, Veteran). It's interesting, since you never really know what you're going to get, and it really exemplifies the idea that generals don't fight with the armies they chose, but rather with the armies they get.

Other historical games (Hail Caesar, Black Powder, Force on Force) simply eschew points systems entirely, and leave force formation entirely up to the players.

On a more related note, nice blog post. Quick and to the point.

I think that I would resent threads like this a little less if you used a format similar to this:

Subject - "On Waffles, and their breakfast superiority (blog post)"
Message Body:

Hey Guys. I have some thoughts on waffles. Here's the abstract:

I think that competitive waffles are x. Most people feel that they are y, however, and prefer casual, fluffy pancakes.

If you're interested, read more at www.crepesareforcreeps.com/makewafflesnotpancakes


That way I feel like there's at least a _LITTLE_ content here and it's not just 'hey look at me'. I mean, do we reply to you here, do we reply to you at your blog? Should I go to my website, write a response there, and then post a link to it?

@infinite_array

Thanks man

I've been wargaming for over 20 years, and I have yet to actually play in a tournament or create a 'competitive' list. It's just not my style. Doing those things just takes a tremendous amount of time, effort, and dedication that I just don't want to give to any hobby that isn't meant to one day put food on the table.

When I got into 40K, I went hogwild buying the miniatures to make sure I had options to suit any kind of game I wanted to play and to be competitve against any sort of player. I have never gone about creating a list that intended to massacre anyone and everyone out there.

The stat-whispering players that you mentioned in your blog are usually pretty easy to identify. They're usually the ones that spend EVERY spare moment down at their local GW shop, will brag about how they rolled over the top of some poor 'newbie' who 'OBVIOUSLY didn't know what they were doing', and brag about how thier list just can't be beaten. I tend to avoid those types. I leave it to others to take them down a peg or two as there are plenty of people who I would much rather spend my time with and have a much more enjoyable game.

I look for those who come up to me and introduce themselves with a smile on their face and ask if I'd be interested in a game. Those are the kind of people I enjoy playing with.

Do I get competitive IN the game? Absolutely. I'm very aggressive with my army...I play Tyranids, I kinda have to. But to me, trouncing an opponent leaves just as much of a sour taste in my mouth as getting trounced. I never mind losing as long as I've made it expensive for you and it's been a challenge. I'm a very different kind of player if I'm playing against someone who's obviously new and needs help. I won't be AS aggressive except when I'm teaching and making a point about what a particular unit can do. But then, if that person goes off to his friends and brags about how badly he beat me, I just smile and turn up the volume next game.

In my opinion, the game is all about fun, and there are enough people in this hobby that there are different ideas of what is fun. Some people enjoy just sitting down to a pick-up game. Some people enjoy seeing what they can do to exploit the rules. Others just enjoy doing the math and probabilities and seeing how monsterous of an army list they can come up with. Whatever your idea of fun is, you just tend to gravitate towards those who have the same ideas of fun.

Temidien wrote:
I'm still new so I don't know, but is there a current wargame that either randomizes units allowed by the player or has predetermined army the player must use?

I don't know of many wargames with randomized units. The only ones I can think of are

-Rogue Trader. The original version from 87 had various ramdomization mechanics for unit makeup.
-Mutants and Death Ray guns. A generic, Gamma-World'ish, skirmish game that randomly determines the composition of your warband. http://www.ganeshagames.net/product_info.php?cPath=1_9&products_id=39
I've not played it, but the fantasy game that it's rules are based on (non random generation) "Song of Blades and Heroes" is one of our club's favorites.

As for predeterminied army lists, I think that
-one of the versions of Epic 40k had predetermined army lists
-Board/Wargame hybrids like Dust or Incursion have predetrmined forces
-Games like Hordes of The Things (HoTT) aren't predetermined, but the list of avaialable units is the same for both and is very limited.

My club is also not a fan of ultra-competative play, so we typically play games where the focus is on a scenario (often created by a third player) or we simply try to avoid min/maxing and making WAAC armies. This self-regulation is especially important as we play alot of generic games with unit creation mechanics, and those systems are -by virtue of leaving all options open- very easy to break.

