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 don't get any of this. I always play with a list and know what I expect from it. I always expect my opponent to bring a good list though. I like playing wargames for some kind of challenge. I dont bring broken lists that can't be beat because there are none like that. (unless your space wolves) I bring a strong list and want a challenge if my opponent doesn't do the same then its on him.

@ EzeKK-thnks for the link to the sirlin article/book. Great read.

EzeKK wrote:I'm actually not a WAAC player by any means.

Now, enough on defending myself

I am trying to defend the perceived WAAC "themed" lists.

Now in a tournament I fully expect to see these people

Also, you shouldn't be criticised about wanting to win a game, if two opponents play and one doesn't want to win and the othe does, how is it unfair or WAAC of the other player to beat him?

If two people play and one guy has a very good list, the other crap, and the very good list still wins and the bad player learned from the good player some tips and trick as to what he did wrong, did the bad player not have fun?

OK, fair enough, and sorry if you're taking it as an attack.

I don't have a problem with the list, but I do take issue with the behavior. You said the player with the strong list "rolled" the other guy, so that's a behavior issue, which is what TMIR addresses.

Note that I don't say it's bad to want to win, nor to beat the oppoennt. But it's a question of *how* one plays to get the result, whether it's necessary or even acceptable to curb-stomp somebody into the ground, just because you can. What does that prove?

If the player with the weaker list had fun, because the winning player made it an enjoyable game, then all is well. However, I think it's a rare person who likes to get rolled in a friendly game, just because the other guy has a stronger list and can use it to bludgeon the opponent.

And really, that's the whole thing. Even with two equally strong lists, a very strong player can easily roll a weaker player. How is that fun? Was there a challenge in winning, or was the challenge in seeing how quickly and thoroughly the opponent could be destroyed?
____

PanamaG wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:@PanamaG,

It's a LOT more than just my opinion

As Jervis himself states: "Winning at any cost is less important than making sure that both players - not just the victor - have a good time."

Nope it's still just an opinion.

I dont care what Jervis says.

I am certainly not going to throw a game as you have suggested.

You have to be trolling.

Says the master of trolls himself...

It's not "just an opinion" when GW labels it The Most Important Rule, and places it first and foremost in the rulebook.

Whether you care or not, doesn't matter. You're being selective with the rules and deliberately violating the RAW *and* RAI. If you choose not to play by TMIR, then do you allow your opponent to ignore rules that they find detrimental to their play? Do you allow Necrons to ignore Phase Out? Or players to ignore 0-1 restrictions? Might as well.

I didn't say to throw a game. I said to play at a level at which both players have fun, preserving TMIR. If you can't do that, then don't play. But to say that the rules don't apply, even when clearly-stated in the rulebook, *THAT* is trolling.

But it isnt a rule at all. It isn't RAW. It is not a gameplay mechanic.

You just dont get it. Edit: inappropriate remark removed. --yakface

I didn't say to throw a game. I said to play at a level at which both players have fun, preserving TMIR. If you can't do that, then don't play. But to say that the rules don't apply, even when clearly-stated in the rulebook, *THAT* is trolling.

Not playing your best is throwing the game! This is not rocket science!

First, "throwing a game" means deliberately playing to lose. There's a difference between playing to a Minor Victory, and playing for any type of defeat. If you don't understand the distinction, then that's your problem.

Second, your remark is highly offensive. Perhaps I should respond by making off-color aspersions about you, then your mother and grandmother for good measure?

No there isnt. If you arent playing your hardest because you want to "throw your opponent a bone" wether he wants it or not, feel free, but it just comes across as insulting faux chivalry. Toning down your abilities and handicapping yourself is exactly that.

Say what you want you won't hurt my feelings. I'm a big boy I can handle harsh words and the big boys table at the LGS.

JohnHwangDD wrote:First, "throwing a game" means deliberately playing to lose. There's a difference between playing to a Minor Victory, and playing for any type of defeat. If you don't understand the distinction, then that's your problem.

