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.

Enough sniping at each other. What you may consider as a light joke/jab, never comes across as such via a text/forum.

Last warning---next time someone will get a break from the thread and possibly Dakka.

Ryan

 Peregrine wrote:

 happygolucky wrote:
Have you read what you have wrote? You are heavily implying that the OP should play towards his/her opponents standards which involves using money which the OP does not seem to have, playing in a way the OP does not deem as fun, as I have said im my OP there is way too much variables that need exploring before we can say much more.

Or there's an option: don't play against the competitive players. If you and your potential opponent have completely incompatible ideas about what is fun then just accept it, move on, and find someone else who shares your ideas about what makes a fun game. Don't act like you're entitled to play against them and have an equal chance of winning, even if it means that they have to give up the units/lists they enjoy using and bring weaker stuff instead.

But... I don't play against competitive players... I play with my group which is a very casual group..

I think your getting the identity of me and the OP confused..

As to "force play on another" here's a story of when I was a boy..

When the CSM codex came out with the addition of the Helldrakes, I used to take 2 with baleflamers, now I liked Helldrakes not because of the power level but because I liked the idea or flying daemon dragons breathing fire everywhere..

Now I assume you know about the 360 degree Helldrake Baleflamer back before the update? it made it very powerful, in fact it made it so powerful it was one of the units that people took as an "auto-include" in most competitive games..

Now when I used to run these bad pair, I used to win a lot f games mainly because of the Helldrakes and I remember a game where I played one opponent and he did not question my choice of the Helldrakes but I could tell he was not enjoying the game.

So what did I do about it? I shelved the Helldrakes, yes I liked them and yes they were good, but for the benefit of my opponents in my group I decided to just shelve them.. and adapt to the situation.

Now I enjoy my games even more that I now don't include the dynamic duo.

Moral of the Story: The game requires two people to play. Its a social contract. and a good sportsman adapts for the benefit in including all variations of fun, a good player adapts to the scenario and/or situation taking each condition as a challenge.

 happygolucky wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 happygolucky wrote:
Have you read what you have wrote? You are heavily implying that the OP should play towards his/her opponents standards which involves using money which the OP does not seem to have, playing in a way the OP does not deem as fun, as I have said im my OP there is way too much variables that need exploring before we can say much more.

Moral of the Story: The game requires two people to play. Its a social contract. and a god sportsman adapts for the benefit in including all variations of fun, a good player adapts to the scenario and/or situation taking each condition as a challenge.

This is the key element. It's all about gamers communicating with each other and either being in agreement about what kind of game they want or finding an accommodation that works for both of them.

 happygolucky wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 happygolucky wrote:
Have you read what you have wrote? You are heavily implying that the OP should play towards his/her opponents standards which involves using money which the OP does not seem to have, playing in a way the OP does not deem as fun, as I have said im my OP there is way too much variables that need exploring before we can say much more.

Moral of the Story: The game requires two people to play. Its a social contract. and a god sportsman adapts for the benefit in including all variations of fun, a good player adapts to the scenario and/or situation taking each condition as a challenge.

This is the key element. It's all about gamers communicating with each other and either being in agreement about what kind of game they want or finding an accommodation that works for both of them.

This is exactly what i am talking about, I just want to know how to make this contract known to my opponents.

OP, I guess you need to go through a kind of checklist for the next game.
With the new scoring system, plain-old blasting each other off the table is not always a game winner.

1) Bound or unbound?
2) Allies limitations (qty, type...)?
3) Gods of war?
4) Points limit?
5) Scenario?
6) Terrain placement / type?
7) Fortifications?
8) Aircraft?

Even with this it may not prevent a Necron flying circus.
Peregrine can be a bit blunt at times but he is on the money that you need to find like minded players on what is "fun" to you.
I do not mind playing competitive players as long as I know going into it: so I can sharpen my pencil with my army list.
"Fluffy" games I like too, where I can play models that would typically sit on the shelf.
Each way should be looked at as an opportunity, getting out of your comfort zone can find other unexpected avenues of fun.

 The Home Nuggeteer wrote:

 happygolucky wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 happygolucky wrote:
Have you read what you have wrote? You are heavily implying that the OP should play towards his/her opponents standards which involves using money which the OP does not seem to have, playing in a way the OP does not deem as fun, as I have said im my OP there is way too much variables that need exploring before we can say much more.

