Switch Theme:

"Make an army, not a list"  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Poll
What do you think?
Agree!
Disagree!
I have no opinions on anything.

View results
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






Baltimore, MD

skullkandy wrote:
Polonius wrote:
skullkandy wrote:I agree completely that the hobby has become dominated with "power lists." And the quote in your title is awesome.

It all comes down to the filthy word "metagame" the idea that a battle is decided before it even begins because there are a handful of lists that take advantage of every loophole, every cheesy unit combo, and generally can beat anything else out there with little strategy.

To me those who make these lists don't want to "play" a game, they only want to take part when there is almost no chance of losing. They are sore losers and can't be bothered to have a challange of any kind. They are the same kind of people who's only RTS is command and conquer and they only spam one uber unit over and over. If I designed a game that consisted of a button that you press and a speaker says "you win" every time, they would buy so many of that "game" that i would a millionaire.


It seems to happen even more on the forums because if you put up a list that isn't one of the pre-munchkin-approved lists it quickly gets ripped apart and the few constructive comments are buried under an avalanche of "take all the units out and replace them with the one list that everyone uses."


Wow. Just.... Wow.




I know, I know, I like to have a challenge when I play a game and don't wet myself If I lose so I see no point in copying one of the three lists that everyone seems to be using over and over or making broad statements about a lists being completely "useless" because it isn't taking advantage of chesse and loopholes.


Well, seeing as I literally will die if I ever lose a game of 40k, I find your approach almost heretical. If we were to play each other in a tournament, not only would I table you, I would murder you, your family, every woman you ever loved and burn down your house. I mean, what's the point in winning if you allow people that don't take the game seriously to live?

My Painted Armies
: Co. B, 37th Praetorian IG: 11,000pts
Cygnar: 350pts
KOW Ogres: 4500 points
Loyalist Emperor's Children: 2500 points 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka






Arlington, Texas

It's funny how codices are divided between the Fluff and the List. I wonder if that's for a reason.

Just because fluff changes, doesn't mean that using new fluff is wrong. MIXING CHAOS IS A-OKAY. It's Codex: Chaos Space Marines, not Codex: World Eaters or any of the others. If anything, I should be dinging people for not taking any straight CSM and taking big cult marine squads (though you'd be fine with all cult lists as long as they were mono-god). Get off your high horse and realize that Space Marines can take any combination of anything and be fluffy, CSM can't. Therefore, fluffiness can take a backseat to having an army I enjoy tactically (my reason for PLAYING A GAME). Feel free to make dioramas and care. Some others will, some won't.

Can you honestly tell me that the rules reflect the fluff to begin with? Invincible Space Marines? I quote from the Daemon Codex, "No enemy, no matter how strong or brave, can stand against the daemons of the warp?" So Daemons losing is unfluffy?

Worship me. 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




We don't play by the rules, we play by prison rules!
Damn it, now I have coffee in sinuses.

On Topic:
I'm a fan of the starting with a fluff direction:
   Unyielding Legion
   Heralds of the Nightbringer
   Awakening Tomb Swarm
Then adjust the elements of the force to become more competitive.
   
Made in us
Fresh-Faced New User




Polonius wrote:
skullkandy wrote:
Polonius wrote:
skullkandy wrote:I agree completely that the hobby has become dominated with "power lists." And the quote in your title is awesome.

It all comes down to the filthy word "metagame" the idea that a battle is decided before it even begins because there are a handful of lists that take advantage of every loophole, every cheesy unit combo, and generally can beat anything else out there with little strategy.

To me those who make these lists don't want to "play" a game, they only want to take part when there is almost no chance of losing. They are sore losers and can't be bothered to have a challange of any kind. They are the same kind of people who's only RTS is command and conquer and they only spam one uber unit over and over. If I designed a game that consisted of a button that you press and a speaker says "you win" every time, they would buy so many of that "game" that i would a millionaire.


It seems to happen even more on the forums because if you put up a list that isn't one of the pre-munchkin-approved lists it quickly gets ripped apart and the few constructive comments are buried under an avalanche of "take all the units out and replace them with the one list that everyone uses."