Sum up, if you're trying to avoid "number crunchers" the people you play with are far more important than the game you choose. Most any game can be broken, so I just try to play with folks who don't carry hammers (or calculators).

I personally think the times i get the most enjoyment out of this hobby are when i do see the wall of AV12, or 12 DE skimmers, or any other good, competitive list across the table from me, because i know that i'm going to have a challenging game.

I like the fluff of 40k. That is, i think, the main reason i play this, and not some other game. It's just so cool. I also like the modeling and painting aspect of the hobby. I'm not great at it, but i find it relaxing and certainly enjoy it. But at the same time, when it comes to the actual game of tactics and list-building, I also see no point in having an army that is anything less then the best i can make it. Right now, because of the way GW has written their game system, that usually means MSU style copy paste armies that some people seem to be so offended by.

I'm spending a lot of time and money on this hobby, so i feel like it's important that i enjoy it as much as i can. For me, that means building my models to look as cool as possible, painting them the best i can, and making the most competitive army that i can. Anything else, and i feel like i'm cheating myself out of something.

When i play a game, especially in a tournament, I want my opponent to bring his best list and beat the crap out of me with it, because that's certainly what i'm going to try to do back to him. If I win, that's fine, and if i don't, then my opponent certainly deserved the win, and that's fine too. I honestly get a lot more enjoyment out of losing a game to a good player with a competitive list than i do stomping a player with a poor list.

If the original article, you talk about sportsmanship, and my question is: if it good sportsmanship to bring a list that is not as good as you know it could be, and then to complain because someone else brought a better army?

If this was like, a real sport, this would be like playing with a team of sub-par players against a team of good players on purpose, and then complaining that you lost, and that it wasn't any fun. Would that really make any sense?

In friendly games, i could see that you might have a point, as its never fun to get stomped my someone's tournament list when your just trying something out for fun (which is why i rarely play pick up games anymore, for both my enjoyment and theirs), but in an actual tournament, where you are usually playing to win money, i personally think it's bad sportsmanship to complain that anyone has a better list than you, since the list you bring is up to you, and this is a competitive event.

Lastly, there is no such thing as a WAAC list. Win at all costs is a mentality that a player has regardless of his list, and is undoubtedly bad sportsmanship, as it usually involves cheating, or generrally being unpleasant to play with. Me bringing the best army that i can is not WAAC. It's me trying to enjoy the hobby, and give the best game to my opponent as possible. I will of course be polite, joke around, and try to give you as enjoyable a game as possible

If you enjoy the hobby by bringing less competitive, more fluffy armies, then i can respect you for that, but i'd ask that you not think less of me just because I am enjoying the hobby in a different way.

Anyway, that's what i think.

I always try to beat my opponent, but i will never be rude, and will always try to encourage him/her, laugh, joke about, i never thougjt about countering before i saw this post, whilst i never will go with a stupid list (exclusively boyz, no rokkits) i have never seen someone pick an army list to beat all others...

My post wasnt a call for a witchhunt against ''competitive'' players.

It was merely me, stating that sometimes, you get some, who are really just no fun to play against, be it the players, or the lists.

I played Ratwolf at the Tournament he alluded to. He is a good Sportsmen and fun to play against but I think he is off mark with some of his points. As the only Imperial Guard player I must be the Leafblower Army AV12 spam.

The good thing about Warhammer 40k is the different Races and the Codex are written to ensure game play differences.

For instance taking our match Space Wolves vs Imperial Guard every weapon in the SW Army negated my armour and hand to hand would be suicide. With so many Space Marine based Armies to play my army was built on long range fire-power.

My Army was not net built, for the Tournament it was built to take on all comers with my strength and weaknesses in mind. My Ogryns, Ratlings, Penal Troops, Sentinels and Rough Riders come out for friendly games but in a Tournament I play my best list.

Below was my 1750pt List which personally I don't see as Leafblower WAAC/Net Build/Spam. No melta vet squads and only two Chimeras, flamers and shotguns on vets, no power weapons on Sgts.