Moral of the Story: The game requires two people to play. Its a social contract. and a god sportsman adapts for the benefit in including all variations of fun, a good player adapts to the scenario and/or situation taking each condition as a challenge.

This is the key element. It's all about gamers communicating with each other and either being in agreement about what kind of game they want or finding an accommodation that works for both of them.

This is exactly what i am talking about, I just want to know how to make this contract known to my opponents.

You don't. You are the one that is wrong here, not them. If the entire group is having fun amongst themselves playing the way that they are then you have two choices: adapt your style of play to theirs so that you can get games with them, or find a different group that shares your particular ideas on what constitutes a fun game.

Why should they have less fun playing the game so that you don't have to change you way of playing?

I would try bribing them with cookies. WAAC players love cookies.

 chochky wrote:
I would try bribing them with cookies. WAAC players love cookies.

I don't like cookies.

 Random Dude wrote:

 chochky wrote:
I would try bribing them with cookies. WAAC players love cookies.

I don't like cookies.

You monster.

PhantomViper wrote:

 The Home Nuggeteer wrote:

 happygolucky wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 happygolucky wrote:
Have you read what you have wrote? You are heavily implying that the OP should play towards his/her opponents standards which involves using money which the OP does not seem to have, playing in a way the OP does not deem as fun, as I have said im my OP there is way too much variables that need exploring before we can say much more.

Moral of the Story: The game requires two people to play. Its a social contract. and a god sportsman adapts for the benefit in including all variations of fun, a good player adapts to the scenario and/or situation taking each condition as a challenge.

This is the key element. It's all about gamers communicating with each other and either being in agreement about what kind of game they want or finding an accommodation that works for both of them.

This is exactly what i am talking about, I just want to know how to make this contract known to my opponents.

You don't. You are the one that is wrong here, not them. If the entire group is having fun amongst themselves playing the way that they are then you have two choices: adapt your style of play to theirs so that you can get games with them, or find a different group that shares your particular ideas on what constitutes a fun game.

Why should they have less fun playing the game so that you don't have to change you way of playing?

Because the game is a social contract and it would be good sportsmanship?

A game requires two people to have fun, yes there is a group that likes one style of play.. but why isn't that group inclusive and more open minded to adapt and change a list to his style of play? Is it because they are scared of loosing? or scared that they will have just as a good time without Netlist X, Y and Z?

As I have said and will say again, the game needs both players communication and both players having a middle ground, the OP cannot adapt to their style of play as it has been implied by the OP that he/she cannot grow the funds to play in that style, so it is up to he group to be more open minded and inclusive as well as understanding.

However I will say that we still don't have enough in-depth analysis of what it happening in the situation, so OP could you answer the following question's from my OP of this thread? it could give us a lot more info on what is happening exactly on the situation is at hand, thank you.

@happygolucky Does the game really require that people have fun? Whether or not something is fun is completely subjective, so I can hardly see how it is required.

*edit- I would love it if all my games were fun for both players, but I can't call that mandatory.

The goal of a game is to win...its purpose is to have fun. its not something that is Required, just the reason you play a game in the first place.

besides if you are not going to have fun playing it, why play?

 Desubot wrote:
The goal of a game is to win...its purpose is to have fun. its not something that is Required, just the reason you play a game in the first place.

besides if you are not going to have fun playing it, why play?

I completely agree that fun is the goal, I'm just saying it's okay if every once in a while you have a game that isn't fun for both players.

 Random Dude wrote:
I completely agree that fun is the goal, I'm just saying it's okay if every once in a while you have a game that isn't fun for both players.

?? Kind of like "compromise"?
An agreement where neither party is happy?
How is it OK to have a game where both players are not having fun?
A equal footing grinding tense game is fun in the extreme, this is where the stories and laughable event stories come from.

For goodness sake this is what we do with our leisure time, time off, OUR time not work, the wife's... yours.
If you are not having fun end it right there, life is too short...

 Talizvar wrote:

 Random Dude wrote:
I completely agree that fun is the goal, I'm just saying it's okay if every once in a while you have a game that isn't fun for both players.

?? Kind of like "compromise"?
An agreement where neither party is happy?
How is it OK to have a game where both players are not having fun?
A equal footing grinding tense game is fun in the extreme, this is where the stories and laughable event stories come from.

