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.

Jacksmiles wrote:

 Desubot wrote:

Jacksmiles wrote:
Win a tabletop game without much effort? Might as well kill some small animals. They're basically interchangeable.

Nether would require much effort sooo sure why not.

Maybe because one is a game designed to have a winner and a loser, and the other is killing small baby animals.

What is life but a game of winners and losers.

Ether way if you want a more on topic analogy its like a middle school basketball player going up against Lebron james. if he goes ham and dunks the kid right out of their lunch money then everyone would have a field day calling him out as a jerk.

 Desubot wrote:

Jacksmiles wrote:

 Desubot wrote:

Jacksmiles wrote:
Win a tabletop game without much effort? Might as well kill some small animals. They're basically interchangeable.

Nether would require much effort sooo sure why not.

Maybe because one is a game designed to have a winner and a loser, and the other is killing small baby animals.

What is life but a game of winners and losers.

Ether way if you want a more on topic analogy its like a middle school basketball player going up against Lebron james. if he goes ham and dunks the kid right out of their lunch money then everyone would have a field day calling him out as a jerk.

I do like that one better, thanks

I just like animals and don't see equivalency between stomping someone in a game and actually forcefully ending life.

Jacksmiles wrote:

 Desubot wrote:

Jacksmiles wrote:

 Desubot wrote:

Jacksmiles wrote:
Win a tabletop game without much effort? Might as well kill some small animals. They're basically interchangeable.

Nether would require much effort sooo sure why not.

Maybe because one is a game designed to have a winner and a loser, and the other is killing small baby animals.

What is life but a game of winners and losers.

Ether way if you want a more on topic analogy its like a middle school basketball player going up against Lebron james. if he goes ham and dunks the kid right out of their lunch money then everyone would have a field day calling him out as a jerk.

I do like that one better, thanks

I just like animals and don't see equivalency between stomping someone in a game and actually forcefully ending life.

This whole train of logic doesn't make sense to me. Right now in Washington State there's a high school football team that is so good, they won their first three games by a combined total of 170-0, and their next three games were won by default after all three teams forfeited. So far, I haven't seen any commentary calling those guys "jerks" or expecting them to throw games or tone things down. Most of what I've seen are comments suggesting that the other teams are poor sports for forfeiting after they agreed to the rules and structure of the division, and that just quitting gives a bad lesson to the players.

Now obviously this situation can't continue like this in the long run - it's patently clear that this team needs to move into a higher division - but for the current league they are operating fully within their rights and there's no reason to punish them for simply being better than their peers. If the league wants things to be different next year, they need to be the ones to make changes (i.e. reshuffling divisions, etc), not ask the team to "play dumb" so that other people won't forfeit.

IOW, if you are running a league and can't be bothered to write down your unwritten rules (or in my experience, it's usually people wanting to avoid responsibility for taking a hardline stance and just hoping that things will "work out"), then you really shouldn't turn around and complain when somebody has a different interpretation of what's okay to bring and what isn't.

 Xca|iber wrote:


This whole train of logic doesn't make sense to me. Right now in Washington State there's a high school football team that is so good, they won their first three games by a combined total of 170-0, and their next three games were won by default after all three teams forfeited. So far, I haven't seen any commentary calling those guys "jerks" or expecting them to throw games or tone things down. Most of what I've seen are comments suggesting that the other teams are poor sports for forfeiting after they agreed to the rules and structure of the division, and that just quitting gives a bad lesson to the players.

Now obviously this situation can't continue like this in the long run - it's patently clear that this team needs to move into a higher division - but for the current league they are operating fully within their rights and there's no reason to punish them for simply being better than their peers. If the league wants things to be different next year, they need to be the ones to make changes (i.e. reshuffling divisions, etc), not ask the team to "play dumb" so that other people won't forfeit.

IOW, if you are running a league and can't be bothered to write down your unwritten rules (or in my experience, it's usually people wanting to avoid responsibility for taking a hardline stance and just hoping that things will "work out"), then you really shouldn't turn around and complain when somebody has a different interpretation of what's okay to bring and what isn't.