Wow. Just.... Wow.





I know, I know, I like to have a challenge when I play a game and don't wet myself If I lose so I see no point in copying one of the three lists that everyone seems to be using over and over or making broad statements about a lists being completely "useless" because it isn't taking advantage of chesse and loopholes.


Well, seeing as I literally will die if I ever lose a game of 40k, I find your approach almost heretical. If we were to play each other in a tournament, not only would I table you, I would murder you, your family, every woman you ever loved and burn down your house. I mean, what's the point in winning if you allow people that don't take the game seriously to live?


which is exactly why I avoid tournaments of any kind, because I get enjoyment out of playing the game, not just out of winning.

And I'm tired of hearing the excuse from powergamers (not specifically referring to you, just a follow up on the topic) that "It's how I play and you can't say you're way is better than my way." well yes I can, my way of playing is superior to munchkins. It's superior because it involves sportsmanship, respecting your opponent, making sure the game is fun for all involved (even the loser) instead of being a jerk who only plays when they know they will win and looks down on anyone who isn't willing to abuse grey areas for a cheap victory.

Lets use a simple example of working out. The person who goes to the gym every day and puts in an honest work out is superior to the one who shoots steroids every day. Yeah, the steroid user will look stronger and build more muscle, but they aren't following the spirit of the activity and are instead only obsessed with the end result.

Some philosophies are superior to others, they are not all equal. And the root character flaws that cause a gamer to power-list cause them to be of lower quality as gamers.


So gamers who stick to the spirit of the game are better than powergamers.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2009/05/26 21:26:29


 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






Baltimore, MD

This might be one of the better trolls we've had in a while.

My Painted Armies
: Co. B, 37th Praetorian IG: 11,000pts
Cygnar: 350pts
KOW Ogres: 4500 points
Loyalist Emperor's Children: 2500 points 
   
Made in us
Elite Tyranid Warrior






The thing that realy bothers me about this issue is that people who tend to make 'lists' rather than 'armies' tend to encourage others to do the same. As a Cult player (Khorne, khorne, and, what was that other one? Oh yeah, Khorne.), I find it exceptionally challenging to get good advice for my list within the fluff limitations I place on myself. It is amazing how often people will come in to a thread titled 'Death Guard blah-blah-blah' or 'World Eaters such-and-such' and tell you to replace your fluffy DPs with lash princes and replace all of your HS with Oblits.

The other thing about this that is irritating is the fact that people seem to think their list is new. If you post a dual lash, two PM squad, Oblit spam list, what's the point? You've seen it a million times, you know exactly what people are going to say, and your list is completely flavourless and unoriginal. If you want to play dual lash/oblit spam, there is no reason to bother asking for advice with it.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2009/05/26 21:33:26




 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






Baltimore, MD

You know, in my expereince I've found that if you ask for specific advice, you tend to get that advice. So, if you post your POD list, asking for tweaks, you'll get it, while if you post a list using CSM saying that you want to max out their effectiveness, you get advice on how to do so.

I mean, when I play my Marines I generally play Tac Squad heavy, and I mention that I'm generally asking one or two specific questiosn about the list, rather than asking for general feedback (because the best advice for that list is to drop two tac squads and take a LRC and TH/SS termies).

On the other hand, I've given feedback on IG lists (whcih are sort of my specialty) only to have every suggestion get shot down as not within the theme. To some people, their theme requires every single upgrade they took, with no flexibility. That's not always true, but after a dozen or so times of trying to help a guy with a truly awful IG build only to be told that I can't actually adjust the list made me gunshy about offering help.




My Painted Armies
: Co. B, 37th Praetorian IG: 11,000pts
Cygnar: 350pts
KOW Ogres: 4500 points
Loyalist Emperor's Children: 2500 points 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





dead account

"Lists" have kind of pushed me away from the game. I mostly didn't like that models I had wouldn't get any playtime because they just didn't seem effective in the "list". I've actually moved away from playing and am going more into the fluff and modeling now.
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka






Arlington, Texas

I'm also sick of the mentality that just because someone enjoys the game and not the fluff, they're an ass. Honestly, if you looked at my list and refused my game because it's not "fluffy" enough, you'd look like the biggest idiot ever. Not everyone who likes to have strong competition always has to win or always runs the exact same list. Anyone who thinks otherwise needs to take their geritol and take a nap.

