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.

 -Loki- wrote:

 Nucflash wrote:
Im kinda amazed that some of you play these games for the lore, or because the models look cool on the board etc.. I really cant get my head around how that could be fun? Feels like a massive waste of time, I would not waste my time if the competitiveness wasn't there. But I dont get Carebares in videogames either, to me they just come of as scared of PvP...

... might be visualising an ongoing story with their game, playing the game for the same reason one might play through the story of Uncharted 2 - to play out a narrative. There' no reason to start bringing derogatory terms for either players into the discussion.

This is my point of view as well. I respect folks who love the PvP and competition. I'm just not one of them. Sure I play wargames vs others, and the occasional Mario Kart or somesuch, but most of my computer gameplay is basic single player games. As for tabletop gaming, I play to win, but I definitely fall on the narrative/modeler side of the spectrum.

Just because some folks don't understand "carebears" or PvE (or whatever semi-insulting term they choose to use) doesn't mean that it isn't an enjoyable and valid way to play. That some think such playstyles are a sign of being "scared" or a "waste of time" only reflects on their own inability to respect other's way of enjoying a game.

The "scared" label is particularly humorous. There are plenty of things in the world to be scared or wary of. None of them are in online gaming.

I had a friend say to me the other day, concerning a video game: "Dude.... if you're not playing to win, then why play at all?"

I just kind of shook my head. I simply cannot comprehend making everything into a competition. Sure, wargames are competitive, and it is fun to win, but to me it's always been about much more than that.

Oh yeah... this friend doesn't read books either! Looks like there is something in common amongst people with this point of view.

I don't understand why people with such a mindset would even enjoy Warhammer. It's all about the story and the models!! Play freakin chess or poker if you want to compete!

@nectarprime.
For you its all about the story and the models.
So you would be fine if GW removed ALL of the PV from the game, and just published example senarios.
And they focused on the narrative completely at the detriment to any sort of game balance.

And others would prefer GW to remove ALL the narrative , reduce the lists to achive better balance and make the game more suited to competative play.

But rather than be honest about the rules, and just sell their game to players with the same mind set as the developers.

They infer 40k is suitable for all types of player , all play styles , all ages, to maximize short term sales....

A lot of other table top games minature games are more suitable to competetive play.AND have a great deal of background to allow narrative to flow(Battletech for example.)

Well defined intuitive rules appeal to ALL player types.They allow better game balance , easier transposing into narrative campains, and help to bring ALL play styles closer together.

GW gets away with poor rules writing because the player base is too busy blaming each other for playing the game wrong.

Ok? I play this game to have fun. That's it. Winning doesn't automatically make a game fun for me.

I guess I should have added, I don't play 40k, just Fantasy. And I think the rules aren't that bad

Lanrak wrote:
GW gets away with poor rules writing because the player base is too busy blaming each other for playing the game wrong.

Ooof! Now that's a gutpunch of a post.

Couldn't agree more.

i like to have fun - hell if i'm going to spend as much as i do on this game then i'm going to have fun even if i have to play al by myself

Lanrak wrote:
@nectarprime.
For you its all about the story and the models.
So you would be fine if GW removed ALL of the PV from the game, and just published example senarios.
And they focused on the narrative completely at the detriment to any sort of game balance.

And others would prefer GW to remove ALL the narrative , reduce the lists to achive better balance and make the game more suited to competative play.

But rather than be honest about the rules, and just sell their game to players with the same mind set as the developers.

They infer 40k is suitable for all types of player , all play styles , all ages, to maximize short term sales....

A lot of other table top games minature games are more suitable to competetive play.AND have a great deal of background to allow narrative to flow(Battletech for example.)

Well defined intuitive rules appeal to ALL player types.They allow better game balance , easier transposing into narrative campains, and help to bring ALL play styles closer together.

GW gets away with poor rules writing because the player base is too busy blaming each other for playing the game wrong.

A well made Point.. and I personaly dont have anything against carebares or people who play for the sake of cool armies. I do take issue with marketing a game to make people think it can be played competetivly though... I would be much happier if GW just admited they could not make "RULES". And stop giving out codexes and rulebooks... They are a Miniatures making company after all. They said so themselves...

What exactly constitutes a "carebear" in a tabletop game?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Nucflash wrote:
Im kinda amazed that some of you play these games for the lore, or because the models look cool on the board etc.. I really cant get my head around how that could be fun? Feels like a massive waste of time, I would not waste my time if the competitiveness wasent there.