Well your whole example is more the likes of a competitive event (high school football) everyone is there to try hard and win as a team and Washington state is like the best around. no one can fault them for winning as thats what their goal is. and it is poor sportsmenship for the other teams to forfeit as they are expected to try hard (at the high school level).

Casual is a different game all together. its like middle school flag football they are just there to have fun and learning how to play the game. then suddenly they have to play Washington state and get owned super hard because they didnt meter them selves.

And to keep it with the OP, there may be a trophy involved at the end but winning it is nothing to be proud of if you had to run through a bunch of kids to get it. if you dont care you dont care but you will still look like a jackcave.

It seems that you know now that this league/tournament doesn't play too competitively (even with money being involved). An option would be to just ask for clarification for next time and adjust your playing style instead of following "the rules" to the word (these seems to be quite loose and more implied than written in stone from your post). That way you don't end up being labeled TFG by the rest of the group. From now on that would be kinda understandable from their point of view as you know about their unwritten house rules (and can inform yourself). It was the first time you could participate, you didn't know, and they expected you to intuit it (somehow?). That was unfortunate as your styles clashed. You will have to do the adjusting as there's a slim chance the whole group will adjust to your playing style.

No, I always knew that some felt that way, But I told my friend(Who is the TO) that I was bringing it. He said it was fine. I even told people I was coming in with the singular intent to win it. Which me and my partner already are going to win because we are leagues Ahead, with 2 wins, if we Tie next week, we will win the league.
Im just confused. It is a game with a winner and a loser. Why should people be faulted for brining their best?

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
No, I always knew that some felt that way, But I told my friend(Who is the TO) that I was bringing it. He said it was fine. I even told people I was coming in with the singular intent to win it. Which me and my partner already are going to win because we are leagues Ahead, with 2 wins, if we Tie next week, we will win the league.
Im just confused. It is a game with a winner and a loser. Why should people be faulted for brining their best?

Hey man, you're not wrong, there are winners, and losers... but aiming to have fun means everyone wins. Sometimes it's just the right attitude. You may win the prize, but helping others have fun is great too. It's a game, it's for fun. It's not just about winners and losers.
If you guys are going to win, why don't you tone it down some and not completely stomp the opposition, try to have fun. If they start winning, go back to kicking their toys over if it bothers you.

Your friend being the TO and Sanctioning your lists may legitimize it, but from everything that's been said, the rules weren't posted. I know my own store has a page laminated and stood up on the front counter for our league. Maybe ask him to do something similar so everyone has a better framework to make lists in. After that, anything done, made, played, etc. is completely legitimate and without dispute.

There are no rules, it is literally bring what you want. But some people say that it is purely casual for some reason.

 Carnikang wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
No, I always knew that some felt that way, But I told my friend(Who is the TO) that I was bringing it. He said it was fine. I even told people I was coming in with the singular intent to win it. Which me and my partner already are going to win because we are leagues Ahead, with 2 wins, if we Tie next week, we will win the league.
Im just confused. It is a game with a winner and a loser. Why should people be faulted for brining their best?

Hey man, you're not wrong, there are winners, and losers... but aiming to have fun means everyone wins. Sometimes it's just the right attitude. You may win the prize, but helping others have fun is great too. It's a game, it's for fun. It's not just about winners and losers.
If you guys are going to win, why don't you tone it down some and not completely stomp the opposition, try to have fun. If they start winning, go back to kicking their toys over if it bothers you.

Your friend being the TO and Sanctioning your lists may legitimize it, but from everything that's been said, the rules weren't posted. I know my own store has a page laminated and stood up on the front counter for our league. Maybe ask him to do something similar so everyone has a better framework to make lists in. After that, anything done, made, played, etc. is completely legitimate and without dispute.

I think you hit the nail there. People are selfish. Some people don't care if others have fun as long as they have fun. Others be damned. That is how I see the original poster. He can only see his way and not other people's way even though it was explained to him many times. It should only be his way and no other way. People's opinions or fun be damned.

As for "legitimizing it", it's another excuse the Original Poster is saying to have his "view" proven correct.

