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.

So it's no secret 40k as a community experiences polarization. If, by some wonderful gift of ignorance, that which I envy any carrier of, you are unaware of this, I speak of the schism between competitive 40k players, and players that do so for fun outside of the competitive arena. "Tourney Gamers" and "Casuals" if you will. In the following wall of text, I will be addressing this, what I consider a problem.

I should start by asking the reader not to prejudice me, the writer, when reading this article; presented as my voice and opinion. Neither my signature, avatar, or past posts are at all a representation of who I am, why I play the game, or what I draw enjoyment from. All that is demonstrated is what I choose to represent myself with online, this and nothing more.

I am, in fact, quite comfortable with both "types" of play, hereby referred to as competitive and casual play. Any frequent users of dakka will undoubtably be much more familiar with my competitive side; posting and critiquing lists, advising and recommending tactics, and even boasting about the sheer power of my flyer-list. Without a doubt I have a hand in the realm of competitive 40k play. What dakka rarely sees though, is my incredible feeling for the fluff of 40k, the background and history, and the enjoyment I garner from narrative games. This is because, quite frankly, they are boring to talk about. I could make ten posts about an incredibly fun campaign I played last week, where my footslogging guard backed up a drop-pod first company of Imperial fists against a two-pronged Tyranid and Necron onslaught while trying to protect a listening post. But frankly, aside from showing that I'm not as TFG as I seem, the only thing the dakka community would gain is knowing that I, TheCaptain, had fun one Saturday in the summer of 2012. No one would become a better player, no one would learn anything about how optimal my list is, and no one would even be able to ascertain if foot-guard is fun and fluffy, because that is entirely subjective. I post lists, critique tactics threads, and talk about countering units because it makes both me, and the community, better at the game, which inevitably leads to more fun. Whether you play an unoptimized "pure-fun" list, or Draigowing allied with Robute Guilliman himself, being "good" at using our toys to kill other peoples toys is fun.

Here is my problem with the overall community attitude lately; I have seen a TON of unwarranted scorn towards the competitive community. Like wayyy too much malice for a set of adults to carry regarding how other people play with toys. Before you think to yourself "why is Captain ranting like this?" yes, this was because I, recently, had it suggested that I was both "rude" and a "douche" for running a flyer list. (I can assure you this poster had no idea if I was rude, douchey, or if I had or hadn't taken etiquette classes as a boy.) This isn't exactly why I decided to write it, but it was rather what reminded me of how much of a problem it is, and I decided to address it. The thing is, to a lot of the community, if you run an optimized list that they deem "unfluffy" (which by the way is incredibly vague and will be addressed soon.) then you are TFG, or a WAAC player. You are playing the game wrong, you will be refused games, and girls won't talk to you. That last one was made up; let's face it, girls love guardsmen. But really, and maybe it's just me, but I can't see the problem.

I enjoy both spectrums of the game, which I see as a gift, but maybe it's a problem? For the life of me, I cannot understand why a 40k player who enjoys FLGS non-tournament play would just outright refuse a game against a player say, oh...fielding a drop-pod Vulkan list (tried to pick a competitive, but not CRAZY list). They may argue it wouldn't be fun for them, but I challenge the casual player by asking "Why not?" I apologize, but this is a game, and as such, the burden of having fun is on you, the player; not your opponent. I've had plenty of opponents who aren't fun for a variety of reasons (rude, whiny, smelly, bad lists, or annoying) but I've never once not had FUN playing 40k. I see it as exciting every time I even get to take my little toy men out of their box and face someone with them. Playing someone with a list better than yours is no different from playing someone with a list much worse than yours; it is ridiculous to refuse it, and ridiculous to claim you cannot have fun with it just because one player is presenting a different level of a threat. Chances are you are at your FLGS, playing a zero-stakes game against someone you've never met, and whether or not you lose will bear literally zero meaning in the grand scheme of things. The entire world will not even notice a single die was thrown. If the army across from you is 100 grots, or a Draigowing, you should still have fun. You are, afterall playing with toys. Besides; immerse yourself in the narrative a bit, imagine how intense it must have been for your army to be wiped out so quickly by such an overwhelming force? If you're faced with TFG or a WAAC, just enjoy the show. The guy across the table will be trying his absolute heart out, and you'll be rolling dice and picturing your army-men's lasers go "pew pew!". Both of you can have fun with that, surely?

I love analogies; I think they make explaining things so much better and easier to take in. Here is one related to the above paragraph; if you, the casual player, were approached by Shaquille O'Neal and he wanted to shoot around, you're telling me you wouldn't get a kick out of that? Sure, he'll beat you up and down the court, and sink 100x the shots you do, but enjoy the experience, and enjoy the game. Not to mention, you can learn so much from something like that, even if you don't want to take it as seriously.

