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 think I can safely say there is a distinct difference between playing a "friendly" game with someone you know, and playing in a tourney (or even a more casual game with a player you don't know). I wonder if we should take that into account not only as reponders, but as OP s.
I'm pretty sure we've all read so many forum questions/ topics with 15 pages of responses, mainly because half the people think every game one plays should be as if at a tournement, where you can't trust their opponent not to twist rules or cheat, and the other half wonder why anyone across the table should care if they use a pile of either un/ half-painted tyranids as a GK army. These are exaggerations, but the point is this: Simply put, some people are competitive, game oriented players (and while a good number of them are also talented painters/ modellers, their issues with a players models or army is mainly from a WYSIWYG standpoint). Others are more focused on the "fun" or social nature of the game than RAW ing the other player to death. (I don't think RAW can legitimately be made into a verb, but I think you follow me )
What gets me is when people respond to threads and speak as if their particular view is the only viable, acceptable one, and so don't preface any of their opinions with so much as a IMO. Thay simply condemn a specific poster or everyone in general who looks at the hobby differently. That being said: IMO This is a game, not a religion. It's whatever you want to make it for your self... UNLESS you're in a competitve environment, whether at your FLGS or a regional tourney. Thats where things need to be the same for everyone, not a massive collision of house-rules.

Dou you think, when you start a topic, you should consider your own viewpoint and situation, and therefore what types of responses you are after? If you play mostly friendly games, or vice-versa, should you mention that in your post? (Of course, now that I write that, I remember seeing so many threads the OP states something specific in his premise, and half the responders completely ignore key parts of the post..... )

I play "Friendly" games in Tournaments all the time. There is not difference in a "Friendly" game and a "Tournament" game. Every single one of us plays this game b/c we want to have fun and b/c it's a hobby. Never once have I looked at a tournament opponent as "some jackhole that's trying to keep me from wining this game and ruin my standing."

The subdivide in our hobby is pretty dumb. The only reason it's there is b/c some peeps feel the need to project an air of superiority over another group, or are frustrated that their 'cool collection' of models just got stomped by a trim, battle efficient list.

If you're talking tactics/effective army/strategy, that's one line of thinking...and it's not exclusive to tourney or "friendly" gamers. If you're talking about your 'cool collection' you cannot be surprised when someone critiques the list or tells you it sucks. There is an appropriate responce to that reaction. "Hey man, my list doesnt suck. My army just has things that I think are cool in it. I didnt build it to win tournaments, I built it b/c it's what I like."

Like Football fans (rooting for different teams), 40k players will probably never unify and will always argue about who's "Team" is better or more representative of the 40k hobby.

All veiwpoints are represented here on dakka. Some people are these basement gamers that never will care about going to a Tournament, others are hard-core tourney hoppers that build armies to WAAC.

All of us have fun playing and talking about 40k. It's a shame a bunch of nerds cannot unite due to some self-imposed divide in the group.

Funny thing I've noticed though....the self described "friendly" gamers are generally the more judgemental and accusing between "friendly" and "tournament" gamers....weird.

Have to agree with Deadshane1 on this one. When people refer to 'Tournament' and 'Friendly' mindsets, they're almost always using 'Tournament' as a derogatory term. The implication is that playing to win is equal to to WAAC. Hostility, cheating, ridiculous lists to maximise on obscure rules technicalities: these kind of things are often associated with the word 'Tournament.'

Oh, and if I had to be put into one of these catagories, it'd be 'Friendly.' I only play with my friends, and I build naff lists because I like the way they feel thematically.

@Deadshane1: I pretty much agree with you on all points, although I will say there's a dfference between "friendly and "tournement" games in approach or mindset sometimes, at least with some people. We all do want to have fun, but it's when people have differing ideas as to whats fun about the hobby that becomes the issue. I did not mean to insinuate that ALL tournement players are inherently distrustful, and wasn't trying to paint either "side" with too broad a brush or anything. Just using exaggeration to illustrate a point. It just seems to me that someone will bring up a topic or question, and one group (and for the record, I agree 100%that

Deadshane1 wrote:The subdivide in our hobby is pretty dumb. The only reason it's there is b/c some peeps feel the need to project an air of superiority over another group,....

