Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I'm curious about this, because I often have a lot of difficulty with it and it seems to be a massively rampant problem in the hobby.

Brief explanation of "Scrub" phenomenon: a Scrub is a term (usually used in competitive video games) for a player who does not improve because they consider many aspects of the game "cheap and overpowered" and thus they run into a double edged sword of not using tools at their own disposal and not learning to beat things that frustrate them because they're just "too strong" so they believe there is nothing they can do.

In 40k, not only does the problem stem from the usual source in video games: the creators of the game will buff and nerf different things, causing the Scrub to be justified when the thing he didn't like eventually gets changed, but there is also the cost of the hobby and extensive lore. This leads many players to have enormous built-up walls in their heads of what they can and can't do and what they consider fair and unfair.

I recently had a fairly eye opening moment when a few months ago, I took my Harlequin army against a Tau armored gunline and got absolutely slaughtered (in what I considered a fairly predictable way given my army's composition) and it frustrated the hell out of me because I felt there was nothing I could have done differently.

Then after a couple months of tweaking, refining and playing with my list, I faced off against the same tau player using a similar list and, now just instinctively knowing what I needed to do to preserve and maneuver my forces, I was able to pull off a fairly solid victory.

I realized that the reason I'd lost the last time didn't have anything to do with lists, it was just me going "*Sigh* well I know tau shooting is bs and there's nothing I can do to avoid it so they're just gonna blow up my stuff, I might as well just turtle...and oh yeah those Riptides are stupid hard to kill, I should just not bother with him. God, that 3+ Jink is annoying, I'm going to focus fire on that because I just want to kill SOMETHING before I lose.."

It was the same attitude I had always hated seeing from my opponents, and I had been doing it, so much to my embarrassment later. So what do you do to recognize when you're trapping yourself in that kind of attitude? What do you do to snap yourself out of it?

There's a big difference between "void ray OP" and "Wraith knight OP". If I could get marines to the Eldar base before they teched up to Wraithknights, I wouldn't care. But this is a pay-to-win game now.

I also can't scout my opponent in 40K so I'm building a list blindly.

^That. Right there, is an example of what I'm talking about. How do you keep yourselves from doing that?

the_scotsman wrote:
^That. Right there, is an example of what I'm talking about. How do you keep yourselves from doing that?

Play Starcraft?

With all due respect, Tau armored gunline has known weaknesses and is not considered a dominating list type.

Uh... Martel isn't wrong. Just saying. There is nothing wrong in admitting you can't fight Wraithknights if you, well, can't. 40k is a very broken game.

True. But the attitude of "my army is weak/the enemy army is strong/their tactics are unfair/there's nothing I can do to counter this/my dice are crap and it's causing me to lose/whatever" is just a variation of the same kind of Scrub/tilt mentality you see in Starcraft.

Where does the attitude of "I am super smart and obviously have exhausted every tactic at my disposal and there's nothing I can do" come from in 40k? How do you stop it?

It's called confidence, this has nothing to do with 40k though. A lot of threads about attitude or social interactions are posted veiled as wargaming topics as the activity reveals the concern.

the_scotsman wrote:
True. But the attitude of "my army is weak/the enemy army is strong/their tactics are unfair/there's nothing I can do to counter this/my dice are crap and it's causing me to lose/whatever" is just a variation of the same kind of Scrub/tilt mentality you see in Starcraft.

Where does the attitude of "I am super smart and obviously have exhausted every tactic at my disposal and there's nothing I can do" come from in 40k? How do you stop it?

40k is both dynamic, with the relative power of armies changing rapidly, and unbalanced, with only a token consideration given to matching the power levels between armies. The biggest difference between 40k, and say, Street Fighter, is that changing tactics often involves a decent investment in money and time to buy and build/paint models.

Most 40k players aren't overly competitive. They want to win, sure, but they also want to win with their army and using their tactics. Not out of some "scrub" mentality, but because their army was hand painted by them, and they want to use it.

This is a thread based on attitude alone, not specific situations.

There is a difference between the person saying "I can't beat an extremely competitive army list/an army list tailored to beat mine" and a person saying "my entire codex is completely worthless against any list constructed using codex X Y Z, and I lose 100% of the time against those codexes, guaranteed."

The former is a reality of an imbalanced game. The latter is more of an attitude issue.

Except in 40k's case, as has been pointed out, adapting and changing the tools at your disposal is both costly and time consuming, ignoring personal factors like aesthetics and themes.

