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.

I have noticed a trend, particularly where I play at, to label anyone running a decently competitive list a power gamer. I am not talking about nob bikers, or mech vet spam. But just a decently built army list. I figure this basically comes down to "oh noes, you beat me, it must be because you are a power gaming jerk."

I figured I would start up a discussion on here about this. Does the army make the player or does the player make the army. I consider myself a decently competitive player. I can take a loss, and I dont get too bent out of shape about a lot of stuff. But I get bored just putting my models on the table and rolling dice, I need some tactical thought to enjoy the game. But I am the same gamer when I run my pure terminator deathwing as when I run my mech eldar .

I dont brag about winning, at least I try not too. I make a point of seeking out opponents I am more likely to lose to, and play them the most. If I beat you with my deathwing, am I any better an opponent than if my mechdar or imperial fists beat you? I personally feel that your personality dictates what kind of opponent you are over what list you run.

There is also a tendency to confuse those who play to win with those who cannot handle losing. I play to win, but I can handle losses. I placed second to last in the adepticon gladiator one year, big deal. But I was also on the second table going into round three of the championship. I have seen players run the fluffiest lists. Pure grey knights, foot slogging eldar etc. They get stomped, and they cry about it, sometimes for months later. But these same players refuse to build anything over a third tier army, claiming it would be cheesy and broken. Is there than a difference between competitive players, casual players, and cry babies?

Any thoughts?

It was the same as my last club. "Two raiders in 1750 is the  cheeze!"
I ran one lash once in a suboptimal list and never heard the end of it.
The casual players who don't try to go to tourneys are usually good at handling losses, the ones who try to win with low-tier builds are the crybabys that ding you for sports and comp when you table them.

I just build lists I think are good, or try and make a backstory for a decent-ish army.I get beaten a bit, I win a bit. The one time I made a SLIGHTLY competitive list-nothing amazing and easily beatable (500pts Kill points tourney-Abaddon (275pts) 5x Marines (75pts) 5x Marines (75pts) Obliterator (75pts) the majority of people refused to play me. I bear no grudge against those who have an uber-list. Heck, I love playing uber lists. Oh, and I hate it when people complain about stuff being "broken"....

There is a big difference between Uber-power gaming and taking one lash prince.

These guys should grow up.

So people shouldn't take a useful and good unit ever because it is good. I understand not spamming it, but that's a little different.

As for gaming,
it's on you if your army cannot handle another army, and in tornies where the idea is to be competitive (not a jerk, but play to win), having a good army is not a bad thing (and beating a good army is all the more sweet).

It was a Lash Sorc, btw

I love how 40k is the only hobby where people get mad at you for being competitive.

Do people sit down and make lists that they hope suck? And then build them?

Timmah wrote:I love how 40k is the only hobby where people get mad at you for being competitive.

Do people sit down and make lists that they hope suck? And then build them?

I think the cry babies do this. They build bad armies with the goal of losing, so when they lose they cannot claim to be a loser, but they are victimized.

I have never done this, ever.

Played one game where an army was designed to loose,
but it was part of the overall campaign.

IE, how many turns will it take to kill this army.

But to come to a tornie with a really bad list (in terms of game power) is mostly silly unless you don't care about loosing (or are very good tactically... CREEEEEEEED!!!!!)

Eidolon wrote:I think the cry babies do this. They build bad armies with the goal of losing, so when they lose they cannot claim to be a loser, but they are victimized.

I do think that some people like to have a built-in "out" to blame a loss on. "If I was using a cheese/non-fluffy army, I would have stomped you instead of getting tabled." Those kind of players I tend to avoid playing with, as they tend to have a problem with winning or losing gracefully.

I tend to play with lists that I have tried to do quite a bit of min-maxing with. If someone thinks my list is cheese and doesn't want to play me, that is completely their business. As I've stated in multiple threads, multiple people play the game for different reasons. Some play for fluff, some play for competition, some play for the beer and pretzels and conversations. I think the key is figuring out which of these categories your opponent fits into and adjusting your list/play accordingly. Personally, I make it very clear at the beginning if I'm tuning a list I intend to use for tournament play, or if I'm try to actually run a fluffy, story-based army. That way my opponent knows what to expect and isn't suprised because he was going for a fluffy game and I bust out my "Vulkan Biker List O' Doom(c)".

One facet of this type of wargamer, and one that i'm guilty of as well is the"underdog-syndrome"

I.E If someone brings a suboptimal or even crappy list, and beats your "2xlashprince-plaguemarine-9 oblits"-list, then that gives that player a reason to pat him/herself on the back and feel like a hero.