The other part of the problem, however, I find much more serious. This truly threatens to separate the 40k community, I think. This is the fact that, largely, the scorn is one-sided. Look for yourself. Look at Bell of Lost Souls, look on Warseer, look here on Dakka; the hate you see is always towards the Competitive community. Why? It seems like competitive gamers have no problem accepting that there are many people that aren't into the tournament scene, and that some people just like running certain codex options because they look cool. But the amount of threads I've seen proclaiming Tournaments "broken" "not-viable" "stoopid" et-cetera, are staggering. The amount of hate I see towards "cheesy" optimized lists is just gross. Like I said, i got called a douche for running a flyer-list (Which, by the way, is pretty damn fluffy considering it's Elysians) but I have never, and doubt I will ever see someone called rude, an ass, or otherwise for running fluffy options ("God you're TFG for running six Penal Legions in your Salvar Chem-dog Army!") Because, quite frankly, competitive gamers seem to be fine with it. They have tournaments, and the casual community has Apocalypse games; how much of a difference is there really? All the "haters" of competitive play need to step back for a little bit, and figure out if they can actually fathom tolerating someone who plays the game for a different reason than themselves. If they can't accept that someone else out there has a different view of fun, then really, who is TFG here?

Take this video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dS77v_jx5gU&feature=player_embedded
Not a soul in the world would be particularly happy to be faced with this list, but they managed to have fun. Were they on drugs? Were they being blackmailed? No. They had fun because that's what the game is about and they didn't make it about whose list was what, or what unit made you a bad person; they enjoyed every turn, even as the one was being utterly wrecked. Then they puked.

NOW FOR THE REST:

So that's my main thesis guys; yeah, I'm basically defending the competitive community, but that's basically because it's damn annoying hearing all the hate towards it when they don't really need/ask-for/deserve it at all. Scan through a couple of the Army-List posts. Someone has a fluffy, non-optimal option in their list, and maybe a competitive player says "That's points inefficient/underpowered/can be replaced with X or Y" the List-owner either says "Okay, I'll try it out" or "Actually, my list is themed as X so fluff-option A is there for that reason" and the competitive player goes on their merry way either response. But if someone posts a competitive list or overuses competitive options, the exchange is moreso "X is too cheesy, you should use less" "Well, I have these models made already/I kindof want a competitive list/I have fun winning" "Well I wouldn't play you." It's ridiculous, and pretty embarrassing. I do have some stuff I'd like to tack on here, though, because I feel this thread could provoke a lot of growth and useful discussion; mainly I'd like to address why I think Competitive Gamers have a bad rep, and what makes something "Unfluffy".

First, yikes; the Competitive Gamer that everyone outside of the Tourney Scene has learned to hate. He challenges you, asks what you're running, tailors his list for a couple minutes, and then pulls out five flyers and two squads of Terminators with rerollable saves, hits, wounding, FNP, EW, and he fields a baneblade too. He berates you for taking too long to move your orcs one by one, whines when you move them too fast and go past 6" by a hair, and tables you in two turns, followed by ranting about every bad play/list-choice you made all day. This seems like the guy the rest of the community considers Competitive Players to be. And yes, there are players like this, but do you know why? It's because our hobby is pretty damn nerdy. Yeah, sorry, had to say it. I don't consider myself a nerd (for goodness sake, I'm in a frat and spend D6 days a week drinking/lying to college girls) but damn right do I admit and accept that the hobby I love, 40k, is pretty nerdy. It's something we all have to come to terms with eventually. This aspect of the hobby no doubt brings in, every once in a while, a person lacking in certain sectors of social conditioning. That, ladies and gentlemen, is the man described in the first couple sentences. Sure, he sucks to play against, and you betcha he's the most competitive person in the room, but you are mistaken to consider him a solid representation of the competitive community. Fact is, he probably wouldn't make it very far in the community. He'd be hard pressed to find a team, get good sportsmanship scores, make friends at all, and probably would get kicked out of his fair share of events. Whether you're a Casual or Competitive gamer, you won't be a good one if you suck as a person. It just happens that these people usually carry themselves in an incredibly aggressive, rude, competitive manner, because of what is coined as an inferiority complex. Sadly, competitiveness gets them lumped in with true Competitive, Tournament gamers, and that is a stigma that anyone who respects 40k as a hobby should strive to avoid. Please. Goodness, yeah, I've tabled a few people in my time, but I've always been gracious about it, and we've always laughed over it. Even in my most recent tournament, I tabled a player turn three, but he had such a beautifully painted White Scars list we spent the rest of the allotted time talking about how he washed white Power Armour. Don't blame the community; blame the sucky person you just had to put up with.

