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.

morgoth wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:
You know I still don't think I've ever seen a satisfactory answer as to how this whole divide between 'casual' and 'competitive' players can be anything other than GW's fault given that it is a phenomenon that seems entirely exclusive to GW games...

There is no divide between 'casual' and 'competitive' players.

There's a divide between people who like playing (winning and losing within a fair ruleset) and people who don't like losing because it makes them feel bad (not enjoy themselves).

No.

That is simply wrong. You see evidence of this divide in EVERY thread in the 40k sub forums here, and on top of that you're unfairly characterizing a large swath of people who have legitimate problems with the rules as just sad they lost.

 jonolikespie wrote:
Which statistics have you seen because 51% is significantly less than what I have seen from Eldar or Tau as of... damn I forget but I think it was like the last massive championship held in.. I want to say Vagas?


Anyway can I ask just what sort of people you play with? Your augments are coming off very much like you're not personally seeing these things happen in your local meta therefore they don't happen.

http://www.torrentoffire.com/4789/6th-edition-retrospective-reign-of-the-xenos

That's the only statistic I have on that topic, it comes from a time when Tau had buffmander with riptides and Eldar well ... relied mostly on Baron / SeerStar.
Tournament results are strongly influenced by results outside of the top-5 armies, so "bad codexes" will give bonus points to the Eldar and Tau when in fact they don't perform any better within the top 5.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jonolikespie wrote:

morgoth wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:
You know I still don't think I've ever seen a satisfactory answer as to how this whole divide between 'casual' and 'competitive' players can be anything other than GW's fault given that it is a phenomenon that seems entirely exclusive to GW games...

There is no divide between 'casual' and 'competitive' players.

There's a divide between people who like playing (winning and losing within a fair ruleset) and people who don't like losing because it makes them feel bad (not enjoy themselves).

No.

That is simply wrong. You see evidence of this divide in EVERY thread in the 40k sub forums here, and on top of that you're unfairly characterizing a large swath of people who have legitimate problems with the rules as just sad they lost.

I'm characterizing a large swath of people that cries OP all the time and claims they're "casual", "fluffy" or "non-competitive" as an excuse for losing to army lists that wouldn't make the top 10 in a tournament.

I've seen the same divide elsewhere... like WoW for example, where people who like to play with no skill like to call themselves "casual", and call those who play to win "jerks" or "competitive" and whatnot.

The thing is, if you're not playing to win, you're not playing at all. There is no journey without goal.

*Dons le flame suit*

To be fair, the comments made on page 3 and 4 about pidgeon holing certain people who play WAAC lists isn't too far removed from reality. regardless of what has been said to counter his arguement.

I worked for GW for a few years back in my youth and if you disregard the plethora of cheesy watsit kids and the younger less switched on 'hobbyists' who tend to get bought a packet of space marines whilst mummy goes shopping you do tend to notice a kind of 'type of gamer'

take for example, on the gaming nights, I used to stay later than the store permitted as I had become good friends with a lot of the regulars and didnt mind closing early if people wanted to stay and game.

watching the games take place though, you do find that the power gamers (in my store these were the tournement goers) they would continually be writing army lists and discussing army lists to break the system to WAAC.

now, i didnt mind this but when they began to use these armies to play against younger kids who were just getting into the gaming night side of things, i would have to brief any new comers on the sort of armies that particular gamers would be using. Just so they were aware of what would inevitably happen if they were to play a game...

Unfortunately, this only ever went two ways, The younger gamers would play against this group of power gamers, alter their armies to match them and thus become another WAAC gamer.

The others would form their own little group and play for the fun aspect of the hobby and enjoy their fluffy armies that would tend to last less than 2 turns and game over....

I dont think the opinion about pidgeon holing gamers is wrong, i think the OP just went about the wrong way

Dashworth wrote:
*Dons le flame suit*

To be fair, the comments made on page 3 and 4 about pidgeon holing certain people who play WAAC lists isn't too far removed from reality. regardless of what has been said to counter his arguement.

I worked for GW for a few years back in my youth and if you disregard the plethora of cheesy watsit kids and the younger less switched on 'hobbyists' who tend to get bought a packet of space marines whilst mummy goes shopping you do tend to notice a kind of 'type of gamer'

take for example, on the gaming nights, I used to stay later than the store permitted as I had become good friends with a lot of the regulars and didnt mind closing early if people wanted to stay and game.

watching the games take place though, you do find that the power gamers (in my store these were the tournement goers) they would continually be writing army lists and discussing army lists to break the system to WAAC.

now, i didnt mind this but when they began to use these armies to play against younger kids who were just getting into the gaming night side of things, i would have to brief any new comers on the sort of armies that particular gamers would be using. Just so they were aware of what would inevitably happen if they were to play a game...

Unfortunately, this only ever went two ways, The younger gamers would play against this group of power gamers, alter their armies to match them and thus become another WAAC gamer.

