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.

Platuan4th wrote:

AdrianG wrote:
I don't play GT's because I'm not in the slightest bit concerned in power gaming. ( no insult intended)

I play for fun, and to enjoy the company of friends..

These two lines right here are what I see wrong with Jervis' opinion(and yours, AdrianG). There's this massive misconception that everyone that goes to big tournaments like Adepticon and the GTs are all like the Dakka Tough Guys that spout Win At All Costs! In essence, this opinion smacks of Tourney players = hardcore bastards who think the game is some measure of their penis.

I go to tournaments with groups of friends to have fun. I'm going to the Vegas GT this year with one of my best friends. Neither of us are "power gamers"(hell, we probably lose more than we win, we don't even care enough to keep track of our W/L/T records), we're going because it motivates us to paint better and guarantees us a weekend of play against some good opponents. We're gonna go ogle at the armies there, buy some Forge Worldy goodness, and maybe make some friends. All told, we're going to enjoy the hobby to the fullest(we could care less about Vegas, honestly, he's moving there this summer because of his job, and I'll be living in driving distance for a weekend trip within the month), not to win or to place our manhoods on the line. I could just be tainted by tournaments in the South, but that tends to be what I see from most people at tournaments, too.

I'm basing most of what I've said about GT's on the people who post army lists with the premise of power gaming for the win.
I don't like tournies, because my experience of them has been ruined by those who DO power game. Therefore my opinion, however biased, is the right one for me.
I'm glad you enjoy GT's and maybe one day I'll have the money to go to the US and visit the legendary Adepticon. Then I might change my opinion.
I can only comment from my perspective on what I've seen and what I read on forums, therefore I am not necessarily wrong.

Ok, I've confirmed this is my letter that was published in the current White Dwarf. Despite the disagreement some have in this thread, I stand by my comments as it represents our gaming group. We're attending Adepticon in a couple of weeks and this will be our first experience there...so perhaps we'll get a new perspective regarding tournament gaming. Thanks.

Ryan

AdrianG wrote:
I don't play GT's because I'm not in the slightest bit concerned in power gaming. ( no insult intended)
I play Space Wolves as my army of choice since 1988, not because they're broken, but because they have a history and heritage.
I play for fun, and to enjoy the company of friends..
What is apparent to me is that GW can't keep everyone happy all of the time, I suppose we should just accept that and get on with it

But you can understand that others might, right? We have no issue with your fun, so why do you have to have issue with ours? Our issue with JJ is that he doesn't like our fun. Standard bearer rankles with a lot of us tournamenty types because we have no recourse or answer (except for on tinterwebz of course).

Can you or anyone else define power gaming(assumadly a negative from the tone of your post) in a quantitive way? A manner in which someone who knows little about the game could recreate or judge? I'm fairly sure that the answer is no- it'll be an emotional statement/arguement rather than a quantitive one and as such is totally personal.

Thought for discussion: I play in tournaments and do well. I can also play in a relaxed (casual?) manner manner at the local club. I don't know any predominately casual players that can step up to tournament play though. Does that make me a more complete (better?) hobbyist?

You could always write a letter to JErvis, instead of anonymously complaining on the Internet.

I can pretty much guarantee you'll get a reply, I think he's one of the ones good at such things. Whatcha got to lose?

I'd like to illustrate this applies to all frustrations with all things GW. Don't like it? Tell them. Send an Email, send a letter, send Carrier Pigeon if you really want to. Got to be more effective and attention grabbing than just using the Internets.

And what difference does it make really? JJ picked a letter that backed his own viewpoint to publish, not one that differed from his view in the spirit of debate. To me this suggests someone who has already made up his mind and is happy with his current WRONGBADFUN (to use HBMCs phrase) attitude.

I have no doubt that the signal to noise ratio of incoming mail to GWHQ is similar to that of any warseer tactics thread...

--edit-- I'm feeling particularly combattive right now as my team won an important match at rugby today, Ireland have just won the grand slam and I may have had a beer or six while watching...BRING IT.

My theory is that JJ is stuck in his situation. I imagine he had a part in some of gw's awesome rule sets, it's not his fault that 40k, the stupidest of their rule sets is also the most popular (I hope only because it caters to the full model range so well).

As to power gaming - it's only power gaming if one side is competitive and the other isn't. Which is something they should work out with each other

Oddjob,
If you read the post above your reply to me, you would have seen my "reason"
Power Gamers are to me, players who will do anything to win, to the point of killing the enjoyment of the game for their opponent(s).
Tournies should be fun, maybe they ALL are, its just those that I've played in have been mostly not.
As best as I can describe it..

My post was not aggressive, I'm just not that eloquent..
Perhaps I should have gone with my gut instinct and just let it be.
Neither of us is wrong in our opinions.. We just have different perspectives and experiences.

AdrianG wrote:Oddjob,Neither of us is wrong in our opinions.. We just have different perspectives and experiences.