Everybody would love to be the underdog that comes out on top, the reality of it is that underdogs get stomped on.. a lot.
Not everyone is ready for the experience of getting brutally whacked by turn 2 in a tournament by someone who just sees you as easy points though.

I think most people are just shocked and dissapointed by the potential difference in powerlevels the first few times, so some whining and bitching is bound to happen.




My own lists are almost always built for fun games, i know i won't win a lot, but it will be fun to play regardless..
What really irks me though is when folks come over to the table, looks at my units and says "those suck, you should be using X instead"

As far as I'm concerned, playing 40k competetily isn't worth it. The rules are too poorly written, and the balance is horrible. However, I enjoy a social game that involves tactical thought, and I build my lists with a competetive mindset, because I do have fun playing competetivly/to win.

That said, I don't care if I lose, so long as the game is fun, and gets me involved. Winning's great, and I build my lists with that in mind, but that comes second. An engaging, thought provoking loss gets more out of me then an easy cakewalk of a win.
Part of the fun is in winning, but so long as that win was worth it.

My thoughts exactly fafnir.

Reminds me of an incident at my FLGS where so many crybabies had tantrums over the two people who a) had played 40k longer than the last 20 minutes, and b) weren't Space Marines. One was running Wagonspam Orks and the other was a Lash list....

It got so bad that the local groups/guilds/leagues kept away from the store for 2 months until none of the little gaks and their overbearing, and frighteningly aggressive parents had nicked off to something else...

And I really mean it about the parent's like the kind that start brawls at whatever weekend sport their kids attend because their kid just happened to come off 2nd best.

Speaking as someone who supports Composition and Sportsmanship scoring, I tend to agree. Part of good sportsmanship also is losing gracefully, and in exercising common courtesy with your fellow gamers. If you're at a competitive event, you should expect competitive opposition.

The exception would be a pickup game where the two players came in with different expectations. If one is expecting a GT-practice game, with as tough a list and game as possible, and the other is expecting a fluffy narrative "shoot the breeze & push some models around"-style game, it's likely that both will be disappointed. It's always a good idea to make sure you're on the same page with your opponent before the game begins.

Timmah wrote:I love how 40k is the only hobby where people get mad at you for being competitive.

False premise. It's not the only one. This comes up in other hobbies which are semi-competitive.

I personally play because I enjoy starting with loads of fluff and then watching the absurd jokes that appear when two armies collide, and because I like seeing people's conversions and getting their opinions on mine. Winning or building a super-tough list isn't as satisfying to me as getting a look at someone's nifty Chimera half-track conversion and getting a chance to show off my Veterans' fancy hats.

Fafnir wrote:As far as I'm concerned, playing 40k competetily isn't worth it. The rules are too poorly written, and the balance is horrible. However, I enjoy a social game that involves tactical thought, and I build my lists with a competetive mindset, because I do have fun playing competetivly/to win.

That said, I don't care if I lose, so long as the game is fun, and gets me involved. Winning's great, and I build my lists with that in mind, but that comes second. An engaging, thought provoking loss gets more out of me then an easy cakewalk of a win.
Part of the fun is in winning, but so long as that win was worth it.

+1

If you want a truly balanced and competitive war game, try Chess. 40K is about sweet looking conversions; hordes of painted models, taunting players, inflicting blast templates on others (don’t forget the pew pew noises!) and a mosh pit of hand to hand combat.

In my experience, most folks don’t enjoy playing the ‘dual-lash-prince-9-oblits’ type lists. I usually make lists based on a theme that is different from what everyone else is playing. For example: my Tyranid list is full horde without any monstrous creatures and my chaos marine list is pure mono god.

I do my best to keep them competitive but my win rate is just barely 50%. Not fantastic but folks seem to really enjoy playing against these armies rather than yet another Tyranid army with 2 winged Tyrants and six Carnifex’s.

Hi all.
Its a calculation that goes like this...

Marketing driven rule set=writing for the lowest denominator.

Writing for the lowest denominmator =poorly concieved rules and resolution methods.

Poorly concieved rules = poor game balance.

Poor game balance + immature atitudes+ testosterone = tantrums.

TTFN
Lanrak.

A fun game is a challenging game.

Just don't play with anyone under 18 - 20 range.

I hate those punk kids with their crappy painted armies using lego firemen as Terminator proxies forgetting to write down which is which...

ugh. Let them play with other punk ass kids and they can go throw a fit with themselves. Hopefully they'll get themselves kicked out of the store.

I like to think 40k is a civilized hobby, and honestly if you're under like age 17 or 18 you shouldn't have the money or the brains to play such a game like this anyway.

I'm not some old geezer either, I'm a college student just annoyed when I actually get the time to go out and play those punk kids crowd all the places.