Company Command Squad, Plasma Pistol, 4 Plasma Guns,1 Chimera, Hull Heavy Flamer
Company Command Squad, 4 Melta Guns

Infantry Platoon
1 Platoon Command Squad, 4 Flamers
2 Infantry Squads, 1 Missile Launcher
1 Infantry Squad, 1 Commissar, 1 Missile Launcher
1 Infantry Squad, 1 Flamer
1 Special Weapons Squad, 3 Demolition Charges
1 Heavy Weapons Squad, 3 Autocannons

Veteran Squad, 3 Flamers, 6 Shotguns, 1 Chimera, Hull Heavy Flamer
3 Vendetta Squadrons of 1 Vendetta
1 Colossus, Hull Heavy Flamer
1 Manticore, Hull Heavy Flamer
1 Hydra Squadron of 2 Hydra Flack Tanks

or I could have lined up 200 Guardsmen and allowed massed bolter fire and assaults to wipe them out. You play to your Armies strengths in Tournaments and avoid weaknesses. Leadership 7 Toughness 3 HWS are a poor substitute for a Vendetta in my view.

jcd386 wrote:I personally think the times i get the most enjoyment out of this hobby are when i do see the wall of AV12, or 12 DE skimmers, or any other good, competitive list across the table from me, because i know that i'm going to have a challenging game.

I like the fluff of 40k. That is, i think, the main reason i play this, and not some other game. It's just so cool. I also like the modeling and painting aspect of the hobby. I'm not great at it, but i find it relaxing and certainly enjoy it. But at the same time, when it comes to the actual game of tactics and list-building, I also see no point in having an army that is anything less then the best i can make it. Right now, because of the way GW has written their game system, that usually means MSU style copy paste armies that some people seem to be so offended by.

I'm spending a lot of time and money on this hobby, so i feel like it's important that i enjoy it as much as i can. For me, that means building my models to look as cool as possible, painting them the best i can, and making the most competitive army that i can. Anything else, and i feel like i'm cheating myself out of something.

When i play a game, especially in a tournament, I want my opponent to bring his best list and beat the crap out of me with it, because that's certainly what i'm going to try to do back to him. If I win, that's fine, and if i don't, then my opponent certainly deserved the win, and that's fine too. I honestly get a lot more enjoyment out of losing a game to a good player with a competitive list than i do stomping a player with a poor list.

If the original article, you talk about sportsmanship, and my question is: if it good sportsmanship to bring a list that is not as good as you know it could be, and then to complain because someone else brought a better army?

If this was like, a real sport, this would be like playing with a team of sub-par players against a team of good players on purpose, and then complaining that you lost, and that it wasn't any fun. Would that really make any sense?

In friendly games, i could see that you might have a point, as its never fun to get stomped my someone's tournament list when your just trying something out for fun (which is why i rarely play pick up games anymore, for both my enjoyment and theirs), but in an actual tournament, where you are usually playing to win money, i personally think it's bad sportsmanship to complain that anyone has a better list than you, since the list you bring is up to you, and this is a competitive event.

Lastly, there is no such thing as a WAAC list. Win at all costs is a mentality that a player has regardless of his list, and is undoubtedly bad sportsmanship, as it usually involves cheating, or generrally being unpleasant to play with. Me bringing the best army that i can is not WAAC. It's me trying to enjoy the hobby, and give the best game to my opponent as possible. I will of course be polite, joke around, and try to give you as enjoyable a game as possible

If you enjoy the hobby by bringing less competitive, more fluffy armies, then i can respect you for that, but i'd ask that you not think less of me just because I am enjoying the hobby in a different way.

Anyway, that's what i think.

As a relatively new (or returning after 15 years) player this is the type of person I want to play against. I don't think I learn by handholding. Bringing an unoptimized army against me because I am new just gives me (a) false confidence in my generalship and (b) does not teach me how to respond to optimized strategies.

Also; in many, many other hobbies that i have participated in, there is an expectation that at competitive levels of play (e.g. server first kills / getting Glad in WoW) everyone will be optimized and performing at his/her best. I think the idea of fluffy lists, while fun, only works in non-competitive play. In competitive play, part of the fun is fighting and hopefully winning against an optimized opponent. Steamrolling opponents isn't fun for anyone.

I play competitive but never lose sight of the fact that it is just a game !!!!!

