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'm going to chime in with my 2 cents. I think a lot of "list" players forget the layout of the main rule book. 1/3 of the book is rules, 1/3 of the book is fluff, and 1/3 of the book is hobby. If you hate fluff, why even play the game? Go play another game. I agree that people who don't care about the rules can drag a game down, but to lump that group in with folks that like fluff is a bit of a generalization. Tournament playing is good, but a little boring after a while. Making campaigns that challenge and create interesting situations is a blast. But so is a good competitive game. I think tournament players need to get out of the rut from time to time.

It sounds like you are saying that fluff and competition are an "either/or" choice. I can come up with fluff to justify any army list I can make. So what's "non-fluffy"?

I choose to play Dark Angels but I still try to make the most competitive army I can with them and I always try to win (and occasionally I do too).

ixlar wrote:I'm going to chime in with my 2 cents. I think a lot of "list" players forget the layout of the main rule book. 1/3 of the book is rules, 1/3 of the book is fluff, and 1/3 of the book is hobby. If you hate fluff, why even play the game? Go play another game. I agree that people who don't care about the rules can drag a game down, but to lump that group in with folks that like fluff is a bit of a generalization. Tournament playing is good, but a little boring after a while. Making campaigns that challenge and create interesting situations is a blast. But so is a good competitive game. I think tournament players need to get out of the rut from time to time.

This is the sort of reasonable sounding post that shows how quietly insidious the prejudice against tournament gaming is.

1) What makes you think competitive gamers hate the fluff? To flip the question, if you hate playing the game to win, why be involved in the hobby? The answer, of course, is that most people like all the aspects, just some more than others. Does including Eldrad in a Mechanized Beil Tan army make me "hate" the fluff, or is creating my own character that uses Eldrad to represent the Cheif Battle Seer of my Warhost simply show the flexibility of the fluff. Would the community be improved if I simply painted my tanks black?

2) It's a bit of generalization to lump in people that are bad players and don't know rules with those that like fluff. I agree, which is why I seldom do it. Yet many of the pro-fluff poster here has lumped everybody that seems to care about winning in with TFG, cheaters, people with unpainted armies and, in at least one case, possessors of personality defects. I'm not trying to paint us as victims, just pointing out that there exists a very clear "us vs. them" mentality, and it's not from the competitive players.

3) Why is tournament gaming boring after a while? Isn't all forms of gaming boring after a while? What makes you think that tournament gamers stay in the rut? I play leagues, one off scenarios, apoc, tournament prep, and tournaments. I find them all fun. I think most people do. Even then, don't forget that most tournament gamers have multiple armies, and play against multiple armies. It takes a while to get bored that way.

This isn't meant to shame ixlar, just to point out that a post like that appears, at first, to be very broad minded, fair, and reasonable, but really includes hypocrisy, braod generalizations, misunderstandings, and the unspoken axiom that "casual play > competitive play."

This isn't meant to shame ixlar, just to point out that a post like that appears, at first, to be very broad minded, fair, and reasonable, but really includes hypocrisy, braod generalizations, misunderstandings, and the unspoken axiom that "casual play > competitive play.

I feel no shame at all from this. I wasn't saying that one is better than the other. But in my experience most tournament players don't like to campaign at all. They just want to skirmish. I enjoy skirmishes, but I enjoy playing a game that has more purpose. Campaigning, for me, is a blast. As for my response, it was in direct relation to the OP who basically was saying that fluffy gamers suck. I completely disagree with this.

But from my experience from the folks I have played that are very focused on creating a "perfect" list to defeat all comers get all pissy if they play a scenario that isn't standard. I have run into many players that just want to play a ladder setting, and that is it. For me, that gets a old after a while. I enjoy new challenges and new settings.

I'm not trying to paint us as victims, just pointing out that there exists a very clear "us vs. them" mentality, and it's not from the competitive players.

Except the OP apparently. I think the whole Us vs. Them is funny. Playing the game is a blast, and I'll play any scenario and terrain setting anytime. Each battle is a blast, which is why I'm in the hobby. I do find it strange that you're giving the competitive players a pass on bad behavior. I think you'll find that it is pretty equal.

Really, you should not make a "List", nor should you make an "Army".

Try making an "Army List".

I fail to understand this issue every time it crops up. I am a hobbyist\ background gamer. I am not a great fan of tournies so I don't do them. I prefer lists with some background behind and rarely change them for casual play. I play for fun and enjoyment and prefer not to play against tournie lists (irregardless of how polite etc the person is). It is just not my thing.

However, if I go to a tournie you can bet your bottom dollar I am going to take the best tooled up list I possibly can because that is what I will be facing. It is a tournie - the objective is to kill your opponent quickly and in a devastating manner as possible. Why don't hobbyists and background players see that. If that is what you are expecting to see you plan for it.