*edit*

As I said. The Original Poster made a mistake. Own up to it. Damn you are starting to sound like my kids now when they made a mistake and trying to prove they never make mistakes. You know, you can have still done no wrong but still have erred. Nothing wrong with that. Everyone does it. I am almost thinking this is Sheldon from Big Bang Theory and trying to prove how he is always right and never makes a mistake and his way is the only or proper way of things should be.

Davor wrote:
I think you hit the nail there. People are selfish. Some people don't care if others have fun as long as they have fun. Others be damned. That is how I see the original poster. He can only see his way and not other people's way even though it was explained to him many times. It should only be his way and no other way. People's opinions or fun be damned.

I can guarantee there are people out there that are completely in it for stomping people.
I tend to find they are the exception to the rule however.
The rest of the time is usually a misunderstanding or mismatch of expectations.
Having posted rules for army selection by the TO to mitigate power levels would be helpful rather than someone trying to figure out an unwritten "nice" army list.

As for "legitimizing it", it's another excuse the Original Poster is saying to have his "view" proven correct.
*edit*
As I said. The Original Poster made a mistake. Own up to it. Damn you are starting to sound like my kids now when they made a mistake and trying to prove they never make mistakes. You know, you can have still done no wrong but still have erred. Nothing wrong with that. Everyone does it. I am almost thinking this is Sheldon from Big Bang Theory and trying to prove how he is always right and never makes a mistake and his way is the only or proper way of things should be.

I have a kid who has mild autism with AD/HD..
He IS a mini-Sheldon.
It is pretty common (they no longer call it Aspergers) and can have some rather infuriating behaviors.
The common response with them when you tell them something is "I know.", it is like you tell them something, they store the memory, they find it and come back to you with this new knowledge as old.
Weird I know.
I usually have to start with "Do you know the answer to this, yes or no?" BEFORE I tell them the answer.
It keeps me sane and our relationship OK.
They can be very black and white: parallelisms are lost to them, sometimes words of similar meanings are "not right" to them and have zero issues "correcting" you.

Anyway, due to my experience, I tend to play people like this because I understand them and can keep it "fun" for them because I do not confuse the heck out of them like the rest of you "crazy" people.

Again, it can be a difference of viewpoint or thought process rather than evil intent of the other person, nasty people DO exist and I think it is quite important to ensure your hobby experience is good or it will have consequences in other parts of your life: this is your hobby to relax to after all.

 MrDwhitey wrote:
The thing is, validation online wont help when everyone you play against ends up refusing to play you.

This.

It doesn't matter how "right" you are if you drive off all your potential opponents. Sometimes I want to play a tough, nail bitting game. Sometimes I want to push toy soldiers around and BS with my friends. If you approach the game one way and your opponent approaches in the other, neither of you are going to enjoy the experience.

Typically, it all boils down to at least being socially amiable.

If you like mixing headgames with your competitiveness, I think games would dry up pretty quickly.

I have been utterly destroyed by an opponent that knew his stuff and would play him again: he was fun and he laughed at my Black Knight joke (come back here, I can still bite!).
The social elements of the game can be a great Band-Aid for a game that went all wrong.

I like people who play well, I learn much more from them than the other way around.
If the person is not the type who lives for "destroying" their opponent, they would be upset it was not a closer game.
It is important to put the big boy pants on, take it on the chin and enjoy it anyway.

There was no mistake on the part of the OP. The mistake was the rest of the league believing it to be something it is not, as evidenced by the TO explicitly stating it is not, and them trying to enforce their desires of how they want to play something that isn't what they thought it was through rude statements and social pressure.

Both parties are wrong. Casual Carl was wrong because he tried to make a league a casual league without telling anyone. Bitching about lists doesn't fix the problem. Calmly explaining the expectations before the league begins does.
Stomping Steve was wrong for doubling down on the "money involved, letter of the law" argument. It's fully within the rules for me to sound an air horn continually during your movement phase. It's fully within the rules for me to look up your Facebook page, find out your dear Mother Gladys is single, take her on a lovely date, and tell you all the details of our hot, sweaty, animal sex during your psychic phase.
I mean, fifty bucks is on the line.
There's no rule that says I can't.