Worship me. 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






Baltimore, MD

I have a serious question for people advocating fluff and theme based armies over competitive lists: What makes an army thematic or fluffy?

Can anybody lay out a standard of review for determining if an army is cheesy, thematic, fluffy, or balanced? If there was a way to determine what's acceptable and what's bad, it might be easier for everybody to agree on stuff.

I've tried a bunch of times, but it seems to come down to a combination of personal preferences and gut reactions.

As a side question, is there a difference between cookie cutter "net builds" like POD and a list that's been honed over time to become more effective? If not, is there any acceptable level of selecting better choices over worse?

I'll give you an example: in 4th edition, I would generally field my IG Platoon Commands with a missile launcher and two plasma guns. There is no fluff or background reason for this, but there was not internet buzz about that combo. As far as I can tell, I'm the only person to ever field it. I liked it because it worked, it filled gaps in my list, and I think I won more games than with other choices. Was what I did powergaming? Was it WAAC?


My Painted Armies
: Co. B, 37th Praetorian IG: 11,000pts
Cygnar: 350pts
KOW Ogres: 4500 points
Loyalist Emperor's Children: 2500 points 
   
Made in us
Rough Rider with Boomstick





Philadelphia

Polonius wrote:
skullkandy wrote:
Polonius wrote:
skullkandy wrote:I agree completely that the hobby has become dominated with "power lists." And the quote in your title is awesome.

It all comes down to the filthy word "metagame" the idea that a battle is decided before it even begins because there are a handful of lists that take advantage of every loophole, every cheesy unit combo, and generally can beat anything else out there with little strategy.

To me those who make these lists don't want to "play" a game, they only want to take part when there is almost no chance of losing. They are sore losers and can't be bothered to have a challange of any kind. They are the same kind of people who's only RTS is command and conquer and they only spam one uber unit over and over. If I designed a game that consisted of a button that you press and a speaker says "you win" every time, they would buy so many of that "game" that i would a millionaire.


It seems to happen even more on the forums because if you put up a list that isn't one of the pre-munchkin-approved lists it quickly gets ripped apart and the few constructive comments are buried under an avalanche of "take all the units out and replace them with the one list that everyone uses."


Wow. Just.... Wow.




I know, I know, I like to have a challenge when I play a game and don't wet myself If I lose so I see no point in copying one of the three lists that everyone seems to be using over and over or making broad statements about a lists being completely "useless" because it isn't taking advantage of chesse and loopholes.


Well, seeing as I literally will die if I ever lose a game of 40k, I find your approach almost heretical. If we were to play each other in a tournament, not only would I table you, I would murder you, your family, every woman you ever loved and burn down your house. I mean, what's the point in winning if you allow people that don't take the game seriously to live?


Careful there Pelonius, a few more posts like that and I may not be able to resist the pull of a serious MAN CRUSH on you :-)


Automatically Appended Next Post:
So gamers who stick to the spirit of the game are better than powergamers.


That may be one of the most arrogant and unsportsmanlike comments I have ever seen.

My way of playing is good and right but your way of playing is simply inferior, see how sportsmanlike and concerned about my opponents fun I am being?

The fact that I prefer lists that are actually effective does not mean I dont want a challenge, quite to the contrary I love taking my best to the tournament and finding a tough challenging game against an opponent with a new take or different take, or just better strategy.

And I hate to break it to you but not playing to win is as unfluffy as you can get. In War you dont cripple your force, you bring the best you can possibly bring and seek to destroy your enemy utterly. I know this is just a game, and I have recived a perfect sportsmaship score in every tournament I have ever played, im not TFG, but I do prefer to play competetive games.

So in your mind, I should simply not be allowed to enjoy my hobby because it does not fit your dogmatic view of what is proper?