I agree with OP. Why turn up to a tournie with a sub-par list and then either whine or generally suck against a power build? You knew some-one would bring one. As the immortal line goes, why bring a knive to a gun fight.

People play for different reasons and it matters not what your particular reason is for playing. No-one can judge what is the best method of play. A hard-core tournie player should expect a background/ hobbyist to adapt to a tournie environment - I expect them to adapt when they play me in a casual environment. I will say, "love to play you, but not against that list - why not experiment with something different". As a hobbyist/ background player I know it must suck big time for a tournie player to paint, test & travel and then face sub-par lists and have the fun sucked out of what he wanted - a hard, violent, brutal & tactical game but still with fun involved.

Feldmarshal Goehring wrote:some armies lend themselves to strong builds that adhere to fluff.

QFT, Now lets all shut up, hold hands, and sing "Kumbaya" 'Cause if you're smart enough you can apply this to whatever army you play, if not, go play something else (or die in a hole, whichever comes first.)

ixlar wrote:
I feel no shame at all from this. I wasn't saying that one is better than the other. But in my experience most tournament players don't like to campaign at all. They just want to skirmish. I enjoy skirmishes, but I enjoy playing a game that has more purpose. Campaigning, for me, is a blast. As for my response, it was in direct relation to the OP who basically was saying that fluffy gamers suck. I completely disagree with this.

I think you have to really dig deep to read that into the OP. He was citing a single, specific instance in which a players insistance on playing fluffy diminishes his fun. He, by the way, closed with a sarcasm tag as a way of pointing out that his point was as ridiculous as the opposite. He certainly never said that fluffy gamers suck, he was merely pointing out that spending time and money to go to a tournament only to face weak tea opponents can be a bit frustrating.

But from my experience from the folks I have played that are very focused on creating a "perfect" list to defeat all comers get all pissy if they play a scenario that isn't standard. I have run into many players that just want to play a ladder setting, and that is it. For me, that gets a old after a while. I enjoy new challenges and new settings.

this is the sort of thing I mean: the quotes about a perfect list. It's a subtle denigration towards crafting more effective army lists.

Except the OP apparently. I think the whole Us vs. Them is funny. Playing the game is a blast, and I'll play any scenario and terrain setting anytime. Each battle is a blast, which is why I'm in the hobby. I do find it strange that you're giving the competitive players a pass on bad behavior. I think you'll find that it is pretty equal.

I don't think I'm giving anybody a pass on bad behavior. I have nothing but my own experienced to judge on, and IME competitive gamers tend to be more fun to game against. It's pretty clear from many of the posters here that that isn't true for all people, but I'm not going to dogpile onto folks I've never seen for actions I don't know about.

And again, the OP was not only joking to show the duality of the situation, he was also citing a very clear and specific example of behavior, and could easily articulate a clear standard of ideal behavior for that sort of environment.

/s off. Sound ridiculous...why yes it does. As does the reverse.

Missed that. My bad. Just frustrated with tourno-nazies. So, you got my hard line against a perceived attack yet again for trying to expand game play beyond tournament style games.

I appreciate when in a tournament setting, you better bring it. Otherwise, why even go.

ixlar wrote:
I appreciate when in a tournament setting, you better bring it. Otherwise, why even go.

And that's what we are all saying. What's so bad about that? Some people seem to think the above would be downright evil.

I would love to join tournaments (if I had a better schedule), but I'm relegated to skirmishes and apoc for the time being. I think there's a definite bias of fluff gamers to snipe at tournament gamers for being too 'hardcore', but there's really some truth to it in my experience.

I'm sick of tournament douches who bring their tournament army to recreational games just to try and crush everyone. They're not in it for fun, they're not in it to build community or to get to know people. They're in it simply for the win... No more, no less.

I know there are many, many, notable exceptions, but every single tournament player I know is, most certainly, absolutely, in every sense of the word, a prick when playing. There's a time and a place for everything... Don't come to every single game like it's the fight of your life, especially if it's just for fun or an experimental game (like I have pretty often to try out new ideas). Bring your tournament army & your tournament attitude to the tourney.

I mean, I think it's important to point out that I think that players shoudl build armies they like, and have backgrounds and themes that are at least not at odds with established fluff, and should never cheat and should be polite and kind. I think that if a player played nothing but hard core games, he'd be missing out on some neat stuff, but I dont' think it's any worse than a guy that never wants to play hard core.

What gets to me is that there seems to be this vague rallying cry that powergaming is bad, and powergamers all play cheesy lists, and just want to win. And yeah, there's some of that, but most competitive players actually enjoy, you know, competitition.

