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.

No, I meant what I said. This idea that the game is so unbalanced that it's on the player to gimp themselves by bringing inferior units to avoid being labeled a WAAC/TFG is a 40k thing only, you don't see it in that way for any other wargame out there because they're actually written to not have gross imbalance in choices.

Ah OK, I misinterpreted your post.

I don't have any experience of that, staying well away from this one!

WayneTheGame wrote:
No, I meant what I said. This idea that the game is so unbalanced that it's on the player to gimp themselves by bringing inferior units to avoid being labeled a WAAC/TFG is a 40k thing only, you don't see it in that way for any other wargame out there because they're actually written to not have gross imbalance in choices.

You may have meant to limit it to war games, but that isn't what you said.

And issuing only your specific definition of WAAC/TFG, even child's games like Risk and Monopoly still fall into those categories. There's usually one player that has to handicap himself to give other people a chance, and usually one player everyone has to gimp themselves to avoid offending by putting him out ten minutes in.

And it continues to crop up in WMH, STAW, every CCG since the dawn of time, every RPG I can think of, and every other wargame I've ever played.

Edited to sound less hostile.

Certainly there are WAAC types and TFGs in any and all games of any variety.

I've noticed there are a lot fewer in games where taking a strong list is not considered "WAAC", because those games are better balanced (not perfectly balanced, for sure) and have clear rules.

 RatBot wrote:
Certainly there are WAAC types and TFGs in any and all games of any variety.

I've noticed there are a lot fewer in games where taking a strong list is not considered "WAAC", because those games are better balanced (not perfectly balanced, for sure) and have clear rules.

Ironically the crowd I play WM/H with tend to have some of the 40k mentality e.g. taking X is OP and "unfun" and makes you "TFG" for using it, despite it not being anything over the top, but overall the mentality comes up a lot less in other wargames because the rules at least try to be balanced so some choices aren't far and away better than others.

I don't encounter it much at all in WMH, though there are definitely some things I don't like seeing (Butcher in 15 point games, that Ret tier list where the opponent can't run in the first turn that can also lay down a boatload of covering fire templates, apparently), but it's not like they're point-and-click win situations like I see in 40K.

I don't doubt your local meta is like that, though, every group is going to be different.

Coming from 40K I used to get a little mopey about certain things in Warmachine until I became more familiar with them, like rushing Titans and Eyeless Sight. I just learned to position better and to not over-extend.

 RatBot wrote:
I don't encounter it much at all in WMH, though there are definitely some things I don't like seeing (Butcher in 15 point games, that Ret tier list where the opponent can't run in the first turn that can also lay down a boatload of covering fire templates, apparently), but it's not like they're point-and-click win situations like I see in 40K.

I don't doubt your local meta is like that, though, every group is going to be different.

Coming from 40K I used to get a little mopey about certain things in Warmachine until I became more familiar with them, like rushing Titans and Eyeless Sight. I just learned to position better and to not over-extend.

The difference with WM/H is that player skill wins over list build.

I think the mentality of OP and WAAC are brought over from 40k converts. They see a powerful combo/feat and go right to the "Oh that's just OP cheese" etc... When you sit down and show them how to counter it and why positioning etc matters it can click for most. Some folks just never get out of that mentality.

The big thing is that we as players need to decide what we are looking for in a game. If you are looking for a fun night of narrative gaming and throwing lots of dice than 40k is for you. If you want something tactical with tight rules and a competitive game, which honestly can be a lot of fun (some of the best times I've had playing wargames have been really close games that could have gone either way), I would recommend WM, or other well written rules games.

However if you jump from 40k to another game, I would urge you to set aside your prejudices until you get a good feel and understanding of the new game. Things that seem OP when you start will probably not be once you learn to counter and anticipate them.

Peregrine, it occurs to me that your point basically condenses down to:

"If you wan't willing to waste a ton of money and time on this game, then don't blame your opponent for crushing you if he is."

From that perspective, my answer is: "Yes, I can blame my opponent for treating a game as though it weren't a game. That's unreasonable and exceeds the virtuous mean."

In fact, I may lose the game. But who's the real loser? [Hint: it's the dude who has nothing better to do with his time and money than buy little plastic toys.]

 darefsky (Flight Medic Paints) wrote:

 RatBot wrote:
I don't encounter it much at all in WMH, though there are definitely some things I don't like seeing (Butcher in 15 point games, that Ret tier list where the opponent can't run in the first turn that can also lay down a boatload of covering fire templates, apparently), but it's not like they're point-and-click win situations like I see in 40K.

I don't doubt your local meta is like that, though, every group is going to be different.

Coming from 40K I used to get a little mopey about certain things in Warmachine until I became more familiar with them, like rushing Titans and Eyeless Sight. I just learned to position better and to not over-extend.

The difference with WM/H is that player skill wins over list build.

I think the mentality of OP and WAAC are brought over from 40k converts. They see a powerful combo/feat and go right to the "Oh that's just OP cheese" etc... When you sit down and show them how to counter it and why positioning etc matters it can click for most. Some folks just never get out of that mentality.

The big thing is that we as players need to decide what we are looking for in a game. If you are looking for a fun night of narrative gaming and throwing lots of dice than 40k is for you. If you want something tactical with tight rules and a competitive game, which honestly can be a lot of fun (some of the best times I've had playing wargames have been really close games that could have gone either way), I would recommend WM, or other well written rules games.

However if you jump from 40k to another game, I would urge you to set aside your prejudices until you get a good feel and understanding of the new game. Things that seem OP when you start will probably not be once you learn to counter and anticipate them.

True, I have left two groups [1 DD&D, 1 WH40k] because all of them wanted to play WAAC and two players quit the new group [1 DD&D, 1 WH40k] because we were not WAAC enough.

The group can make all the difference.