) will jump all over it/them, and the other "group" is pretty much like "WTF? I don't see the problem". The sub-divide is there in the hobby, (and it is dumb.) I suppose I just noticed it more since joining Dakkadakka. Don't get me wrong, overall, I think the forums are great and very helpful. Guess I'm surprised but the negativity/ arrogance of some of the posters. I know we all have our own views/ opions/ feelings on everything, and I'm not really trying attack anyone for theirs. Maybe I'm just being hypocritical in hoping that more posters would be that way.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@ htj: I am more of the "friendly" game player myself. I tend to approach my lists more themeatically than stictly competitvely, but thats me. My intent isn't to shoehorn people into a category or label on category with a context. I know a lot of great guys that play tournements and are nicer, more accepting, etc. than people I've met at a game shop for a pick-up game. It is unfortunate that the term "tournement player" carries a negative context so often. And that it is used that way that often by "friendly players".
Thats part of why I brought up the idea of context for a particular discussion. If you feel one way about a particular thing (and EVERYONE has a right to their own opinion), but you know that the topic is set in another context, then you're less apt to be upset about it.

EDIT: ...I'm can't type today

Deadshane1 wrote:I play "Friendly" games in Tournaments all the time. There is not difference in a "Friendly" game and a "Tournament" game. Every single one of us plays this game b/c we want to have fun and b/c it's a hobby. Never once have I looked at a tournament opponent as "some jackhole that's trying to keep me from wining this game and ruin my standing."

The subdivide in our hobby is pretty dumb. The only reason it's there is b/c some peeps feel the need to project an air of superiority over another group, or are frustrated that their 'cool collection' of models just got stomped by a trim, battle efficient list.

If you're talking tactics/effective army/strategy, that's one line of thinking...and it's not exclusive to tourney or "friendly" gamers. If you're talking about your 'cool collection' you cannot be surprised when someone critiques the list or tells you it sucks. There is an appropriate responce to that reaction. "Hey man, my list doesnt suck. My army just has things that I think are cool in it. I didnt build it to win tournaments, I built it b/c it's what I like."

Like Football fans (rooting for different teams), 40k players will probably never unify and will always argue about who's "Team" is better or more representative of the 40k hobby.

All veiwpoints are represented here on dakka. Some people are these basement gamers that never will care about going to a Tournament, others are hard-core tourney hoppers that build armies to WAAC.

All of us have fun playing and talking about 40k. It's a shame a bunch of nerds cannot unite due to some self-imposed divide in the group.

Funny thing I've noticed though....the self described "friendly" gamers are generally the more judgemental and accusing between "friendly" and "tournament" gamers....weird.

Yup what he said

Deadshane1 wrote:I play "Friendly" games in Tournaments all the time. There is not difference in a "Friendly" game and a "Tournament" game. Every single one of us plays this game b/c we want to have fun and b/c it's a hobby. Never once have I looked at a tournament opponent as "some jackhole that's trying to keep me from wining this game and ruin my standing."

The subdivide in our hobby is pretty dumb. The only reason it's there is b/c some peeps feel the need to project an air of superiority over another group, or are frustrated that their 'cool collection' of models just got stomped by a trim, battle efficient list.

If you're talking tactics/effective army/strategy, that's one line of thinking...and it's not exclusive to tourney or "friendly" gamers. If you're talking about your 'cool collection' you cannot be surprised when someone critiques the list or tells you it sucks. There is an appropriate responce to that reaction. "Hey man, my list doesnt suck. My army just has things that I think are cool in it. I didnt build it to win tournaments, I built it b/c it's what I like."

Like Football fans (rooting for different teams), 40k players will probably never unify and will always argue about who's "Team" is better or more representative of the 40k hobby.

All veiwpoints are represented here on dakka. Some people are these basement gamers that never will care about going to a Tournament, others are hard-core tourney hoppers that build armies to WAAC.

All of us have fun playing and talking about 40k. It's a shame a bunch of nerds cannot unite due to some self-imposed divide in the group.

Funny thing I've noticed though....the self described "friendly" gamers are generally the more judgemental and accusing between "friendly" and "tournament" gamers....weird.

I cannot agree more with this.

However, dependent upon my army and the alignment of the planets and the Moon, I fall into either category. hence, I do not believe categories should be used.
Treat your opponent and those around in a way that you would wish to be treated in either casual or Tourney setting.