PourSpelur wrote:
It's fully within the rules for me to look up your Facebook page, find out your dear Mother Gladys is single, take her on a lovely date, and tell you all the details of our hot, sweaty, animal sex during your psychic phase.
I mean, fifty bucks is on the line.
There's no rule that says I can't.

I think I just found my new Sig. Exalted.

PourSpelur wrote:
Both parties are wrong. Casual Carl was wrong because he tried to make a league a casual league without telling anyone. Bitching about lists doesn't fix the problem. Calmly explaining the expectations before the league begins does.
Stomping Steve was wrong for doubling down on the "money involved, letter of the law" argument. It's fully within the rules for me to sound an air horn continually during your movement phase. It's fully within the rules for me to look up your Facebook page, find out your dear Mother Gladys is single, take her on a lovely date, and tell you all the details of our hot, sweaty, animal sex during your psychic phase.
I mean, fifty bucks is on the line.
There's no rule that says I can't.

40k is a permissive rule set. Stomping Steve has permission to bring stompers. You need permission to break my mother's heart.

 Carnikang wrote:

PourSpelur wrote:
It's fully within the rules for me to look up your Facebook page, find out your dear Mother Gladys is single, take her on a lovely date, and tell you all the details of our hot, sweaty, animal sex during your psychic phase.
I mean, fifty bucks is on the line.
There's no rule that says I can't.

I think I just found my new Sig. Exalted.

I think i just lost my gak.

PourSpelur wrote:
Both parties are wrong. Casual Carl was wrong because he tried to make a league a casual league without telling anyone. Bitching about lists doesn't fix the problem. Calmly explaining the expectations before the league begins does.
Stomping Steve was wrong for doubling down on the "money involved, letter of the law" argument. It's fully within the rules for me to sound an air horn continually during your movement phase. It's fully within the rules for me to look up your Facebook page, find out your dear Mother Gladys is single, take her on a lovely date, and tell you all the details of our hot, sweaty, animal sex during your psychic phase.
I mean, fifty bucks is on the line.
There's no rule that says I can't.

God i love dakka some days

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
No, I always knew that some felt that way, But I told my friend(Who is the TO) that I was bringing it. He said it was fine. I even told people I was coming in with the singular intent to win it. Which me and my partner already are going to win because we are leagues Ahead, with 2 wins, if we Tie next week, we will win the league.
Im just confused. It is a game with a winner and a loser. Why should people be faulted for brining their best?

Because, apparently, the implicit expectation of the people playing in the league does not overlap with your expectations (or what the TO thought would happen). You started a whole thread about it. You might be technically in the right but socially and culturally in the wrong (or lacking information about their customs). When people visit other places they can mess up interactions if they don't know the local protocol, it can even happen if they know it but revert to their own habits. It doesn't matter which side is wrong or right because in the end you have to deal with the resulting friction.

It could be that your friend (the TO) said it was okay because you are friends and the reasoning could be anything from not wanting to create friction between you two to expecting that you won't curb stomp everyone as you know how they play in this league and adapt a bit (even if you aim to win it). The TO is not the only person participating, others could feel differently and this league/tournament seems to be a regular thing. You are the new one seemingly not acting along expected patterns.

At the moment it feels like you are a predator that got transferred to a new region where the local fauna has no way of surviving that. You will only end up starving (for opponents, in this case) after rampaging through the ecosystem if nobody wants to play against you. I think all of you need to talk and find a consensus or you might end up dividing your local group into people who are willing to play against you and those who avoid you. What if they all start avoiding the tournament next month because it's not fun for them anymore? That would not be good for anyone's playing situation, would it?

@Mario: I keep thinking of that idea of how "invasive species" are so competitive that the local wildlife cannot survive when they get transplanted.

The competitor was never meant to be there and the local fauna are adapted to their environment. Time for a lesson in survival of the fittest?? I am glad he is not from Australia, he could have potentially killed them all.

What troubles me is a group will host a "competition".
So you compete... to win... I assume...

I am sure if it is a competition to be well liked I would pick the worst list possible.

