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.

Oh okay. I agree with that entirely.
I thought you were talking about change the game fundamentally for tournaments.
But yes, absolutely, you power your list for tournaments, but not always for friendly games. I have one friend who is only interested in playing with the best possible units all the time, and against him I always try to play the best list possible. I have others more interested in theme and style, and against them I'll bring wackier lists for fun.
I think most tournament gamers are like this.

And therein lies the problem.

As a strictly friendly gamer, my choice and attitudes to list writing do not hamper anyone elses enjoyment of the game. Against another purely friendly gamer, we get a decent narrative, and generally a close fought game to around turn 4, when someone is able to press the advantage. But against a Powergamer, he gets extentsion, and I at least get an opponent.

But a Powergamer? If he expects me to use a Powerlist against him, he in enroaching on my enjoyment. Tournaments are his natural stomping ground, but so obsessed is he, every game is a practice game. Everyone has to dance to beat of his drum of banality....

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:But a Powergamer? If he expects me to use a Powerlist against him, he in enroaching on my enjoyment. Tournaments are his natural stomping ground, but so obsessed is he, every game is a practice game. Everyone has to dance to beat of his drum of banality....

I find that tournament players have tournament lists that they use in tournaments and practice gamnes, and pickup-game lists that they use in pickup games. I've never known one who played tournament lists all the time.

Then I would say you are lucky.

In theory, a Tournament should be about your pure skill on the board. But sadly, it boils down to who can write the most abusive and absurd list possible.

I dunno. My powergaming friend recognises that not everyone wants to play power lists. He's slightly confused by it (in a "why would anyone intentionally nerf themselves?" kinda way) but he lets them be. He just doesn't really bother playing against them.
I suppose because I'm more flexible (I can enjoy powergaming and friendly play) I have less problems with other gamers than some. I do hate cheaters though.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Then I would say you are lucky.

In theory, a Tournament should be about your pure skill on the board. But sadly, it boils down to who can write the most abusive and absurd list possible.

If both players have done this, then it becomes about skill again.
In 4th, playing my orks against Mech Eldar at a tournament was some of the most fun I'd had in ages.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:In theory, a Tournament should be about your pure skill on the board. But sadly, it boils down to who can write the most abusive and absurd list possible.

I disagree. A tournament is a test of whatever criteria the tournament organizers set. There is no "should."

The current 40K tournament tests and rewards a lot of things that happen long before you reach the table. List-building, converting, painting, and playtesting/experience.

The fact is, when players finally reach the table, much of the battle has already been won or lost. If you don't like that, then that is fine, but understand that ultimately your beef is with the system, not the players.

Hate the game not the playah.

No, no, it's with the players.

There choice to go over the top competitive. Their choice to actively seek to remove as many tactical decisions from the game as possible. Their choice to play like a prat.

The few tournaments I have been to were run by powergaming fanbois with no concept of what a real tournament is let alone how to run one. GW has no anti-geek barrier, and for what ever flaws PP has one they do not is the idea everything they do is perfect. If they make a mistake they fix it with errata. Hell Battlefront gave me a new rulebook when I got one with massive printing errors. When was the last time you heard GW admitting they made a mistake and actively sought to correct thier rules?



As far as Powergamers go you know what I love playing them they are the easiest to win against. They often have army list they downloading then never bothered to playtest so they do not have a clue how to play it and get owned so badly it must be the lists fault.

Loser-"You might have gotten Overall/Best General at the tournement, but you had to use orks to do it!"

Winner-"Excuse me just a second." *readjusts his armful of swag topped with an 'overall' win trophy along with his carrying case* "Now, what did you say?"

Loser-"I said, I'm unimpressed by your win this weekend. You used Orks to win overall. I think its more impressive that I got 7th out of 128 with Deathwing."

Winner-"Your Deathwing record was indeed impressive. What did you get for your 7th place placing?"

Loser-"I had a great time competing this weekend and a sense of accomplishment and my good placement with such a weak list."

Winner-"Cool! Hey, do you need this box of Swooping Hawks I got as swag? I know you're building that weird eldar list for that next GT."