Afterall, if you are not enjoying yourself, chances are neither are they and you should never do what you do not enjoy.

People who call for a 'friendly' environment are often calling for forced relaxed rules and standards across all aspects of the hobby and then decry those who don't accept their actions as haters of fun or hyper competitive.

A fully wysiwyg painted legal army is accepted everywhere, the same cannot be said for others. I don't have to preface the game by saying 'this is a friendly game for fun so can we please lower these standards to meet my personal needs? If you font accept you are a WAAC gamer whonhates fun.'

I don't think I have ever played an unfriendly tourney. Friendly games is just a term used by some to claim a moral high ground in justifying their relaxed view at following the rules and making an effort when it comes to modeling... I mean who can disagree with being friendly right? Unless you are a jerk for not agreeing to whatever the owner of the friendly game wants... He is friendly right?

People who follow the rules and occasionally delve into raw and like to play with painted or wysiwyg models are not 'unfriendly' and are not playing the game wrong as much as the friendly gamer wishes to claim the right way of playing by using sympathetic terms.

All games should be and can be friendly regardless of the standards used to decide the mutual rules.

I'm more of a tourney player, but I do see what strikes me as some excessive defensiveness from a lot of tournament players toward other players with different priorities.

I completely agree that players of all stripes should respect one another' varying preferences and priorities.

I think the OP's got a point, too, that people responding to threads should be careful to read the OP and respond in light of the context of that person's preference and what they're talking about.

e.g.: If someone posts up a fluffy, friendly SW list and specifically says it is intended to be fluffy, then it's inappropriate to tell them the list "sucks". You should focus on whatever feedback they're actually asking for, and keep any criticism about other aspects (like competitive strength) friendly and constructive.

The difference isnt between friendly play and tournment play. Its the difference in the person your playing across from you.

I play friendly tournment games alot. I've also played less then friendly friendly games. Its not the style, its the person.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mannahnin wrote:

e.g.: If someone posts up a fluffy, friendly SW list and specifically says it is intended to be fluffy, then it's inappropriate to tell them the list "sucks". You should focus on whatever feedback they're actually asking for, and keep any criticism about other aspects (like competitive strength) friendly and constructive.

Depends. If he's posting a fluffy, friendly list up to a place thats more known for harder play, and expecting then to critique it on that basis is silly. On the same token, you dont take a harder list and post it to a more fluffy site and expect feedback for a tournment.

The OP has some responsibility as well as the peanut gallery.

Absolutely. If you just post a list and ask for feedback without giving any context or specifying what kind of help you need, you should expect to get whatever kind of feedback the respondant feels like giving you.

--------------

I will disagree with you a bit on the "it's the person" point, though. Some players do modify their personal behavior based on context.

I have a friend who's a deadly tournament player but who routinely loses most of his non-tournament games at his local store because he just doesn't care, and likes to try wacky maneuvers in those games.

I'm mostly very competitive (while friendly and sociable), but Friday night I met up with a new player in my city for a purely friendly introductory game, and deliberately took a list to showcase my nicer models, not to win. And played a bit more casually as well.

At our FLGS, we have some people who play fluffy lists and some people who play hard lists. Then some people who try to make the hardest fluffy list they can. Meh. If I want fluff, I can play DH or DW. 40k is a board game IMO.


To mirror what some other folks have said in this thread, "tournament" is unfortunately sometimes used as derogatory. Mostly because when people are playing a "fluffy" list, and they get smoked, they want to blame it on something other than generalship or list building. Just my opinion, but playing a game vs. someone who is running a fluffy list, and expecting to lose, isn't really that much fun.

The most fun I've ever had playing 40k was against a talented opponent who is currently trying to develop a competitive army from a new codex. We're talking deathstar central. Which is good, because I play the hardest list I can come up with, given my codex. I didn't look at those games as life-or-death WAAC situations. Rather, I'm playing as well as I can because I want to learn the ins and outs of this new codex and what to expect in tournaments. He was playing as well as he could because he wants to playtest the codex in various parmutations against a hard tourney build.


Players don't learn anything from facestomping fluffy lists. Now, given this mindset, which I'm sure is true of many posters here...you aren't going to ask "What's the best choice for slot A" and get fluff-based responses. To quote a highly competitive friend, "There ain't no rulebook called 'fluff'".