Unfluffy, ladies and gentlemen. To many synonymous with cheesy, I have come to hate these words. They are entirely subjective, and carry no water in any argument. "Unfluffy" has come to be used to deem something as not okay, by the casual community. Where is the line drawn? I've seen Draigowing called both cheesy and unfluffy; why on earth wouldn't the grand master of the GREY KNIGHTS fight with the most elite of the GREY KNIGHTS? Like I said, my Elysian Flyer list has been called unfluffy, but like...what??? Eldrad lists get called unfluffy because "he's dead in the fluff" (There is no canon, guys. Get over it.) Who cares? To me, it seems more like a justification of otherwise unbacked malice towards a particular choice/list. No one would ever freak out if I included ratlings in a Mordian Iron Guard list, even though they don't usually use Abhumans; nor would someone crap their pants if a warwalker were fielded in a Saim-Hann jetbike list; but that's because they aren't a big deal. For goodness sake, you see Creed all the time, but if you wanted to be fluffy, he'd need about 100,000 more points in any Creed list. So which is it you care about, is it ACTUALLY the fluff? Or are you just nitpicking at fluff so you can support your distaste for the use of a particular unit. It seems like largely it's the latter.


There you have it guys; argue, slug it out, or like I ask so nicely, have a discussion. I truly want to hear about feelings on the matter from Dakka; we should be getting along. I'll say it again, we're playing with toys; who cares how we do it? Just have fun while we do.

-TheCaptain

Edit: I've added a poll to get a more concrete feel of the feelings.

I largely agree with the message your sending, and I get a long with nearly everyone. I don't care what kind of list my opponent plays as long as my opponent is an enjoyable human being to spend time with.

What I'm curious about is why you, your posts, your signature, and your tone is many posts is so incredibly douche-like at times. I appreciate this post in reversing my opinion on you, but you just come across as so unnecessarily abrasive, it just makes me wonder, especially if you claim you are not like that in person. Is it just to get a rise/reaction out of people? Genuinely curious, is all.

I find nothing brings out someones true colors and opinions like rustling their feathers.

If I asked a casual player "Would you mind if I bring a couple flyers?"

They'd likely respond "Oh...I guess that's cool." and the game would be spent with them mourning the loss of every unit in their Fluffy, ramshackle list.

But if, to the same casual player, I said "I'm running flyerspam; and you're going to get wrecked, son."

They'd more likely either say "Good. I'll bring out my Broadsides list. Game on." or "Well F**k flyers, and the same to you, I'm out of here."


I'll always prefer a brutally honest truth, than a half-hearted concession. Sometimes rudeness is the best means to that.





Also it's funny acting like a total TFG and seeing how Dakka feels.

-TheCaptain

I think you are missing the main point.

You say (if I read that correctly) that 40K is a game, and people should be having fun regardless of what's used to play the game.

But to many, it isn't (first and foremost) a game: It's more something like a miniature-simulation of narratives and stories they have read, seen or heard.

At that point the entire emphasis shifts. It truly (yes, hard to believe for some (!) competitive people) isn't "important" anymore who loses or wins.

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".

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.

And since 90% of the 40K game these days is list-building, the heap of the discussion ends up about lists...

Yeah, I figured as much. Well, either way, interesting post, I don't have strong enough feelings on the matter to really post anything interesting, besides my one line above.

 Zweischneid wrote:
I think you are missing the main point.

You say (if I read that correctly) that 40K is a game, and people should be having fun regardless of what's used to play the game.

But to many, it isn't (first and foremost) a game: It's more something like a miniature-simulation of narratives and stories they have read, seen or heard.

At that point the entire emphasis shifts. It truly (yes, hard to believe for competitive people= isn't "important" anymore who loses or wins. Hell, 90% of the 40K games I played "back in the days" we didn't even count points at the end to see who "won". Noone cared. What counts than is the "narrative" of the unfolding events. 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.

And since 90% of the 40K game these days is list-building, the heap of the discussion ends up about lists...

But then if you're looking for an interactive narrative; why go to a FLGS and challenge/accept a challenge from a random guy that may or may not be TFG? Or at least discuss what you're looking for first. With such a simple few steps done, the complaints you've suggested seem like they'd disappear.

It'd be like if a man with peanut allergies goes into a deli, asks for a sandwich, receives PB&J, and whines online about how he hates people who eat PB&J.

(I like that analogy a lot, actually.)

I agree with you totally on all counts. I've had the experience you talk about the incredibly competitive guy who just isn't fun to play again and the funny thing is that all of the other truly competitive gamers at my FLGS have called him out on multiple occasions for his attitude.

I wish people would realize that the one bad apple isn't an accurate representation.

TheCaptain wrote:

But then if you're looking for an interactive narrative; why go to a FLGS and challenge/accept a challenge from a random guy that may or may not be TFG? Or at least discuss what you're looking for first. With such a simple few steps done, the complaints you've suggested seem like they'd disappear.

It'd be like if a man with peanut allergies goes into a deli, asks for a sandwich, receives PB&J, and whines online about how he hates people who eat PB&J.

(I like that analogy a lot, actually.)

Well, I was just speaking mainly from fond memories, not any realistic gaming going on today...

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.

I think that is where a lot of the "grief" comes from. The "competitive" guys came in and changed the "default" (but unwritten) social contract of how the game was played, but they did so with the (in some cases) arrogant bearing of waving the book around and/or under people's noses with words like "that's how it is written here".