 Anpu42 wrote:

 darefsky (Flight Medic Paints) wrote:

 RatBot wrote:
I don't encounter it much at all in WMH, though there are definitely some things I don't like seeing (Butcher in 15 point games, that Ret tier list where the opponent can't run in the first turn that can also lay down a boatload of covering fire templates, apparently), but it's not like they're point-and-click win situations like I see in 40K.

I don't doubt your local meta is like that, though, every group is going to be different.

Coming from 40K I used to get a little mopey about certain things in Warmachine until I became more familiar with them, like rushing Titans and Eyeless Sight. I just learned to position better and to not over-extend.

The difference with WM/H is that player skill wins over list build.

I think the mentality of OP and WAAC are brought over from 40k converts. They see a powerful combo/feat and go right to the "Oh that's just OP cheese" etc... When you sit down and show them how to counter it and why positioning etc matters it can click for most. Some folks just never get out of that mentality.

The big thing is that we as players need to decide what we are looking for in a game. If you are looking for a fun night of narrative gaming and throwing lots of dice than 40k is for you. If you want something tactical with tight rules and a competitive game, which honestly can be a lot of fun (some of the best times I've had playing wargames have been really close games that could have gone either way), I would recommend WM, or other well written rules games.

However if you jump from 40k to another game, I would urge you to set aside your prejudices until you get a good feel and understanding of the new game. Things that seem OP when you start will probably not be once you learn to counter and anticipate them.

True, I have left two groups [1 DD&D, 1 WH40k] because all of them wanted to play WAAC and two players quit the new group [1 DD&D, 1 WH40k] because we were not WAAC enough.

The group can make all the difference.

But should it? Again, the idea that you need to basically vet prospective opponents to determine if you'll have an enjoyable game playing them is almost entirely a 40k/GW phenomenon. It doesn't exist elsewhere and exists in 40k mostly in part due to GW's terrible rules and lack of balance. I've seen this mentality that "Other people should dumb down to my level" far too often. I saw it in D&D when you'd have the moron who took skills in basket weaving over combat skills, and then whined when someone who took combat skills did more damage, or someone who wanted to use a class in a new book instead of just using the PHB like the scrub did. I saw in WoW and other MMOs when scrubs refused to do research on their class and instead just fool around and not pull their weight in groups and then cry "elitist!" when it was pointed out, despite the fact that their lack of doing things properly was causing wipes and impeding progression. I see it in Warmachine with people whining how strong Butcher3 is or how some spammy theme forces shouldn't be used because they are too terrible to figure out a way to deal with or up their own game and improve their playstyle.

That kind of mentality has no place in a game. It's a PROBLEM in 40k that you have this big gap between "good" and "bad" and everything in between and you have to make sure your opponent isn't fielding one of umpteen different things that you wouldn't find fun. It's a flaw of the game if you have one person who wants to play a fluffy Space Marine company and take lots of Tactical Squads, no more than 20 Assault or Devastator marines and they come up against someone fielding nothing but Jetbikes with scatter lasers or Wraithknights or, even worse, someone who actually is playing a fluffy Saim-Hann force that should have jetbikes, and it's not their fault that jetbikes are really good and tac marines aren't.

This shouldn't be defended. That's the issue I have. 40k relies on this "decide with your opponent" nonsense that is bad enough when you don't factor in that, in the USA at least, most games are played at a shop and you don't know who is going to turn up on a given day. It's way too easy in 40k for two people to decide to play a pickup game and neither walk away having fun.

I personally do not want to spend a lot of money on a "game" where my enjoyment almost entirely depends on my opponent deciding to go easy on me because the company making the fething game has no clue on game design and would rather put out gak because people buy it up like fanboys. I'd rather not put time into a game where the things I like might be weaker than the things someone else likes, because reasons, when the game itself constantly reinforces the fact that I should be playing what I want or think is cool and not just what is good.

feth that. Why should I be punished if I want a fluffy Iron Warriors chaos army and want to take actual chaos marines and not shoehorn the Mark of Nurgle because it's better? Why should my opponent be rewarded for doing the same thing just because HE likes Saim-Hann Eldar and as a result gets jetbikes?

To answer the OP, you can have it by playing a game that actually has rules and balance. 40k caters to nothing but scrubs in the Sirlin sense; people who want to play their own rules and pretend that they're playing the same game, but in 40k's case you have to do that in order to make the game worth bothering with because the rules are so unbalanced by default that you can't make it usable without that.

WayneTheGame wrote:

Spoiler:

 Anpu42 wrote:

 darefsky (Flight Medic Paints) wrote:

 RatBot wrote:
I don't encounter it much at all in WMH, though there are definitely some things I don't like seeing (Butcher in 15 point games, that Ret tier list where the opponent can't run in the first turn that can also lay down a boatload of covering fire templates, apparently), but it's not like they're point-and-click win situations like I see in 40K.

I don't doubt your local meta is like that, though, every group is going to be different.

Coming from 40K I used to get a little mopey about certain things in Warmachine until I became more familiar with them, like rushing Titans and Eyeless Sight. I just learned to position better and to not over-extend.

The difference with WM/H is that player skill wins over list build.

I think the mentality of OP and WAAC are brought over from 40k converts. They see a powerful combo/feat and go right to the "Oh that's just OP cheese" etc... When you sit down and show them how to counter it and why positioning etc matters it can click for most. Some folks just never get out of that mentality.

The big thing is that we as players need to decide what we are looking for in a game. If you are looking for a fun night of narrative gaming and throwing lots of dice than 40k is for you. If you want something tactical with tight rules and a competitive game, which honestly can be a lot of fun (some of the best times I've had playing wargames have been really close games that could have gone either way), I would recommend WM, or other well written rules games.

However if you jump from 40k to another game, I would urge you to set aside your prejudices until you get a good feel and understanding of the new game. Things that seem OP when you start will probably not be once you learn to counter and anticipate them.

True, I have left two groups [1 DD&D, 1 WH40k] because all of them wanted to play WAAC and two players quit the new group [1 DD&D, 1 WH40k] because we were not WAAC enough.