I can’t get my head around why you’d only play competitive games. Seems like it would lose its allure after some time (I know it did for me – my days of list-tweaking and playing all games as if it were a life-or-death tournament have long since passed).

I prefer the lore, and using games to tell stories. It’s why I play so much of FFG’s 40K stuff these days.

But chess clocks? Timed turns? Seems you’re adding in extra things to make it more interesting. That speaks to a weakness in the game more than anything else.

Nucflash wrote: But I dont get Carebares in videogames either, to me they just come of as scared of PvP...

You’re going to need to explain that one.

If you play Warmachine/hordes with the Steamroller ruleset, you play on Time, turns or deathclock. Its the rules of the game, might be strange for people who havent tried it. Same goes when you play Chess. Chess has a highly competetive nature to it. I dont like to tveak lists in Games workshops Games because its just so Unbalanced I will only "Spam" what is good and take the most OP stuff I can find. I just cant help myself. And when it comes to stories and lore we play the Deathwatch RPG and many other RPG games. Role playing games in general are a much more fun way of telling stories then any Table-top game if you ask me. This is my personal prefernce, but the "FUN" part comes when i play a boardgame to win. The challenge comes from outsmarting a human opponent. I dont like to play against people who dont have the same mindset as me. There is no "FUN Factor" in beating someone who is not giving his best to try and beat me. And who wont care if he lose or not.

The thing I find worse with WH40k is that I can win the match in the list building stage.. What happens on the game board mathers less then what I did before the game. For me that takes away much of the fun. Because I know that the overpowerd stuff I have will beat my opponent, before we even start rolling the dice. 6th edition when you can premesure everything there is not real skill involved anymore..

And about the Carebare remark.. In video games the people who prefer the LORE/Player versus the AI, and what the developers have made for them to play with OVER trying to fight your fellow players are called Carebears... They are generaly looked down on as they come off as scared or lacking in skills to fight other players.. Prefering the safty and the predictability that the developers give them when they go up against computer controlled enemies..


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 nectarprime wrote:
What exactly constitutes a "carebear" in a tabletop game?

Those that prefer cinimatic GW games, and dont play to win.. Find it much more fun to paint armies then playing the game. Like the casual feel that you can get with WH40k. For example many people I know had a hard time to transition over to Warmachien/hordes, because they had to "THINK" every move.. And moving and trying to figure out if something could hit or not before mesuring was alot more work. Having to activate one model and do something and then activate another to set of the right Combo, also involves alot more "Planing". Overall some people just prefer to push their models forward and dont have to bother with facing or having to calculate in your head in advance if the shot will actually reach the target. In a game like warmachine you have to think all the time, Facing, will something reach the target.. when should I use my feat.. What models do I activate first etc...

If you just like to have fun with your friends.. roll some dice and dont really care about winning or losing. You like the LORE more then the Rules of the game. And you dont like to have to think that much in general you are a Tabletop Carebear..

 Nucflash wrote:


And about the Carebare remark.. In video games the people who prefer the LORE/Player versus the AI, and what the developers have made for them to play with OVER trying to fight your fellow players are called Carebears... They are generaly looked down on as they come off as scared or lacking in skills to fight other players.. Prefering the safty and the predictability that the developers give them when they go up against computer controlled enemies..

Trust me... PVPers are equally 'looked down upon'. Anyone who is aware of 'twinking' in WoW can see the flip side of people who look down on the PVP from the PVE side of the fence... And I do like the idea that somehow raiding is being 'too scared' when that is the exact argument used against twinks who have high levels run them through Gnomeregan and wailing caverns to get gear which will blow away regular level 19 players in their dust... they are 'too scared' to not have a gear advantage and just like 'facerolling'. They prefer the safety and predictability of being overgeared and oneshotting noobs and calling it skill. As someone who did both Raiding and twinking, I can tell you Twinking takes zero skill.

And I can tell you that even PVPers will claim made up rules and call 'PVPers 'scared' because some people only see PVP as 1vs1 and when people work as a team with pocket healers and such, they call it cheap or cheating and so on because REAL PVP is duels...

While raiding does have predictability, it still takes coordinated effort of a dozen or so people to all do exactly what they are supposed to do. It is like 10 people playing rock band and all having to play their part. It has nothing to do with 'being scared' it is just a different type of game. It is a precision and endurance test with puzzles built-in to many of the boss fights. It is collaborative gameplay which appeals to many people.