Dude you make TFG look like an angel.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2009/05/26 23:16:34


Big Troy, The Samurai Gunslinger of South Philly

Dystopian Wars fleets: KoB, EotBS, Prussian, FSA
Firestorm Armada Fleets: Sorellian

Current 5th ed WL record
Salamander Marines 22-3(Local) GT Circuit 2-0-1
Mech Vet Guard 54-8-4 (local) 5-1 Ard Boyz


 
   
Made in us
Unrelenting Rubric Terminator of Tzeentch





Akron, Ohio

I'm not sure if skullkandy is a troll or not. He seems awfully earnest.

As to the issue at hand, I'd love to see an objective method of determining fluffy-ness. I'm also waiting for a list that breaks the fluff in half.

DR:90S+G++MB+I+Pw40k07++D++A++/eWD-R+++T(Ot)DM+
 
   
Made in gb
Morphing Obliterator





Polonius wrote:

Well, seeing as I literally will die if I ever lose a game of 40k, I find your approach almost heretical. If we were to play each other in a tournament, not only would I table you, I would murder you, your family, every woman you ever loved and burn down your house. I mean, what's the point in winning if you allow people that don't take the game seriously to live?


This made my evening, I may have to sig this.

taking up the mission
Polonius wrote:Well, seeing as I literally will die if I ever lose a game of 40k, I find your approach almost heretical. If we were to play each other in a tournament, not only would I table you, I would murder you, your family, every woman you ever loved and burn down your house. I mean, what's the point in winning if you allow people that don't take the game seriously to live?
 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






Baltimore, MD

RustyKnight wrote:I'm not sure if skullkandy is a troll or not. He seems awfully earnest.

As to the issue at hand, I'd love to see an objective method of determining fluffy-ness. I'm also waiting for a list that breaks the fluff in half.


He's either a troll or an angry, angry man. His posts have been incendiary and highly insulting, making broad and damning generalizations far our of proportion to any supporting evidence.

I mean, if I wrote a post about how all fluff bunnies are sore losers who are a full of butt hurt about getting beaten over and over but refusing to ever change their tactics, I'd get reported in an instant, and rightfully so.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Regwon wrote:
Polonius wrote:

Well, seeing as I literally will die if I ever lose a game of 40k, I find your approach almost heretical. If we were to play each other in a tournament, not only would I table you, I would murder you, your family, every woman you ever loved and burn down your house. I mean, what's the point in winning if you allow people that don't take the game seriously to live?


This made my evening, I may have to sig this.


thanks. I like to shake up my well reasoned and informative posts with scathing sarcasm.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2009/05/26 23:37:02


My Painted Armies
: Co. B, 37th Praetorian IG: 11,000pts
Cygnar: 350pts
KOW Ogres: 4500 points
Loyalist Emperor's Children: 2500 points 
   
Made in us
Unrelenting Rubric Terminator of Tzeentch





Akron, Ohio

Polonius wrote:
thanks. I like to shake up my well reasoned and informative posts with scathing sarcasm.

You were joking?!? I was seriously considering avoiding Origins this year.

DR:90S+G++MB+I+Pw40k07++D++A++/eWD-R+++T(Ot)DM+
 
   
Made in gb
[SWAP SHOP MOD]
Killer Klaivex







To conclude:-

-Some people make lists just to win.
-Some people make lists entirely around fluff
-But most people run vaguely fluffy lists for fun games, and design more competitive, less fluffy lists for tournaments!

Shocking I know.


 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






Baltimore, MD

RustyKnight wrote:
Polonius wrote:
thanks. I like to shake up my well reasoned and informative posts with scathing sarcasm.

You were joking?!? I was seriously considering avoiding Origins this year.


Oh god was I joking. I feel bad when I lash out and hit walls, let alone a person.

My Painted Armies
: Co. B, 37th Praetorian IG: 11,000pts
Cygnar: 350pts
KOW Ogres: 4500 points
Loyalist Emperor's Children: 2500 points 
   
Made in gb
Plummeting Black Templar Thunderhawk Pilot






Worcester, UK

When I build my own armies I might add things that will work well in my battle, such as tailoring it for a particular enemy if I happen to know what I'm facing, but I always try to theme it, make the list complement itself and look natural.