The group can make all the difference.

But should it? Again, the idea that you need to basically vet prospective opponents to determine if you'll have an enjoyable game playing them is almost entirely a 40k/GW phenomenon. It doesn't exist elsewhere and exists in 40k mostly in part due to GW's terrible rules and lack of balance. I've seen this mentality that "Other people should dumb down to my level" far too often. I saw it in D&D when you'd have the moron who took skills in basket weaving over combat skills, and then whined when someone who took combat skills did more damage, or someone who wanted to use a class in a new book instead of just using the PHB like the scrub did. I saw in WoW and other MMOs when scrubs refused to do research on their class and instead just fool around and not pull their weight in groups and then cry "elitist!" when it was pointed out, despite the fact that their lack of doing things properly was causing wipes and impeding progression. I see it in Warmachine with people whining how strong Butcher3 is or how some spammy theme forces shouldn't be used because they are too terrible to figure out a way to deal with or up their own game and improve their playstyle.

That kind of mentality has no place in a game. It's a PROBLEM in 40k that you have this big gap between "good" and "bad" and everything in between and you have to make sure your opponent isn't fielding one of umpteen different things that you wouldn't find fun. It's a flaw of the game if you have one person who wants to play a fluffy Space Marine company and take lots of Tactical Squads, no more than 20 Assault or Devastator marines and they come up against someone fielding nothing but Jetbikes with scatter lasers or Wraithknights or, even worse, someone who actually is playing a fluffy Saim-Hann force that should have jetbikes, and it's not their fault that jetbikes are really good and tac marines aren't.

This shouldn't be defended. That's the issue I have. 40k relies on this "decide with your opponent" nonsense that is bad enough when you don't factor in that, in the USA at least, most games are played at a shop and you don't know who is going to turn up on a given day. It's way too easy in 40k for two people to decide to play a pickup game and neither walk away having fun.

I personally do not want to spend a lot of money on a "game" where my enjoyment almost entirely depends on my opponent deciding to go easy on me because the company making the fething game has no clue on game design and would rather put out gak because people buy it up like fanboys. I'd rather not put time into a game where the things I like might be weaker than the things someone else likes, because reasons, when the game itself constantly reinforces the fact that I should be playing what I want or think is cool and not just what is good.

that. Why should I be punished if I want a fluffy Iron Warriors chaos army and want to take actual chaos marines and not shoehorn the Mark of Nurgle because it's better? Why should my opponent be rewarded for doing the same thing just because HE likes Saim-Hann Eldar and as a result gets jetbikes?

True one should not have to adjust their play style to fit in with what ever is being played. I however am not going to play a game I don't enjoy and nobody else should either.
If I am the WAAC Player playing with a bunch of Casual Gamers and we are all having fun there is no problem. The true problem comes when people stop having fun.
One of the reasons I stopped showing up at my local Not-So-LFGS was people stopped playing me because I did not take The Game Serious Enough". I showed up to guzzle Mt. Dew, eat pizza and blow up, not pay at a "Tournament Level" 100% of the time. Yet at the same time they called me a "Band-Wagon-Spece-Wolf-Cheese-Player" when I pulled out my Space Wolf Army Codex [I had not even pulled my Army out of the box yet] when the 5th Edition dropped even though I was the "Local Space Wolf Player for years".

This why I always emphasize the META/Group over the Player.

It should also not take long for you to figure out what your local META/Group is like along with who is the local WAAC/TFG player(s) are and if you want to play them.

 Anpu42 wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:

Spoiler:

 Anpu42 wrote:

 darefsky (Flight Medic Paints) wrote:

 RatBot wrote:
I don't encounter it much at all in WMH, though there are definitely some things I don't like seeing (Butcher in 15 point games, that Ret tier list where the opponent can't run in the first turn that can also lay down a boatload of covering fire templates, apparently), but it's not like they're point-and-click win situations like I see in 40K.

I don't doubt your local meta is like that, though, every group is going to be different.

Coming from 40K I used to get a little mopey about certain things in Warmachine until I became more familiar with them, like rushing Titans and Eyeless Sight. I just learned to position better and to not over-extend.

The difference with WM/H is that player skill wins over list build.

I think the mentality of OP and WAAC are brought over from 40k converts. They see a powerful combo/feat and go right to the "Oh that's just OP cheese" etc... When you sit down and show them how to counter it and why positioning etc matters it can click for most. Some folks just never get out of that mentality.

The big thing is that we as players need to decide what we are looking for in a game. If you are looking for a fun night of narrative gaming and throwing lots of dice than 40k is for you. If you want something tactical with tight rules and a competitive game, which honestly can be a lot of fun (some of the best times I've had playing wargames have been really close games that could have gone either way), I would recommend WM, or other well written rules games.

However if you jump from 40k to another game, I would urge you to set aside your prejudices until you get a good feel and understanding of the new game. Things that seem OP when you start will probably not be once you learn to counter and anticipate them.

True, I have left two groups [1 DD&D, 1 WH40k] because all of them wanted to play WAAC and two players quit the new group [1 DD&D, 1 WH40k] because we were not WAAC enough.

The group can make all the difference.

But should it? Again, the idea that you need to basically vet prospective opponents to determine if you'll have an enjoyable game playing them is almost entirely a 40k/GW phenomenon. It doesn't exist elsewhere and exists in 40k mostly in part due to GW's terrible rules and lack of balance. I've seen this mentality that "Other people should dumb down to my level" far too often. I saw it in D&D when you'd have the moron who took skills in basket weaving over combat skills, and then whined when someone who took combat skills did more damage, or someone who wanted to use a class in a new book instead of just using the PHB like the scrub did. I saw in WoW and other MMOs when scrubs refused to do research on their class and instead just fool around and not pull their weight in groups and then cry "elitist!" when it was pointed out, despite the fact that their lack of doing things properly was causing wipes and impeding progression. I see it in Warmachine with people whining how strong Butcher3 is or how some spammy theme forces shouldn't be used because they are too terrible to figure out a way to deal with or up their own game and improve their playstyle.