See? That door swings both ways. The thing is, the game creators make different things for different folks so both ways of play can be explored... but it seems to kill some people to know somewhere on the server there is someone playing the game 'WRONG'. So many arbitrary rules which are not even universal on 'how to play the game' as there are so many different ways to play PVE and PVP.

Wargames are the same way... There are so many ways to play and so many ways to enjoy from narratives, mega battles, tourneys, team play and so on that there is no 'right way'. But hey, the best way to make sure there is a 'right way' is to begin unsulting whole groups of players... calling them scared or making up cute insulting nicknames like 'baby seals' or 'fluff bunnies'.

Focusing on having fun over winning makes you a carebear.... amazing.

 Nucflash wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 nectarprime wrote:
What exactly constitutes a "carebear" in a tabletop game?

Those that prefer cinimatic GW games, and dont play to win.. Find it much more fun to paint armies then playing the game. Like the casual feel that you can get with WH40k. For example many people I know had a hard time to transition over to Warmachien/hordes, because they had to "THINK" every move.. And moving and trying to figure out if something could hit or not before mesuring was alot more work. Having to activate one model and do something and then activate another to set of the right Combo, also involves alot more "Planing". Overall some people just prefer to push their models forward and dont have to bother with facing or having to calculate in your head in advance if the shot will actually reach the target. In a game like warmachine you have to think all the time, Facing, will something reach the target.. when should I use my feat.. What models do I activate first etc...

This is what puts me off to warmachine, They are WAAC players to the maximum, to the point of not even talking to anyone during the game.
Also i resent that you think 40k doesnt take skill or thinking, it does. And Warmachine does have the same list building aspect too it, you have to think. You have to coordinate wverything in your army into the right places, you have to take gambles. And timed turns? You know how that favors people with less models right? Im slightly slow so i dont get to do turns very fast because of the way my brain works.

 Nucflash wrote:
Im kinda amazed that some of you play these games for the lore, or because the models look cool on the board etc.. I really cant get my head around how that could be fun? Feels like a massive waste of time, I would not waste my time if the competitiveness wasent there. But I dont get Carebares in videogames either, to me they just come of as scared of PvP..

Ya know what I can't get my head around? People who can't get their head around the idea that other people don't like to have fun the same way they do and feel the need to be derogatory towards others for how they choose to have fun.

How someone likes to play a game says NOTHING about how competitive they actually might be. Personally, I'm a very competitive person in my "real life" endeavours. I'd go as far as saying I'm a competition driven person, I did as well as I did in school because I wanted to do better than the people I saw as the smart kids. I'd like to say it was because I tried my hardest, but reality is it was because there were smart kids who I wanted to beat and if there weren't I probably wouldn't have done as well :p Now in my job I still remain quite competitive.

When it comes to games, ie. the things I do for fun to get away from real life, I lose a lot of my competitiveness because there's less point to it. I am still competitive and still play online games and such, but I prefer to play coop if there's an option, if I'm playing with friends I tend to prefer to have them on my side rather than compete against them.

The idea that people are "scared" because they don't want to be competitive IN A GAME is flat out silliness. The idea of inventing names like "carebears" for people who don't like to play competitively IN A GAME is flat out silliness.

40k is not the best games for purely competitive play, I agree, it never has been. Is it GW's fault for not making a proper ruleset? Of course it is. But if all you are capable of doing in 40k is breaking the ruleset to try and win, YOU'RE PLAYING THE WRONG GAME. Just because YOU are playing the wrong game DOES NOT mean EVERYONE ELSE is also playing the wrong game by playing 40k, to think and express so is just being self centered and shallow.

Hey Nucflash, how old are you?

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
This is what puts me off to warmachine, They are WAAC players to the maximum, to the point of not even talking to anyone during the game.
Also i resent that you think 40k doesnt take skill or thinking, it does. And Warmachine does have the same list building aspect too it, you have to think. You have to coordinate wverything in your army into the right places, you have to take gambles. And timed turns? You know how that favors people with less models right? Im slightly slow so i dont get to do turns very fast because of the way my brain works.

I think we should play warmachine with one another. I'm not a big fan of timed turns and i like to talk during games. I also like long walks along the beach and intimate dinners. I mean uh...