The others would form their own little group and play for the fun aspect of the hobby and enjoy their fluffy armies that would tend to last less than 2 turns and game over....

I dont think the opinion about pidgeon holing gamers is wrong, i think the OP just went about the wrong way

Was there no middle ground between "noob army lists" and WAAC ?
Were they WAAC in the sense of only running the most optimized lists, or was there still a bit of good in them ?

 jonolikespie wrote:
You know I still don't think I've ever seen a satisfactory answer as to how this whole divide between 'casual' and 'competitive' players can be anything other than GW's fault given that it is a phenomenon that seems entirely exclusive to GW games...

Here's a rhetorical question: How does a company constantly ignore the demand of the majority or their customer base (request for balance both competitive and casual play) and still stay in business, buy continually offering a product that sticks their middle finger up at everyone (narrative driven and a beer and pretzels game)?

Here is another question, lets say I made a fluffy list with Eldar (OP or Not) walked in to a completly different FLGS up to 75 miles away from me, how many takers would I get out of 10 people? 10/10, 7/10, 4/10

I got more groans that I had Eldar than 'awesome someone new'. I got 0/10 I showed them my list, explained that I've been playing Eldar since 3rd, just to ease their minds that I wasn't playing a seer star or overdoing serpents. After all that I got 2 takers even after a couple stated that I had a doable list for Eldar. Do I blame them for being like that, no they didn't know who I was. I could have very well been a WAAC TFG. Nobody likes playing them. I'm sure if I walked into a FLGS that was all WAAC players thier would have been no problem finding a game, however I wouldn't have wanted to be there.

What does that tell you about the state of the game? It tells me that majority want a more balanced game, both compettitive and casual, so that they have a equal shot at winning. I really do think they can be the same, I also don't think people truly believe that they have to win every game to have fun. However, they don't want to get involved with certin lists or dataslates that totally break any chance of winning. At least for most armies, maybe not all.

I've said this before, I really don't think that any game this complex could be 100% balanced, however I thik It can be alot closer than it is. At least to the point where some dice could change everything in a single turn, in any combination of armies. I still like the game and still want to play it, I just think if things keep going the way they are it'll die off.

Am I way off base?

morgoth wrote:

The thing is, if you're not playing to win, you're not playing at all. There is no journey without goal.

This is just plain wrong, especially in the context of 40k. The reason the rules put so much of a focus on narrative and background is that the purpose of the game is to tell a good story. It's why people write fluff, it's why there are hundreds of awesome narrative battle reports on this site, it's why it's perfectly possible to have fun even when you're losing (and someone has to).

Take a bunch of kids playing football in a park. They're not playing to become the best players in the world and beat everyone else; they're playing because they enjoy spending that time with their friends, doing something active and even when one side is 10-nil down, they're probably still having a great time.

Why is 40k any different?

 Rune Stonegrinder wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:
You know I still don't think I've ever seen a satisfactory answer as to how this whole divide between 'casual' and 'competitive' players can be anything other than GW's fault given that it is a phenomenon that seems entirely exclusive to GW games...

I've said this before, I really don't think that any game this complex could be 100% balanced, however I thik It can be alot closer than it is. At least to the point where some dice could change everything in a single turn, in any combination of armies. I still like the game and still want to play it, I just think if things keep going the way they are it'll die off.

Am I way off base?

I think you're correct, this can only be fixed by GW updating their rules more often and better.
Riptides were godlike because of buffmander, that got removed, now they're mostly undercosted.
SeerStar is godlike because of Baron, that should be removed, and people would move on to something else.

What's really missing is more updates, more often, for free, so that loopholes can't be exploited for long enough that WAAC people get to all jump on the bandwagon.

I hear you for that Eldar FLGS story...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Paradigm wrote:

morgoth wrote:

The thing is, if you're not playing to win, you're not playing at all. There is no journey without goal.

This is just plain wrong, especially in the context of 40k. The reason the rules put so much of a focus on narrative and background is that the purpose of the game is to tell a good story. It's why people write fluff, it's why there are hundreds of awesome narrative battle reports on this site, it's why it's perfectly possible to have fun even when you're losing (and someone has to).

Take a bunch of kids playing football in a park. They're not playing to become the best players in the world and beat everyone else; they're playing because they enjoy spending that time with their friends, doing something active and even when one side is 10-nil down, they're probably still having a great time.

Why is 40k any different?

The goal of the football game is to get that ball ... in the goal.

If you're not trying to get that ball in the goal, you're not playing football.

If you're not trying to table my army, you're not playing WH40K.

This is not about WAAC or fluff or story or fun, it's about playing, in general.

morgoth wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Paradigm wrote:

morgoth wrote:

The thing is, if you're not playing to win, you're not playing at all. There is no journey without goal.