I resent that.

I see the same problem at my store.

I consider my self a casual gamers, I play at tournaments but only the ones that are held at my local store. I like running armies that have models and fluff that I like. I dont usually care about winning unless I lose because someone cheated. I dont know why I like running the armies that I use. I usually dont do well but that doesn't bother me. I have recently tried the lash/plague marines with oblits list. Did it perform better yes, did I enjoy playing it No.

I dont usually care about what people use in their army as long as it sticks to the rules. So called power gameing is fine by me I don't blame people for wanting to win it feels good to win.

In my openion people tend to complain to much about each others army specialy if they cant beat the said person. I have refused to play some people because i know that i there is a great chance that i will just get tabled. What I cant stand is people that complain about so called power gamers and still play them. If you dont like what some one runs dont play them and shut up.

For me Warhammer 40k is about haveing fun and haveing good conversation.

ace wrote: What I cant stand is people that complain about so called power gamers and still play them. If you dont like what some one runs dont play them and shut up.

This is the correct answer. If you know you're going to spend the entire game picking up models and the person you're playing with is a total prick, why are you playing them?

Even further, it's not the competitive players that I don't like. There's nothing wrong with a competitive list other than it gets boring after three games. What I can't stand are poor attitudes. There are people I will concede to in a tournament setting at the local stores because I simply refuse to play them. It's not their list, it's because they throw dice across the board when the rolls don't go the right way for them. It's because they gloat about how awesome their [insert unit here] is and pitch a fit when it goes sour for them or the unit gets shot off the board.

I dont believe that power lists exist. That is why everything has points value attributed to them. That being said people can try a little too hard to table their opponents even after the battle is pretty much decided. I know cramming 4 land raiders in a 1500 point list is cheesy and if it was a casual game you could say " what the hell is this an attack on a Land Raider factory" but in a tournament setting if this is what you feel will work, go for it. I think gaming just to slaughter your opponent is not the right attitude to have. I think you should look to have a good time. A friend of mine and I were talking after a tournament and we agreed a close game is far more enjoyable than a game where you table your opponent in three turns. I think if you show up to a tournament it is acceptable to want to butcher all of your opponents since there is money on the line but for god sakes be civil about it. So i think power gaming is more the attitude of the player and not the list. You want to run double lash - go for it- it will make the victory taste all the sweeter.

DorianGray wrote:Just don't play with anyone under 18 - 20 range.
I hate those punk kids with their crappy painted armies using lego firemen as Terminator proxies forgetting to write down which is which...
ugh. Let them play with other punk ass kids and they can go throw a fit with themselves. Hopefully they'll get themselves kicked out of the store.
I like to think 40k is a civilized hobby, and honestly if you're under like age 17 or 18 you shouldn't have the money or the brains to play such a game like this anyway.
I'm not some old geezer either, I'm a college student just annoyed when I actually get the time to go out and play those punk kids crowd all the places.

I also resent that and I'm in your "range" now. What, did you get your ass handed to you in some RTT by a 16-year-old? No one liked it when I was 16...

Timmah wrote:I love how 40k is the only hobby where people get mad at you for being competitive.

Do people sit down and make lists that they hope suck? And then build them?

There are all kinds of games for which people get mad at competitive players. Have you ever played a fighting game and had someone yell at you for blocking too much or throwing or using "cheap moves" or whatever?

This isnt just a 40K thing. I see it all the time in "historical" games too. Its the rules lawyer, win at all costs, my glory is built on your bones because I have never done anything really worthwhile in my life individual that keeps me away from even friendly tournaments of anything.

Seriously I want you to bring your A game, I am bringing mine. Remember however, its still a game. Dont be an A$$hat and I may buy the adult beverage afterwards because I have enjoyed myself.

Its not lists, its is an attitude

I have ran into this kind of thing 3 times that I can recall

1st in 2nd edition: My opponent refused to play me because my Space Wolves were Primer Grey not Space Wolves Grey.

2nd: I went to the LFGS with both of my armies to play on a open gaming night and most of the players sat for 3-4 hours to wait for there normal opponents to show up rather than play a quick 1k+ game with anyone else. After 4 weeks of this I just stopped going.

3rd: I found one person to play me one of those weeks and I told him I just wanted to play to work on my Deep-Striking Terminator force, you know practice. He said ok and then pulled out some sort of Eldar Farseer Psychic power long range Pie plate attack and wiped out what I had in cover in the first turn and then said something like I never practice with my tourney list or something like that.

People tend to associate competitiveness with d-bagness which isn't exactly fair although this type of mentality can definitely lend itself towards such negative connotations.

In the end it really depends on the specific person and their attitude.