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.

Green Blow Fly wrote:How much redundancy do you really need?

G

How bout, "As much as it takes to win the battle"?

Thats a pretty good answer...leaving it up to the player.

Hollismason wrote:And it is ; people need to realize that this fiction of "fairplay" really only extends to you not cheating.


Lance Armstrong doesn't pull his bike over and stop to wait up for the next guy to give a entertaining race.

Actually he's both done it in the Tour de France and had it done for him as well:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_Ullrich#2000_-_2002_Tours

The 2000 Tour de France brought Ullrich, Marco Pantani and Armstrong against each other for the first time. Armstrong proved too strong and won then and again in 2001. Ullrich crashed in 2001 and Armstrong waited for him to return to his bike.

The 2003 Tour de France was the first for many years that Ullrich had not been considered a favorite. Half way into the climb, Armstrong's handlebar got caught in a spectator's yellow baseball cap waving in the mid-air and he fell. Ullrich waited for Armstrong to recover.

I have not seen anyone field nine landspeeders, not even Ravenwing (pure) armies.

G

Green Blow Fly wrote:How much redundancy do you really need?

G

If you're into math, you could probably use an economic theory like Returns to Scale to figure out an approximation.

What people are referring to here as "spam" and "redundancy" reminds me of economic theories of economy of scale. There's a constant input of points into the high "value" (unbalanced) units, but you get increasing killyness returns for each unit you purchase. Then at some point you hit diminishing returns.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Returns_to_scale#Economies_of_scale

I think that is a great analogy.

G

Deadshane1 wrote:
Terrible units are terrible units regardless of how many you take. More of them simply make it a bit easier for at least one of them to accomplish what you're trying to do....that doesnt mean you'll win a game by doing it. Bring 30 swooping hawks to a battle, and while they might kill some stuff by rubber-hawking, you probably wont see a good return for the points spent on them.

Notice the good armies out there....people "Spam" the good units, oblits, Nob Bikes, WarWalkers, Land raiders.

...Spamming Repentia, Spawn, or Scourges doesnt change the fact that certain units are overpriced, unreliable, or generally badly designed.

QFT.

I can't imagine ever needing as many as 9 Land Speeders, btw. 6 is about as many as I'd consider useful.

I was thinking that Flavius' post about "diminishing returns" was right in line with not needing 9 land speeders.

Green Blow Fly wrote:The best armies have wonderful background. It just takes a lot more to create them. Spam armies are for the masses and that is the greatest part of their appeal to those who feel inclined to play them. They are simple solutions. I'm not knocking them by any means just offering another perspective based upon my experience. Take from it what you will.

G

QFT. It usually goes something like, "The commander realized that these non-standard units were really effective, so he went against the traditional army layouts shown in the back of the codex and took lots of the rare (fluff-wise) units that actually work".

Green Blow Fly wrote:An army should be like a tool box with a wide assortment of tools. You cannot turn a screw with a hammer.

G

Except most armies have a couple "multi-tool" units that do everything well, and are competitively priced. Small wonder they're spammed. Sure, some lists (like Eldar) have some very specialized units, or others (IG) have units that are specialized but so cost effective that they're no-brainers...and they usually get spammed, too.

This thread should have been called, "People who like to pat themselves on the back for not using redundant armies and thus must work harder to pull off the win."

I haven't heard so much whining over nothing since Michael Jackson died.

I'm happy some build armies that are not redundant and I'm sorry that it may put them at a slight disadvantage against someone who builds an army they like to win with.

I don't see the point in trying to complain about someone using their codex and FOC to build an army they like, even though it may not seem fluffy.

If I want to run PMs with Slanneshii HQs, why not do it? It's codex legal.

In a game that already hinders some armies because of unbalanced army lists why should we try to impose even more limits on ourselves by not using what we have available to us. At the same time why do we continue to condemn those that choose to play hard-core lists?

Well Lance Armstrong was a terrible example.

Hollismason wrote:Well Lance Armstrong was a terrible example.