This is just plain wrong, especially in the context of 40k. The reason the rules put so much of a focus on narrative and background is that the purpose of the game is to tell a good story. It's why people write fluff, it's why there are hundreds of awesome narrative battle reports on this site, it's why it's perfectly possible to have fun even when you're losing (and someone has to).

Take a bunch of kids playing football in a park. They're not playing to become the best players in the world and beat everyone else; they're playing because they enjoy spending that time with their friends, doing something active and even when one side is 10-nil down, they're probably still having a great time.

Why is 40k any different?

The goal of the football game is to get that ball ... in the goal.

If you're not trying to get that ball in the goal, you're not playing football.

If you're not trying to table my army, you're not playing WH40K.

This is not about WAAC or fluff or story or fun, it's about playing, in general.

The goal of football is to score. The point of football, and any other sport or game, is to have fun. But it seems you're resolute on believing winning is all that matters, so I won't argue any more.

morgoth wrote:

Dashworth wrote:
*Dons le flame suit*

To be fair, the comments made on page 3 and 4 about pidgeon holing certain people who play WAAC lists isn't too far removed from reality. regardless of what has been said to counter his arguement.

I worked for GW for a few years back in my youth and if you disregard the plethora of cheesy watsit kids and the younger less switched on 'hobbyists' who tend to get bought a packet of space marines whilst mummy goes shopping you do tend to notice a kind of 'type of gamer'

take for example, on the gaming nights, I used to stay later than the store permitted as I had become good friends with a lot of the regulars and didnt mind closing early if people wanted to stay and game.

watching the games take place though, you do find that the power gamers (in my store these were the tournement goers) they would continually be writing army lists and discussing army lists to break the system to WAAC.

now, i didnt mind this but when they began to use these armies to play against younger kids who were just getting into the gaming night side of things, i would have to brief any new comers on the sort of armies that particular gamers would be using. Just so they were aware of what would inevitably happen if they were to play a game...

Unfortunately, this only ever went two ways, The younger gamers would play against this group of power gamers, alter their armies to match them and thus become another WAAC gamer.

The others would form their own little group and play for the fun aspect of the hobby and enjoy their fluffy armies that would tend to last less than 2 turns and game over....

I dont think the opinion about pidgeon holing gamers is wrong, i think the OP just went about the wrong way

Was there no middle ground between "noob army lists" and WAAC ?
Were they WAAC in the sense of only running the most optimized lists, or was there still a bit of good in them ?

Not really, thats obviously my opinion though. Massively open to debate etc.

It would litrally be a case of either 'fluffy' noobs who had managed to scrape together a legal army list, which mainly considered what the rules point you towards, an example would be two tactical squads, a captain and maybe a tank or something if they had recently had a birthday.

They were old enough to understand the cheese but either could not afford a WAAC army list or quite simply were more interested in playing a game against their mates for fun who also fitted into the same sort of bracket.

The others, like I said in my OP were hardcore game breakers... nice enough people but i didn't even enjoy playing against them....

although when the siege of vraks came out and the heavy mortar could make units auto fall back off the edge of the table, they didnt like the proverbial taste of their own beardy medicine. That was a few funny games to teach them a few lessons... lol

Like i said, the above is only my opinion and im sure other gaming clubs, stores are different. etc. Im only going off my own personal experiences and consider myself a fluffy gamer

at least Its a nice excuse considering my vostryan infantry list couldnt fight its way out of a paper bag hahaha

 Paradigm wrote:
The goal of football is to score. The point of football, and any other sport or game, is to have fun. But it seems you're resolute on believing winning is all that matters, so I won't argue any more.

It seems you kind of missed the point- people play for fun, but trying to win is a big part of it and they rarely have a good time if they go into the game with little to no chance of winning.

Moreover, how often do you see sports players handicap themselves to give their opponent a decent chance of winning?

If it happens and they lose, do you think they enjoy the feeling of knowing that the only reason they lost was because they weren't playing their best? Do you think their opponents like the feeling of knowing they won only because the better player was playing with one arm tied behind his back?

If it happens and they still win, how crappy do you reckon the other guy would feel, knowing that his best wasn't enough to edge out a win against a handicapped opponent?

 Galorian wrote:

 Paradigm wrote:
The goal of football is to score. The point of football, and any other sport or game, is to have fun. But it seems you're resolute on believing winning is all that matters, so I won't argue any more.

It seems you kind of missed the point- people play for fun, but trying to win is a big part of it and they rarely have a good time if they go into the game with little to no chance of winning.

The only time you'll go into a game 'with little to no chance of winning' is if the list the opponent has brought is crafted to be powerful, and yours is not. In that case, I would argue that if the opponent were a decent human being, he would either reduce the power of that list so that it becomes a fairer fight, or he would find someone else to play aganist, thus sparing you from a crushing defeat you can do nothing about, and getting more out of the game himself (I can't imagine crushing an opponent who is powerless to stop you is at all fun unless you have a serious inferiority complex and feel the need to prove you're better at playing soldiers)

Moreover, how often do you see sports players handicap themselves to give their opponent a decent chance of winning?

How often do you see people being paid thousands to play 40k? The analogy falls flat there.

Of course, in a competitive event, be it sporting or gaming, there is a desire to win and a reward for doing so. But for the games outside of that area (most, I'd guess), there's no point in bringing a list that powerful, for the reasons outlined above; you're depriving both yourself and someone else of enjoyment.

If it happens and they lose, do you think they enjoy the feeling of knowing that the only reason they lost was because they weren't playing their best? Do you think their opponents like the feeling of knowing they won only because the better player was playing with one arm tied behind his back?

If it happens and they still win, how crappy do you reckon the other guy would feel, knowing that his best wasn't enough to edge out a win against a handicapped opponent?

At the end of the day, I can't answer this, as when I go into a game I couldn't really give a damn about the result, it's how I get there that matters. If, after an evening of 40, I've lost 9-1, but the guy on the other side of the board was a decent chap and we got along and had a laugh, I genuinely wouldn't care about the result. If, on the other hand, I've tabled someone on turn 4 but they're annoying, impolite or generally dislikeable, I won't have enjoyed the game (and this has happened to me, it's not hypothetical).

The result, outside of a tournament, gets you nothing more than bragging rights; is that really worth someone else losing out on enjoyment for?
Of course there's an element of playing to win, but that's playing to win, not building a list before the game for that express purpose. There is a big difference.

 Paradigm wrote:


The goal of football is to score. The point of football, and any other sport or game, is to have fun. But it seems you're resolute on believing winning is all that matters, so I won't argue any more.

And that's exactly my point.

If you're not playing to score, you're not playing, and not achieving the point through the activity, making said activity an excuse.

The point of football, as for most things including life, is the journey, not the goal.

The goal of football, as for most games, is to win.

Haha nice article and blast from the past. I loved when Warp Spiders had flamer templates instead of stupidly rolling to hit with giant webs.
My group is fairly non-competitive. We did have two power players though that kind of ruined things for people and complained loudly when other people in our small group refused to play their screamer star or triple helldrake lists. Helldrake player has since rage quit due to the nerf and daemon player has changed over to the daemon factory flavor of the month and thus complains that people wont play him.

 Paradigm wrote:

morgoth wrote:

The thing is, if you're not playing to win, you're not playing at all. There is no journey without goal.

This is just plain wrong, especially in the context of 40k. The reason the rules put so much of a focus on narrative and background is that the purpose of the game is to tell a good story. It's why people write fluff, it's why there are hundreds of awesome narrative battle reports on this site, it's why it's perfectly possible to have fun even when you're losing (and someone has to).

Take a bunch of kids playing football in a park. They're not playing to become the best players in the world and beat everyone else; they're playing because they enjoy spending that time with their friends, doing something active and even when one side is 10-nil down, they're probably still having a great time.

Why is 40k any different?

There's a gigantic, glaring assumption there--that competitive players don't have fun.

Warmachine and Malifaux are my go-to counter examples. When I play them, I try to win and accept that my opponent is doing the same. While we're trying to ruthlessly crush the models on the other side, we'll chat and joke, and wince when the other guy has a "fugitive from the laws of averages" moment, or go 'wow' when the opponent pulls off a clever move or hail-mary attempt to win. Maybe remind the opponent of something to their benefit--"Remember, if you charge that guy, you're at -2 to hit." or "Hey, I don't think you activated that Death Marshal behind the house yet." At the end of the game, when we've finished trying to win the game as hard as we possibly can, we'll have a chat about how it could have gone better or worse, and what different tactics we could have used.

Narratives happen just fine--both games have a very detailed universe with a strong storyline that invites the players to add to it. I can tell stories about the time my satyr pulled off a Reversal and stopped cold the giant troll that was about to eat my entire army, or when my Neverborn crew got wiped out except for one lizard-man, who managed to secure an objective in the last turn and pull out a win. What you describe is nowhere near unique to 40K, and it's really just a fig leaf to make excuses for bad rules.

The difference is, that those games have rules written by people who put effort into them. And so it's far harder to break either game--you can have a very synergistic list, or a list that's super-strong in one area but falls apart if the opponent denies it a chance to do that thing, but it's nowhere near the scope of brokenness or "You don't get to play the game." that 40K can manage.

And it's precisely because those rules are sound and there are fewer mis-priced units that we can be competitive and do our level best to win without ever assuming the other guy is a jerk. Because the rules can largely stand up to our attempts to break something, we can be as fluffy or gamey as we want, and if the things in our army at least have basic synergy, there's unlikely to be a vast disparity in list effectiveness.

But because 40K is so breakable, that's the reason why building a list that's "too good" is seen as a bad reflection on the player, because it's harder to build a list that's fun to play against than in a balanced system, and it's quite easy to accidentally build a list that's broken without even meaning to ("So if the Wave Serpent is the most common Eldar transport, I should take several of them, and I'll include a Revenant because the model looks wicked awesome!").

The short version is, I agree that social contracts are important in 40K to avoid painful, funless non-games--but don't go thinking that's common to all wargames, because it's not. Games where the rules were well designed have everything you list as an asset of 40K, and don't have the artificial division between "competitive" and "casual". That's entirely down to poor rules, naught else.

(edit) Anyone who thinks poorly written rules make the game more fun should go to 40K YMDC, and read any thread of 5 pages or more. Those posters sure seem to be having fun.

 Paradigm wrote:

morgoth wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Paradigm wrote:

morgoth wrote:

The thing is, if you're not playing to win, you're not playing at all. There is no journey without goal.

This is just plain wrong, especially in the context of 40k. The reason the rules put so much of a focus on narrative and background is that the purpose of the game is to tell a good story. It's why people write fluff, it's why there are hundreds of awesome narrative battle reports on this site, it's why it's perfectly possible to have fun even when you're losing (and someone has to).

Take a bunch of kids playing football in a park. They're not playing to become the best players in the world and beat everyone else; they're playing because they enjoy spending that time with their friends, doing something active and even when one side is 10-nil down, they're probably still having a great time.

Why is 40k any different?

The goal of the football game is to get that ball ... in the goal.

If you're not trying to get that ball in the goal, you're not playing football.

If you're not trying to table my army, you're not playing WH40K.

This is not about WAAC or fluff or story or fun, it's about playing, in general.

The goal of football is to score. The point of football, and any other sport or game, is to have fun. But it seems you're resolute on believing winning is all that matters, so I won't argue any more.

Sports analogies rarly translate into a roll the dice games, because all sports progams have completly different goals at different levels. Ages 5-15 fun, 15-18 grey area depends on the school because many are very win oriented (high level of college recruitment), college and pro all about the win.

Morgoth not sure many people will agree that playing to table your opponent is anything short of WAAC.

I think compettive and casual can be combined, however WAAC/ table you opponent can never be combined with casual. It just doesn't mix. IMHO

 Galorian wrote:

 Paradigm wrote:
The goal of football is to score. The point of football, and any other sport or game, is to have fun. But it seems you're resolute on believing winning is all that matters, so I won't argue any more.

It seems you kind of missed the point- people play for fun, but trying to win is a big part of it and they rarely have a good time if they go into the game with little to no chance of winning.

Moreover, how often do you see sports players handicap themselves to give their opponent a decent chance of winning?

If it happens and they lose, do you think they enjoy the feeling of knowing that the only reason they lost was because they weren't playing their best? Do you think their opponents like the feeling of knowing they won only because the better player was playing with one arm tied behind his back?

If it happens and they still win, how crappy do you reckon the other guy would feel, knowing that his best wasn't enough to edge out a win against a handicapped opponent?

This a million times. (A guy once tailored, cheated and got tabled by me. I was happy not to be him, not to tailor, not to cheat and try to not get tabled).

That's also why calling everybody's army OP is harmful.
Some combos are broken but that doesn't give you the right to pretend your opponent's victory is worthless just because he happens to use an army that has broken combos.

One, I never said it was common to all wargames. I am familiar with others that do not have half the balance issues that 40k does, but that's not what's being discussed here, There's no point arguing the merits of Maifaux or Warmachine or Deadzone, no matter how good those games are, if 40k is what the people here are discussing.

Two, I never said that competitive players don't have fun, but in a non-competitive environment, I can't see they'd derive that much enjoyment from smashing a player that has no chance to win. In a tourny, fine, it's expected that both players go all-in power-wise, and because of that expectation, there's balance, as a trade-off for variation, and of course people can have fun playing against lists that are just as dangerous as their own.

I agree with a lot of what you're saying, and I'm not trying to defend 40k's poor rules, only point out that winning is not the be-all-and-end-all of the game.

Dashworth wrote:


Not really, thats obviously my opinion though. Massively open to debate etc.

It would litrally be a case of either 'fluffy' noobs who had managed to scrape together a legal army list, which mainly considered what the rules point you towards, an example would be two tactical squads, a captain and maybe a tank or something if they had recently had a birthday.

They were old enough to understand the cheese but either could not afford a WAAC army list or quite simply were more interested in playing a game against their mates for fun who also fitted into the same sort of bracket.

The others, like I said in my OP were hardcore game breakers... nice enough people but i didn't even enjoy playing against them....

although when the siege of vraks came out and the heavy mortar could make units auto fall back off the edge of the table, they didnt like the proverbial taste of their own beardy medicine. That was a few funny games to teach them a few lessons... lol

Like i said, the above is only my opinion and im sure other gaming clubs, stores are different. etc. Im only going off my own personal experiences and consider myself a fluffy gamer

at least Its a nice excuse considering my vostryan infantry list couldnt fight its way out of a paper bag hahaha

I see your point.

My first army list was an Eldar detachment and maybe a few more models, I got completely wrecked, and I blame it on GW for making most of the units in the Eldar Codex plain useless.

The army I was playing wasn't even close to optimized or competitive, but it was already unplayable. It would be nice if GW tried to avoid that experience for new players... maybe not make battle force boxes that don't make sense...

 Elemental wrote:
There's a gigantic, glaring assumption there--that competitive players don't have fun.

Its WAAC victims that don't have fun, its only fun for the WAAC player. Compettive players win or lose can have fun its a different mind set. 'yeah I want to win, just not at the cost of crushing my opponent so he has no chance of winning.

 Rune Stonegrinder wrote:

Morgoth not sure many people will agree that playing to table your opponent is anything short of WAAC.

I think compettive and casual can be combined, however WAAC/ table you opponent can never be combined with casual. It just doesn't mix. IMHO

Then ask yourself this, why on earth is tabling your opponent a way to actually win? Heck, why do the rules make it possible to do relatively easily? Are you really saying the rules have no responsibility in this subject, and the thoughts of the developers were really "We'll put in a way to win that only jerks will use, so if you follow the rulebook and aim to wipe out your opponent entirely, then you can win at the expense of being a pariah in your gaming group?"

This is the perfect example of why these sorts of arguments bewilder me.

 Rune Stonegrinder wrote:

Morgoth not sure many people will agree that playing to table your opponent is anything short of WAAC.

I think compettive and casual can be combined, however WAAC/ table you opponent can never be combined with casual. It just doesn't mix. IMHO

And that's where you're wrong.

There's a huge difference between Winning At All Costs and Playing To Win.

At all costs implies you're ready to abuse any rule in the book and even make ridiculous anti-fluff combos just to win.

Playing to win implies you're simply playing. And winning means trying to table your opponent.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Elemental wrote:

 Rune Stonegrinder wrote:

Morgoth not sure many people will agree that playing to table your opponent is anything short of WAAC.

I think compettive and casual can be combined, however WAAC/ table you opponent can never be combined with casual. It just doesn't mix. IMHO

Then ask yourself this, why on earth is tabling your opponent a way to actually win? Heck, why do the rules make it possible to do relatively easily? Are you really saying the rules have no responsibility in this subject, and the thoughts of the developers were really "We'll put in a way to win that only jerks will use, so if you follow the rulebook and aim to wipe out your opponent entirely, then you can win at the expense of being a pariah in your gaming group?"

This is the perfect example of why these sorts of arguments bewilder me.

What's wrong with tabling your opponent ?

Other victory conditions are ridiculous in comparison... like run to an objective for no reason...seriously ? A fight like a 2k point in 40K would take place in under 5 minutes, and you expect the forces there to run between 20 different objectives just because ? lol.

On top of that, some armies are made to table or be tabled, while others are far more resilient and have more options, so why even judge that ?

Nothing wrong with trying to destroy your opponent's army in a wargame, in fact if you aren't trying to do that you either have some VP stratagem in mind (hanging on to the objectives tooth and nail and/or trying to edge out a point advantage through secondaries for example, which is a perfectly viable and for some armies even rather fluffy strategy) or are just plain playing to lose (which is sad ).

In fact some of my best games were ones where both sides beat the snot out of each other to the point there was hardly anything left on the table save for lots of crater markers by the end of turn 6.

The problem arises when some armies are capable of whipping out lists that can easily table anything most other players would put on the table, sometimes to the point of making entire codices non-viable even in their most competitive builds.

 Paradigm wrote:
One, I never said it was common to all wargames. I am familiar with others that do not have half the balance issues that 40k does, but that's not what's being discussed here, There's no point arguing the merits of Maifaux or Warmachine or Deadzone, no matter how good those games are, if 40k is what the people here are discussing.

Two, I never said that competitive players don't have fun, but in a non-competitive environment, I can't see they'd derive that much enjoyment from smashing a player that has no chance to win. In a tourny, fine, it's expected that both players go all-in power-wise, and because of that expectation, there's balance, as a trade-off for variation, and of course people can have fun playing against lists that are just as dangerous as their own.

I agree with a lot of what you're saying, and I'm not trying to defend 40k's poor rules, only point out that winning is not the be-all-and-end-all of the game.

I bring other games up because there, winning is seen as something you earned through skill--not something that you got through rules exploits. I agree that crushing a rookie player is a jerk move to do, but it's all in the attitude of the player. You can certainly beat someone less experienced while being fun and helpful to play against--point out advantages in their army they might have missed, explain how your stuff works and when they're about to do something that's obviously unwise.

I've been thrashed by players and had fun, and I've won games that were miserable slogs, and by far the biggest factor was the attitude of the opponent. That's what makes a "bad" player for me, not what they put down on the table. I associate WAAC behaviour with playing fast and loose with rules, arguing over everything, regarding your opponent with unfounded suspicion, being derisive and unfriendly, etc--traits that are the same in any game with any army. None of that dickish behaviour comes from "wanting to win" though, because of course we all want to win.

So, I'm a bad person if I want to win a strategy game about war? No. I'm a casual player with a SOB army, but when I play, I'll play to win. That's kind of the point of a war game. The fun comes in how you try to win. If I try my hardest and my opponent tries his hardest and we have a hard fought, close game, that's fun for me. What's not fun is when I set my army down against an army I have no hope in beating.

If I'm not playing to win, then what's the point? "To tell a story and have fun!" If I wanted to spend time telling a story, I'll write a novel or play an RPG.

By all means play to win, but don't confuse that with the other aspects of the game. Winning is not the priority, it is the result. The priority is that both players have fun getting there.

 MWHistorian wrote:
So, I'm a bad person if I want to win a strategy game about war? No. I'm a casual player with a SOB army, but when I play, I'll play to win. That's kind of the point of a war game. The fun comes in how you try to win. If I try my hardest and my opponent tries his hardest and we have a hard fought, close game, that's fun for me. What's not fun is when I set my army down against an army I have no hope in beating.

If I'm not playing to win, then what's the point? "To tell a story and have fun!" If I wanted to spend time telling a story, I'll write a novel or play an RPG.

wish I could have stated it more clearly.

 Paradigm wrote:

Take a bunch of kids playing football in a park. They're not playing to become the best players in the world and beat everyone else; they're playing because they enjoy spending that time with their friends, doing something active and even when one side is 10-nil down, they're probably still having a great time.

Why is 40k any different?

They don't play the best in the world , becaues they don't have the money to travel. But localy the competition is brutal . I live in Krakov , my cities second name is the city of knifes , because the football fans here refused to sign the no weapons in game fights deal . There are two teams and you either support one or the other , or you get beaten by supporters of both. It starts in kindergarden , and I have seen fathers yell break his leg in matchs between 10 year olds .

Competition is in all games , people don't beat each other up sensless only because of the cost it would bring . Offten people mention something called the "dreadsock" , but I doubt anyone does it actualy . But if there was no life long ban from events or clubs linked to it , they would totaly do it , specialy if they are bigger then their opponents.

So you think that if there were no consequence, people would happily beat someone up to win at 40k? There's honestly nothing I can say to that.

morgoth wrote:
What's wrong with tabling your opponent ?

Nothing as long as the road to get there wasn't paved by the shear desire to crush my opponent and prevent him having fun. I've tabled people before I just never developed an army list with the sole intent to crush all opposition. If my opponent is not having fun, I'm not having fun. To most players getting tabled is not fun, you'll be hard pressed to find anyone to agree otherwise.

morgoth wrote:
Other victory conditions are ridiculous in comparison... like run to an objective for no reason...seriously ? A fight like a 2k point in 40K would take place in under 5 minutes, and you expect the forces there to run between 20 different objectives just because ?

Tell that to the men who lost their lives in countless battles, just to take and hold some nameless spit of land they could care less about. All because a General thought it was of strategic value during a campaign advance. The General was most likely right, but his troops had the same attitude as you, 'risk my life for what, this POS hill/bridge/town'. They did it because they had to.

The stories most vets ever told me, never gave me the impression it lasted only 5 minutes.

morgoth wrote:
On top of that, some armies are made to table or be tabled, while others are far more resilient and have more options, so why even judge that?

Not if the rules and codices were more balanced

I'm not attacking you just can't aggree and I think most people will not either. IMHO



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Elemental wrote:

 Rune Stonegrinder wrote:

Morgoth not sure many people will agree that playing to table your opponent is anything short of WAAC.

I think compettive and casual can be combined, however WAAC/ table you opponent can never be combined with casual. It just doesn't mix. IMHO

Then ask yourself this, why on earth is tabling your opponent a way to actually win? Heck, why do the rules make it possible to do relatively easily? Are you really saying the rules have no responsibility in this subject, and the thoughts of the developers were really "We'll put in a way to win that only jerks will use, so if you follow the rulebook and aim to wipe out your opponent entirely, then you can win at the expense of being a pariah in your gaming group?"

This is the perfect example of why these sorts of arguments bewilder me.

I guess you missed where I stated in a previous post that most players wish the game was more balanced so every army had a equal shot of winning. I don't agree with the way the game is being developed, with tabling and WAAC armies as a norm.

I' not even sure what you mean in the last sentance.

 Elemental wrote:

 Paradigm wrote:
One, I never said it was common to all wargames. I am familiar with others that do not have half the balance issues that 40k does, but that's not what's being discussed here, There's no point arguing the merits of Maifaux or Warmachine or Deadzone, no matter how good those games are, if 40k is what the people here are discussing.

Two, I never said that competitive players don't have fun, but in a non-competitive environment, I can't see they'd derive that much enjoyment from smashing a player that has no chance to win. In a tourny, fine, it's expected that both players go all-in power-wise, and because of that expectation, there's balance, as a trade-off for variation, and of course people can have fun playing against lists that are just as dangerous as their own.

I agree with a lot of what you're saying, and I'm not trying to defend 40k's poor rules, only point out that winning is not the be-all-and-end-all of the game.

I bring other games up because there, winning is seen as something you earned through skill--not something that you got through rules exploits. I agree that crushing a rookie player is a jerk move to do, but it's all in the attitude of the player. You can certainly beat someone less experienced while being fun and helpful to play against--point out advantages in their army they might have missed, explain how your stuff works and when they're about to do something that's obviously unwise.

I've been thrashed by players and had fun, and I've won games that were miserable slogs, and by far the biggest factor was the attitude of the opponent. That's what makes a "bad" player for me, not what they put down on the table. I associate WAAC behaviour with playing fast and loose with rules, arguing over everything, regarding your opponent with unfounded suspicion, being derisive and unfriendly, etc--traits that are the same in any game with any army. None of that dickish behaviour comes from "wanting to win" though, because of course we all want to win.

Don't put it all on the winner.

I've seen a lot more bad attitude from people I tabled than from myself (lol).

Some started cheating as soon as they understood what was coming to them, others kept calling my stuff OP to diminish my victory earned through skill (of unit placement no less...), ...

And that's people I gave important advice to during the game and all that.

In the end, when your opponent makes huge mistakes, you're somewhat forced to table them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Makumba wrote:

 Paradigm wrote:

Take a bunch of kids playing football in a park. They're not playing to become the best players in the world and beat everyone else; they're playing because they enjoy spending that time with their friends, doing something active and even when one side is 10-nil down, they're probably still having a great time.

Why is 40k any different?

They don't play the best in the world , becaues they don't have the money to travel. But localy the competition is brutal . I live in Krakov , my cities second name is the city of knifes , because the football fans here refused to sign the no weapons in game fights deal . There are two teams and you either support one or the other , or you get beaten by supporters of both. It starts in kindergarden , and I have seen fathers yell break his leg in matchs between 10 year olds .

Competition is in all games , people don't beat each other up sensless only because of the cost it would bring . Offten people mention something called the "dreadsock" , but I doubt anyone does it actualy . But if there was no life long ban from events or clubs linked to it , they would totaly do it , specialy if they are bigger then their opponents.

In Soviet Russia, the leg breaks you.

Just kidding, but this should not happen in civilized countries.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Rune Stonegrinder wrote:


Nothing as long as the road to get there wasn't paved by the shear desire to crush my opponent and prevent him having fun. I've tabled people before I just never developed an army list with the sole intent to crush all opposition. If my opponent is not having fun, I'm not having fun. To most players getting tabled is not fun, you'll be hard pressed to find anyone to agree otherwise.

Who said anything about preventing him to have fun. When just about anyone at a decent level plays SC2, he's trying his hardest to table his opponent, it's still all in good fun and all good players have fun being smashed even by cheesy builds, and learn to counter them.
On the other hand, SC2 is rather balanced and there are no cheeses that can't be countered while keeping a relatively TAC approach.

 Rune Stonegrinder wrote:

Tell that to the men who lost their lives in countless battles, just to take and hold some nameless spit of land they could care less about. All because a General thought it was of strategic value during a campaign advance. The General was most likely right, but his troops had the same attitude as you, 'risk my life for what, this POS hill/bridge/town'. They did it because they had to.

The stories most vets ever told me, never gave me the impression it lasted only 5 minutes.

A WH40K battle wouldn't last 5 minutes, because they take place in the future with advanced weaponry, not in the past with crappy MP40's and bullets that don't even make it through a brick wall.
Even the state of current warfare would make such objectives meaningless, as the equivalent of a 2K point fight would maybe take 6 minutes instead of 5.
Go for that objective, I'll be shoving this nuke up your bum while you do it

 Rune Stonegrinder wrote:


Not if the rules and codices were more balanced

I'm not attacking you just can't aggree and I think most people will not either. IMHO

That would be horribly boring.
Eldar are wonderful for being table or be tabled, other armies are about resilience, others about other things still, that's what makes multiple different armies fun.

 Rune Stonegrinder wrote:


I guess you missed where I stated in a previous post that most players wish the game was more balanced so every army had a equal shot of winning. I don't agree with the way the game is being developed, with tabling and WAAC armies as a norm.

I' not even sure what you mean in the last sentance.

No, most players would like that the worse 8 codexes would be brought up to speed with the top 5. Equal shot at winning.

Tabling is an effect of the decisiveness of some builds, it's a good thing.

WAAC has strictly nothing to do with tabling, and that acronym is being way overused to describe anything remotely competitive.