This thread should be called "pot calls kettle black'.

I see just as much painting with a broad brush in this thread as is being cited by those in it...

I personally don't care for tournament play, and I don't approach wargaming as if it is a sport. Doesn't interest me in the slightest. But I can also respect that other may have that or some other motivation to play, and that it is ok if it differs from mine.

Likewise I am not "frustrated" that Deadshane can beat me at a game of toy soldiers. Congrats on being awesome.

I'll play the game the way I want to play with the people of my choosing, and you do same.

the wargaming hobby has room for many different approaches and motivations to play. The key is to spend more time finding people that share your outlook and less time on places like Dakka trying to start flame wars and trolling over it...

Very well said.

Deadshane1 wrote:
The subdivide in our hobby is pretty dumb. The only reason it's there is b/c some peeps feel the need to project an air of superiority over another group...

I see it all the time with discussions about GW vs. Privateer Press. I've seen some genuinely vitriolic stuff. It's like people have got it in their heads that the "other game" is "negative adjective of your choosing" and their game is some kind of holy ground to be defended until the end as it's the embodiment of all that is good in wargaming...or gaming in general. They are two different ways to push minis across the board. Not justifications for holy (flame) wars.

Anyhow, I don't really approach the game much differently in a fun, casual game than I would in a tournament setting. If my opponent accidentally overlooks a rule that would give him the advantage over me, I wouldn't feel like I won fairly if I didn't point it out to him. That's not to say that I'm going to go out of my way to point out bad moves, at least in a tournament setting. I will do that in a casual setting because it helps make better opponents and that's more fun.

Allright, I didn´t attend any big tournaments so far, only smaller ones (around 6-15 players) in my FLGS or local GWs. So maybe I don´t really know what I talk about, but:

I don´t have different mindsets when playing strangers or friends, in my small gaming group or on a tournament.

I will remind you if you keep forgetting your own rules.
I will happily chat with you about stuff not directly related to the game at hand.
I will give you tips if you so desire.
I won´t exploit rule loopholes or RAW when RAI is clearly different.
I will compromise in rule conflicts, maybe giving you the advantage or rolling dice.
I CERTAINLY won´t cheat.
In short: I will play you in a way I would want to be played against myself.

However:
I won´t pull any punches.
I won´t play any less tactical.
I will set traps for you.
I will use faults in your tactic, deployment or playstyle.
I will attack your weak points and valuable units.
I will play to win as long as it doesn´t clearly lead to a less enjoyable game.
In short: I will play you in a way I would want to be played against myself.

Only time I will pull my punches is when I see that you´re struggling and not having fun.

Struggling and still having fun? Woohoo, great way to learn new tricks. I get my ass kicked all the time against better players, and I learn something new every game.

Equal skill levels? Bring it on!

You´re clearly better? Why should I pull my punches, now kick my ass so I can learn a few new tricks.

Necronomitron wrote:I see it all the time with discussions about GW vs. Privateer Press. I've seen some genuinely vitriolic stuff. It's like people have got it in their heads that the "other game" is "negative adjective of your choosing" and their game is some kind of holy ground to be defended until the end as it's the embodiment of all that is good in wargaming...or gaming in general. They are two different ways to push minis across the board. Not justifications for holy (flame) wars.

What either camp tends to disregard is that the two games are, literally, two distinctly different games, both in scope of play, game mechanics, and community support/response.

One is quite clearly more tightly written, with competition-level clarity in the rules set.

The other is quite clearly not.

If you decide that the only way to have fun is to have YOURGAMESYSTEM-styled fun, then when you run into the same metality from the other camp, all that can ever ensue is nerd rage.

There's a bigger point being missed here, I think, that it's all just another variation of standard nerd tribalism. Like Star Wars fans and Star Trek fans insulting and looking down on one another. Or wargamers and LARPers. Or videogamers and tabletop pencil & paper RPGers.

CT GAMER wrote:This thread should be called "pot calls kettle black'.

I see just as much painting with a broad brush in this thread as is being cited by those in it...

I personally don't care for tournament play, and I don't approach wargaming as if it is a sport. Doesn't interest me in the slightest. But I can also respect that other may have that or some other motivation to play, and that it is ok if it differs from mine.