For goodness sake this is what we do with our leisure time, time off, OUR time not work, the wife's... yours.
If you are not having fun end it right there, life is too short...

I misspoke. I meant a game in which one player has fun and one doesn't

Theres a guy in my local GW, the everyday regular. Hes nice to some people, and an over the top a-hole to others. Its truly unbr lievable the way he talks to some people there. He happens to be nice to me, for whatever reason.

This guy was a Tyranid player when he started out a year and a half ago, when the new codex was released he dropped them and bought a triptide gunline list. He also bought a CSM/Daemons list. Ive never seen him play anything but his Tau though. Every day. Minimum two Riptides, never seen him without 2 or 3 on the table.

One week he invited me to a friendly game, we sceduled it for ths t weekend. I brought a fluff list with models I liked. He brought double Riptide Taudar gunline. And rule nazi'd me, whil err criticizing my every move/decision. He argued every LoS, etc.. It was no fun at all, not just because he annhilated my friendly list, but because he gloated and rubbed his dominance in my face for 2 hours. It got to the point where I was a are err mark or two away from knocking him out. Which would have been effortless for me. This guy is a short and fat loudmouth.

I see him behave this way every single time Im in the store. To be honest, its the msin reason I give the flgs more of my business than the GW. Shame on the GW manager for enabling this guy, and causing myself and a few others to just shake our heads at whats going on over there.

Point is, hes a slightly extreme, but also typical example of a WAAC player. He derides anyone that uses a unit he percieves yo be op. He loudly chastises anyone that uses FW models (he doesnt), and wont allow a handful of units to be fielded against him.

So yea, if your idea of fun infringes or stomps all over someone elses - YOU are the a-hole. Its not simply explaining it away as "different ideas of fun, blah, blah, blah... Anyone can netlist, it just takes a true douche to do it in pick up games in a casual setting to the other members of your community. Every day.
I have a strong distaste for any netlisting WAAC player that has 'fun' by stomping in what is a casual, friendly setting. Its only a matter of time before I snap on one of these idiots and spend the night in jail.

sand.zzz wrote:
Snip

I hope you informed him that you just wanted a non competitive friendly game instead of a full ham go nuts.


Friendly =/= non competitive ....

You could also be like me and enter a 1500 tournament with nothing but Cultists and Typhus... People LOVE watching you move 210 models, as you carefully measure each inch so as not to unintentionally cheat.

They brought 3 Riptides eh? Move your 15 model army. Take 5 minutes in shooting. I'll just calmly sit here and walk an entire retinue of junk across the board and hilariously cap objectives while basically doing nothing, yet wasting 2 and a half hours of your time.

 Talizvar wrote:

 Random Dude wrote:
I completely agree that fun is the goal, I'm just saying it's okay if every once in a while you have a game that isn't fun for both players.

For goodness sake this is what we do with our leisure time, time off, OUR time not work, the wife's... yours.
If you are not having fun end it right there, life is too short...

Truer words have never been spoken on Dakka

If both players play to make the game fun for the other person, the game will be fun.

It requires talking, compromise and a positive attitude. Once the armies are on the table, play to win if you want.

Otherwise its a waste of time.

Of course this is easier with people after the same thing as you, but if they arent willing to play in a compromised game (which may require you to try up your game a bit too) then the battle is lost.

Second thing you can do, without leaving the game or area, is lead by example. It worked where I am. I just started playing fluffily one day and now the competitive players are reducing monthly. They found their arms races and limited unit lists looked bland compared to how us fluffy players play. A notorious Demon player came to me the other day and asked what we would consider fluffy so he can have games with us. This guy used to laugh at what we took etc. Now he wants to join in and we had lots of fun the other night.

Different area, different people. Try find a way that gets them to see how you enjoy it and hopefully they too may follow. But this requires you to understand why they enjoy their style and be open to playing it their way every so often.

I felt your pain once upon a time although most of the group werent too bad.

As an example of how bad some players can be. The Eldar player purchased a revenant titan. He cut down armies in his path and won many battles. I purchased a Reaver Titan. He then purchased THREE MORE revenant titans because I got a reaver... I have yet to use my reaver titan, his reserve titans are yet to be deployed... That was the worst arms race that almost kicked off at our club. I almost started the Titan arms race, it ended with me not buying another titan. If I got one, many would have followed haha.