You're trying to split two different concepts that may be distinct in other games, but not quite as much in 40k where changing your army isn't as easy as sliding your mouse a few inches across the screen during selection.

 Polonius wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
True. But the attitude of "my army is weak/the enemy army is strong/their tactics are unfair/there's nothing I can do to counter this/my dice are crap and it's causing me to lose/whatever" is just a variation of the same kind of Scrub/tilt mentality you see in Starcraft.

Where does the attitude of "I am super smart and obviously have exhausted every tactic at my disposal and there's nothing I can do" come from in 40k? How do you stop it?

40k is both dynamic, with the relative power of armies changing rapidly, and unbalanced, with only a token consideration given to matching the power levels between armies. The biggest difference between 40k, and say, Street Fighter, is that changing tactics often involves a decent investment in money and time to buy and build/paint models.

Most 40k players aren't overly competitive. They want to win, sure, but they also want to win with their army and using their tactics. Not out of some "scrub" mentality, but because their army was hand painted by them, and they want to use it.

This 100%

I have my units and combinations I play because they are fun and effective enough that I won't get walked on my a competitive list.

Building lists for competitive play is also cool and all but if you notice your list is significantly stronger than your opponents and they lack any real answer to units you bring it is up to you to suggest brining a different list that might be more their speed.

I enjoy winning games but cheap victories don't please the dark gods very much.

There's also a line between changing your models and changing your list/tactics.

With my orks, I can run by boyz as 'ard boyz, in a mob of any size I want, in whatever detachment or formation I want, and when in game I can use them however I like without needing to spend a dime.

In the case of my harlequins, I changed which formations I was taking them in (free) designated one model as a different model (free) and changed around the equipment and relics my models were holding (free). I also used significantly different tactics and deployment in game. All of it didn't cost anything, and completely changed the outcome, and none of it could have been done if I went into the second game with the same attitude as the first.

Yes, changing up your list costs money and effort. No, it doesn't always, and changing the way you play against certain armies never costs you anything.

You can still state that something is OP and unfairly cheap or be annoyed that your own codex is really underpowered without failing to improve or learn from past experiances. You can also realise that you are fighting an uphill battle without giving up and failing to find tailored counters. It doesn't mean that you have to be happy about having to be the ultimate general in both list building and in the game and make absolutely no mistakes whilst relying on your opponent to make those mistakes to have a chance of winning. Pointing out that the balance is broken does not make you a 'scrub', it means you are able to see and state facts. Complainng about something that is unfair does not mean that person is unwilling to think of counters.

The reason it is so prevalent in 40k is because IT IS broken. If it wasn't, do you think you would see so much irritation?

It is not a confidence thing either. I am an extremely confident person in life, I used to run bar crawls for RAG teams, sports teams, societies and welcome teams at uni, people came to me to get crawls of upto 200 people sorted. I'm also a teacher now which requires being in front of over a hundred pupils a day. I ace interviews, have performed in plays, used to play football for teams, give presentations that captivate and amuse. And I'm happy enough to say I'm a bloody good general at many games.
So when people say that it is down to low self and social confidence, that is an absolute crock of cack. I am an extremely confident person and I will tell you now - Eldar (as an example), are stupidly broken and exceptionally hard to beat in comparison to the vast majority of armies. BA (as an example) are so under powered it is rediculous. Saying so does not make you the type of person that would be easy custom for a Pick Up Artist. It is just fact.

I think the frustration comes more from people wanting to play units and combinations they deem fun, and units that are just too good not to use and become auto include.

If Chaos had an exact duplicate of a wraith knight I guarantee it would appear in 90% of the lists.

It is different when certain combinations are considered op, and when a single unit has no real effective counter and is very powerful without needing any support. Realistically based on how well wraith knights and imperial knights in general perform now they should be 100-200 points more than they are now.

This whole mega unit thing seemed to start with riptides being silly and basically down the line the same imbalance has been exponentially increased but with different races.

Now if each race had something like this, and was limited... Maybe it would be okay but they need to be balanced against each other.

Q: What do you do to kick the "scrub instinct"?

A: Play a game better-designed than WH40K.

How about we all kick the mentality that 40k should be anything like "competitive videogaming" in the first place?

With the risk of sounding like a fanboi here.

No.

I am sorry but I disagree poly (obviously there are some matchups that are nearly impossible) but the attitude that Martel is one that is so defeatist that I really do think he would be convinced he would lose against an army of gretchen.