 Nucflash wrote:
And about the Carebare remark.. In video games the people who prefer the LORE/Player versus the AI, and what the developers have made for them to play with OVER trying to fight your fellow players are called Carebears... They are generaly looked down on as they come off as scared or lacking in skills to fight other players.. Prefering the safty and the predictability that the developers give them when they go up against computer controlled enemies.

That's ludicrous. Some people don't like multiplayer. Not everything needs to be a competitive person v person affair.

For the record I'm a very competitive player. I Top 8'ed in 3 M:tG tournaments and even attended the Philippine Nationals. That doesn't mean I'm a dick or I try to cheat or do a tantrum when I lose any game, but I'll do my best to win. When I lose, I congratulate my opponent, discuss the game and learn how and why I lost both from my perspective and his/hers.

AND I also enjoy narrative gameplay. This is why I like Infinity--the gameplay is very narrative and victory depends on your skills on the board rather than the list you bring. I like doing campaigns, both tabletop RPGs and wargaming. I enjoy fluff. When I still played 40k I wrote my own fluff for my army and, while it's the usual Vulkan list, I made it my own by conversion, painting and making up the story behind these guys who are definitely not Salamaders (tbh I never really liked the Salamaders fluff).

Yet I'm the same person. You can both enjoy competition and fluff/narrative gameplay. And calling another person's fun as "the wrong kind of fun", no matter what side, is very narrow-minded. People don't think alike, and calling people idiots for not thinking like you is extremely prejudiced.

I don't think there are too many WAAC players. I met a guy once who lied to a tournament judge to win a game, despite quite a lot of generosity on the part of his opponent. But I suspect that that kind of behavior is limited. That is "All Costs" in my opinion.

Other than that once the minis are on the table, everyone is trying to win. Usually with whatever tactics, maneuvers and skills they have available.

What I heavily dislike, is the way GW games encourage people to try and win the game, before the game.

I had never understood this, always playing to win with an army I enjoy, until I explained my frustrations to a friend.

I was informed that this is why GW games are fun. And that its all about "The Meta" and trying to build an army to out do your friend's constantly evolving army.

So this brings me to WAA$. And this is no players fault, just because they are playing exactly the way GW intends.

Makes perfect business sense for GW, its the CCG strategy. CCG's actively try to break the status quo every iteration to encourage more card buying.

I don't like that system. The best game I have played thus far is Kings of War. No unit is better than its points costs. Units have things that they do well, and do poorly but in the hands of a skilled tactician any army can win, but will still be challenged. My spearmen are always good spearmen. There isn't going to be an edition that makes cannons 3X effective so I should buy more cannons and ebay my spearmen, only for the next edition to have giant monsters resistant to cannons become the norm invalidating my army yet again. And naturally I have a choice between constantly paying GW for my army to continue to be valid, or be accused of not playing properly.

Fun

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Nucflash wrote:
And about the Carebare remark.. In video games the people who prefer the LORE/Player versus the AI, and what the developers have made for them to play with OVER trying to fight your fellow players are called Carebears... They are generaly looked down on as they come off as scared or lacking in skills to fight other players.. Prefering the safty and the predictability that the developers give them when they go up against computer controlled enemies.

That's ludicrous. Some people don't like multiplayer. Not everything needs to be a competitive person v person affair.

Before getting sucked into a "discussion" with Nucflash, have a gander at his post history.

It's time everyone just accepts the awful truth.

NO MATTER WHAT YOU DO, SOMEONE ON THESE FORUMS WILL INSULT YOU FOR IT.

Welcome to the internet.

That was a highly useful post. An excellent contribution.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
That was a highly useful post. An excellent contribution.

But sadly almost always true

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
This is what puts me off to warmachine, They are WAAC players to the maximum, to the point of not even talking to anyone during the game.

I wouldn't take Nucflash as representative of the average WMH player, hotsauceman1 - the people playing WMH are the same sort of mix of people you get playing WFB/40k/Infinifty/Malifaux/etc.

Here is a bit of speculation ...
IF the game play is quite shallow, eg what happens in game is mainly decided by choices before the game.

Some players will focus on adding 'narrative depth' to compensate.
Some players will focus on optimizing pre- game choices to improve the only basic element of the game play left, trying to win.

Does this sound familiar?A false dichotemy caused by 'poor' rules writing...

In my experience games with more in game choices (tactical decisions.)Appeal to a wider spectrum of gamers , as there is more focus on game play, and less on play style.

Learning to use the units you select , to the best of your ability is a major part of playing war games IMO.
So making ALL options viable choices is very important in this respect.