Loser-"Yea, THANKS! That will finish my army. Its gonna be awesome, I've got a pretty good win record with it and I'm not using ANY of the power units in the Eldar list. What are you bringing to the next GT?"

Winner-"Orks."

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:No, no, it's with the players.

There choice to go over the top competitive. Their choice to actively seek to remove as many tactical decisions from the game as possible.

But if the system didn't reward that, if the system rewarded different behavior to win, then wouldn't they adjust their behavior?

Da Boss wrote:What Jervis said is depressing. It's basically "We're incompetant morons who don't do our jobs properly, and we're proud of it too!"

No, not exactly. It's "we play a certain way, and if you're not playing in a similar fashion, you're playing wrong."

The irony, of course, is that Jervis was one of the architects of the GT circuit. And yes, the GTs proclaim to be about friendly play and having a good time. But also note that (to my knowledge) the UK GTs have never included things like comp requirements. So it's never been *that* friendly, has it? And the GTs are still going strong.

Does that mean GW recognizes that tournament play is part of the hobby, or is it some kind of Frankenstein monster failed experiment that they can't seem to eliminate?

The answer (in true GW FAQ fashion) is yes.

Since when do only powergamers want to play with balanced rules? If anything it's the opposite, they love the broken rules because they can exploit them and win more.

Why WOULDN'T players want balance? I mean, even in a casual, friendly environment like a family board game people want balance.

Well you might say you'd want rules that emphasise flavour over balance, but even then this edition of 40K has less flavour than any other.

It seems Jervis 40K combines the worst of both words; bland and unbalanced.

In theory, a Tournament should be about your pure skill on the board.

Please allow me to disagree. GTs are about having fun...if your idea of having fun is going to GTs. Skill is a factor, but so is art, dice ju-ju, luck of the draw, etc. Also, the best, most intense tournament players I have met almost always have beautifully painted and modeled armies (and lots of different ones), an enjoyment (but not obsession) with the 'narrative' side of things and are extremely fun to play against. I suppose I am a 'top level tourny player'. At Vegas this year a young guy at his first GT caught me flat-footed and ran my army off the table. It was a great one-sided slaughter and we laughed the whole way through. Hmmm, he must have been a power-gamer.
I have heard that the Heat thing in England is pretty hardcore and often too intense. Don't know, never been, that's just what I've heard. But the American GT system is in my opinion a great all around experience and overall representative of the best the hobby can offer. To me, I get a weekend of quality gaming, beautiful armies, new faces, new and old friends and a very small percentage of the unbathed or ill-willed.

But sadly, it boils down to who can write the most abusive and absurd list possible.

I go to almost every US GT and Indy US GT every year and in my experience this statement is completely false.

As a strictly friendly gamer, my choice and attitudes to list writing do not hamper anyone elses enjoyment of the game.

We used to have a guy where I live who held this banner high. He believed that he was the only guy in our group that really "got it" with regards to how an army should look and play. He had all sorts of list writing rules and thresholds in his head. If you built a list that violated his perception he instantly labeled you with some negative gamer tag and wrote you off.
He was an okay player skill-wise but his armies lacked gameplay synergy. He fielded what he liked and what he liked to paint and look at. Problem is he tried to insist everyone else do the same (in his view). It was difficult to play him. He lost most of his games and would get real upset blaming us, the codices, etc. I remember trying to dumb down my game so we could play and him not get upset and it was just miserable and dull. No friction, no intensity, boundless bitterness.
As a strictly (in his view) friendly gamer, his choice and attitude to list writing (and the game in general) severely hampered everyone elses enjoyment of the game. He was the inverse of the negative so-called 'power gamer' stereotype and a real drag.
Any position, polarized and taken to its' extreme, bogs down the human spirit and can ruin any creative endeavor.
These type of thoughts make me my head spin:
'...all tournament players suck...Jervis is an idiot...etc...etc...etc...'
The 'I'm 100% right and you're 100% wrong' mindset is a real problem in human-land.
There are no absolute rights and wrongs here. Creative debate and learning don't take place when the exchange consists of polarized, entrenched viewpoints with neither party open to the possibility of modifying and/or changing their outlook. Try engaging the mindset that there may be far more similarities than differences in EVERYONE's gaming experience/viewpoint.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:As a strictly friendly gamer, my choice and attitudes to list writing do not hamper anyone elses enjoyment of the game. Against another purely friendly gamer, we get a decent narrative, and generally a close fought game to around turn 4, when someone is able to press the advantage. But against a Powergamer, he gets extentsion, and I at least get an opponent.