The fact is that is you are convinced that you can not do something then it will be the truth. Having said that, there is a difference between confidence and ignorance (oooo... I can easily beat three wraith knights... vs ... I may not win but I am going to give them a run for the money). The fact is that we are playing a game... and we will not always be the best at everything. Which what I see are people complaining because they are not the best, and because of this idea they develop an idea that they can not win... Martel has said he would lose against any random build just because it is from Codex XYZ, and this is a sentiment that is definitely shared by many others...



Furthermore, I do not understand why people who play 40k think we play an expensive hobby... Personally I own horses (for my wife) have owned a race car, have done the carrera slot car thing, and various other hobbies. These are all far more expensive than 40k could ever hope to be (especially since there is always used stuff on ebay) ... So before you whine about how expensive our hobby is and you can not afford to expand you army... remember that is not GW's fault, it is yours. They are in this business to make money and the costs associated with their company are huge. It is really just another thing for players who require excuses to whine about....

Take a look at some quick cost break down before calling me a GW fan boy or something else... because if you can not afford Warhammer 40k then play a different game....

So to build an army with two wraith knights, the wind rider host, 4 boxes of aspect warriors, farseer and warlock, with an extra 200.00 dollars of stuff it costs 693.00 before tax....

To get a decent fishing kayak and all rods and tackle and licenses and paddles you are looking at around 800.00

To get a nice mountain bike you are looking at 700.00 with nothing else

To get a PS4, 3 games, TV, and extra's (i.e. controllers, headset, charging station) you are looking at 900.00

Decent gaming PC with monitor and some games will run around 1000.00

And I could continue...

That fact is that we are part of a hobby where we do not wear out our stuff, we can use the SAME models for the next 100 years with no issue, and sure, will we always be competitive with what we own... probably not... but do we have a hobby that is fun (find fun people to play against if not) we can share with others (including our kids) and is an indoor hobby that builds critical thinking skills, builds motivation, and pushes us to be better players (meaning we learn how to develop ourselves into better people).

Ask yourself this one question:
Are you enjoying yourself?

If No, change your play style or try another game entirely
If Yes, continue having fun regardless what others think

JinxDragon wrote:
Ask yourself this one question:
Are you enjoying yourself?

Yes. Win or lose, I am Kronk and I am more handsome than every opponent.

Hearing about people getting sad about 40k makes me sad. Then I remember I'm Kronk and they aren't, and I'm happy again.

When in doubt, charge them with Land Raiders filled with terminators. 40% of the time, it works half the time.

Yo Joe!

I'm not defeatist with terrans. I often use a reaper scout build and am very familiar with building timings for different builds. If I'm lucky, I can kill off a gas worker or two.

40K has no equivalent. Eldar are allowed to just plop the equivalent of a late game Protoss army on the board. And I don't have the option of attacking before late game happens.

I just re-discovered my love for the game, by introducing my friend to 7th ed (he hasn't played in like... 14 years).

To get in the mood, I wrote a wee short story, and then a narrative scenario (Imperial Fists vs. Tyranids - the two armies I have painted up). My terrain is based on a lava-themed gaming mat (so lava river with bridge, lava craters, ruined imperial buildings etc). That all got written into the fluff.

Played the game last night - the tyranids won (1VP) but only because he forgot what his mission was and got bogged down when the lead rhino blew up and trapped his column...

It was actually quite fun trying to build 500pt lists that weren't too complex - I severely hamstrung myself by playing weaker Tyranid forces (Prime + Warriors, Hormagaunts, Genestealers) so no FMC, MC, and simple vehicles, few upgrades etc.

I'm going to write part 2 over the weekend, which will be from the perspective of the SM Captain...

When in doubt, try having fun telling a story again.

Thyhadras wrote:

The fact is that is you are convinced that you can not do something then it will be the truth.


Furthermore, I do not understand why people who play 40k think we play an expensive hobby...

Do you have to be condescending on TWO fronts in the same post? First just "learn to play" and second "have more money"?

I'm an old man so I'm guessing this "Scrub" term comes from you young kids and your League of Legends and Starcraft 2 type competitive games. I'm not sure it applies to 40k very well.