In turn, the "fluff" players only had the (as you say vague and subjective) defense of deriding the other side as "unfluffy", simply because this unwritten social contract that used to make the hobby so special wasn't written down anywhere and obviously not enforceble once it was (partly or wholly) lost (in the semi-public of FLGS etc..).

One side pointed to the rule-book to make their "claim", the other pointed to the growing (vague, internally contradicting) body of "fluff", while actually trying to refer to a stylistic approach to the game.

TheCaptain wrote:I could make ten posts about an incredibly fun campaign I played last week, where my footslogging guard backed up a drop-pod first company of Imperial fists against a two-pronged Tyranid and Necron onslaught while trying to protect a listening post. But frankly, aside from showing that I'm not as TFG as I seem, the only thing the dakka community would gain is knowing that I, TheCaptain, had fun one Saturday in the summer of 2012.

Before addressing the real issue, I thought I'd comment on this first. I think you're actually missing something with this statement.

Humans are storytellers. We listen to gossip, we read fiction novels, we swap war stories, and how we got scars, and which YouTube videos we think are best. We are fascinated by story.

For whatever reason (I'm not a psychologist), human beings gain something by experiencing something by proxy. We watch other people being excited, and we get excited. Our sense of empathy causes us to cry when we watch Finding Neverland (I dare you not to). For whatever reason, we seek out these proxy experiences.

I mean, nobody has learned anything, or has become a better person by watching "Iron Man 2", but millions of people thronged into the theaters to see it anyways. Like you, my battle reports written and read were for the purpose of learning to be a better player. The same reason a physicist might read Physics Today, or a politician might read Cato newsletters, or whatever - for professional reasons. It turns out, though, that there IS a second side to it. People DO want to read a good thread. If all that they learn is that you had fun playing a game, well, if they had fun reading about you having fun, then it seems like everybody is a winner.

TheCaptain wrote:They may argue it wouldn't be fun for them, but I challenge the casual player by asking "Why not?" I apologize, but this is a game, and as such, the burden of having fun is on you, the player; not your opponent. I've had plenty of opponents who aren't fun for a variety of reasons (rude, whiny, smelly, bad lists, or annoying) but I've never once not had FUN playing 40k.

As you say, fun is subjective. The problem, though, occurs when one person, pursuing their idea of fun, interferes with another person's pursuit of fun. I mean, this is basically why we have a criminal justice system...

And it's actually a tricky problem. How do you set up a system wherein both people can have fun in whatever way they choose to define it, neither of the two people detracting from the other. I won't attempt any solutions at the moment, but I would ask anybody to try and be empathic when a person gets frustrated by their fun getting squelched by someone else.

TheCaptain wrote:This is the fact that, largely, the scorn is one-sided. If they can't accept that someone else out there has a different view of fun, then really, who is TFG here?

Of course, I won't defend anybody who, in feeling frustrated, takes it out on others, no matter how natural of an instinct it is to do so. I wouldn't necessarily attack them, though, as "he who is without sin cast the first stone", so to speak. That said...

TheCaptain wrote:Someone has a fluffy, non-optimal option in their list, and maybe a competitive player says "That's points inefficient/underpowered/can be replaced with X or Y" the List-owner either says "Okay, I'll try it out" or "Actually, my list is themed as X so fluff-option A is there for that reason" and the competitive player goes on their merry way either response.

... this is the only thing I actually take issue with. I have seen (and likely participated in) competitive gamers absolutely ripping apart fluff players before. It really isn't one-sided.

The real issue here is that you have (at least) two groups of people who are taking the game seriously. They also have different ideas that constitute "best" and different strategies for achieving it. This brings the two sides into very heated conflict some times. The problem is that there is a lack of ability to be articulate, generally speaking, which means that, instead of engaging in a conversation to bring understanding, both sides just shout slogans at each other. It's not working to make the game more fun it's that "you just want to win at all costs, and don't care who has fun" and "you're a bad player who is throwing a temper tantrum because you lost, man up and play with the big dogs or quit your whining". For every "your list is unfluffy" there is a "your opponent brought a terrible list".

So the trick is, of course, to learn how to ignore those people who don't understand what they want, and/or are unable to articulate what the problem is if they do. There is an emotional response, and there is jerking of knees. Unfortunately, given that most people are philosophical lightweights, you just sort of have to endure spewed emotional nonsense, whether in the world of 40k, or in the rest of the world at large.

The only way I've figured out how to handle this, personally, is with compassion. People are being hurt, bothered, or frustrated, and they don't know why. Being able to help people understand what's going on and thus have the clarity to be able to act to improve their lives and those around them is a skill I think we should all foster. If you are being harassed for being WAAC or unfluffy, you should react with pity, not anger.

But, of course, that's my own way of handling things. I'm sure there are many others. Hopefully, with the actions of those who understand helping those who can't, we can end the bitter factionalism and obnoxiousness. Or, as I like to hope I do, I like to think that I'm cleaning up the culture of dakka one good, polite, well-articulated post at a time. That some of the awful abrasive people I've spoken against have left dakka entirely over the years I vainly care to believe had some small part to do with a purposely positive impact I tried to have.