That kind of mentality has no place in a game. It's a PROBLEM in 40k that you have this big gap between "good" and "bad" and everything in between and you have to make sure your opponent isn't fielding one of umpteen different things that you wouldn't find fun. It's a flaw of the game if you have one person who wants to play a fluffy Space Marine company and take lots of Tactical Squads, no more than 20 Assault or Devastator marines and they come up against someone fielding nothing but Jetbikes with scatter lasers or Wraithknights or, even worse, someone who actually is playing a fluffy Saim-Hann force that should have jetbikes, and it's not their fault that jetbikes are really good and tac marines aren't.

This shouldn't be defended. That's the issue I have. 40k relies on this "decide with your opponent" nonsense that is bad enough when you don't factor in that, in the USA at least, most games are played at a shop and you don't know who is going to turn up on a given day. It's way too easy in 40k for two people to decide to play a pickup game and neither walk away having fun.

I personally do not want to spend a lot of money on a "game" where my enjoyment almost entirely depends on my opponent deciding to go easy on me because the company making the fething game has no clue on game design and would rather put out gak because people buy it up like fanboys. I'd rather not put time into a game where the things I like might be weaker than the things someone else likes, because reasons, when the game itself constantly reinforces the fact that I should be playing what I want or think is cool and not just what is good.

that. Why should I be punished if I want a fluffy Iron Warriors chaos army and want to take actual chaos marines and not shoehorn the Mark of Nurgle because it's better? Why should my opponent be rewarded for doing the same thing just because HE likes Saim-Hann Eldar and as a result gets jetbikes?

True one should not have to adjust their play style to fit in with what ever is being played. I however am not going to play a game I don't enjoy and nobody else should either.
If I am the WAAC Player playing with a bunch of Casual Gamers and we are all having fun there is no problem. The true problem comes when people stop having fun.
One of the reasons I stopped showing up at my local Not-So-LFGS was people stopped playing me because I did not take The Game Serious Enough". I showed up to guzzle Mt. Dew, eat pizza and blow up, not pay at a "Tournament Level" 100% of the time. Yet at the same time they called me a "Band-Wagon-Spece-Wolf-Cheese-Player" when I pulled out my Space Wolf Army Codex [I had not even pulled my Army out of the box yet] when the 5th Edition dropped even though I was the "Local Space Wolf Player for years".

This why I always emphasize the META/Group over the Player.

It should also not take long for you to figure out what your local META/Group is like along with who is the local WAAC/TFG player(s) are and if you want to play them.

And the thing is that 40k is the only wargame that has that happen regularly. Sure, you get the occasional ex-40k player in Warmachine who complains about Haley2 or Butcher3 or Bradigus, but 40k is the only game where you are "TFG" through no fault of your own. I wonder, how many Eldar players have been called that or treated badly when the new Codex dropped, just because they were an Eldar player? They didn't ask for an OP codex, GW gave it to them because GW is stupid. In your case you were probably one of if not the only Wolf players, and then all of a sudden an OP codex comes out and it's YOUR fault for playing the army, because GW can't write rules to save their lives.

That's my problem. That kind of crap only happens in GW games for the most part, at least with any regularity.

Traditio wrote:
Peregrine, it occurs to me that your point basically condenses down to:

"If you wan't willing to waste a ton of money and time on this game, then don't blame your opponent for crushing you if he is."

From that perspective, my answer is: "Yes, I can blame my opponent for treating a game as though it weren't a game. That's unreasonable and exceeds the virtuous mean."

In fact, I may lose the game. But who's the real loser? [Hint: it's the dude who has nothing better to do with his time and money than buy little plastic toys.]

Win or lose, you still have to buy the toys though right ?

WayneTheGame wrote:

 Anpu42 wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:

Spoiler:

 Anpu42 wrote:

 darefsky (Flight Medic Paints) wrote:

 RatBot wrote:
I don't encounter it much at all in WMH, though there are definitely some things I don't like seeing (Butcher in 15 point games, that Ret tier list where the opponent can't run in the first turn that can also lay down a boatload of covering fire templates, apparently), but it's not like they're point-and-click win situations like I see in 40K.

I don't doubt your local meta is like that, though, every group is going to be different.

Coming from 40K I used to get a little mopey about certain things in Warmachine until I became more familiar with them, like rushing Titans and Eyeless Sight. I just learned to position better and to not over-extend.

The difference with WM/H is that player skill wins over list build.

I think the mentality of OP and WAAC are brought over from 40k converts. They see a powerful combo/feat and go right to the "Oh that's just OP cheese" etc... When you sit down and show them how to counter it and why positioning etc matters it can click for most. Some folks just never get out of that mentality.

The big thing is that we as players need to decide what we are looking for in a game. If you are looking for a fun night of narrative gaming and throwing lots of dice than 40k is for you. If you want something tactical with tight rules and a competitive game, which honestly can be a lot of fun (some of the best times I've had playing wargames have been really close games that could have gone either way), I would recommend WM, or other well written rules games.

However if you jump from 40k to another game, I would urge you to set aside your prejudices until you get a good feel and understanding of the new game. Things that seem OP when you start will probably not be once you learn to counter and anticipate them.

True, I have left two groups [1 DD&D, 1 WH40k] because all of them wanted to play WAAC and two players quit the new group [1 DD&D, 1 WH40k] because we were not WAAC enough.

The group can make all the difference.