Compare tournaments in 40k to Magic the Gathering, for example. A Magic the Gathering tournament player looks at the full library of cards available for a tournament, and builds what he thinks is the absolute best deck of cards to beat all other decks. This might cost him some money for cards, but that's really his only barrier to entry. Compare that to the perfect Warhammer 40k tournament player. This player would look at all armies and models available, and pick the army list best suited to defeat all others. However, the barrier to entry for this style of play is SO high that it doesn't always happen. You have a higher money commitment (even though I know Magic can be VERY expensive too), then you have a hobby commitment in terms of building and painting. This also assumes this perfect tournament player has NO hangups on the armies he or she "likes to play". It doesn't matter if it's Tau, Deamons, or Imperial Knights. The player will play what he needs to in order to win.

Only the most hardcore hobbyist is that flexible for 40k.

The rest of us have issues such as:

1) We like the armies we play and we're "loyal" to them. If an army is better than ours we don't just switch.
2) We like "fluffy" lists that fit in with the 40k lore. I know I personally groan when I see tournament lists using allies that make no sense at all.
2a) This can also lead to a mentality such as a Tau player who loves Kroot for example, and eschews Riptides. Maybe he thinks Riptides are too strong and doesn't want to use them. So he uses his Firewarrior and Kroot lists instead. He may get frustrated that he loses more often, but that still doesn't make him want to take a Riptide because that breaks with the theme that he likes.
3) We don't have unlimited funds to buy models.
4) We don't have unlimited time to assemble and paint models
5) We don't have space for all the models (My friend lives in an apartment and has two kids now... he seriously has nowhere to put new models!!)

However, I do think especially NEW players who have their first few squads of models under their belt simply need help. I think it can be frustrating for new players to spend $500 and tons of time and effort on their models, only to lose repeatedly. They may not want to be told "well to beat that kind of army, you need this OTHER model which costs $100." They want to be able to win with the models they already have... and can you blame them? Hell, I'd love to win games with my Stormboys but when I take them out of the case I know I'm doing it just for fun, because the models look so awesome on the tabletop. I know they're not going to help me win. It'd be great if 40k was more balanced and that wasn't the case though!

I am not certain of the scrub mentality because the definition I recognize it as is not the same that is conveyed in the OP post. However, I am also very confused how I was condescending? Telling someone the truth that their attitude will play a huge part in all aspects of life is in no way condescending... it is a shame you feel that way... Furthermore, getting into a hobby that you know is expensive and then complaining about the price makes no sense at all...

If you are complaining about price and never bought a 20 dollar tactical squad or a 6 dollar special weapon model then just stop... you knew what you were getting into. Again how is that a condescending statement....

Seriously at what point in my post did I say learn to play???? seriously, where?

I was just just pointing out that it is silly to complain about the price if you are going to continue to play and buy models... because on the grand scale our hobby is actually pretty cheap. Just trying to inject some logic on that note, and give a point of reference for players that have never looked at it.

Would love an explanation of when I said learn to play...

Scrub is actually a term I've come across from Magic: the Gathering (been playing competitively on and off for twenty years now; have played at national, pro tour and gp level).

Generally, it meant someone who... wasn't good... at the game. It could also mean someone who didn't have the inclination to improve either deck or play skill in line with expected tournament standard. Perhaps even just a new player. Not a nice term really.

A note on MTG (because I have played at that level) - a decent tournament deck will cost you between £200-£300 (at the 'standard' format ie most recent cards). The format changes rapidly (especially as tournaments are large, often, and fully reported - so the metagame shifts rapidly) both in terms of meta, and in terms of card rotations (new sets every 3-4 months, yearly rotations of 'blocks' of 3 sets - this might have changed since I played regularly).

There will be some cross over between 'styles' of decks, but there aren't really factions in MTG - there are five colours, and some colours are better at certain archetypes (aggro / control / combo) than others, but there's nothing restricting you from playing all 5 colours (apart from inherent consistency issues).

Building/painting time is definitely a factor for 40K, but having said that, it actually takes a considerable amount of time to find cards in folders/boxes/random piles around the room, get cards together, sleeve them (you're gonna protect your £50 pieces of cardboard), etc. Take it from me - 1am before a major tournament, I'm probably still awake and swearing profusely because I was *damn sure* I had card x / y / z somewhere in a stack round... here...?

tl;dr - M:TG is a tournament-viable game (excellently so - you'd never have $64,000 dollar pro tours otherwise). 40K is not so much.

Furthermore, GW has pulled all support for tournaments because they recognize the problems... but they want to sell models... so yea when models get better rules, they are going to probably sell more of them... Trust me, when I was racing I would have loved to taken it to the next level, but I could not afford a HANS device that was actually safe, thus I did not go to that level... I never once complained about how others could race at the next level because of their funds... life is not fair... oh well...