I thought I did till I read the blog . As I hope Wittman remembers and will coroborate I let the Nids player re-roll a charge into cover test which he failed again so Wittman re-rolled the re-roll getting the players Genestealers into combat. It had no effect on the Tournement results but it meant the Nid player got some more kill points

Eilif wrote:

Temidien wrote:
I'm still new so I don't know, but is there a current wargame that either randomizes units allowed by the player or has predetermined army the player must use?

I don't know of many wargames with randomized units. The only ones I can think of are

-Rogue Trader. The original version from 87 had various ramdomization mechanics for unit makeup.
-Mutants and Death Ray guns. A generic, Gamma-World'ish, skirmish game that randomly determines the composition of your warband. http://www.ganeshagames.net/product_info.php?cPath=1_9&products_id=39
I've not played it, but the fantasy game that it's rules are based on (non random generation) "Song of Blades and Heroes" is one of our club's favorites.

As for predeterminied army lists, I think that
-one of the versions of Epic 40k had predetermined army lists
-Board/Wargame hybrids like Dust or Incursion have predetrmined forces
-Games like Hordes of The Things (HoTT) aren't predetermined, but the list of avaialable units is the same for both and is very limited.

My club is also not a fan of ultra-competative play, so we typically play games where the focus is on a scenario (often created by a third player) or we simply try to avoid min/maxing and making WAAC armies. This self-regulation is especially important as we play alot of generic games with unit creation mechanics, and those systems are -by virtue of leaving all options open- very easy to break.

Sum up, if you're trying to avoid "number crunchers" the people you play with are far more important than the game you choose. Most any game can be broken, so I just try to play with folks who don't carry hammers (or calculators).

Thanks, man. I'll definitely be on the look out for regular players who care more about having fun then getting a leg-up on the competition before the game even begins. I really just can't enjoy myself if I know my opponent (in any game) has spent hours on the backend meticulously stacking the deck against me or looking for little holes in the system to exploit.
Even if it isn't cheating, it's not in the spirit of fair play in my opinion.

Even if it isn't cheating, it's not in the spirit of fair play in my opinion.

So are you saying that in a Tournament setting which by definition is a competitive event you believe its not fairplay to bring your best list?

As far as I am aware the OP was not talking about pick-up games.

If its a large tournament, where everyone knows these rule loop holes and how to write WAAC lists, then yeah, but at the local tournaments we attend, I really dont agree with it. It's like these people having something to prove. Something to prove to people who are only there to play some fun games with some people they dont usually play, and if they come out on top, they get a nifty little prize.

So Hesh, please dont try and say that a local gaming stores friendly little tournament is somewhere to bring out the Titan-sized big guns, because it really really isnt.

How does competitive list-building make you a jerk? I have a lot more fun trying to figure out the *most* competitive TAC list than purpose-building sub-par armies and intentionally dumbing myself down to make someone else happy.

The quip about competitive players being poor painters is simply ridiculous. It's possible to play well, write good lists, AND be a decent painter. You're assuming that there are two distinct groups in the hobby: hobbyists and gamers. I'd argue that in my experience, people willing to put in the time to paint a decent themed army tend to put in the time to create and tweak lists that work.

FWIW, the only thing I consider to be unsportsmanly is list-tailoring. I play the exact same army list regardless of opponent. Being able to create and build an army that works well against a variety of opponents in a skill in and of itself.

This topic again. The "throwing is cheap" of the tabletop world.

When you show up to a game, the only thing you can truly control is what *you* bring to the game. This means multiple things. It means your attitude, it means your list, it means your knowledge of rules and tactics (the two are inextricably linked, after-all).

One of the fallacies I've seen in this thread multiple times already is the idea that you can bring an "unfair" or "unbeatable" list. What happens one two players with strong lists fight each other? Do they both win? Do they both lose, and flee in shame? No, it's the same as any other game, where the luck and skill of the players matter more than the list itself. If your "autolose" because your list did not stack up, it's not your opponent's fault for bringing a too-tough list, it's your own fault for bringing a too-weak list, because, afterall, that is the only factor you can control when it comes to army lists.