IMHO, power builds are for Tournements as that to me is a competitive game whereas you friends or local store is a more friendly game, sure I play to win every time, but i want to enjoy the list I'm playing.

 
   
Made in us
Sslimey Sslyth






Busy somewhere, airin' out the skin jobs.

Just one thing we can nip in the bud real fast....

"I dont play to win, I play to simply enjoy the game."-Statement of a liar...or someone simply deluding his/herself. I'll let H.B.M.C. explain it as he's much more eloquent at it than I am, and its totally his territory anyways.

Something about, "so, when you play a game you dont 'try' to win? What, you play to lose? Do you try to shoot/assault the enemy or do you simply line your troops up, forgoing the shooting phase and wait for your opponent to knock them over?"

.............................

That being said. I find the most enjoyment out of the game by playing off the wall lists/units/armies. I'm also a tournament gamer, so winning games is of course very important when I build an army/list (which are in my mind the same thing).

Now, I consider myself a fairly good gamer. When I go to major tournements with an army that I'm familiar with I will generally lose one game out of the series (possibly also or instead tying one). That game will usually be against a very good player with an army geared to win every game played.

For example, the army I took this year to the Adepticon Championship were my Grey Knights. Now, I'm good enough to threaten people with this sub-standard army. I fully know what its capable of and have played it for some time now. I was lucky in my players that I went up against and was able to win all of my games. I enjoy the major challenge of taking 'original' ideas and lists to tournement and being the only one out of several hundred with the particular combination of troops that I bring.

However, I was TOTALLY prepared to go up against one of the "flavors of the week" and wind up paired up against a bikernob list (no chance of winning). I knew my chances of facing off against that list (zero) and was prepared to take the consequences of my army choice with a smile on my face.

Basically, if you "play for fluff" or "dont play to win" then it shouldnt bother you in the least when you get stomped. You arent playing to win right? Why should you care?

If losing a game bothers you at all, then you need to "build a list, not an army" Mauleed said it once on these boards years ago..."My opponents 'fun' is not my responsibility." ....and he was totally right. Don't use an army that requires truckloads of skill to beat armies that are tough-as-nails-point-and-click if you're not up to the challenge and/or cannot handle a loss without whining that the other player didnt abide by an imaginary set of rules that you conjure up.

...and thats exactly what it is...whining.

I vote 'no'.

I have never failed to seize on 4+ in my life!

The best 40k page in the Universe
COMMORRAGH 
   
Made in us
Fresh-Faced New User




Polonius wrote:This might be one of the better trolls we've had in a while.



The term "troll" is just like "terrorist" or "communist" or "witch" before them.....all words twisted by people to be a broad slander against someone they don't agree with and supposedly invalidate any statements made by the accused.


I suppose next I'll be called a pinko-liberal-pagan-gentile.


And again the actual points of this debate are being twisted.

There is a very distinct difference between non-fluff armies and powergamer armies. It's not a cardinal sin to go against fluff, but it's pretty pathetic to take advantage of grey areas created by out of date rules, misprints, stupid mistakes by GW and cherrypicking optional rules to create a list.

Plus the root of the problem doesn't lay in the list itself, it's in the person behind the list. Someone above mentioned not being an donkey-cave because they didn't abide by the fluff. But by and large the type of personality that causes a person to obsess over only making a power-list and having no regard for sportsmanship and in fact even getting a perverse pleasure out of finding ways to not technically break the rules while still breaking the spirit of the rules to achieve an army much more powerful than it's point cost is the same kind of personality that is possessed by donkey-caves.

So obsessively seeking ways to undermine the balance of the game so you are at an advantage not intended by the rules just to win at the expense of a fair and fun match is the kind of thing jerks do.


prime example, with hunters allied with new IG psycher squad. Yeah, it's not against the rules, yeah you can do it, yeah it's uber powerful. But it's cheap and dirty and every gamer with a good attitude about their game and the people they play with won't do it because we all know it's wrong.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2009/05/27 00:44:53


 
   
Made in us
Unrelenting Rubric Terminator of Tzeentch





Akron, Ohio

I really doubt being called a "troll" is even similar to being branded a witch/communist/terrorist and being killed for it.

