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.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Yes, but neither should you look down on someone who gets joy from winning.

Winning is more fun then Losing, that will always be true.

This is untrue. For some people, myself included, the competition is what matters. I prefer to win than lose, this is true. But I prefer to lose a close match than win a landslide. In that instance, losing is preferable to winning.

 Grey Templar wrote:
You coming into a game not intending to give your all at winning is wrong.

I play opponents that are like that occasionally. I don't feel sorry for them. I just go and beat their pants off in the hope that they will knuckle down and figure out a way of beating me.

No one plays to lose, as you observed already. But when many people build lists, they have considerations other than simply optimizing every aspect of it. Maybe they don't like the way that awesome unit looks. And maybe they like the way that crappy unit looks. Maybe they want to emphasise a certain theme, so some awesome units from their codex are ignored.

Those people can come into a game and get roflstomped by twelve Necron fliers, or Purifier spam, or the IG leafblower or whatever 'optimal' build you're running, and that's just a crappy experience for everyone. You don't get a challenging game, they get smashed with no hope of victory, and no one has any fun.

Yes, nobody had any fun in that mismatched game. Hence why I say it was discourtious to bring the suboptimal list.

Why should I sacrifice a list I like, just so you have a chance of winning.

I hate it when people say "lets bring a fluffy list"

Why? Its because Fluffy lists are not all created equal. A CSM list with 30 Posessed and a bunch of Spawn is Fluffy. So is a list that contains Crowe, 30 purifiers, and 3 Dreadknights. Both fluffy fun lists. But we all know that one list will beat the pants off the other.

Fluffy list building leads to the most horrible imbalance IMO.


Go ahead and play purely for fluff or with a list that you like the look of. But don't beat me down because my favorite list also happens to be kickass.

I'm running a Purifier list in an upcoming tournament. It has no vehicles of any kind. Not even Rhinos. its themed and I like it. Its also pretty decent competitivly.

I play to win, but often use units and wargear that aren't on the optimized and mathhammered 'perfect list'.

why, you ask, would i do this if I want to win? Why not take the optimal choice at all times?

It's infinitely more satisfying to beat someone a non-optimised list that you chose yourself than run an optimised netlist that someone else came up with.

Sure, you might lose more often. Your wins will be sweeter.

Winning really doesn't matter all that much. I don't have to win all the time to enjoy the game.

Sure, it's great if i win a tight-fought game against a good opponent (doubly so if he's actually using a list i've not played a hundred times before).

What some folk don't seem to get is that it's possible to derive just as much satisfaction from losing a game that tight fought and edgy.


Rolling newbies with tournament lists will get your W/L/D nice looking, but will only be fun if you are a bullying jackass.

Making the game an even match, or even giving them an edge, so that you have to work for the victory.. That is fun for both sides


There IS a difference between Win -oriented competitive players (who want to tes ttheir comparitive skills and the strengths of their armies against each other) and WAAC-holes who have to win every game to stroke their egos.

I'll happily play a competitive player (especially if i know that he wants to play a hardball game and shares that information so that I can reciprocate with my own hard list) or a narrative-based player (i'll dig up a themed list that fits the narrative without being quite so hardball), but i prefer not to massage some WAAC's ego just so that he can feel like he's alpha-Nerd of the pack.

Why do people put so much focus on lists?

Outside of severely lopsided lists (all flyer, all X) most games come down to player skill.

 snooggums wrote:
Why do people put so much focus on lists?

Outside of severely lopsided lists (all flyer, all X) most games come down to player skill.

Oh man, Ailaros would have a field-day with this comment.

.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Yes, nobody had any fun in that mismatched game.

Yes.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Hence why I say it was discourtious to bring the suboptimal list.

NO

 Grey Templar wrote:
Why should I sacrifice a list I like, just so you have a chance of winning.

You are not the final arbiter of how people are allowed to have fun.

Why should I sacrifice the integrity of my list, just so I have a chance of winning?

The reasonable person has two options:

1 - Don't play people on the other end of the spectrum,

or

2 - compromise and meet in the middle.