But a Powergamer? If he expects me to use a Powerlist against him, he in enroaching on my enjoyment. Tournaments are his natural stomping ground, but so obsessed is he, every game is a practice game. Everyone has to dance to beat of his drum of banality....

If I understand you correctly, I think you're off base here. If a powergamer goes into the game looking for a hard-fought, close game, and you bring a list that has no hope of winning or even competing, it's not going to be a very interesting game for the powergamer. Maybe his type of enjoyment isn't *your* type of enjoyment, but it could easily be said your disinterest in competing hurts his enjoyment of the game.

Then the powergamer should shove off and play someone more inkeeping with his style.

Like at his precious Tournaments.

scotts wrote:I have heard that the Heat thing in England is pretty hardcore and often too intense. Don't know, never been, that's just what I've heard. But the American GT system is in my opinion a great all around experience and overall representative of the best the hobby can offer. To me, I get a weekend of quality gaming, beautiful armies, new faces, new and old friends and a very small percentage of the unbathed or ill-willed.

Just to echo Scott's opinion here, I've been to about 10 or so US GTs, including the very first (and I have the shirt to prove it). And I'd agree that they've almost always been a very good hobby experience.

MDG, I also can't speak for the UK system, but I think you'd have fun if you attended a US GT. You'd be surprised.

We used to have a guy where I live who held this banner high. He believed that he was the only guy in our group that really "got it" with regards to how an army should look and play. He had all sorts of list writing rules and thresholds in his head. If you built a list that violated his perception he instantly labeled you with some negative gamer tag and wrote you off.
He was an okay player skill-wise but his armies lacked gameplay synergy. He fielded what he liked and what he liked to paint and look at. Problem is he tried to insist everyone else do the same (in his view). It was difficult to play him. He lost most of his games and would get real upset blaming us, the codices, etc. I remember trying to dumb down my game so we could play and him not get upset and it was just miserable and dull. No friction, no intensity, boundless bitterness.
As a strictly (in his view) friendly gamer, his choice and attitude to list writing (and the game in general) severely hampered everyone elses enjoyment of the game. He was the inverse of the negative so-called 'power gamer' stereotype and a real drag.

See, I classify these guys as "closet competitive." They proclaim to be friendly gamers, but tend to handle losing very poorly and complain endlessly about "cheese." In the end, if you're truly a non-competitive player, you couldn't care less about cheese or even keeping score because *it doesn't matter to you.*

I respect players at either end of the competitive <=> hobbyist continuum and at all points in between, so long as they know what they want out of the hobby and enjoy it on their terms. I have a harder time with hypocrites.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Then the powergamer should shove off and play someone more inkeeping with his style.

Like at his precious Tournaments.

I think it's very easy and perfectly understandable to desire that anyone who thinks differently then we do should just disappear.

But that line of thought must always be resisted, because when both people on different sides of an argument dig in their heels and demand that the other side just go away, then the ability to resolve the issue completely disappears.

Compromise and consolidation are possible and should be sought for. I am a dedicated tournament player, but if someone asks me to tone down my list in a pickup game, I happily will. Why? Because I consider that to be good sportsmanship.

Likewise, I hope that he, after our game, would be willing to meet me halfway and tone up his list for our second game. By taking turns, both styles can be accommodated.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Then the powergamer should shove off and play someone more inkeeping with his style.

Like at his precious Tournaments.

What I'd say is that players should compare notes so as to go into games with similar expectations.

And once again, all "over-the-top" competitive players aren't tournament players, and all tournament players aren't over-the-top competitive.