If someone walked into an airport with red tubes strapped all over their chest with a button in their hand, what would be your first thought? Now, if someone posted a ridicuolously arrogant, ignorant, and combative comment in a relatively civil discussion, what would be your first thought?

Holy crap, I think he's trying to get the thread locked before any more logical arguments are posted.

DR:90S+G++MB+I+Pw40k07++D++A++/eWD-R+++T(Ot)DM+
 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






Baltimore, MD

skullkandy wrote:
Polonius wrote:This might be one of the better trolls we've had in a while.



The term "troll" is just like "terrorist" or "communist" or "witch" before them.....all words twisted by people to be a broad slander against someone they don't agree with and supposedly invalidate any statements made by the accused.


I suppose next I'll be called a pinko-liberal-pagan-gentile.


Actually, it has a pretty technical definition. It's a person that posts primarily to annoy, upset, or draw ire from other posters. And speaking of broad slander, let's take a look at these greatest hits:

skullkandy wrote:To me those who make these lists don't want to "play" a game, they only want to take part when there is almost no chance of losing. They are sore losers and can't be bothered to have a challange of any kind. They are the same kind of people who's only RTS is command and conquer and they only spam one uber unit over and over. If I designed a game that consisted of a button that you press and a speaker says "you win" every time, they would buy so many of that "game" that i would a millionaire.


Is there anything inflammatory there? I"m not sure. How about this:

skullkandy wrote:And I'm tired of hearing the excuse from powergamers (not specifically referring to you, just a follow up on the topic) that "It's how I play and you can't say you're way is better than my way." well yes I can, my way of playing is superior to munchkins. It's superior because it involves sportsmanship, respecting your opponent, making sure the game is fun for all involved (even the loser) instead of being a jerk who only plays when they know they will win and looks down on anyone who isn't willing to abuse grey areas for a cheap victory.


Well, I guess the fact that it merely implies that people that try to win disrespect opponents and are munchkins, it doesn't come right out and say those things. Of course, there's my favorite completely non-slanderous sentence:

skullkandy wrote:And the root character flaws that cause a gamer to power-list cause them to be of lower quality as gamers.


Listen guy, where I come from a guy that broadly insults a huge section of the posting population of a forum with incendiary stuff is a troll. Maybe you're not a troll, but you're posting like a jerk on a topic that's not exactly the freshest, you know?

In all honesty, part of me though you were actually doing a satire of ridiculous arguments hurled against tournament gamers, you're posts were that over the top. To think that they were actually earnest is actually kind of sad to me.

My Painted Armies
: Co. B, 37th Praetorian IG: 11,000pts
Cygnar: 350pts
KOW Ogres: 4500 points
Loyalist Emperor's Children: 2500 points 
   
Made in us
Fresh-Faced New User




Polonius wrote:
skullkandy wrote:
Polonius wrote:This might be one of the better trolls we've had in a while.



The term "troll" is just like "terrorist" or "communist" or "witch" before them.....all words twisted by people to be a broad slander against someone they don't agree with and supposedly invalidate any statements made by the accused.


I suppose next I'll be called a pinko-liberal-pagan-gentile.


Actually, it has a pretty technical definition. It's a person that posts primarily to annoy, upset, or draw ire from other posters. And speaking of broad slander, let's take a look at these greatest hits:

skullkandy wrote:To me those who make these lists don't want to "play" a game, they only want to take part when there is almost no chance of losing. They are sore losers and can't be bothered to have a challange of any kind. They are the same kind of people who's only RTS is command and conquer and they only spam one uber unit over and over. If I designed a game that consisted of a button that you press and a speaker says "you win" every time, they would buy so many of that "game" that i would a millionaire.