QFT!

In terms of sportsmanship, redundancy is okay, spam is BS. If you're going to get into a competitive arena of 40k, you'd better learn to give up on all sportsmanship if you're serious. I personally think that there should be more restrictions as to what can be taken, because this game should require more thinking and less calculating, IMHO.

crazypsyko666 wrote:In terms of sportsmanship, redundancy is okay, spam is BS. If you're going to get into a competitive arena of 40k, you'd better learn to give up on all sportsmanship if you're serious.

Boo hoo!

That statement will cost you 12 credits off of your CGM card...see the girl at the door.


If its legal, in my army list, and you ding me on sportsmanship....you're the one with the problem.

crazypsyko666 wrote:In terms of sportsmanship, redundancy is okay, spam is BS. If you're going to get into a competitive arena of 40k, you'd better learn to give up on all sportsmanship if you're serious. I personally think that there should be more restrictions as to what can be taken, because this game should require more thinking and less calculating, IMHO.

What kind of thinking? Thinking really hard about how to win with non-redundant units like the ever popular devastator squad with 1 HB, 1 MM, 1 LC, and 1 ML? Not spamming exorcists so you can add some penitent engines to your list so as not to offend the non-tournament crowd?

Honestly, hard core gamers aren't out to prove anythig to casual gamers. It's not like I would enjoy playing a game with a hard tournament list against someone with a bad list and massacre them. That's no fun for myself or my opponent.

So where does this animosity from casual gamers come from toward tournament players?

crazypsyko666 wrote:In terms of sportsmanship, redundancy is okay, spam is BS. If you're going to get into a competitive arena of 40k, you'd better learn to give up on all sportsmanship if you're serious. I personally think that there should be more restrictions as to what can be taken, because this game should require more thinking and less calculating, IMHO.

I think we must have different definitions of the word "sportsmanship". As far as I'm concerned, sportsmanship involves not cheating and following the rules in a good faith effort to play the game (as in, not deliberately stalling to win the game. Not directly addressed in the rules, but still an issue).

I think it would be neat if armies matched more closely to their fluff, too, but sadly they don't, so there's no reason to try unless you want to lose. If there were more of a "Flames of War" style list building, where you picked a unit type and then tweaked it from there (infantry company, mech inf or armor)...well, with 5th edition, the infantry lists would get crushed. Then see how much variety you'd see in army lists!

There's still plenty of activity on the "army list" and "tactics" threads, so the game hasn't devolved to the same 5 lists fighting each other. People are still trying to develop that new killer combo (or unit to spam).

If major league baseball suddenly allowed aluminum bats, but some teams decided to use wooden ones because it was "right" or "traditional", would you look down on the teams that decided to use aluminum bats?

augustus5 wrote:
So where does this animosity from casual gamers come from toward tournament players?

I would say it comes from people who:

1. Don't put in the actual 'thought' and money it takes to build a competetive army, then....

2. Get angry at the repeated thrashings they receive from people who do.


If they really didnt care about "who wins" everyone would be happy. Competetive player won, casual player played a game, whats to complain about?

If the casual player wants to WIN....do the groundwork, and spend the money....or shut up.

Hollismason wrote:Well Lance Armstrong was a terrible example.

Isn't it kinda interesting that a guy who trains obsessively all year long (furiously banging his "'taint" against the seat of his bicycle day after day, yeow-tch!) and who has hundreds of thousands of marketing dollars at stake can apparently muster up more sportsmanship, decency and respect for an opponent than can a bunch of pimply, angst-y nerds playing war with toy soldiers?

...Just sayin'.

Grimaldi wrote:

crazypsyko666 wrote:In terms of sportsmanship, redundancy is okay, spam is BS. If you're going to get into a competitive arena of 40k, you'd better learn to give up on all sportsmanship if you're serious. I personally think that there should be more restrictions as to what can be taken, because this game should require more thinking and less calculating, IMHO.