But should it? Again, the idea that you need to basically vet prospective opponents to determine if you'll have an enjoyable game playing them is almost entirely a 40k/GW phenomenon. It doesn't exist elsewhere and exists in 40k mostly in part due to GW's terrible rules and lack of balance. I've seen this mentality that "Other people should dumb down to my level" far too often. I saw it in D&D when you'd have the moron who took skills in basket weaving over combat skills, and then whined when someone who took combat skills did more damage, or someone who wanted to use a class in a new book instead of just using the PHB like the scrub did. I saw in WoW and other MMOs when scrubs refused to do research on their class and instead just fool around and not pull their weight in groups and then cry "elitist!" when it was pointed out, despite the fact that their lack of doing things properly was causing wipes and impeding progression. I see it in Warmachine with people whining how strong Butcher3 is or how some spammy theme forces shouldn't be used because they are too terrible to figure out a way to deal with or up their own game and improve their playstyle.

That kind of mentality has no place in a game. It's a PROBLEM in 40k that you have this big gap between "good" and "bad" and everything in between and you have to make sure your opponent isn't fielding one of umpteen different things that you wouldn't find fun. It's a flaw of the game if you have one person who wants to play a fluffy Space Marine company and take lots of Tactical Squads, no more than 20 Assault or Devastator marines and they come up against someone fielding nothing but Jetbikes with scatter lasers or Wraithknights or, even worse, someone who actually is playing a fluffy Saim-Hann force that should have jetbikes, and it's not their fault that jetbikes are really good and tac marines aren't.

This shouldn't be defended. That's the issue I have. 40k relies on this "decide with your opponent" nonsense that is bad enough when you don't factor in that, in the USA at least, most games are played at a shop and you don't know who is going to turn up on a given day. It's way too easy in 40k for two people to decide to play a pickup game and neither walk away having fun.

I personally do not want to spend a lot of money on a "game" where my enjoyment almost entirely depends on my opponent deciding to go easy on me because the company making the fething game has no clue on game design and would rather put out gak because people buy it up like fanboys. I'd rather not put time into a game where the things I like might be weaker than the things someone else likes, because reasons, when the game itself constantly reinforces the fact that I should be playing what I want or think is cool and not just what is good.

that. Why should I be punished if I want a fluffy Iron Warriors chaos army and want to take actual chaos marines and not shoehorn the Mark of Nurgle because it's better? Why should my opponent be rewarded for doing the same thing just because HE likes Saim-Hann Eldar and as a result gets jetbikes?

True one should not have to adjust their play style to fit in with what ever is being played. I however am not going to play a game I don't enjoy and nobody else should either.
If I am the WAAC Player playing with a bunch of Casual Gamers and we are all having fun there is no problem. The true problem comes when people stop having fun.
One of the reasons I stopped showing up at my local Not-So-LFGS was people stopped playing me because I did not take The Game Serious Enough". I showed up to guzzle Mt. Dew, eat pizza and blow up, not pay at a "Tournament Level" 100% of the time. Yet at the same time they called me a "Band-Wagon-Spece-Wolf-Cheese-Player" when I pulled out my Space Wolf Army Codex [I had not even pulled my Army out of the box yet] when the 5th Edition dropped even though I was the "Local Space Wolf Player for years".

This why I always emphasize the META/Group over the Player.

It should also not take long for you to figure out what your local META/Group is like along with who is the local WAAC/TFG player(s) are and if you want to play them.

And the thing is that 40k is the only wargame that has that happen regularly. Sure, you get the occasional ex-40k player in Warmachine who complains about Haley2 or Butcher3 or Bradigus, but 40k is the only game where you are "TFG" through no fault of your own. I wonder, how many Eldar players have been called that or treated badly when the new Codex dropped, just because they were an Eldar player? They didn't ask for an OP codex, GW gave it to them because GW is stupid. In your case you were probably one of if not the only Wolf players, and then all of a sudden an OP codex comes out and it's YOUR fault for playing the army, because GW can't write rules to save their lives.

That's my problem. That kind of crap only happens in GW games for the most part, at least with any regularity.

Actually it is not.
BattleTech has some real issues, most of them depends on what time period you play. I saw the Level two break up groups (Especially with the people who wanted to play the Clans vs. those who do not.] If you do not plan in advance games can quickly get one sided.
D&D has that with one group of played only wanting the most powerful vs those who want to put more non-combat into their characters.
Even what I call one of the more perfect games Star Fleet Battles, it is easy to make a game one sided with out the players talking at first and deciding what time period/optional rules are used.

And all of them suffer from WAAC/TFG Syndrome, it is just easier to see with WH40k while on a WH40k Discussion Site.

Absolutely agreed with WayneTheGame and Darefsky. Exalted. Some of you, espousing a view like Traditio's here:

Traditio wrote:
my answer is: "Yes, I can blame my opponent for treating a game as though it weren't a game. That's unreasonable and exceeds the virtuous mean."

In fact, I may lose the game. But who's the real loser? [Hint: it's the dude who has nothing better to do with his time and money than buy little plastic toys.]

None of you see anything inherently weird about the attitude that a game played between two opposing players shouldn't be competitive? (Traditio, I'd say you don't treat it as a game so much as a tea-party. What do these kind of players do, like, declare "Oh I say old chap, frightfully sorry my model killed yours there. Here, I'll place my HQ character in the open and let you have a free shot at it with your lascannons..."?) None of you see any problem with a game that has balance so wretched that it practically demands segregation between viable lists and scrub lists (especially when the game revolves around listbuilding), which somehow creates the attitude that the latter is the 'reasonable', 'intended' and even the 'virtuous' way to play? That just comes over like a sour grapes rationalisation to me. Where's the declaration from GW that this is the way they intended it to be played, anyway? If that is what they intended, why do they make the game so that the 'unintended', highly exploitative, unbalanced, non-scrub lists are perfectly legal, relatively easy to bash out, and widely played? Quite a few smaller operations with fewer resources don't seem to have much bother crafting a game so that people (must) play it the way it was intended to be played, even according to whatever veneer of background they might apply to it.