Is there anything inflammatory there? I"m not sure. How about this:

skullkandy wrote:And I'm tired of hearing the excuse from powergamers (not specifically referring to you, just a follow up on the topic) that "It's how I play and you can't say you're way is better than my way." well yes I can, my way of playing is superior to munchkins. It's superior because it involves sportsmanship, respecting your opponent, making sure the game is fun for all involved (even the loser) instead of being a jerk who only plays when they know they will win and looks down on anyone who isn't willing to abuse grey areas for a cheap victory.


Well, I guess the fact that it merely implies that people that try to win disrespect opponents and are munchkins, it doesn't come right out and say those things. Of course, there's my favorite completely non-slanderous sentence:

skullkandy wrote:And the root character flaws that cause a gamer to power-list cause them to be of lower quality as gamers.


Listen guy, where I come from a guy that broadly insults a huge section of the posting population of a forum with incendiary stuff is a troll. Maybe you're not a troll, but you're posting like a jerk on a topic that's not exactly the freshest, you know?

In all honesty, part of me though you were actually doing a satire of ridiculous arguments hurled against tournament gamers, you're posts were that over the top. To think that they were actually earnest is actually kind of sad to me.



so you're sweeping generalizations are ok and not troll material. Every high and mighty forum warrior says troll the moment they disagree with someone else because it's the easy cop out. You think you can invalidate anything anyone says by referring to them as a troll, same as the hillbilly who screams "terrorist" every time they see a muslim.

At least I'm capable of admitting I know I'm better than you rather than parading around snobbishly insinuating my opinion is the only one that holds water.


power gamers are inferior, plain and simple. They detract from a hobby and no one likes them except for themselves. Do you know what real gamers do when they figure out a way to break the rules without actually breaking the rules? They do it once so the game group gets a good laugh and a surprise then they never do it again because it's lost it's novelty and becomes just a sick annoyance that no one wants to play with.
   
Made in us
Dominar






In my town, the power gamers have the best painted armies, bring the toughest game, and have the respect for their opponents to know the rules.

The "real gamers" like yourself have unpainted armies, don't know the rules and as a result cheat because of not knowing the rules (Brightlance range is 72"... right? "Broadsides are T5"...right?), and LOL while stomping the yard with the eleven year olds but cry CHEESE and 'MVNCHK1N!' when somebody in their age bracket stomps the yard with them.

So no, you're no better than any of us. You are a lot more proselytizing and elitist, though.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2009/05/27 00:58:59


 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






Baltimore, MD

skullkandy wrote:
so you're sweeping generalizations are ok and not troll material. Every high and mighty forum warrior says troll the moment they disagree with someone else because it's the easy cop out. You think you can invalidate anything anyone says by referring to them as a troll, same as the hillbilly who screams "terrorist" every time they see a muslim.


First off, I wasn't making a sweeping generalization. You posted trollishly, and I called you a troll. You seem to have had bad run ins with some competitive gamers in the past, and brand them all the same. What I did was judge you by your own actions, using an objective standard. What you did was judge a huge group of people for the actions of a few by a totally subjective standard. (see below, where I ask for that standard to be shared.)

skullkandy wrote:
At least I'm capable of admitting I know I'm better than you rather than parading around snobbishly insinuating my opinion is the only one that holds water.


I think if you'll read my posts, you'll see that I'm not really advocating opinions, but merely pointing out facts about your posts.
http://www.pcmag.com/encyclopedia_term/0,2542,t=trolling&i=53181,00.asp#
I think if you read your posts, you'll see that they could easily be read as intending to stir emotional response far in excess of their content value.

I don't have troubles admitting that I'm better than most people, but it's unbecoming to make a big deal of it, you know? Noblesse Oblige and all that.

I'd also point out that you have failed to really address any of the substantive arguments made against your position.

skullkandy wrote: power gamers are inferior, plain and simple. They detract from a hobby and no one likes them except for themselves. Do you know what real gamers do when they figure out a way to break the rules without actually breaking the rules? They do it once so the game group gets a good laugh and a surprise then they never do it again because it's lost it's novelty and becomes just a sick annoyance that no one wants to play with.