You're painting with quite the broad brush, simply because they enjoy the hobby differently than you. It's the very definition of being closed-minded.

Jayden63 wrote:I just wish people would realize that not all ork armies are Loota spam armies, or that every entry in the ork codex is dripping with cheese. I can quite easily make an ork army that will never win a game, no matter how good the general is.

I'm really disheartened when people ask what army I play and roll their eyes when I say orks. 95% of my ork models are 8-10 years old. I don't even have a single loota model. Nor does my army even want any. There are good, non-cheese ork players out there.

I have 28 loota models, but almost every other ork model I have is between 6 and 12 years old. I've been playing with orks since 3rd started. And yes, I too am starting to get a little upset when people roll their eyes at me for playing orks. For tournaments I make the hardest list that I can that also has the units I want to play with. In non-tournament play, I'll use combos that are pooh-poohed by the internets and find a way to make them work with the rest of the army.

The only ork list that I ever thought was cheesy was KOS in mid 3rd edition. Never lost with that list - never even came close to losing with that list. But every list you can make out of the current dex has a counter to it. If someone wants to pump 675 points into 45 lootas at 1750 points, that's fine with me. There's plenty of counters to it.

MDG illustrates perfectly the thing that is ruining the hobby. The whole 'one right way to have fun and if you don't have fun my way, you're a bad person' bit.

It makes me paranoid to play someone because of all the whining about overpowered this and cheese that, and you're a bad person if you take this type of army.

I just want to bring a list I like playing and not be worried about being bullied about it.

Wow I actually agree with MDG on this point. Too many spankers do spoil the game. Those that are 'If you don't think painting is the end all be all they I will not play against you and your half/un/poorly painted models. Or those that are if you are not playing to crush your opponent then you either lying or you should go read a book. Not to mention those that say if you think the hobby is too expensive go play something else. More time should be spent on enjoying the aspect(s) you like about 40k and stop trying to brow beat others to your view point.

There are more constructive ways to go about it. Ie. Offering painting tips to new players, or offering your opponents advice about thier list afterwards and things they could have down better tactically in your game. Perhaps they do not know about the online discounters and instead by everything full retail.

The real problem is that GW can't be arsed to do things properly. There are plenty of examples of rulesets that are fine for tournament and for friendly play. In fact, a well written ruleset is usually better for both.

GW ought to make codexes that have a variety of balanced units which are worth the points. Players can then pick units that work together to fit a tactical plan, and they won't stand an extra chance of winning or losing unless they come up against a better player or an army that is the rock to their scissors. That would be the end to beardy cheese spam.

There is nothing basically wrong with tournament players and there is nothing fundamentally right with non-tournament players. There are plenty of TFG players who don't go to tournaments because deep inside they are scared, and they spend their time making newbies lives miserable at the local club.

I doubt Jervis's comment was the official policy of the company.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

I'd save them for when you realise that playing an extremely dull, power gaming encouraging game of depressingly little depth starts to feel childish, THEN come back to 40k and Fantasy where it's about having some fun with some friends, and not an immature waving contest where you hope to stomp some stranger into the ground so you can brag to your fellow geeks about how win you are.

Low opinion of PP? Me? Never!

You obviously have never played PP games for any length of time, and obviously haven't played much of 40k or WHFB lately if you think that opinion is even remotely close to reality.

As a recent "convert" who hasn't given up GW, but switched to PP as my main "game of choice" to get my 2-3 games a week of in, I've never had a more fun, exciting, and rewarding experience with actually playing the game well.

The point for anyone who strives to play well, or be competitive, is NOT to stomp some stranger into the ground to brag about it. I'm competitive, I play in tournaments, I build the lists that you (finally) seem to rail against in WHFB or 40k, and the last thing I want to do is stomp people who have no chance at all. I want good competitive games and that's what PP gives me far and above what GW is currently providing, without most of the stupid rules problems and most importantly with a balanced game system where no single faction has "no chance" against other lists.

And to get to the first point, obviously 40k and WHFB are having problems with certain army lists or factions dominating other ones. Otherwise there wouldn't be this thread or the tons of other ones going on about how VC & Daemons are killing WHFB.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:'Play Like You Got a Pair'

Exactly, play like you've got a pair. The game is balanced, if you find something absolutely devastates you, then take solace in the fact that your faction has ways to get around that problem! It's up to you to figure out how to do so and to implement it properly

'Unstoppable Combo O' Doom' being the whole point.

There is no 'Unstoppable Combo O' Doom'. The entire point of the game is that everything can be countered, many times by very simple & basic methods. The challenge is in seeing the opening and pulling it off.

Next to background or motivation for the 'factions'.

ABSOLUTELY FALSE! The books that come out have a good amount of background and their quarterly magazine actually has quite a bit of NEW fluff in it, with a storyline that progresses and rules that reflect it. As a fairly new player I'm making the effort to buy books I don't own yet for the background in them, even though I don't need the rules.

And at least PP makes the effort to balance between FLUFF and RULES. They still make rules based on fluff, but unlike GW it doesn't stop there. They playtest things to make sure it isn't OTT and in cases where they make a mistake - they actually FIX the rules. And not in 5 years with a new army book, but with online errata.

Variation on a single theme (Big Metal Roboty Things)

This doesn't even make sense.

Yup. Powergamers paradise.

If you mean it's a system where RAW works and you can resolve rules disputes quickly by referencing the rules and if grey areas do come up, you can go to their company forums and have your question answered by people who have actual authority on the rules of the game!

And the best part is the "Play like you've got a pair!" attitude, so when you get through someone's super-crazy combo they're not allowed to complain about it. Their game is so solid that they don't NEED composition or sports scores do "ding" players who take hard lists.

I can just see the situation that soured you so much on it. Someone probably used their own model as a target for a chain spell or targeted their own model for a slam so it would hit one of yours. It's that kind of thing that is perfectly permissible by the rules and embodies the "play like you've got a pair" sentiment. What is and isn't allowed is very clear and there is no argument if it is supposed to be "in the spirit of the game".

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:And therein lies the problem.

As a strictly friendly gamer, my choice and attitudes to list writing do not hamper anyone elses enjoyment of the game. Against another purely friendly gamer, we get a decent narrative, and generally a close fought game to around turn 4, when someone is able to press the advantage. But against a Powergamer, he gets extentsion, and I at least get an opponent.

GW has done such a terrible job with the latest round of armies, at least in WHFB, that they have even rendered this as a false statement.

I could be a strictly friendly gamer, and I happen to like Daemons, and like most males I think a Bloodthirster is cool, badass, and an awesome model. And hey he's my Lord choice for my purely Khorne army.

Of course as soon as I go to give him any kind of gift, like the one that negates all magical weapons he's in base contact with, or the one that lets him re-roll failed to hit, or the one that gives him Killing Blow, or MR3, or a Dispel Scroll, I start to make things near impossible for my opponent if they're using say Ogres, or Beasts of Chaos.

It doesn't matter if I back up my BT with blocks of bloodletters, only a few units of Hounds, and maybe even some Bloodcrushers, I've basically screwed over not just other melee armies, but in some cases entire factions of the game.

But it's ok, when my army gets their new book in a couple of years, I'm sure I'll be able to deal with a Greater Daemon effectively. I'll just sit tight till then.

Mad Doc, I can kind of see why you don't like tournaments. I'm not a big fan of competitions myself, but I like a nice game of warhammer/warmachine when I can get one in.

The last 40k tournament we had, the winner was a guy that usually loses a lot, and the cheesy lists didn't even do that well (Nidzilla with Winged Tyrant). And none of the players in my area are powergaming jerks, though they go to tournaments and play warmachine/hordes. We teasingly call each other cheesy, but only as a joke.