So with GW pulling support for tournaments we need to understand that there are two different levels of play...

I love running my guard against orcs and nids because of the fluff represented...

and my favorite game I have ever played (3rd edition) resulted in a devastator squad standing alone on a low lying building being swarmed by nids with the commander doing what he could to fight off the assault... the marines died a glorious death and are having drink in 40k valhalla to this day...

People need to think what makes the game fun for them and run with it. When you stop having fun you have to change something, and if you can not change yourself (if you are not the problem) and you can not change others (if they are the problem) then you have to find new people to play with, or find a new place to play... there are so many variables past the army you are using that makes this game fun.

zerosignal wrote:
When in doubt, try having fun telling a story again.

Bingo. Wargaming isn't always set up to be 100% fair, you're supposed to build a scenario with your opponent. That's because there are supposed to be cooperative and social aspects to wargaming, which don't exist to the same degree within a computer game.

Video games like a RTS completely gloss over the "cooperative, social" aspects and only care about winning. A conversation in Starcraft consists of "gl" and "gg", that's often all! There's also not the same flexibility to chamge game comditions through house rules or homebrew. So kids looking at a RTS as a model don't value the same cooperative and social aspects, they don't understand it, and that's why they make douchey lists at home in isolation and then show up at a game with no concerns about how it plays out. Are we really suprised that somebody has a bad time?

GW doesn't see the game as tabletop Starcraft. They see 40k as more of an RPG story-telling experience where the cooperative and social aspects are at the forefront. So there is lots of screaming by competitively-minded players about the failure of GW to maintain competitive balance, when GW probably considers balance the social responsibility of the players who set the conditions for the game.

Does this sound about right? At the end of the day 40k is not a video game and will never be balanced like one. Furthermore I'm not even sure if encouraging the competitive aspects over the social aspects would make 40k a better experience!

yoyoyo I think we definitely need to restrict the competitive play to tournaments and testing for tournaments and we should really foster the idea of fun in our hobby.

I can say this that win or lose I don't care, as long as I am having fun (and yes winning is more fun) but for me the game is about soooooo much more than plastic soldiers on a board... if that were the case I would play risk.

Thyhadras wrote:
yoyoyo I think we definitely need to restrict the competitive play to tournaments and testing for tournaments and we should really foster the idea of fun in our hobby.

It's a mentality more than anything. But in general a semi-cooperative environment like tabletop can cause a lot of issues itself. Quoted from lost souls:

"I don't have much respect for a lot of the top GT players. I've had them blatantly cheat on me in games, and many don't know important rules. I had one of the top Daemon players cheat about daemon nurgle princes having assault grenades, or how his fate weaver could cast from both heads.

These are the kind of players who get top marks, but they don't play by the rules. Last year i faced off against an ETC US player's eldar, and he wasn't scattering his indirect shots. He argued incessantly that i was wrong telling me that " trust me. I go to a lot of GT's. I know how this works" and proceeded to ignore my rule inquiry until i had to shove a rulebook in his face and read it outloud to him. In the same game he was using the spirit stone relic when he never paid the points or had it in his list.

Some GT guys are rad dudes that are very friendly, play fair, and offer a serious challenge. However, the higher I get on the tables, the less legit the players are. Especially day 2 when the top guys start puling shenanigans and your brain isn't as sharp as the day before and you missed it.
These kind of factors alone really make it hard for me to use GT's as a case study for army effectiveness. Look at that weird cheating incident with Kenny last year, or the guy from stomping grounds. These well known players who pull this crap off."

yoyoyo, I will concede that there are problems with the game... However, I am going to be completely honest I truly believe that the largest problems with 40k revolve around the players... I am interested to see if the players who are in every post complaining in here are the same way to play against? I know that if I constantly played a guy who did nothing but complain about my army and whined about his no matter what advice I offered or what I offered to change in my army then I could assure you that my only goal would be to table them every game or I simply would NOT play against them...

I also wonder if people come on here to cry and whine constantly (which is about as constructive as smashing your face in to a wall) rather than have a thoughtful discussion with the players they are playing against on ways they think the game could be more fun.

Another post said it best... if you run into TFG every now and then, its TFG... if you run into TFG every time, you are TFG...

(perfect example, orks are a very dangerous match up for Marines unless the marines are a competitive build, and as such in our casual games my buddy limits himself to one CAD and does not take two war bosses)