Oh and Talisvar, thanks for the Sirlin link in the OP. It's proving to be an interesting read. The bit about scrubs playing to their own made up rules resonates at this point in time. Also, the More on Losing chapter with it's 'losing attitudes', and this one bit in particular:

“This game is dumb / too random / too boring.”

In all fairness, sometimes the game is dumb or too random or too boring. In that case, you should stop playing it altogether and find something better to do with your time.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Anpu: I'd say that deciding which time period to play is not a balance problem inherent in the game. It'd be like a Bolt Action player crying 'foul!' because he brought along his pikemen and musketeers.

Vermis wrote:None of you see anything inherently weird about the attitude that a game played between two opposing players shouldn't be competitive?

It should be competitive...after the game starts, i.e., once the dice start rolling.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Rayvon wrote:Win or lose, you still have to buy the toys though right ?

No, that's perfectly true. But if I spent $20 on my magic deck and you spent $200...

Sure. I may lose the game. But you paid $200 on a deck of cards. Congrats.

I.e., one person loses a game. The other person just is a loser.

On the other hand, suppose that you and I each only spent $20 on a magic deck.

Look at what magically happens:

1. The game becomes much more competitive (i.e., there's actually a chance of either one of us winning, actually depending upon how we play).

2. Neither one of us wasted $200 on a deck of cards.

40k seems to want to encourage the "scrub" as David Sirlin describes in his book:

A scrub is a player who is handicapped by self-imposed rules that the game knows nothing about. A scrub does not play to win.

While in 40k this a something that IMHO has to happen due to unbalanced rules, it's still an issue. You have to add additional rules (e.g. restricting choices) to the game, but by doing so you become a scrub.

(re: good players beating scrubs when they inevitably meet):

This is because the scrubs have not been playing the same game. The experts were playing the actual game while the scrubs were playing their own homemade variant with restricting, unwritten rules.

The biggest problem is that this is supposed to be a bad thing. Playing like a scrub is meant to be discouraged. But with 40k it seems you can't, because the game itself is so unbalanced by default. Playing 40k is like the equivalent of taking several small children and asking them what their favorite color is. One child answers "Red" and is given a red-colored box; when he opens it up it has a slice of chocolate cake. The other child answers "Blue" and is given a blue-colored box; he opens it up and there's a plate of brussel sprouts because, for whatever reason, GW decided that red is better than blue. Meanwhile, the child who answered Green gets five M&Ms and a chicken nugget, and the one who answered Yellow gets a ham sandwich. That's essentially how picking a 40k army goes.

The child who likes red is rewarded, the child who likes blue is punished for liking the wrong thing. Sorry Little Timmy, you should have liked red instead of blue!

Traditio wrote:

Vermis wrote:None of you see anything inherently weird about the attitude that a game played between two opposing players shouldn't be competitive?

It should be competitive...after the game starts, i.e., once the dice start rolling.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Rayvon wrote:Win or lose, you still have to buy the toys though right ?

No, that's perfectly true. But if I spent $20 on my magic deck and you spent $200...

Sure. I may lose the game. But you paid $200 on a deck of cards. Congrats.

On the other hand, suppose that you and I each only spent $20 on a magic deck.

Look at what magically happens:

1. The game becomes much more competitive (i.e., there's actually a chance of either one of us winning, actually depending upon how we play).

2. Neither one of us wasted $200 on a deck of cards.

No you end up with 2 people playing decks they really don't want to play. Or in your case 1 person happy the other unhappy as for some reason you don't care what YOU play and can be happy with a per-made deck or one of oddball random cards. That is what magically happens, thanks for try to choose for us but your wrong.

Is that your real issue is you just don't like people spending more on the game the you? So the only way to fix the problem as you see it, is to JUDGE how others play the game. The treat the symptom while the virus eats the host mentality, will only lead to the death of the game.

Traditio wrote:
It should be competitive...after the game starts, i.e., once the dice start rolling.

And there you go again with your bizarre assumption that the game begins when dice start rolling instead of the actual beginning of the game, when you write your army list/build your deck/etc. You might as well argue that the game starts on turn 3, so at the end of the first two turns the player with fewer points surviving gets to add models to their army to make up the difference and the objective scores for both players are reset to zero.

Sure. I may lose the game. But you paid $200 on a deck of cards. Congrats.

I.e., one person loses a game. The other person just is a loser.

Oh, so now you're going to resort to insulting anyone who doesn't play games the way you do. I guess you don't think that following forum rules is necessary?

1. The game becomes much more competitive (i.e., there's actually a chance of either one of us winning, actually depending upon how we play).

Not really. Games with $20 decks can still be completely "uncompetitive" by your definition because deckbuilding is still a skill. A well-built $20 deck will absolutely crush a poorly-built one, by almost as much of a margin as the $200 deck will.

2. Neither one of us wasted $200 on a deck of cards.

Let's say the same about 40k then: games should always consist of one tactical squad with no upgrades against another tactical squad with no upgrades. Now the game is perfectly "balanced" and nobody had to spend more than $20 on toy soldiers.

Or maybe you could finally understand that people enjoy things that you don't, and that includes being willing to spend lots of money on a hobby they enjoy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Traditio wrote:
Peregrine, it occurs to me that your point basically condenses down to:

"If you wan't willing to waste a ton of money and time on this game, then don't blame your opponent for crushing you if he is."

No, my point is that your personal desires (like "I want to be able to play on a budget of $X per month") about the game are just that: your personal desires. They aren't objective truth, and the fact that people enjoy playing the game in other ways doesn't make them bad people.

My point about MTG is simply this: you have no clue what you're talking about. You clearly never learned much about how the game works, and everything you've said about MTG strategy is hilariously ignorant. And yet you're willing to judge people and accuse them of moral offenses based on your incredibly flawed understanding of MTG strategy.

From that perspective, my answer is: "Yes, I can blame my opponent for treating a game as though it weren't a game. That's unreasonable and exceeds the virtuous mean."