It would be terribly fun to try to play the game so you lose all matches and everyone else is trying to do the same. What is the worst thing I can pick for 20 points?

You could always generate a campaign and the wins and losses move forward some kind of narrative if you want to take all the stress out of it.

It is just strange to take a game that is so random in nature so that much of it is not a sure thing and then adding the need for nerfing lists to a given perceived power level that you must guess at. You have to really know the group you are playing before you can hope to match what they field.

I honestly think if you cannot at least publish some kind of house rules so you all can play nice, the alternative seems rather unfair of having to guess.

What troubles me is a group will host a "competition".
So you compete... to win... I assume...

I don't know what the solution is but both sides need to talk and find a balance if they want this to work in the long term. The setup itself is kinda strange: A GW rules (not that balanced) based monthly competitive tournament/league that seems to be more on the casual side, seems to be okay with somebody using a murder list, yet then complains about it after the fact.

You could always generate a campaign and the wins and losses move forward some kind of narrative if you want to take all the stress out of it.

Handicap systems can be quite effective in making long term leagues feel less "already decided" if one messes up a few games. Of course you need to balance that (a bit harder on top of GW's recent rules) so it doesn't incentivise people to lose. You probably don't want the blue shell of wargaming but something that softens the blow of losing and keeps the losing army viable. Maybe giving the loser more EXP ("you learn more from your mistakes") for whatever is left of the army (and a cheaper recruiting option for new untrained recruits) while the winner gets away with more troops and whatever victory points are distributed (money, lands,…?).

You know I find it funny that we need to "compete" but it's with Plastic Toy soldiers, with no excuses, but if we do it with REAL competition, it is with excuses.

Want real competition put of football gear and get on in the grid iron and PROVE your MANLINESS. Or pick up a baseball bat and glove, or hockey gear or soccer/futball/football gear and prove your manhood that way.

Why are we making excuses to prove our manhood with plastic toy soldiers? Especially in a game that is so unbalanced and not fair we need to prove something?

...

You really DO have this unhealthy obsession with perceived overcompensation. Maybe the problem isn't with the ruleset OR with competitive play...

 Just Tony wrote:
...

You really DO have this unhealthy obsession with perceived overcompensation. Maybe the problem isn't with the ruleset OR with competitive play...

Or maybe it is how I see people act in person that they are trying to be macho with plastic toy soldiers.

This could have changed. The GW stores that were close to me and or I visited have closed down. Some people were acting like sport jocks, but with plastic toy soldiers. But now that they have closed down I don't can't tell if that has really changed. Now that we have a new store opened up, I can see the sport jock mentality is gone. Sad part is I see it hasn't changed on the internet and this is a perfect example here of it going on right now.

Someone trying to prove themselves or get validation for how he acted.

Again and someone already said this what I did. You can have done now wrong, but still not be correct. To keep on it, what are you trying to prove now?

My purpose for posting in this thread was to point out that, by its very nature, the game is a competitive game, and only stops being so when people set out to make it so. As much as I detest sports, and would gladly abolish most if not all of them if I were world dictator, I have to liken it to sports insofar as there is ALWAYS a clear and concise winner/loser relationship by the nature of the competition. If that isn't acceptable, then maybe Tic Tac Toe or some other less winner/loser game is in order. Something RPG, which mostly doles on without clear cut winner/loser relationships. If you're playing a war game with the winner/loser dynamic, then yes, you need to play to win. If not, why are you playing it in the first place?


My purpose for addressing you directly is because of the high percentage of your posts, since my arrival here, decrying any competitive aspect of the game along with several references to "manliness", "manhood", and even "nerd wiener" as in your sig. I'm suggesting that maybe the issue isn't the nature of the game. I'm suggesting that YOUR issue is YOU, not the game, and projecting onto someone who DOESN'T think the way you do is kind of a jerk move, especially when your language is permeated with such... colorful metaphor...

@OP: You're perfectly within your right to "bring your best", but you also have to keep in mind that you're not playing this game all by yourself, or against a machine; you're playing against another human being, which means that every action you take has consequences for them as well (as cringe-worthy as that may sound).