You sir, should either play like-minded people only, or compromise your list. It is the only reasonable course of action. Telling people to play how you want to play, or suffer the consequences is most definitely NOT reasonable.

When it leaves both players sour. Your opponent is pissed because he felt like he never had a chance. He bought his army, painted it, modeled it, brought it to the club and set it up just so you could effortlessly add another win to your tally.

He's understandably bitter about the whole affair. He wanted a close match. He wanted to feel like even if he lost, he could have won.

His attitude affects you. You don't understand why he's bitter, it confuses you and makes you angry. He should be happy he got a game at all, if he lost it's his own fault, so why is he upset? What's this guys problem?

THAT'S when fun becomes separate from winning. When you take a finely tuned list that takes advantage of anything it can, and effortlessly crush someone who has designed a list with a different focus, be it models they like, the background, or just what they have in their collection.

But why would the guy with the good list feel bad ? sure the the opponent wasnt up to standards , but if what you said is true , them teams like Barca would almost never have happy players or happy fans , because few teams play on their level . On the other said if a dude builds , then paints and models an army which is bad , not carring if it can deal with the gaming aspect of the game then it is his own foult . It would be as If someone like me speed painted an army and then felt bad about not getting picked for Golden Demon .

Those Nid players don't want their vast horde to get gunned down while the defenders of Randomus Prime stand victorious. They want those sorry defenders to die gloriously and get their biomass absorbed into the Hive Fleet.

yes , but from a fluff point of view nids are an army impossible to play . they have two types of wins . they take planets with almost no defense or they win through lack of ammo/man/oxygen on the defenders side.
they would need rules for opponents going out of ammo or getting 3 pts on nids for every 1point their opponent gets.

It's not that winning definitely doesn't incite fun, but that it should not always be the primary source. It is perfectly okay for someone to enjoy a game without care of the victor.

I wanted to make an olympic example here , but I will go for another one. Ever played against a team from another neighborhood ? when was it ever about participation . ever had a guy in class/university/highschool good at the same thing as you ? when both of you were guning for the same scholership/grants/etc Or to make it as simple as it gets , do you have siblings ?
Life is always about wining losing . Saying that paritication or the "Road" is what matter , is the "truth" of losers . Why ? because if you do something not carring about the win , then you are not carring about the thing your doing . And that is both disrespecting your opponents and stuff your doing . It is like doing your job bad on purpose.

Makumba wrote:
But why would the guy with the good list feel bad ?

Both of them should be prepared to compromise.

Makumba wrote:
Saying that paritication or the "Road" is what matter , is the "truth" of losers . Why ? because if you do something not carring about the win , then you are not carring about the thing your doing . And that is both disrespecting your opponents and stuff your doing . It is like doing your job bad on purpose.

A better analogy is video games. Do you play one-player games on easy mode? Or on the hardest difficulty you can handle?

I never even realised there was a 'schism'.

'Winning is for losers.'

- Dakka Dakka Casual Gamer Mafia

 snooggums wrote:
Why do people put so much focus on lists?

Outside of severely lopsided lists (all flyer, all X) most games come down to player skill.

Um... no, sorry, but it isn't.

40K is by and large a game about list-building in an environment akin to what this fantastic video from Extra Credits termed "perfect imbalance"

If GW were to shift the focus away from lists (and the models you need to keep buying to tinker with it) and towards a "skill-focused" game like Chess or Go, the entire hobby-aspect would likely soon go down the drain with a vengeance (because you wouldn't need new stuff or new stratagems.. 99,9% would simply need to familiarize themselves with the established stratagems from years upon years of plays in the way chess-players study "old games" to learn powerful moves.. e.g. improve their skill to play the game).

All your examples are things that actually matter. We are talking about a game designed for young adults, played with little plastic figures, and the majority of this thread/forum treats playing it with any less than 150% of your effort as tantamount to throwing a judo match at the olympics.

Some people just want to bring what they want, or what they have(read can afford).