In addition, as I've repeatedly written: there is no way to tell what is cheese, what is good fluff, etc. Some (not all, or even most) players seem to have this expectation that opponent's armies should be built, not to any set standard, but to the "ideal" of that army in the fluff guys mind. So, if I think that Space Marine terminators are very rare and never appear en masse outside of Deathwing, I'm going to be upset with an 1850pt list with 16 termies. You'll often hear those gamers use the terms "cinematic" or "they want battles to look good", and again, that's fine, but make sure to play people that share your tastes, as otherwise it's not a standard people can really build to.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Grunt_For_Christ wrote:I would love to join tournaments (if I had a better schedule), but I'm relegated to skirmishes and apoc for the time being. I think there's a definite bias of fluff gamers to snipe at tournament gamers for being too 'hardcore', but there's really some truth to it in my experience.

I'm sick of tournament douches who bring their tournament army to recreational games just to try and crush everyone. They're not in it for fun, they're not in it to build community or to get to know people. They're in it simply for the win... No more, no less.

I know there are many, many, notable exceptions, but every single tournament player I know is, most certainly, absolutely, in every sense of the word, a prick when playing. There's a time and a place for everything... Don't come to every single game like it's the fight of your life, especially if it's just for fun or an experimental game (like I have pretty often to try out new ideas). Bring your tournament army & your tournament attitude to the tourney.

That's not being competitive, that's being a tool. Look, apparently my experience is in the far majority, but every game has "hard core" v. "casual" problems, which is one reason I got out of magic.

Well I know it's being a tool, but that seems to be the prevailing attitude amongst those guys. Seems like you're an exception to that idea however. I guess some people need to be like that in order to win? I don't know, but I know what you mean with the hardcore vs. casual argument. It just seems like you can be right in the middle and enjoy everyone without a whole lot of mental effort.

Take it easy when you're at your FLGS... Don't be a pushover, don't make light of serious issues, but don't take yourself so seriously. In the tournament setting, take that attitude because it's proper there--there's money and prizes involved.

I guess I think that all games like ours eventually go down the tubes and the community breaks apart whenever there are big prizes involved. Then it inevitably becomes about the money.

Deadshane1 wrote: I hate people who have poor attitudes.

there, I fixed it. Now it's accurate for every angle of this debate, no matter your position.

There's a huge difference between "playing to win" and playing to compete. I love competition. I love playing at my peak. There's nothing more awesome than the adrenaline rush of being at a top table. There are few things more sucky than playing an opponent with no drive whatsoever. Just because someone plays hard doesn't mean they only want the win.

I would say that the only problems are people who take one philosophy to the extreme, then try to move out of where that philosophy belongs.

For example, WAAC is fine in a tourney (Though it is more fun to play people who prefer winning and fun), but keep it out of the freindly games circuit unless a tourney is in the pipes. Fluff play is great in friendly games, but when you are in a tourney it can be quite annoying to play a pure fluff, non-competetive list. Pure painting/modeling is fine, but if you don't know the rules, don't come to a tournament.

Therefore, in my oppinion, the best players are those who manage to hold all 3 aspects in their army.

I have a stupid question for those who seem to run into hard core, WAAC tournament gamers all the time. Have you ever explained to them that you want to play a more scenario based game, and explained to them that they should bring a mroe fluffy list? Or are you judging this based on whatever list they pull out by default?

I have, and usually I get real hesitation or just out right refusal sometimes prefaced with, "That's stupid." Of course, that judgment has comes before even trying a campaign idea. I do know a few folks that have fun trying new ideas, and we play test campaigns, and tweak the scenarios to make it more interesting, or fix something that was broken. But most hard core list tourney types only want to play the game that they can table you in. Kinda discouraging.

Crazy_Carnifex wrote:Therefore, in my opinion, the best players are those who manage to hold all 3 aspects in their army.

The best players are the ones who get what they want out of the hobby without feeling the need to talk down, belittle or somehow trivialise what other people enjoy. The amount of times I've seen "I only play fluffy/casually/don't play to win therefore I am better than you" or "True hobbyists love painting, and if you only like playing then I'm better than you" is sickening.

Yet not once have I heard a tournament player (you know, that morally corrupt fringe group GW doesn't cater to) yell at a fluff-gamer or a painter about how they should always bring power builds. Not once.

Good point.

Why would a powergamer care if somone brought a fluffy list that he could table by turn 3? He won, wasn't that his objective? no i dont think that the fluffy player should torpedo the powergamers sportsmanship score, but don't complain about an un-fun game because the other player didn't want to drop his enjoyment of the hobby for an unimaginative list. The fluffy gamer paid his entry fee too and he has just as much right to bring a list full of grots and nothing but grots if he chooses. Make your own tournement with list prerequisites if you want only powergaming. Personally i think that money and prizes should not be the reason for playing this game.