Of course, there's a difference between something like an ITC tournament and a monthly league organized at your FLGS; in the former, everyone is expected to bring their absolute best unless they enjoy losing everything all day, while in the latter this isn't always the case, which can lead to the situation you've described.

I can't say I agree with the argument that "because money's involved, I can bring my absolute best". I mean, what if the prize is only 10 euros? Are you still going to bring your hard tournament-winning list to the table every month for that? And if not, where do you draw the line? And then I'm not even talking about the other player, who may not have as much cash to spend on his miniatures or who simply doesn't want to participate in a wargaming arms race.

Which brings me to my first point again: you're not playing this game by yourself. Everyone has a different reason to play this unbalanced mess of a game, and some groups are simply not as competitive-minded as others. They're not wrong if they want to play fluffy casual lists and neither are you wrong if you want to play competitive lists instead. But you (as in, you and the people you play against) are going to have to find a compromise between the two if you plan on gaming with one another a lot.

Has anyone thought that maybe the group he is in, that people don't have money to "bring in the best"? Maybe the OP has the money to do so but a lot of the people don't and it's another reason why it's a casual crowd. Even when it's a tournament or what not, since a lot of people don't have money it's still causal and they want to play a tournement even though they can't bring their best. At least a tournement will let people play a bit differently than the usual they do during regular play and they want to experience it.

It's like someone already said it's like Le Braun James going to grade school and playing their and crushing all the little kids and then saying "it's a competition, we are expected to win".

Before I comment any more I just want to make sure if this is the case, the players there don't have a lot of money but love to model and play with what they have and the OP has the money to buy what he wants.

Quite the opposite actually. Im the only one there who ISNT working fulltime(Barring the Teens but they are a minority there)
I mean yeah, I have more forgeworld, but that came from my graduation money I spent.

You can bring a great list that will let you win without upsetting your opponents and bringing stuff that's impossible for some armies to play against. If the only two pieces of information you have going into this is that it's 1250 points and that it's a casual-style FLGS tournament that happens every month maybe leave the power list at home. You also knew that the people at your store consider your a hardcore gamer even though you don't, so that should have given you a good idea as to what you were going to be facing even though there weren't any restrictions on list building. 50 bucks is 50 bucks, which, honestly, in this day and age, is nothing. That doesn't even buy you most model kits to play this game. If you're playing for your rent or something, it's understandable, but if that's the case you should probably be putting the army up on ebay, not playing games for chump change. Sounds like it's on the TO for not laying down any list building rules, but do you really want to be the guy that makes that a necessity in a group that don't feel they need restrictions?

If you're having trouble understanding why people think this way, it's this: not everybody likes or wants to play the current best armies, they'd rather play an army because they like the models or they like the fluff. This is a very expensive hobby and most people aren't going to throw their money away to win a board game with models they don't like painting or looking at on the shelf at home. These players accept that they're maybe going to lose a lot of games, but they want to have the CHANCE of winning, because that's what makes the game, or any game, fun.

I don't know man, maybe you wanna find a more competitive group to play with if your version of fun is making sure you win before you even get to the table. If you really like playing with these dudes at this store maybe you might think about bringing a nerfed list. I think what you're doing is fine but there's a time and a place, and it sounds like you're not playing in the right environment.

Yeah... umm... it's a luxury hobby where they're competing for a cash prize. I'm not going to play the economic disparity card on this one. (And most of my gaming collection is others' refurbished trash that I've salvaged on the cheap and picked through to build decent collections-- I completely understand one can be gaming on a budget.)

It's 100% reasonable for there to be "casual, don't bring your A-game or A-list or rules-lawyery BS or just giant fancy toys" club, league, or shop rules. But it should be stated. Even if not in any particularly great detail, a league rules sheet (IDK, games should be X size to score, scoring conditions incl. stuff like hobby or sportsmanship points, sportsmanship rules, league length and, if applicable, "this is a casual thing- don't play like a tournament" or whatever... But, for emphasis, they've got to be stated.

Also, I think that it was a particular misstep to have a cash prize at something that's supposed to be non-competitive.