Agreed- this is the reason theat the standard bearer is such a pain. In it JJ vilifies those with a differing viewpoint/perspective/experience.

.

You put "/quote" in the brackets instead of "quote" to close it.

Did JJ send you any plastic?



G

AgeOfEgos wrote:Ok, I've confirmed this is my letter that was published in the current White Dwarf. Despite the disagreement some have in this thread, I stand by my comments as it represents our gaming group. We're attending Adepticon in a couple of weeks and this will be our first experience there...so perhaps we'll get a new perspective regarding tournament gaming. Thanks.

Ryan

What was the letter? There's no way I'm spending even Zimbabwean currency on a WD.


Respectfully-(this may have nothing to do with the letter or even the topic but oh well) although I buy it for local RTTs and even GTs, I don't believe anyone goes to Adepticon (or goes twice) who's not playing as competitive a list as possible. I am not saying they are all TFGs and/or out to win at all costs. But I am saying its like a HardBoyz-no one is going to bring a fluffy list. Its competitive tournament gaming, tournament painting, and modeling only. Frankly thats just fine and everyone who goes knows that, thats what makes it great.

Da Boss wrote:Jervis's dumb standard bearer articles are pretty much directly comparable to Privateer Press's Page Five stupidity.

Never give a gamer a soapbox. We're egocentric gits, on the whole.

And internet fora allow us to make sure everyone knows it too!

Frazzled wrote:Respectfully-(this may have nothing to do with the letter or even the topic but oh well) although I buy it for local RTTs and even GTs, I don't believe anyone goes to Adepticon (or goes twice) who's not playing as competitive a list as possible.

If you're at the top handful or three of tables (or the Gladiator), I think that's a true statement. But, my experience at Adepticon has been that a lot of the team tourney (and even the Sunday RTT style, which I haven't played in for a few years) is much more a case of 'this is what I have painted and/or what I wanted to play'. Now, certainly, people will look to build effective lists for their army, but you don't see many of the 'power' builds outside the top tables. At the team tourney, we've generally played: 1 MEQ, 1 IG (usually mechanized - even in fourth), and two from the following: Inquisition (and it's usually a smattering of this and that, not an optimized list), Orks (with the third edition codex), Necrons, Tau, or Nids.

So, while their individual list may be somewhat optimized (not a guarantee though), the army they are playing is more likely to be either: what they like, what they have painted, or just what their team thought would be fun; rather than what is the 'power build'.

Now, the top tables, that's different. That's a lot of people looking to bring the most broken cheese, which is often stuff they buy from Forgeworld, and win by crushing as many people as they can. And I'm fine with that.

Just as general question for those more versed in Tournies..

Have you ever experienced someone running a specific 'spoilsport' list?

By this I mean a list from any army book specifically geared to give certain armies a hard time? For example, my Savage Orcs have a central theme of cutting off the head. Savage Warboss on Wyvern with the right kit to bash up enemy characters as fast as possible. Now sadly, my flatmate runs Undead, and as amusing a first turn trump can be, there are only so many times you can sit on the Vampire before the games become a tad repetitive. But, in a Tournament setting, I dare say such a list could seriously dent a competitive player running the spoilsports natural prey chances of winning best general.

I would say creating such a list requires as much effort as writing a Powergaming list, as to identify which armies you want to tackle requires an understanding of the metagame. After all, if I can predict how they will perceive the metgame, I stand at least a chance of coming up with a curveball army they will be illdisposed to defeating. My Savage Orcs weren't designed this way, but turned out to be one. The more competitive players in my area quite like playing it, as it's a pretty uncommon list, so gives them a bit of non standard practice to consider. Does this make a difference to their Tournament chances? Probably not, but both sides enjoy the game so meh!

Now I'm not necessarily advocating such behaviour, as it's fairly childish overall. But I've got to say bumming someone hoping to powergame their way to victory has it's appeal.

Well, there are two kinds of counters.

The first kind is to be aware of certain power builds, and try to build your take on all comers list to deal with those builds while staying competitive. An example of this is to include TH/SS termies in a marine list to deal with Nob bikerz, but are a good unit in and of themselves.

The second kind is to build your list around the idea of countering one or a few builds, and hoping to hang tough against the rest. One example here was Wych Cult or Lance Spam Dark Eldar against nidzilla: one of the toughest 4th ed armies would collapse like a house of cards.

You see plenty of the first, but very little of the second. The problem is that if you invest too heavily in a counter, you will probably only get to use it in the first round if you draw another buff list. If you draw a normal list, you start at a disadvantage because of the sunk cost into your counter.

Of course, in 40k in general, there are more archtypes and more access to the counters than in fantasy.

Dunno about the last sentence there, but I reckon in 40k it's easier to cover your achilles heel than in the Fantasy due to the differences in the sytems. But meh!