My problem with the idea of competitive players in 40k is that it can't be a competition. It's has/had many poorly written rules, staggered codexes allowing for creep, under and over costing as well as 'the new shiny' for those with the funds (see flyers). Personally when I see a net list I feel that this person didn't want to play a game but beat face and feel good using someone else's army. That aside some people just can't make up a TAC list or a mix and match of units and how they play so they have to resort to someone else making the army list.

Hmm kind of a ramble there...so to a point I wish to bring up; taking units that most armies can't counter is almost entirely a jerk decision. After all I can't think of many units that can counter flyers let alone 4 and up. Skyfire is too rare without resorting to buying a new set or resorting to a flyers type arms race. It's akin to taking 3+ LRs in 5th. Yes some armies could but that doesn't make it right. It's analogous to playing chess with more than one queen. Imagine the net listing of chess if you could take up to 3 (6 at higher model counts) of a certain piece.

mrwhoop wrote: It's analogous to playing chess with more than one queen. Imagine the net listing of chess if you could take up to 3 (6 at higher model counts) of a certain piece.

Incidently, chess with different "army-configurations" makes the game much more casual and less "skill-heavy" too, compared to the "fixed-stratagem" arms-race of "regular" mirror/balance chess. The reason: because it adds a "list-building" element to it (which in turn mitigates the importance of player-skill).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EcpZwJY8XT4&feature=relmfu

Wow thanks for the video Zweischneid. If 40k went that route (and I see the beginnings of it in some armies) that would help with the fixed lists/strategies...

 60mm wrote:
You challenging someone for reasons when they say they don't want to play is douchbaggery. Maybe they refuse a game because you come across as a douchebag in real life just as you do on forums.

P.S. Being a fratboy that drinks a lot and has to lie his way into panties is an inescapable symptom of being a douchebag. It seems many of your ailments may stem from this social disorder.

This I agree with, from what I have read in this tread it seems the OP may suffer from a serious case f the mentioned illness

 Zweischneid wrote:
Hell, 90% of the 40K games I played "back in the days" we didn't even count kill-points, objectives or whatever at the end to see who "won". Noone cared. What counts than is the "narrative" of the unfolding events. We also fudged like hell. Resurrecting IC's if their death was seen "uncinematic" or just having deepstrikers enter without die-roll, simply because "now would be a cool time".

 Zweischneid wrote:
But why is my "style" the peanut allergy and not yours? "Back in the day" (at least around where I am), the interactive narrative was the default to play 40K.

You've already provided your own answer to that; your way of playing requires that you essentially ignore the game's rules. If you have fun doing that, go ahead, but you're not actually playing Warhammer 40,000, which makes it rather irrelevant to a discussion of the game.

 tyrannosaurus wrote:
I would consider myself a casual gamer as it's much more about the social side for me than anything else - getting together with like minded people to talk about something we have a passion for, maybe a few beers and some crisps [not pretzels, who eats pretzels?], talk about girls/girlfriends/wives etc. The game almost becomes an excuse for my gaming group to get together [at least it does for me].

Which is perfectly reasonable, though it is worth adding that a "beer and pretzels" game is typically expected to be something cheap, easy to learn and quick to play; Warhammer 40,000 is none of these things, and a game which requires the expenditure of time and money that it does should be capable of offering to those who want it more tactical depth than, say, Kill Doctor Lucky or Munchkin.

Eh, I think I'm in the minority here, but the only kind of players whose lists I feel annoyed against are players who do something along the lines of play their Night Lords with the Blood Angels codex.

English Assassin wrote:
You've already provided your own answer to that; your way of playing requires that you essentially ignore the game's rules. If you have fun doing that, go ahead, but you're not actually playing Warhammer 40,000, which makes it rather irrelevant to a discussion of the game.

Which is was the point I was making. By emphasizing that 40K is principally a "game" (with the narratives of the fictional universe taking a back-seat to the "rules-section") you are already at odds with those that emphasize 40K as a "fictional universe" of different narratives (with the "rules section" taking a back-seat to the storytelling).

Both elements are in the book/hobby. It's not clear which trumps which.