I think we must have different definitions of the word "sportsmanship". As far as I'm concerned, sportsmanship involves not cheating and following the rules in a good faith effort to play the game (as in, not deliberately stalling to win the game. Not directly addressed in the rules, but still an issue).

I think it would be neat if armies matched more closely to their fluff, too, but sadly they don't, so there's no reason to try unless you want to lose. If there were more of a "Flames of War" style list building, where you picked a unit type and then tweaked it from there (infantry company, mech inf or armor)...well, with 5th edition, the infantry lists would get crushed. Then see how much variety you'd see in army lists!

There's still plenty of activity on the "army list" and "tactics" threads, so the game hasn't devolved to the same 5 lists fighting each other. People are still trying to develop that new killer combo (or unit to spam).

If major league baseball suddenly allowed aluminum bats, but some teams decided to use wooden ones because it was "right" or "traditional", would you look down on the teams that decided to use aluminum bats?

My definition of sportsmanship means not being a jackass.

On the other points, I completely agree with you. It just destroys variety, which makes me kind of sad.

It's not so much interesting as completely expected. There's something about competitions that require real dedication and training, something that makes one respectful of one's fellow competitors.

Deadshane1 wrote:

augustus5 wrote:
So where does this animosity from casual gamers come from toward tournament players?

I would say it comes from people who:

1. Don't put in the actual 'thought' and money it takes to build a competetive army, then....

2. Get angry at the repeated thrashings they receive from people who do.


If they really didnt care about "who wins" everyone would be happy. Competetive player won, casual player played a game, whats to complain about?

If the casual player wants to WIN....do the groundwork, and spend the money....or shut up.

I think THIS is the sort of point that angers casual gamers. This is what causes the animosity. I consider myself a casual gamer. As i've said already, I have no problem with tournament players. I have no problem with uber-competitiveness in tournaments. I have no problem with tournament players playing uber-competitive games outisde tournaments. Maybe this is what floats your boat in your LGS.

The problem arises when tournament gamers

- expect EVERYONE to play in an uber-compeitive way
- lambast casual gamers for 'not playing hard enough', 'not being a good enough general', whining just because you got beat'
- assuming that every casual gamer will immediately get tabled unless they take the most popular list
- telling me that my favourite unit is useless and that I'm stupid to use them (even if I really like using them)
- boiling down the rich variety of the codex to one uber list that everyone should always take
- assuming that playing tournament is the 'best', 'highest' or 'most tactical' way of playing the game, and that if you play tournaments you're somehow a better gamer, or a better general.

Now I'm not saying that Deadshane has said ALL of this, he merely seems to make the points that

- any casual gamer will be thrashed by any tournament gamer, which, as a casual gamer, annoys me.
- casual gamers don't spend time or money on their armies, which is obviously untrue. My all-oop arbites, which i chose to collect because of theme rather than competitiveness, cost a lot more and took a lot more time to track down than buying the most popular units from any GW store.

ArbitorIan wrote:

- expect EVERYONE to play in an uber-compeitive way

Tourney gamers, I would think, would HOPE that other players WOULDNT play Uber-Competitive, you see, that would give them a better chance of winning said tournament. So I dont see this point as true

- lambast casual gamers for 'not playing hard enough', 'not being a good enough general', whining just because you got beat'

I've never seen a casual gamer get chided for 'not playing hard enough...not unless they complained about losing first.

- assuming that every casual gamer will immediately get tabled unless they take the most popular list

Something that would bite the "competetive" player in the behind if it turns out to be untrue...again I fail to see a problem here. Competetive player loses due to underestimating opponent? Where's the problem?

- telling me that my favourite unit is useless and that I'm stupid to use them (even if I really like using them)

This is indeed a problem, and I dont agree when people do it. By the same token, its wrong to tell someone that a favorite "tactic" like spam for example, is cheesy and one is stupid for using it....happens AT LEAST as often.

- boiling down the rich variety of the codex to one uber list that everyone should always take

if winning games is a factor...then this sort of behavior shouldnt bother you.