I think my idea of a Spoilsport is definitely your second option. Rather than looking to neuteur beardies chances whilst retaining a fair crack of the whip, my choice would be to abandon all pretence of winning and just go sort out the powergamers.

Now if I explain much more I risk the chance of going all soapboxy so I shall refrain and await further responses!

A bit like paper, rock, scissors, nuke, cockroach.

nuke beats everything but cockroach
cockroach beats nuke
everything else beats cockroach

So if you're playing the cockroach, your only hope is facing a nuke in round 1, or a nuke who got cockroached in subsequent rounds. But your actual chances of toppling the 1st place nuke army are 1 / number of players in the event.

Back on topic: I'm not ever going to see the WD article, so I'm going on hearsay, but it was the beginning of these JJ rants against me and players like me that got me out of GW products entirely. You don't want me playing your game, I get it. I quit complaining and found a game that does.

Technically, the cockroach could also beat another cockroach.

Yes, but if a cockroach goes against a cockroach then one cockroach is going to win and one cockroach will lose, so the cockroach can never win/lose in such a manner.

Gawd I am bored.

Over 5 rounds and 100+ players it ends up with nuke winning, cockroach going to a forum online to complain, and the designer of the whole thing writing an article about how everyone is doing it wrong.

AgeOfEgos wrote:Ok, I've confirmed this is my letter that was published in the current White Dwarf. Despite the disagreement some have in this thread, I stand by my comments as it represents our gaming group. We're attending Adepticon in a couple of weeks and this will be our first experience there...so perhaps we'll get a new perspective regarding tournament gaming. Thanks.

Ryan

Well done on getting a letter published, sparked a bit of debate eh? As I said before, I don't disagree with the sentiment, but aren't you bemused that your letter was used for pretty much the entire article? Freelancers get paid quite a bit for that amount of wordage. Anyway, respect to your gaming group. It sounds like a good gang to Warhammer with

Flashman wrote:

AgeOfEgos wrote:Ok, I've confirmed this is my letter that was published in the current White Dwarf. Despite the disagreement some have in this thread, I stand by my comments as it represents our gaming group. We're attending Adepticon in a couple of weeks and this will be our first experience there...so perhaps we'll get a new perspective regarding tournament gaming. Thanks.

Ryan

Well done on getting a letter published, sparked a bit of debate eh? As I said before, I don't disagree with the sentiment, but aren't you bemused that your letter was used for pretty much the entire article? Freelancers get paid quite a bit for that amount of wordage. Anyway, respect to your gaming group. It sounds like a good gang to Warhammer with

Thanks and it really didn't take long to type out, as I'm a rather adept typist...and it's easy to write when you believe what you say. In addition, it's much easier when you can be frankly personal rather than university paper objective;

"We find that there is a positive correlation between your expansion release schedule and our hobby happiness factor. Future studies should be completed to determine causation..."


I have no issue with the use of the letter, as Jervis requested permission before publishing. Thanks again for the comments.

Ryan

How do we know you really wrote that letter? I am skeptical.

G

I am a member of the St. Joe gaming group with Ryan (AgeOfEgo) and I have seen the letter and the request for it to be use in White Dwarf. So, yes the letter is real. My only thing about the WD article was I wished they would have posted some of the pictures we had sent them from our Basement Bash game.

Green Blow Fly wrote:How do we know you really wrote that letter? I am skeptical.

G

Hmm, well that would prove to be rather impossible via the vacuum of the internet. I could post my letter which would prove little as I could be typing it directly from the White Dwarf. He did use my complete name and address in the article...but I won't be posting my drivers license on Dakka. That said, if you were to buy me a beer at Adepticon in a week or so, I would be happy to show you my license.

Ryan

Haha I knew that article would have heads kersploding all over the internets. I believe JJ wrote it because he lurks here and he wanted a good laugh..

< Taken by the void dragon. >

I hope JJ is reading this thread. He must be one of the most hated developers ever. I remember him talking at Adepticon.... very rigid and often would talk down to his audience. I thought some of the stuff he said was completely preposterous... He seems like one of those that talks the smack just because he knows he can get away with it. I reckon he has his head way up someone highly placed at GW HQ.

G

i say we all put our differences aside, take up boltgun, and the xeno equivalent and storm this so called white castle, yes some of us shall fall in the great battle, but those who fall shall be remembered as heros of the great "Make the Game Better" wars

right now with the silly stuff aside, it just comes down to GW's failure to convey the rules properly, the words conflict, and it leaves tons of players going WTF to each other as two minds sets see the same words differently, is there a way to fix this, yes its called do it right the first time, will they ever get it right, no, there is no money in getting right, because it ends the need to buy more books, or models etc etc etc, so in a world where perfection isn't rewarded (in the big companies at least) why should they when they can drag us about by the nose, pissing us all off further and taking our money at the same time, we are looking at the cheese, and as the mouse we don't notice the trap till its to late and we get trapped (IE continue to buy and buy GW's junk)