It is not even a discussion that is unique to 40K. I vaguely remember that similar debates are always hot in D&D for example, where there are lively disputes between those that "play a story" (trumping the rules if in doubt) and those that "play a game" (trumping the story if in doubt).

If my point of view is irrelevant to you, feel free to ignore it.

The OP however explicitly asked for opinions from "the other side", so this makes my posts and opinions relevant to this discussion. If you are not interested in hearing a dissenting opinion, you have likely failed to understand the nature and purpose of both this thread and of an internet discussion forum more generally.

 Zweischneid wrote:

 snooggums wrote:
Why do people put so much focus on lists?

Outside of severely lopsided lists (all flyer, all X) most games come down to player skill.

Um... no, sorry, but it isn't.

40K is by and large a game about list-building in an environment akin to what this fantastic video from Extra Credits termed "perfect imbalance"

If GW were to shift the focus away from lists (and the models you need to keep buying to tinker with it) and towards a "skill-focused" game like Chess or Go, the entire hobby-aspect would likely soon go down the drain with a vengeance (because you wouldn't need new stuff or new stratagems.. 99,9% would simply need to familiarize themselves with the established stratagems from years upon years of plays in the way chess-players study "old games" to learn powerful moves.. e.g. improve their skill to play the game).

People buy the new shiney because it may be a bit better than what they used before, but it doesn't mean that it is enough of a difference to make up for skill.

A player who fields a couple of unoptimized units can still roll less experienced players or even other experienced players through effective use of focus fire, positioning, and movement. A net list won't make up for a player who cuts off their own lanes of fire, forgets objectives, or is able to be kited.

Zweischneid wrote:

English Assassin wrote:
You've already provided your own answer to that; your way of playing requires that you essentially ignore the game's rules. If you have fun doing that, go ahead, but you're not actually playing Warhammer 40,000, which makes it rather irrelevant to a discussion of the game.

Which is was the point I was making. By emphasizing that 40K is principally a "game" (with the narratives of the fictional universe taking a back-seat to the "rules-section") you are already at odds with those that emphasize 40K as a "fictional universe" of different narratives (with the "rules section" taking a back-seat to the storytelling).

Both elements are in the book/hobby. It's not clear which trumps which.

In this instance, playing 40k by its rules doesn't require contradicting its background, and still generates a narrative (two armies meet, one wins, usually the Space Wolves), whereas what you describe explicitly ignores a significant portion of the game as published, so it is in fact pretty damned obvious. You might be having great fun "forging a narrative" in the Warhammer 40,000 universe while moving little lead men around, but you're not playing Warhammer 40,000; as such, anecdotes about doing so add nothing to a discussion of the game as written.

Zweischneid wrote:By "playing to win", rather than "playing to the narrative", an opponent would then undermine the entire point of the game (from the fluff-gamers perspective), no matter what he plays.

Oh, and because I missed this one the first time around, I feel obliged to enquire as to how trying to win, when put in the position of a general commanding an army in a universe in which "there is only war" could be in any way inappropriate to the tone or narrative of the setting?

Zweischneid wrote:It is not even a discussion that is unique to 40K. I vaguely remember that similar debates are always hot in D&D for example, where there are lively disputes between those that "play a story" (trumping the rules if in doubt) and those that "play a game" (trumping the story if in doubt).

And it's a sterile debate in D&D too, as it has been for decades. D&D as written (aside from nebulous XP awards for completing quests and a nigh-meaningless alignment system) has no story- or character-driven mechanics; it's a "gameist" game system with strongly-entrenched milestones and rewards for success, to which roleplaying and narrative are window-dressing left to the discretion of the players and GM. If people want to play a "narrativist" RPG, they should be playing Nobilis or Over the Edge, or some other system with rules built around narrative concepts, not D&D.

Exactly the same goes for Warhammer 40,000; there are wargames out there which successfully integrate narrative elements (Malifuax and Dark Age, for instance). There is even, in the form of Necromunda, a game set in the Warhammer 40,000 universe which does so. Warhammer 40,000 as written, however, is a game in which two players compete according to established rules to achieve mutually-exclusive victory conditions; it's a competitive game, and claiming otherwise is at best wishful thinking, and at worst deliberately misleading.