Geeksoldier wrote:Why would a powergamer care if somone brought a fluffy list that he could table by turn 3? He won, wasn't that his objective? no i dont think that the fluffy player should torpedo the powergamers sportsmanship score, but don't complain about an un-fun game because the other player didn't want to drop his enjoyment of the hobby for an unimaginative list. The fluffy gamer paid his entry fee too and he has just as much right to bring a list full of grots and nothing but grots if he chooses. Make your own tournement with list prerequisites if you want only powergaming. Personally i think that money and prizes should not be the reason for playing this game.

I love these posts. So full of barely repressed anger and hurt, trying desperately to show that while it's horrible to try to win and make them lose all the time, they really really don't care about winning or losing.

Flip it around. Why should a fluff gamer care if somebody brought a killer list that tabled him by turn three? He got to play his fluffy list, and he doesn't care about winning, right?

People enjoy playing for different reasons, and wanting to play competitively isn't always about winning all the time: it's about playing good, tough games and being challenged. I know it's easy to think that competitive gamers only care about the destination (the win), but most value the journey even more (the game).

I also challenge the notion that competitive lists are unimaginative. Or, more accurately, that fluffy lists are imaginative. They may be unoriginal, but I'm not sure facing yet another space marine half company is really a trip to imagination land.

Tournaments with pre-requisites are an interesting idea. Maybe making it clear to players "by entering you agree to bring a list that you think will be successful and you will play to win." I guess I never really thought about that.

I don't think anybody thinks that money and prizes are the reason for playing this game. I mean, I'm not sure what the point of that last sentence was, other than to get in one last passive aggressive Parthian shot at the expense of tournament gamers.

Polonius wrote:Why should a fluff gamer care if somebody brought a killer list that tabled him by turn three? He got to play his fluffy list, and he doesn't care about winning, right?

A fluff gamer probably shouldn't care.

But a hobby gamer might have a problem if he only got to play a total of 3 turns, as opposed to the ideal of a "close" game that goes the full 6 turns, regardless of who wins or loses.

I think that's the difference in perspective between hobby and fluff.

Awwwww Polonius, I think I have a man crush.

Thank you for exactly voicing my opinion far more succinctly than I ever could. Our experiences appear to be similar.

I am not really sure what this huge argument is about. I think that "fluffy" gamers are great, I love the way they're armies look and how the are usually painted. If they show up to a tournament against me I get to see they're beautifully crafted army. I also more often than not get a "free" win. I don't understand why you would complain as a "power" gamer about a free win and the chance to see something different

I also enjoy playing "power" gamers for the simple fact that it makes me think and I do love competing. I don't think I cheese my way through but my list works out more often then not. I have no problem playing an unfluffy list. It's a challenge and that's nice for me.

As far as the painting goes. I feel that not everyone has the time or skill to paint so purchasing or paying someone to paint your army is fine. It's really not fair to judge someone that has an army that they didn't paint and frown upon it. Maybe they have a busy schedule or prefer playing. If they have the money let them spend it. I am not a great painter by any means and I enjoy playing more than painting. But I am working on my patience and trying to spend more time on that part of the hobby now.

Just take it all in stride, you're going to play whiners/jerks and whatever else of both types of players, in every kind of gaming venue.
You will also find great hobbyists and great competitors. Just have fun with it.

Heh, in our group, the best painters are also the ones who bring the hardest lists.

In general, we avoid 'power' lists in our group, but when there is a tournament, mostly everyone kicks it up a notch and takes off the gloves.

Why would fluffy armies even enter tournies or at the very least be upset if they their A$$ handed to em'.

Besides fluffy armies can be gamey with some imagination.

Example: I play Sons of Horus but utilize Stern with a gating libbi. I painted this unfluffy SoH unit as Heresy Thousand Sons. So now I have two Heresy chapters fighting side by side and behaving very much within the scope of the fluff. Gamey, Fluffy, and almost completely painted

Deuce11 wrote:Why would fluffy armies even enter tournies or at the very least be upset if they their A$$ handed to em'.

Besides fluffy armies can be gamey with some imagination.

Example: I play Sons of Horus but utilize Stern with a gating libbi. I painted this unfluffy SoH unit as Heresy Thousand Sons. So now I have two Heresy chapters fighting side by side and behaving very much within the scope of the fluff. Gamey, Fluffy, and almost completely painted

Sounds very cool. Do you have any pics?

H.B.M.C. wrote:You're all a bunch of WAAC power-gaming rules lawyers. 'Tournament Gamers'? Might as well put "Hitler Youth" at the end of it.

You and your power-builds sicken me.

9 out of 10 for pre-emptive Godwyn

No one else gave you credit for it. You know who else never gave anyone credit for anything...



The Nazis.

no pics yet. i kinda want to finish painting, decal-ing, and banner-ing them before i try to show off mediocre talents haha