Second, your remark is highly offensive. Perhaps I should respond by making off-color aspersions about you, then your mother and grandmother for good measure?

So you should pull punches during a game and make your opponent think his list is better than it is? What if he is actively trying to get better. You playing crappier isn't going to help that at all.

Besides when the tournament scene rewards those who get massacres and screws people who get minor victories, you kinda need to learn how to do it outside of tournaments.


If someone tries to bust out their fluffy list that I know I am going to table turn 2, I won't even play them. Its a waste of my time.

Timmah wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:First, "throwing a game" means deliberately playing to lose. There's a difference between playing to a Minor Victory, and playing for any type of defeat. If you don't understand the distinction, then that's your problem.

Second, your remark is highly offensive. Perhaps I should respond by making off-color aspersions about you, then your mother and grandmother for good measure?

So you should pull punches during a game and make your opponent think his list is better than it is? What if he is actively trying to get better. You playing crappier isn't going to help that at all.

Besides when the tournament scene rewards those who get massacres and screws people who get minor victories, you kinda need to learn how to do it outside of tournaments.

If someone tries to bust out their fluffy list that I know I am going to table turn 2, I won't even play them. Its a waste of my time.

Timmah has it dead on. If I roll someone, even in casual play, it's because I am honoring their challenge and giving my best back. I don't play against "fluff" lists-that ends one very unpleasant way.

Speed and intensity are a big part of how I live my life. If someone trys to claim that I'm morally inferior because I take that attitude in a competetive wargame, that shows that they don't uderstand where I'm coming from and aren't trying to.

I for one do everything in this hobby to improve at it. This includes everything from painting, to the wargame aspect of the hobby.

I paint my stuff for 2 reasons:
1. To improve my painting skills
2. Because i enjoy it.

I play the wargame itself for 3 reasons

1. I usually enjoy playing with the people i play with
2. To improve my ability
3. Because i enjoy it

Timmah wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:First, "throwing a game" means deliberately playing to lose. There's a difference between playing to a Minor Victory, and playing for any type of defeat. If you don't understand the distinction, then that's your problem.

So you should pull punches during a game

and make your opponent think his list is better than it is? What if he is actively trying to get better.

Besides when the tournament scene

Yes, I think it's OK to pull punches or to try to win in different ways. Or to try and win an alternate goal.

No, it's not about making your opponent think their list is "better", because not every game is Tournament-oriented. Sometimes you play a game for "fun", just to see what happens.

If they're "actively trying to get better", then that's a game with a different objective, and won't cause the problem that the OP is talking about.

We're not talking about the tournament scene or tournament prep, because that's a different topic.

And with that, I'm outta hear.

Have fun.

Who says that playing with a fluffy/weaker list isnt a challenge?

I play hockey in two divisions, school intramurals (a weaker league, on par with a fluff army) and a competitive mens league (or the "cheese" lists)

Its two different experiences. one is fast, intense and takes all of the skills ive amassed in 20+ years of playing the sport. The other lets me go out and goof around a bit, try moves that i would never try in a competitive game and just enjoy the sport. Both are equally enjoyable in different ways, but bringing the thought process of one to the other ruins things for everyone.

So my point is play power lists in competive settings, fun lists in fun settings but dont be TFG who brings a great list against "lowlier opponents" and complains that they should have better lists nor TFG who refuses to make his list better if he gets steamrolled everygame and whines about that.

Competitive and fun are two separate beasts so treat them as such.

If someone wants a game, I will play to destroy them. That's the way it goes. I like having my lists fluffy sure, but I WILL PLAY TO WIN. I hate it when people play less than their best against me. It makes ME feel like I am inferior to them, and they are just being a smartarse by driving that in.

If someone complains to me becaue I trounced their army (doesn't happen often) because theirs wasn't strong enough, I will laugh.

Some people here may think I am a TFG, because I play a game that has a definable winner, who has won through a combination of tactics and luck.

If you want a game that is completely fair and non competitive, play Snakes and Ladders.

If you want a game involving skill, play Wargames.