English Assassin wrote:
And it's a sterile debate in D&D too, as it has been for decades. D&D as written (aside from nebulous XP awards for completing quests and a nigh-meaningless alignment system) has no story- or character-driven mechanics; it's a "gameist" game system with strongly-entrenched milestones and rewards for success, to which roleplaying and narrative are window-dressing left to the discretion of the players and GM. If people want to play a "narrativist" RPG, they should be playing Nobilis or Over the Edge, or some other system with rules built around narrative concepts, not D&D.

Exactly the same goes for Warhammer 40,000; there are wargames out there which successfully integrate narrative elements (Malifuax and Dark Age, for instance). There is even, in the form of Necromunda, a game set in the Warhammer 40,000 universe which does so. Warhammer 40,000 as written, however, is a game in which two players compete according to established rules to achieve mutually-exclusive victory conditions; it's a competitive game, and claiming otherwise is at best wishful thinking, and at worst deliberately misleading.

The same argument can be thrown back at "competitive" gaming. 40K clearly isn't made for tournaments. People who want to play "competitively" should just play a game that supports tourney games (e.g. Dust Warfare.. or as it were Chess).

But that isn't how it works. People out there love their D&D, but want to play it "Nobilis-style". Other people out there love their 40K, but want to use it in tourneys. It's human nature.

And of course, threads such as this don't contribute to supposed polarization a bit..............

Some of us actually play both tourneys and casually. I have fun either way. Sorry if that disappoints anyone.

Why should that disappoint me?

I too have played in tournaments... including chess-tournaments (trust me, you will never hear a complaint of "unfluffy" ever again if you just go chess. It'll also teach you the true meaning of "skill").

As said, the OP specifically asked for an insight from the other side and I obliged.

And immediately, I was once again under attack for being supposedly outside the boundaries of what is "relevant" to 40K gameplay, while all I was trying to say that this very arrogance of "exclusion" on the basis of this sort of overbearing "rules are sacrosanct no matter what"-type of arguments ARE a large part of the problem to begin with.

A problem that... the OP at least, others less so... at least were trying to make sense of.

Proves my point in the saddest of possible ways really.

 Kaldor wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Yes, but neither should you look down on someone who gets joy from winning.

Winning is more fun then Losing, that will always be true.

This is untrue. For some people, myself included, the competition is what matters. I prefer to win than lose, this is true. But I prefer to lose a close match than win a landslide. In that instance, losing is preferable to winning.

This. I play to give great, cinematic, close endings the opportunity to develop. If I absolutely crush my opponents' Tyranid horde without the loss of a single guardsmen I feel cheated. I will have had no fun in tearing apart my opponent. Now if we had traded terrible blows to each others armies, and We both barely managed to avoid being tabled, I will have had a blast.

However, the only way for competition to be achieved at its greatest potential is by both parties playing to win.

I am competitive. It's in my nature as a human being. I will try to beat you if you set your army down on the other side of the table. But that doesn't mean I don't have feelings and that I only relish the idea of winning. It means that I'm not going to not charge my rough riders at you or not shoot my sentinels because you are losing. But it also means that I will appreciate when awesome things happen regardless of who it helps, and I'll remove huge swaths of my models with nothing but a smile and perhaps a joke if I can think of one.

Call me a "confused" player.

 Trondheim wrote:

 60mm wrote:
You challenging someone for reasons when they say they don't want to play is douchbaggery. Maybe they refuse a game because you come across as a douchebag in real life just as you do on forums.

P.S. Being a fratboy that drinks a lot and has to lie his way into panties is an inescapable symptom of being a douchebag. It seems many of your ailments may stem from this social disorder.

This I agree with, from what I have read in this tread it seems the OP may suffer from a serious case f the mentioned illness

Again, I suggest the whole community get along, and I'm a douche?


Sorry but...

Wat?

It seems to me that the people who can't get past the OP's previous posts in other threads and are not contributing to the discussion are choosing to highlight things that needn't be, or attacking his personality out of resistance of acceptance. They know that the community is polarized deep down, but are choosing to ignore it and claim there is no problem, and everything runs along as smoothly as it could.