In any case, taking a polite tone to a helpful attitude is bound to make things better. I'd like to think of what we all would be if such practices were universal.

As the guy you're probably referring to calling you rude, I'll repost myself here again:

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

TheCaptain wrote:Run nine flyers man. Six Vendettas, Three Valks. That stuff is cray. I run a 11 flyer list for Elysians sometimes; just to haze kids at the FLGS.

Go ahead and weep about it, fluffers.

Your avatar says it all. Not only do you admit to running stuff just to stomp kids (not cool man), but you're rude about it too. I've no problem with running optimal lists (I try to do it myself) but at least be gracious enough not to be rude.

As you can see, it wasn't the fact that you run a flyer list that ticked me off, but the way you came off. Hazing kids and telling fluffers to "go weep about it" IS rude. I agree with playing as strong lists as possible, but against enemies that are prepared for it, not against some random kid (unless he's bragging and/or generally obnoxius).

EDIT: Flippin' hell, how does this new quotes system work? >.<

 Zweischneid wrote:

TheCaptain wrote:

It'd be like if a man with peanut allergies goes into a deli, asks for a sandwich, receives PB&J, and whines online about how he hates people who eat PB&J.

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.

Fair, I do feel it's largely mutual; and I think there would be far less complaints if the WAAC's made it clear they were here to play a game, and the Fluff players were here to create a story, and then before games disagreements could end with the two players either picking one, finding a mix, or finding someone else who better matches their needs.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

As you can see, it wasn't the fact that you run a flyer list that ticked me off, but the way you came off. Hazing kids and telling fluffers to "go weep about it" IS rude. I agree with playing as strong lists as possible, but against enemies that are prepared for it, not against some random kid (unless he's bragging and/or generally obnoxius).

Nah; honestly it was moreso the other gentleman who titled me as a douche. I probably am a douche, likely a huge douche, but at least get to know me well enough so that when you're calling me a douche, it's because I'm a douche, and not because I run flyers. Not to mention, I've been called far worse things for any of the lists I've run; the aforementioned quote is just what inspired me to make this post.

I'm more fine being called rude that's a fair inference.

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.

I enjoy both spectrums of the game, which I see as a gift, but maybe it's a problem? For the life of me, I cannot understand why a 40k player who enjoys FLGS non-tournament play would just outright refuse a game against a player say, oh...fielding a drop-pod Vulkan list (tried to pick a competitive, but not CRAZY list)

I once played six Space Wolf Players in a row across a month fielding the Exact Same List, the exact same Tournament List that someone had at the time, down to the wargear.

There's no fun in playing the exact same list, the exact same way, every time I saw it, hell they actually played similar enough that by the fourth I tailored towards it, wrecked the next two as a result and basically cut back on playing SW players for a while since it got so boring to play.

I never found 'competitive' to be related in any way to being WAAC or TFG, and 'casual' gamers were far more likely to complain about rules (generally because they didn't bother to remember them) or try to take the interpretation that would help their army.

Of the gamers I have played with:
Self proclaimed 'casual' gamers were more likely to care about how well specific units did or whether they won. It was far more common for these same players to call other armies beardy/imbalanced/complain about anything. They also blamed their poor tactics on their codex, complained if someone else didn't play the opposing army in a way that was their interpretation of the armies 'theme' and were far more likely to bicker about being 1/16th of an inch out of range for shooting or charges. They were more likely to have painted armies, and brag how they played in the spirit of the rules while holding grudges against most other players who disagreed with them on anything. There players were annoying to play, never knew the rules, and would bring the game to a grinding halt over a rules interpretation.

Players who didn't identify as casual (they just played but weren't openly competitive) who focused on painting were more likely to have excellent looking armies, were good sports, but who played badly and blamed their dice for the problems. A few pursued tactics and improved their game over time or found out that what they thought worked, didn't in practice. These players were generally pouting about their 'poor luck' and had to be corrected on rules most of the time, but otherwise fun to play against.

Players who played for the game generally fielded plastic grey or basecoated armies and focused on the rules and gameplay. A few were WAAC, but no more so than the 'casuals' and were far more likely to not stomp their feet when the other player disagreed about something in particular. These players would sometimes field imbalanced armies but mixed it up and would talk with their opponent if there was a disagreement about army comp because they were polite. These players really cared about whether they won or lost or if the game was a fun battle because of tactics, not because of theme or lucky rolling. I was in this category when I first played because I would rather play than paint at any given time, and waiting a year to be able to field a painted army was not appealing...

Then there were the two players I met who were super competitive, fielded lopsided armies all the time, and didn't care about their opponent's fun at all. These guys were jerks, and they weren't fun to be around in general.