And this where you get it wrong: your opponent playing the game in a way that you don't enjoy doesn't make them Evil (while you, of course, are Good), it just means the two of you enjoy different things. And there's nothing wrong with enjoying different things. The problem is that you can't leave it at that, you have to take your bizarre moral high ground and lecture everyone on how they're Bad People because they enjoy the "wrong" things.

For me it has always been about understanding who you are playing against and reaching a mutual understanding on what type of game you want to play at any one point in time. I know guys that I would certainly call WAAC/TFG who when I say I'd like to play a fluffy, story driven game are completely accommodating to my request. I have also played them in serious games to help them test their lists for tournaments. It's all about understanding IMO.

I wish Dakka had some sort of tangent thread capability; I could read this banter between Peregrine and Traditio all day. :-)

The articles linked in the OP, while a little overly self-righteous in tone, are correct. There are "scrubs" in every game; people who limit themselves with their own imaginary rules and then are off-put by people who don't honor those same rules.

That being said, I think it's condescending to call them "scrubs." I played a lot of different games, particularly CCGs, competitively for years. There's nothing wrong with people who play the game casually and just want to have fun. I could name quite a few friends with that mentality who I played with over the years. As long as everyone was respectful and showed good sportsmanship, we could all co-exist and mutually understand each other's goals. They would be great opponents if I wanted to experiment or play some goofy deck for fun.

The flip side, though, is that there's also nothing wrong with playing a game with a goal of self-improvement. That's where Traditio's mentality offends me, because he seems to think that anyone who wants to be better the second time the play a game than they were the first is TFG. Your friend is spending time optimizing his gear because he wants to make sure he's as good at slicing up orcs as he can be -- he wants to put his best foot forward (spending ten minutes may be a bit excessive, though -- perhaps you should respectfully ask him to limit it to just a couple minutes?).

Traditio wrote:

Vermis wrote:None of you see anything inherently weird about the attitude that a game played between two opposing players shouldn't be competitive?

It should be competitive...after the game starts, i.e., once the dice start rolling.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Rayvon wrote:Win or lose, you still have to buy the toys though right ?

No, that's perfectly true. But if I spent $20 on my magic deck and you spent $200...

Sure. I may lose the game. But you paid $200 on a deck of cards. Congrats.

I.e., one person loses a game. The other person just is a loser.

On the other hand, suppose that you and I each only spent $20 on a magic deck.

Look at what magically happens:

1. The game becomes much more competitive (i.e., there's actually a chance of either one of us winning, actually depending upon how we play).

2. Neither one of us wasted $200 on a deck of cards.

If that's all you want, then just play draft.

Problem solved.

WayneTheGame wrote:

But should it? Again, the idea that you need to basically vet prospective opponents to determine if you'll have an enjoyable game playing them is almost entirely a 40k/GW phenomenon. It doesn't exist elsewhere and exists in 40k mostly in part due to GW's terrible rules and lack of balance.

I would disagree with this. You won't find me praising GW rules, but the necessity to discuss with a potential opponent is not just a 40k thing. Most historical games require quite a bit of discussion to get the scenario and forces worked out. On a more popular level, take FoW for example. If you want to play a game with someone, you're going to have to nail down what theater and era, and then decide whether you're going to take historically representative lists or just play at points and let someone take as many Tigers as they want.

You're also disregarding the fact that some folks might not want to play a competitive game, but might want to play a scenario or game based on fluff and background with units chosen because they fit the story, not because they have great synergy. Most historical games are this way. Regardless of balance or imbalance choosing:
"_____ unit because of how well it interacts with ______ commander and _______ unit in ______ manner"
is mostly confined to tournament-style fantasy and sci-fi games. You're not going to see a napoleonic players choosing:
"the _____ grenadiers and the _______ Dragoons with the_________ light horse because they function most effectively with commander_____"
Rather, the choice of units is mostly dependent on the history and/or narrative. Balance barely comes into it.

 slowthar wrote:
I wish Dakka had some sort of tangent thread capability; I could read this banter between Peregrine and Traditio all day. :-)

The articles linked in the OP, while a little overly self-righteous in tone, are correct. There are "scrubs" in every game; people who limit themselves with their own imaginary rules and then are off-put by people who don't honor those same rules.

That being said, I think it's condescending to call them "scrubs." I played a lot of different games, particularly CCGs, competitively for years. There's nothing wrong with people who play the game casually and just want to have fun. I could name quite a few friends with that mentality who I played with over the years. As long as everyone was respectful and showed good sportsmanship, we could all co-exist and mutually understand each other's goals. They would be great opponents if I wanted to experiment or play some goofy deck for fun.

The flip side, though, is that there's also nothing wrong with playing a game with a goal of self-improvement. That's where Traditio's mentality offends me, because he seems to think that anyone who wants to be better the second time the play a game than they were the first is TFG. Your friend is spending time optimizing his gear because he wants to make sure he's as good at slicing up orcs as he can be -- he wants to put his best foot forward (spending ten minutes may be a bit excessive, though -- perhaps you should respectfully ask him to limit it to just a couple minutes?).

The problem with scrubs isn't that they play casually, it's that they invent their own restrictions that hamper them and then call anyone who doesn't play by those same restrictions cheesy/unfair/cheap and try to claim moral superiority. In Warmachine for example I see people who say that X caster is OP or refuse to play against things, that's 100% scrub mentality if you play someone who doesn't want to look for advice, doesn't want to improve their game but wants to just fool around (as Sirlin puts it in the context of fighting games, "ignorantly mashing buttons with little regard to actual strategy") and then cries foul when they play somebody who doesn't put artificial restrictions on themselves. On the same token, if I choose to not use a good caster in my faction I will be unlikely to really improve and evolve my game because I'm purposely making choices that prevent it. I can't play the game properly if I want to just screw around and pick stuff at random and then hope it works and call anyone who plays with tried-and-true combos (e.g. netlists) cheap because they're using better stuff than me; I have access to the good stuff too I just decided that I want to be a special snowflake and not use it and claim moral superiority for not "listening to forums" as a result. It's the act of crying foul when someone uses better options than you, when you have access to the good options and refuse to use it, a scrub. There's nothing wrong with trying things out, including "not as good" options, but IMHO the line gets crossed when it's a deliberate "I won't listen to anything said online" mentality that you tend to see crop up a lot in various games.