Come on people, if it helps you, just imagine that your favorite Dakkanaut posted this or a mod.

 Zweischneid wrote:
Why should that disappoint me?

I too have played in tournaments... including chess-tournaments (trust me, you will never hear a complaint of "unfluffy" ever again if you just go chess. It'll also teach you the true meaning of "skill").

Been there, done that, way back in my younger days (high school and college, which for me was the 70s................).

And the 'disappoint' comment was not ained at anyone in particular, just broadcast. Am I a competitive player? Hell yes. Even in 'casual' games, I'm going to try to win. Do i try to have fun at tournaments? Of course, and one of the events I have enjoyed the most over the years was the first US GW GT in Baltimore. i went 0-5 and had a BLAST! Ofver the years our club has had as many as 35 people in a single GT, and oddly, most of them have the same take on it I do. Play, have fun, try to win.

My point, casual gaming and having fun are not separate from playing in tournies. You really can do both. No one has to take a side. Don't like tournies? Fine, but don't bash those who do. Live for tournies? Fine, but don't bash those who don't like them. Seriously, I've never yet walked into a game store and asked if someone was a tourney player or a casual player. i just ask if anyone is looking for a game.

Zweischneid wrote:

English Assassin wrote:
And it's a sterile debate in D&D too, as it has been for decades. D&D as written (aside from nebulous XP awards for completing quests and a nigh-meaningless alignment system) has no story- or character-driven mechanics; it's a "gameist" game system with strongly-entrenched milestones and rewards for success, to which roleplaying and narrative are window-dressing left to the discretion of the players and GM. If people want to play a "narrativist" RPG, they should be playing Nobilis or Over the Edge, or some other system with rules built around narrative concepts, not D&D.

Exactly the same goes for Warhammer 40,000; there are wargames out there which successfully integrate narrative elements (Malifuax and Dark Age, for instance). There is even, in the form of Necromunda, a game set in the Warhammer 40,000 universe which does so. Warhammer 40,000 as written, however, is a game in which two players compete according to established rules to achieve mutually-exclusive victory conditions; it's a competitive game, and claiming otherwise is at best wishful thinking, and at worst deliberately misleading.

But that isn't how it works. People out there love their D&D, but want to play it "Nobilis-style". Other people out there love their 40K, but want to use it in tourneys. It's human nature.

However, what those notional players - who are essentially playing a free-form RPG with D&D character sheets in front of them - are doing has little or no relevance in a discussion of what the game sold under the name of Dungeons and Dragons is.

Zweischneid wrote:The same argument can be thrown back at "competitive" gaming. 40K clearly isn't made for tournaments. People who want to play "competitively" should just play a game that supports tourney games (e.g. Dust Warfare.. or as it were Chess).

Firstly, stop conflating "competitive" with "tournament", it's simply misleading. Secondly, this must be some novel use of the word "clearly"; would you care to substantiate why 40k is so clearly neither of these things? While you're doing so, try to bear in mind that for the whole of the game's lifespan (until a few months ago) it was officially supported and promoted by its makers as a tournament game, and indeed that its writers have repeated proclaimed their game (examples below) to be a balanced, tactical challenge.

"The aim of Warhammer 40,000 is to fight battles against other players. Win or lose battles are entertaining challenges in which you try to out-think and out-play your opponent, taking advantage of what good luck comes your way, but ultimately relying upon sound tactics to win the day." Warhammmer 40,000 Rulebook 2nd Edition, page 4

"Whatever you chose within this total [points values], the battle will be a fair match, decided by good tactics and a little bit of luck." Warhammer 40,000 Rulebook 5th Edition, page ix

English Assassin wrote:
However, what those notional players - who are essentially playing a free-form RPG with D&D character sheets in front of them - are doing has little or no relevance in a discussion of what the game sold under the name of Dungeons and Dragons is.

As long as people like you cling to this view, the - quoting the OP - "incredibly unnecessary polarization" of the D&D (and 40K) community" will persist and fester.