Now, my main focus when playing is a combination of fun for both, some kind of challenge for both, and good sportsmanship. Unfortunately this is interpreted different ways:
The 'casual' gamer will blame the opponent for everything. Therefore, if someone beats them repeatedly the opponent is a WAAC player no matter their army list, personality, or tactics. A shooty army falling back from their charging orks, multiple charges on their shooty units, or hiding behind cover are all WAAC when the other player does it but not when they do. I was told I was WAAC for not charging a single unit of guardsmen into a horde of 30 choppa boys or for enforcing move through cover rules because 'that wouldn't slow orks down!'

The non-competitive players would complain about losing all the time, and I won't throw a game. Offering to go over the game to see if there is anything that could be improved was taken as an insult half the time (and taken well the other half so no, it wasn't how it was presented).

The competitive players who weren't WAAC were always fun to play with but the 'casuals' kept driving them off. The 'casuals' didn't even get along because they all had their own 'right way' to understand the spirit of the game.

I guess my rambling can be summed up as self proclaimed casuals are the ones who create conflict between player types and promote stereotypes in my experience.

Also, part of the reason some people take things personally has to do with personality. Everybody gets upset with someone who has a superiority complex, whether they choose to express that as being superior fluffwise, or being superior in player skill.

40k is a loose story based around a game where the winner rolled better dice at key points in the game. There isn't very solid ground to stand in in 40k if you are going to try and profess that you're better in some way.

A little more humility will breed a little more respect.

 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.

If you read the actual OP instead of excerpts, you'd see it actually has nothing to do with any problem I may have with people refusing games. I actually suggested refusing games is usually the right idea, if an agreement can't be reached. Oops, guess you must have missed all that.

I present an excellent source for discussion, you largely ignore the topic/miss the point, take seriously a joke I made at myself about my presence in Greek life, and you call ME a douchebag? Something is wrong here. Read the second paragraph regarding prejudicing the writer instead of focusing on the topic.

P.S. I never said anything about panties, lying to get into them, or drinking a lot. Or being a fratboy. I said I drink 1-6 (read:d6) days a week (that is a reference to frequency, not volume), I said lying to girls (pretty general, and everyone lies), and beyond all else, it was a joke meant to address a larger idea unrelated to any organization I may be affiliated with. I'm sorry if I upset you somehow, not that I find it warranted, but your opinion on me is neither wanted nor relevant, and thus should be kept to yourself. Smile a bit more; you'll seem nicer.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

I enjoy both spectrums of the game, which I see as a gift, but maybe it's a problem? For the life of me, I cannot understand why a 40k player who enjoys FLGS non-tournament play would just outright refuse a game against a player say, oh...fielding a drop-pod Vulkan list (tried to pick a competitive, but not CRAZY list)

I once played six Space Wolf Players in a row across a month fielding the Exact Same List, the exact same Tournament List that someone had at the time, down to the wargear.

There's no fun in playing the exact same list, the exact same way, every time I saw it, hell they actually played similar enough that by the fourth I tailored towards it, wrecked the next two as a result and basically cut back on playing SW players for a while since it got so boring to play.

I guess I just don't understand why the list you are facing has this much bearing on your "fun". To me, you are playing with the person across from you, the models are just the means. If he wants to use a list he found on the internet, sure; that's pretty dry, but no reason there can't be funny banter, silly plays/moves, and an enjoyable narrative forged. Clearly your army has been facing siege from a contingent of Space Wolves, and have become veterans at dealing with their adverse tactics; I'd actually have a lot of fun integrating this in my army's fluff. Hell, with six fights against such a similar list, I'd probably throw a wolf-tail talisman or something on my Commander's belt, or wedge a rune-axe in the armor of one of my tanks.

/shrug

To a degree, there is simply also taste involved.

I find fighting against Dark Eldar and Orks tend to be incredibly dull games, as both codexes have a propensity to spam indistinguishable hordes at you. Not fun for me. And both armies often (not always) come with highly arrogant players who seem incapable of repressing the need to tell everyone in earshot that their's are the superior plastic toys compared to SPEHS MARNIS or something of that sort.

I contrast, I do immensely enjoy Marines vs. Marines "mirror-games", which are hated with a passion "by the internet", because I think they always "flow well".

Tastes are just different I suppose.

 Zweischneid wrote:
/shrug

To a degree, there is simply also taste involved.

I find fighting against Dark Eldar and Orks tend to be incredibly dull games, as both codexes have a propensity to spam indistinguishable hordes at you. Not fun for me. And both armies often (not always) come with highly arrogant players who seem incapable of repressing the need to tell everyone in earshot that their's are the superior plastic toys compared to SPEHS MARNIS or something of that sort.

I contrast, I do immensely enjoy Marines vs. Marines "mirror-games", which are hated with a passion "by the internet", because I think they always "flow well".

Tastes are just different I suppose.

Very fair; kindof forgot people disliked lists for reasons other than "TOO CHEESY!" in my scribe-like fervor.

Hmmm, don't really like the attack on casual gamers that Snooggums makes. 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]. We keep talking about meeting up for other things but it never happens.