- assuming that playing tournament is the 'best', 'highest' or 'most tactical' way of playing the game, and that if you play tournaments you're somehow a better gamer, or a better general.

and what of the casual gamer that assumes that "friendly" play is the 'best', 'highest', or 'most fun' way of playing the game, and that if you play casual onlyl you're somehow a better gamer IN general. This happens with MUCH more regularity than what YOU just stated.

Now I'm not saying that Deadshane has said ALL of this, he merely seems to make the point that any casual gamer will be thrashed by any tournament gamer, which, as a casual gamer, annoys me.

....and he will...if the two players are of equal skill. Who's going to win? The player with a tight list who takes advantage during army building? Or the guy who brings selections based on FLUFFY reasons or based on models he likes.

Who's going to win when those two are of equal skill. If you get offended when I say the tournament gamer, you shouldnt get so offended...its reality.

There is nothing wrong at all with spam armies and the good thing is it helps average players be more competitive.

G

Green Blow Fly wrote:There is nothing wrong at all with spam armies and the good thing is it helps average players be more competitive.

G

...and sometimes it can help great players beat other great players.

Spam isnt just something that lesser players do to "measure up", its a valid army building tactic sometimes.

Green Blow Fly wrote:There is nothing wrong at all with spam armies and the good thing is it helps average players be more competitive.

G

In an attempt to rip players who spam good units you only make yourself look bad. You failed to mention that it also helps great players make more competitive lists. Heck, spamming great units makes all players have more competitive lists.

Ok, sorry, this is likely to be a long post....

- expect EVERYONE to play in an uber-compeitive way

Tourney gamers, I would think, would HOPE that other players WOULDNT play Uber-Competitive, you see, that would give them a better chance of winning said tournament. So I dont see this point as true

The sort of quote most often seen on here runs along the lines of "I, a tournament gamer, expect everyone facing me ONLY to play competitive lists, otherwise I win too easily and don't have any fun. Everyone should only bring competitive lists all the time, because i always insist on taking them"

- lambast casual gamers for 'not playing hard enough', 'not being a good enough general', whining just because you got beat'

I've never seen a casual gamer get chided for 'not playing hard enough...not unless they complained about losing first.

It's true - usually the posts go.

- Casual games cries 'cheese' because his opponent brought his uber-competitive list to a friendly game, or used contentious RAW, and he got tabled.
- Everyone else tells him to 'man up', 'play better' or 'quit whining'

The problems arise when people bring uber-competitive lists to friendly games. I've never seen someone say "I went to ArdBoyz and my opponent had Nob Bikers. Cheese!"

- assuming that every casual gamer will immediately get tabled unless they take the most popular list

Something that would bite the "competetive" player in the behind if it turns out to be untrue...again I fail to see a problem here. Competetive player loses due to underestimating opponent? Where's the problem?

But you haven't played me, or my weird army. You likely haven't played an army like mine, since it's not a standard build. It's not the results of such a game I'm disputing, it's the ASSUMPTION that anything other than the established 'top tier' list will immediately lose, without any evidence.

- telling me that my favourite unit is useless and that I'm stupid to use them (even if I really like using them)

This is indeed a problem, and I dont agree when people do it. By the same token, its wrong to tell someone that a favorite "tactic" like spam for example, is cheesy and one is stupid for using it....happens AT LEAST as often.

Again, the difference here is that no-one has a problem with spam lists in the right setting. They're not criticised for player stupidity - they willl often help you win. They are criticised when they're used by surprise in friendlies, or criticised for being unimaginitive.

- boiling down the rich variety of the codex to one uber list that everyone should always take

if winning games is a factor...then this sort of behavior shouldnt bother you.

I don't want to play the same Dual Lash/PM/Oblits list every time I play a CSM army. It's boring, especially given the breadth of possible builds. This is why it bothers me, not becuase it's easier/harder to win against.