Likewise I am not "frustrated" that Deadshane can beat me at a game of toy soldiers. Congrats on being awesome.

I'll play the game the way I want to play with the people of my choosing, and you do same.

the wargaming hobby has room for many different approaches and motivations to play. The key is to spend more time finding people that share your outlook and less time on places like Dakka trying to start flame wars and trolling over it...

Excellent post.


I would also add (and I might get flamed for saying this)----that army lists are usually the main culprit behind the divide (and contraction of some from the tournament scene).

Good point that I saw here - what happens when 1 friendly player disagrees with another friendly player re: what is allowable and what isn't in a given game? In that case, it seems likely that one or both of them will have to go to the RAW for guidance.

Ie: Is it OK to avoid basing your minis? Is it OK to paint in only 2-3 colors? Is it OK to play with partially painted minis? What about unpainted minis? Is it OK to play with minis that are not WYSIWYG? If WYSIWYG is not enforced, do all models of a given type have to be represented by a similar mini or is it OK to mix in a few different types and just call them the same? Is it OK to use models from some other army if you don't have enough for your chosen army? Do all models have to be assembled? Do all models have to be GW? Do they all have to be truescale? Do they all even have to be models (can I use pennies or dominoes?)

If a player doesn't go by RAW, he will likely have opinions re: the above and what is OK and what is not. It can be a massive exercise to decide where a person stands on all these things - and that's the reason tournaments set one explicit standard (and the RAW as well).

The game goes easier if everyone is, ultimately, playing the same game - and RAW provides that.

If you have house rules that work for you and your crew, more power to you. But if you are playing me in a 1-off, I'd really appreciate it if you could follow the RAW - to me, it is a courtesy. When we know each other better, I will likely be open to a few house rules, but if I have to keep track of variations for everyone I meet, well, it gets a little much to keep all in one's head after a certain point.

Deadshane1 wrote:I play "Friendly" games in Tournaments all the time. There is not difference in a "Friendly" game and a "Tournament" game. Every single one of us plays this game b/c we want to have fun and b/c it's a hobby. Never once have I looked at a tournament opponent as "some jackhole that's trying to keep me from wining this game and ruin my standing."

The subdivide in our hobby is pretty dumb. The only reason it's there is b/c some peeps feel the need to project an air of superiority over another group, or are frustrated that their 'cool collection' of models just got stomped by a trim, battle efficient list.

And Alex Lifeson finally opened his mouth and said: SUBDIVISIONS!

In the concert hall

SUBDIVISIONS

In the shopping mall

Conform or be cast out

SUBDIVISIONS

Anyways now that I got that out of the system I would like to add into this that their really should be 1 more label as long as were going down the road of using labels, the fluffy players. It is far to wide a brush stroke to put players that work hard to make a wysiwyg fully painted army that just like to socialize while talking/making up fluff for the current game and that take lists that include units for the simple reason that they enjoy the fluff behind that unit, with players that put no effort into their army and don't know a whole lot about the game that hide behind the term "friendly player".

It is also unfair to say that the fluffy players are just angry that their list gets beaten by "trim battle efficient list". Chances are the fluffy players don't care, and I doubt they are the ones complaining here on dakka.

Everyone here agrees ''to each his own'' so preaching it back to the choir isn't really helping much. Terms like "Friendly" usually collide with "Competitive" or "WAAC" in forums like YMDC or tactics when someone says "Hey guys I thought up a great use for Pariahs" and someone says "Pariahs suck" and the counter is usually "Oh well it's for friendly games" or "I choose to view the ruling on (Nemesis Falchions/Dreadknights w/ jump packs/deepstriking monolith into impassable terrain/etc) this way because I'm a friendly gamer.

Saying "People can have fun in their own ways" isn't exactly breaking new ground. Nobody is trying to legitimately claim that there is only one way to play 40k. The problems typically arise when these two mindsets clash. When they clash in YMDC or Tactics it's usually as a result of a friendly gamer suggesting something to people with alot more experience (or "Friendly" is being used as a position to retreat to in a given argument) and when it occurs in somewhere like Tournament Discussions it's usually debating the merits of tournaments that should be completely based on W/L/D vs more broad-specturm "Hobby tournaments"