The context of that definition and theory in 40k is a bit off though because the game by default is so unbalanced that you need to have some sort of scrub mentality bleed through to fix the glaring holes with the game itself. You can't just use the default because there's such a huge discrepancy between sides; in a fighting game it would be the equivalent of letting one person pick Akuma and another pick a character that could only do Low attacks and had only one special move.

 Coldhatred wrote:
For me it has always been about understanding who you are playing against and reaching a mutual understanding on what type of game you want to play at any one point in time. I know guys that I would certainly call WAAC/TFG who when I say I'd like to play a fluffy, story driven game are completely accommodating to my request. I have also played them in serious games to help them test their lists for tournaments. It's all about understanding IMO.

Sounds like a pretty mature and responsible way to handle things.

I don't think "I want my 1500 point army to be reasonably balanced with other 1500 armies and not be forced to spends thousands of dollars and huge time sinks monthly to play the game" is unreasonable, uncommon or stifling you with arbitrary rules in the face of a corrupt and ignorant gaming system.

The problem is with the imbalanced system, and those who wish to rely on the imbalance to win and then claim skill are frauds. Do you really think it is reasonable to expect "everyone" who plays 40k to codex hop to statistically superior units every 6 months in order to follow the rules and play the game to ignorantly bad imbalance in a game which arguably can never be played competitively?

And reasonable people who don't have Aspergers can both understand balance and have empathy for those who lose do to an imbalanced system and decide when something is out of control. There is a reason by mega rayquaza and wobuffet have no place in Pokemon play. Doesn't mean everyone is a scrub, Nintendo gak the bed on those two. Also doesn't prevent people from being able to recognize the tiers.

40k is garbage and the imbalance is so great, anyone who pretends no one has any legitimate complaints and say "lern2playnoob" show they are either liars who are defending an unfair advantage of a broken system or have a form of Autism which means they lack understanding of simple human social interactions.

 malfred wrote:
If that's all you want, then just play draft.

Problem solved.

Not really, Traditio's argument is that using more powerful rules than your opponent is inherently a moral offense. So you can play draft, but after you draft your cards you'd be obligated to reveal the cards you drafted and remove the most powerful ones until the power level of your cards is equal to or less than the power level of the cards your opponents have. Forget about using that "bomb" rare you opened, unless everyone else in the draft opened something equally powerful. And if you violate these rules you're a bad person and god will burn you in hell for your sins.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

WayneTheGame wrote:
The problem with scrubs isn't that they play casually, it's that they invent their own restrictions that hamper them and then call anyone who doesn't play by those same restrictions cheesy/unfair/cheap and try to claim moral superiority.

Exactly. Having your own goals for the game is fine. Telling everyone who doesn't follow your self-imposed rules how they're a horrible person (even if they're playing against other people who don't want to follow your rules and everyone is having fun) is a problem.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nkelsch wrote:
I don't think "I want my 1500 point army to be reasonably balanced with other 1500 armies and not be forced to spends thousands of dollars and huge time sinks monthly to play the game" is unreasonable, uncommon or stifling you with arbitrary rules in the face of a corrupt and ignorant gaming system.

Having budget limits is fine. Wanting your 1500 point army to be as powerful as other 1500 point armies is fine. The problem is when you assume that your 1500 point army is the standard by which everything should be judged, and anyone who goes beyond your power level is a WAAC TFG. You asking your opponent to tone down their army to match your power level is no more reasonable than them asking you to improve your army to their power level.

The problem is with the imbalanced system, and those who wish to rely on the imbalance to win and then claim skill are frauds.

Recognizing and using the most powerful options is part of being good at a game.

Do you really think it is reasonable to expect "everyone" who plays 40k to codex hop to statistically superior units every 6 months in order to follow the rules and play the game to ignorantly bad imbalance in a game which arguably can never be played competitively?

No, but it isn't reasonable to expect that people not codex hop and play the best units/armies. Neither one is an inherently superior way of playing.

And reasonable people who don't have Aspergers can both understand balance and have empathy for those who lose do to an imbalanced system and decide when something is out of control.

Nice to see you have to resort to insults to "win" your argument. I guess the forum rules don't apply to you?

Thing is that 40ks rules are so unbalanced you need to do those kind of things to fix it. But yes the issue is when someone who thinks X is cheese wants to stop everyone from using X or says how X is wrong.

The problem with 40K isn't so much that people want to play it " a certain way" it is that they want to play it with figures that they invested tremendous amounts of time and effort in, that at one time were useful and fun to play with and now are not.

I like competitive 40K quite a bit, but not that the price of acquiring and painting 6 riptides.

Personally, I would gladly accept a rules set where, for example, units were less unique if they were better balanced. If each type of unit (infantry, heavy infantry, monstrous creature, tank, etc.) was fairly similar and had somewhat unique roles the game could focus on using those skillfully and modeling, rather than acquiring new models.

For the price of GW rules I expect my opponent to be able to bring whatever the heck they want and the game to still be worth unpacking the figures for on both sides, fluffy or waac.

A MTG game takes what, half an hour, $20-200 for a deck and maybe an hour of prep? A 40K game takes 3-4 hours to set up and play, or more, plus as much as a grand for figures and hundreds of hours of painting. It isn't really worth it unless you're pretty sure you're going to have fun.

Really, how long before someone writes a good enough "not 40K" system for it to catch on and get us off the codex/new edition/new death unit bandwagon?

Never as long as people keep thinking 40k is unique or come up with reasons why everything else that's similar isn't comparable...