- assuming that playing tournament is the 'best', 'highest' or 'most tactical' way of playing the game, and that if you play tournaments you're somehow a better gamer, or a better general.

and what of the casual gamer that assumes that "friendly" play is the 'best', 'highest', or 'most fun' way of playing the game, and that if you play casual onlyl you're somehow a better gamer IN general. This happens with MUCH more regularity than what YOU just stated.

I agree, it does happen a lot. But i think the problem is one if misunderstanding. Again, people don't tend to have a problem with competitive play in a competitive setting - only with players who refuse to play any other way. If you want to play a competitive game, say so. But don't turn up to a casual game with a tournament list.

This of course works the other way too, but i would expect casual players don't often turn up to tournaments with theur casual list. After all, they're casual players, by definition they don't play tournaments anyway.

Now I'm not saying that Deadshane has said ALL of this, he merely seems to make the point that any casual gamer will be thrashed by any tournament gamer, which, as a casual gamer, annoys me.

....and he will...if the two players are of equal skill. Who's going to win? The player with a tight list who takes advantage during army building? Or the guy who brings selections based on FLUFFY reasons or based on models he likes. Who's going to win when those two are of equal skill. If you get offended when I say the tournament gamer, you shouldnt get so offended...its reality.

As above, it's speculation. You can't tell unless you try it against every weird and wonderful casual list out there. It's one thing to say "I doubt this army will do well as it lacks in X and X categories, I would recommend taking X and X" It's quite another to say "Every casual player will lose against every tournament player, all the time, as rarely-tried lists are automatically bad".

Commissar Molotov wrote:

Hollismason wrote:And it is ; people need to realize that this fiction of "fairplay" really only extends to you not cheating.


Lance Armstrong doesn't pull his bike over and stop to wait up for the next guy to give a entertaining race.

Actually he's both done it in the Tour de France and had it done for him as well:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_Ullrich#2000_-_2002_Tours

The 2000 Tour de France brought Ullrich, Marco Pantani and Armstrong against each other for the first time. Armstrong proved too strong and won then and again in 2001. Ullrich crashed in 2001 and Armstrong waited for him to return to his bike.

The 2003 Tour de France was the first for many years that Ullrich had not been considered a favorite. Half way into the climb, Armstrong's handlebar got caught in a spectator's yellow baseball cap waving in the mid-air and he fell. Ullrich waited for Armstrong to recover.

And that, my friends, is what I call OWNAGE.

@Arbitorian

This is where your arguements really make no sense to me:

Competetive gamers really dont complain about casual gamers, what are we to complain about? "you lose too many games to us!"?

It's also no crime to say that competetive gamers, on the whole, are probably better at winning games than casual gamers. Competetive gamers by their very definition are first concerned (if not obsessed) with winning games, casual gamers are not. How would it be surprising therefore that competetive gamers are generally better at winning games?

Perhaps you're a really good casual gamer. Thats fine, but dont take offense when someone says that competetive gamers are better. They're making a general statement. They're not stating a hard fact.

Competetive gamers really only get offended at Casual gamers when they complain that "we're playing the game wrong with all our cheesyness". Thats where all the "play harder" comments come out. If you're a casual gamer, be a casual gamer and dont get offended when someone who tries harder than you do to actually win at the game comes out on top. There's no shame in not playing this game with winning being your ultimate destination....casual gamers, despite all their rhetoric, are the ones that seem to have a problem with that. Competetive gamers simply play to win, that's their hobby, and they only get offended at the "casuals" when they try to chastise us for participating in the hobby in the manner we enjoy.

@ augustus5 - I never said good players dont play spam lists, you just assumed that is what l meant.


G

Green Blow Fly wrote:Spam is for the weak of brain.

G

You just called them stupid. There is a subtle difference.

The question to ask is what if someone brings a spam list of your weakness? A 5 land raider/ 21 Terminator list might die horribly to someone stuck in 4th edition with lots of las/plas. A guard player with 9 leman russes might die horribly to a drop-pod assault list with lots of meltas/multi-meltas. etc. etc.