How do they detract from the hobby? And what is "breaking the rules without breaking the rules" mean? I asked a few posts ago for somebody to articulate the actual standard by which powergaming should be judged. Care to share yours?

In short, you're post, thus far, reads "People that act in ways that I don't like are bad gamers."

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2009/05/27 00:59:57


My Painted Armies
: Co. B, 37th Praetorian IG: 11,000pts
Cygnar: 350pts
KOW Ogres: 4500 points
Loyalist Emperor's Children: 2500 points 
   
Made in us
Stubborn Temple Guard






Well, I play Grey Knights and Tyranids. I play relatively fluffy lists for both units. I use a lot of Hormaguants even though they suck and don't use Nidzilla, because is isn't any fun.

Grey Knights are ENTIRELY a fluff army, and not overly competitive, so no matter what list I throw out it is more fluff than competition.

Do I want to win when I play? Sure. Is it my over riding factor? Absolutely not.

Last time I checked, this is a GAME. The objective of a game is for ALL players to have fun. Most players I know don't like playing hard lists or playing against them because it isn't as fun. It also gets really repetitive and boring.

I have nothing against a power gamer, unless that is ALL they ever play. It tells me the guy is a one-trick pony, and is probably not going to be a fun opponent when any sort of bad luck goes against him. And I hate a whiner far more than a power gamer.

27th Member of D.O.O.M.F.A.R.T.
Resident Battletech Guru. 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






Baltimore, MD

Mattlov wrote:
Last time I checked, this is a GAME. The objective of a game is for ALL players to have fun. Most players I know don't like playing hard lists or playing against them because it isn't as fun. It also gets really repetitive and boring.


Well, I think part of the confusion is that nobody seems fit to actually define "powergamer" for me. I mean, I dont' think it's repetitive to keep trying new builds to see if you can maximize their output, or try out new codices. YMMV.

Mattlov wrote:I have nothing against a power gamer, unless that is ALL they ever play. It tells me the guy is a one-trick pony, and is probably not going to be a fun opponent when any sort of bad luck goes against him. And I hate a whiner far more than a power gamer.


Why would they not be a fun opponent? Why would there be any correlation between building stronger lists and being more likely to be a bad opponent?

My Painted Armies
: Co. B, 37th Praetorian IG: 11,000pts
Cygnar: 350pts
KOW Ogres: 4500 points
Loyalist Emperor's Children: 2500 points 
   
Made in us
Unrelenting Rubric Terminator of Tzeentch





Akron, Ohio

Good, skip over my post Skull. It would invalidate your argument.
skullkandy wrote:
Every high and mighty forum warrior says troll the moment they disagree with someone else because it's the easy cop out. You think you can invalidate anything anyone says by referring to them as a troll, same as the hillbilly who screams "terrorist" every time they see a muslim.

I never really see people calling each other trolls here. It only happens when someone trolls, not when someone presents a calm, logical argument.

DR:90S+G++MB+I+Pw40k07++D++A++/eWD-R+++T(Ot)DM+
 
   
Made in ca
Swift Swooping Hawk





Calgary, AB

I have to call Godwin's Law on this thread.

@Polonius: I'll take you up on that challenge of quantifying the differences. It'll be tough, so give me a few minutes.

The Battle Report Master wrote:i had a freind come round a few weeks ago to have a 40k apocalpocalpse game i was guards men he was space maines.... my first turn was 4 bonbaonbardlements... jacobs turn to he didnt have one i phased out.
This space for rent, contact Gwar! for rights to this space.
Tantras wrote: Logically speaking, that makes perfect sense and I understand and agree entirely... but is it RAW?
 
   
Made in us
Angry Blood Angel Assault marine





Bella Napoli

In our local group, we all have our armies that we love the models and the fluff. Everyone has more models than can fit in anything except apocalypse, so you see the same person running different units from their dex together on different days.

However, Most of us have a power build version that we take to tournaments for the ultra competitive play.

I always thought most everyone did it that way. Play for fun and fluff, but keep a strong tourney list for trying to make a good showing.


pitchedbattle.blogspot.com  
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: