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.

Now first up, this is purely a speculative thread. I am not making a judgement one way or the other on the various types of players out there. Tempted to put this in more than once, but I trust you all to read this little line. Also, I am a casual gamer, so it is entirely possible the Casual Gamer description might come across a little strong on the ego. I'll try to temper it, but I'm only human. Please don't take offence! Now, onto the topic proper!

Following on from the thread about whether the list or tactics win the tournament, I have a question to ask about how you go about conquering your foes. Following are two pretty broad categories, which is would be safe to say are pretty sweeping in their generality, so please don't take offence!

1. The Competitive Gamer. This guy enjoys his Tournaments, and intends to do as well as possible within that arena. To this end, he seeks a pretty potent army list which excels in a particular area, whilst remaining resilient enough in the achilles heel department that a single unlucky opponent draw won't cost you a decent showing in the placings. To this end, the player starts off with a tactical ideal of how he wants the list to operate. And to achieve this, he forms his initial list, gathers the models (proxy or not) and then practice makes perfect. He makes a mental or physical note about what performed well, what was a let down, where things went right or wrong, and is also likely looking for other tricks the list can turn, perhaps even abandoning the original aim of the list and embracing some overlooked synergy. In the run up to the big day, he tinkers with the list, takings units out, putting units in, trying new combinations until his tactical ideal is achieved. This done, he heads off, fingers crossed, and has a fair chance of stomping some skulls.

2. The Casual Gamer. This guy is more into playing in friendly games, isn't too fussed about his overall win/loss record. Rather than designing a list which has good synergy, he is more attracted to creating a list which suits his personal taste in terms of models and fun. Now of course, winning still comes into the equation. But more than tinker with the list, he tinkers with setup, looks for synergy's overlooked in the existing list, and plugs away at forming new tactics for what he has, before considering adjusting the list. Equipment might be changed in the list, but complete unit drops tend to be a bit rarer. Of course, it is possible that the Casual can become a Competitive. Casual as I might be, I've never been known to change a list should it prove to be ultra-filth for my opponents. And once you're experienced in the games, writing a tasty list becomes quite easy...

So in short, the Competitive Gamer starts off with a Tactic, and finds a list which embraces and excels in said tactic, whereas the Casual Gamer starts off with a list, and then finds a Tactic which it excels at.

Now, discuss.

And once again, sorry if my personal choice comes across a little pious. I did try to keep it as neutral as possible!

competitive lists ignore fluff.

I dunno about that. Bikerboyz can be described as fluffy. Vulkan lists counts very much as fluffy (as long as you don't include Sisters )

So many times I will start off a list with a good idea. I want to try 'X' with 'Y'. I'll put the thing together and play some games. I usually end up losing to something, something that just defeats my list or makes it such an uphill fight that I need to change something. Next I'll tweak the list or throw it out entirely and start over with a list that incorporates what I'mtrying to do from the first list with the patch to prevent it from losing.

I'll get new lists using this same mechanic and they eventually evolve into very competitive lists. Sometimes though the original list just won't cut it and I'll have to scrap the whole thing. I usually retreat into an older, more established list for a while.

I guess in the end I start out as the Casual Gamer mkaing a list, but almost always turn into the Competitive gamer if things don't turn out right.

I think you've made a good point. The only issue I would have with putting somebody in the Casual Gamer class is that over time the Casual Gamer may become a Competitive Gamer. Maybe a Disclaimer is necessary?

I used to be very Casual in how I built my lists and approached games, but now I have most of my lists checked over on the forums or spend hours pouring over it. I generally build lists off of what I have, but I approach all of my armies like this. "Best Bang for your Buck", would be a more appropriate description.

Fair point... one disclaimer coming up!

olympia wrote:competitive lists ignore fluff.

Not always. But fluff shouldn't be a factor in a competitive list anyway because it does nothing but be inconsistent with itself and drag the rules at the back down. Fluff and rules will NEVER line up, so why should people looking to play a game try to do something other than that? I'm buying/painting models like anyone else, and I'm going to play something I enjoy, not that some writer says I should enjoy even though next edition it won't be remotely the same and everyone will still be complaining about it.

I love looking at the army books for strong cores and tactical themes, like the OP said. That's the thing that is drawing me to Eldar now, and the reason I chose a craftworld with two lines of fluff about (Il-Kaithe). Now noone can yell at me for being unfluffy and I can be a little more creative without restriction by a widely-differing set of criteria.

Someone once posted (I will credit Blackmoor, but I might be wrong) that most gamers fall into a middle ground between fluff and competition. Most people pick an army that they like for reasons other than effectiveness, and then try to build the most competitive list they can for that army. Some people put more restrictions on their list (for example, not taking Lash in a CSM army because they're playing Iron Warriors), but they're not designing a list to lose either.

So in short, the Competitive Gamer starts off with a Tactic, and finds a list which embraces and excels in said tactic, whereas the Casual Gamer starts off with a list, and then finds a Tactic which it excels at.

I think the OP made some good observations in his post but I disagree a little bit with the conclusion.

Being a competitive gamer, I like to pour over a codex looking to find the best parts of it and the best way to make them work together. Rather than having a tactic in mind, I want to exploit the strongest aspect of said codex. I pay with two competitive armies but they are both very different from one another. The tactics were developed based on what I got out of the codex rather than an "ideal" tactic.

Why force a distinction, when there needn't be one?

I have a wide variety of army lists, with the models to support them. I can bust out the beat stick when it is called for, but a lot of my "casual" lists are amusing-gimicky. They are also far more likely to start off with a single tactic; competitive lists need to be much better rounded than, say, my Shining Spears/Guardian Jetbikes list.

In 3rd, I was running a Lustwing-style Emperor's Children army (3 squads of 6 termies, 3 squads of 6 daemonettes), which was amusing to play, but too unreliable to be competitive. Last week, I grabbed Skarbrand and a bunch of slaaneshi daemons, just to play around with the combination a bit; much less competitive than the Bloodcrusher/Fateweaver list I ran during the 'Ard Boyz, and far more amusing for my opponents.

It'd be nice if Dakka could move on from the tourney/casual player debate that has become the current big "thing." The same person may be both, at different times of the week.

A competative gamer writes a list to win a game.

A casual gamer writes a list to win a game and then pretends he didn't.

H.B.M.C. wrote:A competative gamer writes a list to win a game.

A casual gamer writes a list to win a game and then pretends he didn't.

Bad Commissar! No cookie for you!

I fully expect to lose every game I play with my 15 ogryn/yarrick/GKGM assault guard. But I expect them to be amusing games, by and large.

I don't think thats fair dude. Sure, I like to win, but rather than a design my list to win the game, I prefer to write my list, then find out how to win with it. Application of hypothetical tactics does of course come into it, but I don't drop a unit for poor performance if I feel it really fits the theme, and likewise I wouldn't add in a unit which I feel breaks the theme just to cover a weakness I'd discovered.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:I don't think thats fair dude.

So is the level of mutual exclusivity placed upon the 'casual' and 'competitive' titles. It makes too many (false) assumptions:

1. That a person can only be one or the other.
2. That the two are complete opposites of one another.
3. That one is inherently more moral than the other (I only play casually and not to win - I'm a better person!).
4. That one is inherently more noble than the other (I only play competitively to give my opponents the best challenge I can - I'm more noble that way!).
5. That competitive players don't play for fluff or theme.
6. That casual gamers don't play to win.

None of these are true. They can be accurated in specific case-by-case examples, but they are not represenative of the whole.

We play to win but you better you watch your back when you leave the store triumphant?

Fair enough point.

I know if I go to a Tournament, I will be looking at make my list as tight as possible. Would I take something I considered unfluffy just to jump the rankings? Not personally, know, but I would be happy to break my theme if it helps. Take my Savage Orcs. I now have two Roklobbas for the list, as I need some ranged muscle to prevent my opponent having a phase free of worry. Not especially fluffy, but suitably converted (one is standard and the other is a Troll with half a Chariot held above it's head) I think they look the part.

But in general, as a casual gamer, I do find myself more determined to make my themed list work than constant tinkering. I see that as a rewarding challenge in itself.

And remember, I've not set out to champion one over the other, and I did state clearly that the two categories were extremely broad generalisations.

Hi all.
Just to point out in a wargame that is developed for balanced competative gameing ,( with a tactical focus.)
It doesnt make any difference how the lists are selected.ANY army of equal PV is equaly likely to win.
Its just when games are as unballanced and poorly costed as WH and 40k is there a distinction between how players write lists.

If it has not been playtested it should not get into the book.IMO.

Why is it the deficiency of GW PLC, causes a rift between players ?

I'm suddenly reminded of a great line of Mauleed's from many years ago, something along the lines of:

"I play Space Marines. The theme for my army is 'winning'."

And remember, I've not set out to champion one over the other...

But you've clearly set out to once again render them opposites, and that's my issue. Why else would you say:

"But in general, as a casual gamer..."

I am neither a casual gamer or a competitive gamer. I'm just a gamer. I can do both, don't see one as being better than the other or see either of them as being mutually exclusive. Casual gamers can be competitive. Competitive gamers can use fluffy and themed armies. Stop trying to separate the two via artificial means.

Lanrak wrote:Hi all.
Just to point out in a wargame that is developed for balanced competative gameing ,( with a tactical focus.)
It doesnt make any difference how the lists are selected.ANY army of equal PV is equaly likely to win.
Its just when games are as unballanced and poorly costed as WH and 40k is there a distinction between how players write lists.

If it has not been playtested it should not get into the book.IMO.

Why is it the deficiency of GW PLC, causes a rift between players ?

Nonsense. You can make a perfectly balanced system, and still "break" it. I haven't heard of anyone wanting GW to balance every unit, such that 1500 pts of nothing-but-grots can take on a fully-mechanized IG army and have an equal change at winning. What would be nice is if units within a codex were balanced, such that there are not such obvious distinctions between "good" units (Obliterators) and "bad" units (Possessed).

No I haven't. Which bit of admitting them to be broad and generalised categories is it that you are struggling with?

The competitive approach to writing a list is a different approach to the casual approach. Whichever context your are writing your list for (friendly game or upcoming tournament) then determines which of the two broad, generalised categories I gave originally you swing toward. Being general and broad like.

I'm perfectly aware that there are lots of shades of grey. I've met incredibly competitive gamers who only care about their win, and not a jot for their opponents enjoyment. But then, I've almost met stupidly casual gamers who are more interested in giving their opponent a unique, if boring, army to fight against. Like Giles' Snotling Horde. Fun to play once, but since the out come was never in doubt, pointless to play against more than once. And in between these two extremes lie the rest of us. I even put a disclaimer when Barilo pointed out a deficiency in my original post.

Well when you have a company who's imperative is to sell model kits and then call it a 'hobby' (rather than selling a hobby that includes model kits), what can you expect?

The difference between a Competitive list writer, and a Casual list writer? Competitive list writers get slagged off by Jervis in White Dwarf every month.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:So in short, the Competitive Gamer starts off with a Tactic, and finds a list which embraces and excels in said tactic, whereas the Casual Gamer starts off with a list, and then finds a Tactic which it excels at.

I wouldn't really agree with the above, at least my Eldar experience wasn't that way.

When I was making Competitive lists for my Eldar, I playtested and tested until I got to a solid core, but the idea that it revolves around a Tactic is pretty odd. In competition, I actually did best with a "balanced" tactical list with roughly equal numbers of shooters and fighters and movers, and some units that could do both. Typically, I'd shoot a few things to death, and then drop the hammer to mop up in HtH. So, unless you define a "Tactic" as "winning", I'm not sure how this works.

When I've been making "fun" Casual lists, it's been more to mix things up and take different stuff from what has been in my "strong" Competitive lists, just to see how it works. Of course, if you pay attention to the pieces, then you simply play the list and it does what it can do.

I'd agree with that, I'm much more likely to build a list around a game mechanic in a fun list than I am with a 'competitive' list. My 'competitive' lists will be based around finding a force that can cover all (or as many as possible) tactical situations.

H.B.M.C. wrote:A competative gamer writes a list to win a game.

A casual gamer writes a list to win a game and then pretends he didn't.

So true got to sig that.

I play casually but I try to design my lists with winning in mind. I generally create a list, buy the core models (i.e. troops, etc.) and then the next day or day after that my mind changes and a new list comes out. This process repeats itself once or twice or so. By the time my end list is ready, it may include elements of previous lists or lists suggested by other people, but there are parts I have wanted to keep since the beginning of list-making.

If that made any sense at all and you weren't bamboozled by the word "list" gratuitously repeated, kudos.

Rico.

When i write lists I tend to think in abstract fluff termsor cimematics and then see how I can bring the list to the table:

So for a game I might say to myself "It would be cool if a bunch of conscripts are holed up in this sector of the theater of battle and awaiting the arrival of some SOB to bolster their position for a coming enemy assault.

So based on this:

1. I'll include Inducted IG led by an Inquisitor.

2. I'll take some fast moving SOb and put them into reserves to represent the reinforcements.


I tend to tailor my main idea to what i am fighting and the type of battlefield I expect to play on (is it a city fight or a battle on a death world jungle, etc.) I find that identity of the enemy army or certain terrain can inspire a cool story for a cinematic battle and give me a catalyst to try some army idea that would look cool fighting in it, but sometimes it might be as simple as "What if my Big Meks had a convoy of vehicles on the move..."

Disparate ends are fun. For instance at the last 40k tournament I went to, I put together a fluffy Inquisition/Space Marine army (heavily converted space marines w/ Deathwatch shoulder pads and no special characters). I was called a WAAC gamer for bringing it and looking for exploits.

Figure that one out.

There's no hard and fast rule, but there are strong tendencies.

Competitive lists tend to emphasize effectiveness over all other considerations.

Casual Lists tend to sacrifice effectiveness for some other end: fluff, theme, favorite units, etc.

Both are trying to win games, it's just based on different approaches. Competitive gamers build lists to win against all comers, while casual gamers are trying to win games while handicapped in some way.

In my experience a competitive gamer builds a take-all-comers list that can win.

A casual gamer builds a list that can beat whatever army his friend is playing.