I hardly give a monkeys who wins or loses, with the only real motivation for me to win being to take the piss out of my opponent if they lose [in a friendly way ofc] - I run a Slaanesh list with all of my squads in 6s with full sonics. If it's not Slaanesh I don't include it. My army is painted [took me 3 years] but I did that for me, not for anyone else, as it's how I relax after work. Therefore it is fluffy and it is painted but If someone wants to play with an unpainted army then fair enough, and if they choose a 'cheesey' list then I just see it as more of a challenge. With the prices how they are I completely understand if people google a competitive list and then buy to that list.

I my most recent game I used a FW Decimator that the missus got me for my birthday for the first time. When the other people I was playing saw how happy I was to be using my all time favourite model they all immediately targeted it and it got blown up turn 1 to general hilarity. It's probably over costed and I probably should have used a mark of Nurgle but I just wanted to use such a badass model in a 'fluffy' way.

The only bit I agree with is that I am pretty shoddy on the rules, but I don't get many opportunities to play as I have to fit this around work and other hobbies [I am getting better though!].

That said I would never play a pick up game at a GW shop as there's far too many kids in there [this is a man's game! ] and I hate the hard sell from the employees who try to get me to start whatever army my gaze happens to fall upon. I probably wouldn't play in a tournament either because I don't think I would enjoy the competitive environment but never say never.

Just my 2 pence.

 tyrannosaurus wrote:
Hmmm, don't really like the attack on casual gamers that Snooggums makes.

If you don't actively brag about being casual, for example repeatedly stating "I'm casual, I hate WAAC gamers!" to everyone you meet then you are probably in the second group I characterized as non-competitive players:

snooggums wrote:Players who didn't identify as casual (they just played but weren't openly competitive) who focused on painting were more likely to have excellent looking armies, were good sports...

It was an observation on players I have met who brag constantly about being casual gamers, not an attack on non-competitive players. There is a large spectrum out there.

1. I don't consider any of the lists you named unfluffy.
2. My problem with cheeselists is not that they are unfluffy, it's that they exploit poor codex writing to make an army that gives its player an advantage over everyone else. I'm willing to play against such lists, but I don't see the point in using such lists when the point of the game is to have fun, not just win.

I hardly give a monkeys who wins or loses, with the only real motivation for me to win being to take the piss out of my opponent if they lose [in a friendly way ofc] - I run a Slaanesh list with all of my squads in 6s with full sonics. If it's not Slaanesh I don't include it. My army is painted [took me 3 years] but I did that for me, not for anyone else, as it's how I relax after work.

But If the casuals have no interest in wining/losing , why do they talk so much about non normal players having a better chance to win ?
If someone builds a good army and plays it a lot , he will win more. If someone paints a lot then his painting will get better or at least should , if he realy wants to be a better painter . Same with converting .

the problem with the community as a whole is that somewhere along the way , some people started to think that they can have it all . that it doesnt matter if they focus in painting, gaming or converting , all the other aspects of the game will be always good for them . They also lost the ability to cope with not geting what they want . they seriously want to play an army based on looks and have it work just as good as an army based around combat effectivness . And because painting/converting are an own taste thing , people focus on the playabilty of stuff. The difference is a striking difference between a casual and non casual player . The casual wants to force other people to play same bad armies as he does . The non causal doesnt , sure non optimal armies are worse to play against , because they dont realy teach you much , but its a persons choice to pick an army . the casual says he doesnt want to win , but whines about not wining , when he isnt doing anything to make his army better. the non casual player understands that more often then not a new edition or a new dex means a dead list and models turning in to paper weight . He also doesnt force the fluff player to write pages long stories for each model in the fluff player army .



But one has to get used to that , it is not just table top gaming that turned like that . I dont know why and from where people got the idea , that stuff is granted for ever and that they dont have to do anything to get what they want , but somehow it happened . And because for humans polarization is a natural way of dealing with stuff , we end up with what we have now .

I'm willing to play against such lists, but I don't see the point in using such lists when the point of the game is to have fun, not just win.

how and when did fun become separate from wining . If wining isnt fun the only other option in a 0 1 situation is for losing to be fun . And if that was true the casual should be happy , because against a better list the chance of losing would be higher.

I agree with everything above except for one thing.

TheCaptain wrote:It's because our hobby is pretty damn nerdy. Yeah, sorry, had to say it. I don't consider myself a nerd (for goodness sake, I'm in a frat and spend D6 days a week drinking/lying to college girls) but damn right do I admit and accept that the hobby I love, 40k, is pretty nerdy. It's something we all have to come to terms with eventually.

We should not be afraid to call our hobby a nerd's hobby or to refer to ourselves as geeks, nerds, whatever. Long gone are the days where the nerd was stereotyped as some loser in their parents basement with no social skills to speak of indulging in the most obsucre of hobbies. Hobbies that were once nerdy and often looked down upon are now so mainstream and acceptable that it's almost the cool thing to do. I do not need to defend myself by saying that I have X amount of non nerdy pursuits. I watch e-sports, played in a few tourneys myself, play wargames, wear t-shirts professing my love for science and watch docus about engineering.