Another fallacy is that people who want to play competitively somehow get their jollies by beating on players who aren't as good. While there *are* some players like that out there, many competitive players, myself included, have *less* fun when they get an easy matchup. In my last tournament, I won two games, and lost the third. Guess which of those games was the most fun for me? It was the third game that I lost, in a close-fought battle, against a "Draigowing" army with 3 psyfleman dreads.

RatWolf wrote:If its a large tournament, where everyone knows these rule loop holes and how to write WAAC lists, then yeah, but at the local tournaments we attend, I really dont agree with it. It's like these people having something to prove. Something to prove to people who are only there to play some fun games with some people they dont usually play, and if they come out on top, they get a nifty little prize.

So Hesh, please dont try and say that a local gaming stores friendly little tournament is somewhere to bring out the Titan-sized big guns, because it really really isnt.

I've been to large tournaments, and I've been to small tournaments, and I have *rarely* played against problem players. It doesn't matter what size the tournament is, trying to claim that there's some ambiguous line of list-hardness that you "shall not pass" is just setting people up for failure and frustration. The only really fair metric of what's "fair" in 40k is what's available in legal codices, because everyone has access to that information, and doesn't have to guess at what his opponent might think is too powerful.

I ran the league at my LGS for a while, and created an environment where the players are encouraged to play as "hard" as they want to, and we are the most thriving 40k community in Portland.

I dont see why "just for fun guys" are always on the forums complaining about competitive players, or waac players, or netlisters, or whatever stupid term they feel like using. Ive never seen a competitive player go "man, I just went to this tournament with my razorwolf army. and I played 3 stupid n00bs. the first guy was a total scrub, with a battleforce ultramarine army lead by sicarius. The 2nd was this trukk boy ork army. This guy must be stuck in 3rd edition still. The 3rd was the worst. This total n00b had a dark footdar army with only 3 lance weapons and no beastmasters. Man was i bored."

Its always some kid who gets spanked by a better player and list, who rants about this. Take your lumps like a man and keep going.

Its insulting to bring a sub par army to any kind of tournament, and then throw a fit when you lose.

I always want to know, if these people are so casual, why get on forums and hate on others for running better armies than you? If youre that bothered by losing, you are clearly competitive, and therefore need to start running better armies so you can compete. Or quit caring about losing, and run whatever you want.

Exactly. Anyone who beats me is a cheesier and anyone I beat was a good game.

Pretty much, Theduke07.

So Hesh, please dont try and say that a local gaming stores friendly little tournament is somewhere to bring out the Titan-sized big guns, because it really really isnt.

You want me to bring a poor list with no armour to a Tournament and play just my 5+ armour Guard with Lasguns against your Space Wolves?

I notice no complaints about the Tau players shooty Army- maxed out suits and heavy FOC.

I have posted the list I used above and would like views of others on it. Would you be happy to see it across the Table from you at a Tournament? Does a blob squad, only 2 Chimeras and only 1 Vet squad with 3 flamers really have a place in a Leafblower Army?

I play an Elysians Vets list for fun but have been tabled more times than I can remember with it, still fun , but not for a Tournament.

I am not saying Imperial Guard cant be all infantry and successfull (Straken/Creed builds) but I dont play that style well. Campaigns are where fun Armies shine.

Also if it does bother the OP that much ask Wittman to add a Unit Spam handicap to the scoring system, a liittle bit more work for him but it would reduce Vendettas, Venom, Autocannon Dreads


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Theduke07 I am getting that printed on a T-Shirt for the next Tournament. Thanks for posting

Again Hesh, you acting like i've targeted you specifically, this last forum post was at you, but the blog post wasnt.

After reading some of the posts above can I point out the following so this thread doesn't descend into a bitch slap fest.

Having played Ratwolf 4 times in the run up and at Tournaments he is always a fair and sportsmanlike player. He plays well and always gives a good game.

I dont agree with some of his points but not in the Dakka Dakka heated debate sort of way more the sort of friendly banter across the games table.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I posted the above before seeing your reply. You must agree the similarities between your Blog and the last Tournament Armies.I must have read too much into it!

thank you Hesh, I didnt write the blog as a ''call to arms'' against you, or any other tournament player. And im not specifying anyone in particular.

I understand that what I wrote about lists, and your list might be somewhere in the same region, but the way YOU play it, keeps it fair and fun to play against.