As for WM being powergamers paradise ... I've had great experiences playing it. I never have a rules problem. If there is a question it is almost always answered on the unit card. If not that, check the extensive FAQ. I simply don't get this kind of support from GW. I have a lot of questions about the Eye of the Gods table in the new chaos warriors book, and I've a feeling they won't be answered in that book. Because GW just doesn't support their stuff as well as I'd like them to. Would it hurt them to write clearer rules and admit mistakes and fix them? No! It would help them. Privateer Press admits mistakes and I don't begrudge them for it. On the other hand, I get really mad when I read about some stupid thing Jervis or Alessio said at some event.

I still like 40k a bit, but quotes like the one redbeard posted really make me rethink buying GW. And Fantasy is basically dead to me until they stop the ridiculous power curve on the new books.

And I want to say I really enjoy the WM background. And their magazine actually has hobby gaming material in it. I compared it to WD and white dwarf is basically a sales ad these days. The last No Quarter had an RPG encounter with a machine wraith for the D20 game. I don't play it, but I thought having stuff like that is really cool. I'd like to so Warhammer RPG stuff in White Dwarf.

And lastly,

And at least PP makes the effort to balance between FLUFF and RULES. They still make rules based on fluff, but unlike GW it doesn't stop there. They playtest things to make sure it isn't OTT and in cases where they make a mistake - they actually FIX the rules. And not in 5 years with a new army book, but with online errata.

This is huge. GW really needs to fix stuff faster. Certain armies in Fantasy need a boost and the players don't want to wait years for an update, why should they? If I don't like the new stuff in Warriors of Chaos, I don't want to wait years for a fix. And I won't, because I don't have to with WM.

Kilkrazy wrote:

I doubt Jervis's comment was the official policy of the company.

Probably not, but stuff like this makes them look like uppity jerks. Where are the quotes that make the designers sound like decent people?

I always interpreted "a pair" as "dice."

Boosting your rolls obviously meant you had better chances of reproducing.

Having read the page 5 'play like you've got a pair', it's really more about being able to accept that this is a strong balanced aggressive game, and if you lose - there's one person to blame and that's you. Buck up, pick up your little metal men, and try again - Play like you have a pair. And it's necessary too, because a lot of gamers are incapable of honestly accepting a loss without at least deflecting a significant portion of it onto something they can't control. That's not an attitude that will get you very far in Warmachine.

Moz wrote:Having read the page 5 'play like you've got a pair', it's really more about being able to accept that this is a strong balanced aggressive game, and if you lose - there's one person to blame and that's you. Buck up, pick up your little metal men, and try again - Play like you have a pair. And it's necessary too, because a lot of gamers are incapable of honestly accepting a loss without at least deflecting a significant portion of it onto something they can't control. That's not an attitude that will get you very far in Warmachine.

its easier to blame someone with no significant recourse then to realize your just not as good as they are.

I hear the term friendly gamer, and I honestly get a kick out of it. 'i'm a friendly gamer because I don't bring all the cheese i have to offer. I just stomped this guys army to the ground but i'm a friendly gamer'

when I started I played what I could afford and used other people to help me learn the rules. (my first army was black templar with a squad of scouts and a librrian ) and I still do to some extent.

I have an idea of what my marines should do and I try to find the best way to do it. and through experience I've gotten better at using this list. I do play competitvly because I'm not so tired of winning I mess around. I don't win the majority of my games so I take the best list I can.

a friendly gamer isn't measured by his list, a friendly gamer shows you how to become better and you have a good time. bring your 2 lash princes, your necron monolith phalanx, but don't be a dick about it and if that doesn't work for you don't get upset.

I did fight the 2 lash princes at ard boys, not to mention the 3 landraider army. and I tied both of them with a drop pod gunline marine army.

blame the rules all you want a pothole in the road is still a pothole, you just gota learn to get around it. Imagine all the cheese marine players would have if they wheren't the most looked over codex there is.

this is a problem in all game systems, in Call of Duty 4 there's the Martydon (drop a grenade after you die) and M203 (noob tube) users, but thats part of the game. the problem I think is that GW won't fix these things and players are stuck to them because they know they can win with them. how many people used the lash prince to move units out of coherecny because it said anywhere? if there where more enphasise on teaching players how to win with an army and not a gimick this would be as bad.