I am a nerd.

Tyrion Lanister: Never forget what you are. The rest of the world will not. Wear it like armor, and it can never be used to hurt you.

Sorry, it's a pet peeve of mine when people go "I do nerdy stuff but I'm not a nerd because I drink and meet girls and stuff".

Other than that I agree almost whole heartedly with everything you've said. As I mentioned in another thread when I first started playing the first thing I noticed upon visiting forums was that there was this huge imaginary rift between competitive and casual players. There's a great saying relating to videogames that goes "If you ever really love a game, never visit the forums as the people there will make you hate it". I guess this could apply to wargames aswell.

I'm willing to play against such lists, but I don't see the point in using such lists when the point of the game is to have fun, not just win.

how and when did fun become separate from wining . If wining isnt fun the only other option in a 0 1 situation is for losing to be fun . And if that was true the casual should be happy , because against a better list the chance of losing would be higher.

Winning and fun aren't separate. However, what I meant was that having fun should be any player's primary objective. If you only care about winning, you shouldn't be playing.

Makumba wrote:
how and when did fun become separate from wining.

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.

 Ailaros wrote:
As you say, fun is subjective. The problem, though, occurs when one person, pursuing their idea of fun, interferes with another person's pursuit of fun. I mean, this is basically why we have a criminal justice system...

And it's actually a tricky problem. How do you set up a system wherein both people can have fun in whatever way they choose to define it, neither of the two people detracting from the other. I won't attempt any solutions at the moment, but I would ask anybody to try and be empathic when a person gets frustrated by their fun getting squelched by someone else...

The only way I've figured out how to handle this, personally, is with compassion. People are being hurt, bothered, or frustrated, and they don't know why. Being able to help people understand what's going on and thus have the clarity to be able to act to improve their lives and those around them is a skill I think we should all foster. If you are being harassed for being WAAC or unfluffy, you should react with pity, not anger.

But, of course, that's my own way of handling things. I'm sure there are many others. Hopefully, with the actions of those who understand helping those who can't, we can end the bitter factionalism and obnoxiousness. Or, as I like to hope I do, I like to think that I'm cleaning up the culture of dakka one good, polite, well-articulated post at a time. That some of the awful abrasive people I've spoken against have left dakka entirely over the years I vainly care to believe had some small part to do with a purposely positive impact I tried to have.

In any case, taking a polite tone to a helpful attitude is bound to make things better. I'd like to think of what we all would be if such practices were universal.

I like you.

 DOOMBREAD wrote:

I'm willing to play against such lists, but I don't see the point in using such lists when the point of the game is to have fun, not just win.

how and when did fun become separate from wining . If wining isnt fun the only other option in a 0 1 situation is for losing to be fun . And if that was true the casual should be happy , because against a better list the chance of losing would be higher.

Some people find the journey (the game) more enjoyable then the destination (winning/losing).
This, IMHO is the definition of a casual gamer.

 DOOMBREAD wrote:

I'm willing to play against such lists, but I don't see the point in using such lists when the point of the game is to have fun, not just win.

how and when did fun become separate from wining . If wining isnt fun the only other option in a 0 1 situation is for losing to be fun . And if that was true the casual should be happy , because against a better list the chance of losing would be higher.

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.

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.


I believe anyone who says winning doesn't matter is a big fat liar. It does matter, because to have fun you play to win. Nobody plays to lose.

If my opponent doesn't have his heart for winning, I will feel cheated. I gave my 100%, but my opponent insults me by not really trying to win. I did him the honor of battle and didn't pull any blows. I expect the same treatment.

Its my philosophy in Fencing and its my philosophy here. I expect you to try and beat me. 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.


My favorite games ever are ones where the victory was hardwon, or the defeat was hardlost. My favorite game of all time is one I lost. But it was fun because both of us gave out all into beating the other.

 Grey Templar wrote:
I believe anyone who says winning doesn't matter is a big fat liar. It does matter, because to have fun you play to win. Nobody plays to lose.

What about the vast number of players who play simply to forge a narrative? To them, their models rolling their dice worse than the other models, and thus dying isn't a killpoint lost, but a squad was killed by their enemies, several men/xenos slain in an epic battle that they are forging. The outcome isn't what matters to a lot of people; some just want to see the story unfold.

 TheCaptain wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
I believe anyone who says winning doesn't matter is a big fat liar. It does matter, because to have fun you play to win. Nobody plays to lose.

What about the vast number of players who play simply to forge a narrative? To them, their models rolling their dice worse than the other models, and thus dying isn't a killpoint lost, but a squad was killed by their enemies, several men/xenos slain in an epic battle that they are forging. The outcome isn't what matters to a lot of people; some just want to see the story unfold.

Yes, but they'd be lying if they said they didn't care if their team won or lost. 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.