One of the lesser options to use is time. I noticed, nothing annoys a Competitive player more (and this hurts fluff players too) than his army being made useless. During these times many competative players make the choice to keep buying the latest and greatest, or to start playing in a lax mode where he no longer has to keep making purchases.

Other than that, good luck dude. Just be diplomatic, compromise and so on. Be patient, there isnt much else you can do beyond finding more players or moving on, Or trying a new game.

 happygolucky wrote:
... yes there is a group that likes one style of play.. but why isn't that group inclusive and more open minded to adapt and change a list to his style of play?

Because they like playing the game the way they are already playing it?

This thread puts me in mind of those people who move to a house near an airport and then start complaining about the noise.


If you're the new person to join a group, it's a little unrealistic to immediately expect everyone already in that group to adapt their behaviour to suit you. If that group doesn't play the game the way you like to play, find a different group that does.

sand.zzz wrote:
So yea, if your idea of fun infringes or stomps all over someone elses - YOU are the a-hole. Its not simply explaining it away as "different ideas of fun, blah, blah, blah... Anyone can netlist, it just takes a true douche to do it in pick up games in a casual setting to the other members of your community. Every day.
I have a strong distaste for any netlisting WAAC player that has 'fun' by stomping in what is a casual, friendly setting. Its only a matter of time before I snap on one of these idiots and spend the night in jail.

You do realize that this seems to be the opposite situation, yeah?

I like to take a different tack: "over zealous competitive players".
Zeal = Great energy or enthusiasm.
I can appreciate that, passion for a game is better than mister stone face.
Competitive = ruthless, aggressive, fierce.
It is a war game after all.
If the person can extend that only to the game we are good

I think it is when those think the game extends to gaming me.
Tactics on the player rather than on the table I think is probably the core beef with this thread.
Playing for money or fame, yes, all is fair.
Leisure time, save the games and attitude for someone who cares.

It is irritating this conflict in me, to pick a netlist is easy, simple winning strategy.
I like close games, so tend to tone it down to match the meta in my area.
It bugs me when someone comes in with all the bells and whistles and thinks he is the great general when he wins, it burns my butt.

You are a competitive player? Say so, talk smack before hand, BRING IT ON! Let me know just how much of a legend in your own mind you are!!!
Then let us meet and have a game and let us see what you are made of.
Just do not say "lets have a friendly game" and bring your bunch of Riptides you deceitful little %$#@&!!!
Plus, always remember the unholy number of things left to the dice still can make a mockery of any strategy, hence why rookies can beat veterans.

 Talizvar wrote:
I like to take a different tack: "over zealous competitive players".
Zeal = Great energy or enthusiasm.
I can appreciate that, passion for a game is better than mister stone face.
Competitive = ruthless, aggressive, fierce.
It is a war game after all.
If the person can extend that only to the game we are good

I think it is when those think the game extends to gaming me.
Tactics on the player rather than on the table I think is probably the core beef with this thread.
Playing for money or fame, yes, all is fair.
Leisure time, save the games and attitude for someone who cares.

It is irritating this conflict in me, to pick a netlist is easy, simple winning strategy.
I like close games, so tend to tone it down to match the meta in my area.
It bugs me when someone comes in with all the bells and whistles and thinks he is the great general when he wins, it burns my butt.

You are a competitive player? Say so, talk smack before hand, BRING IT ON! Let me know just how much of a legend in your own mind you are!!!
Then let us meet and have a game and let us see what you are made of.
Just do not say "lets have a friendly game" and bring your bunch of Riptides you deceitful little %$#@&!!!
Plus, always remember the unholy number of things left to the dice still can make a mockery of any strategy, hence why rookies can beat veterans.

Agreed. It's important to make a conscious decision not to get angry over a game that revolves around a lot of random chance.

Effecting group change is always difficult. It's usually easier and less traumatic for the individual to give way.

If you are attempting to jump into a group who are quite content playing a certain way, attempting to change them will be met with a large amount of resistance while quickly labeling you as a troublemaker.

You can certainly ask various individuals if they are interested in a non-competitive style game while outlining what that means to you. Hopefully you have some talking points as to the merits of your style that is something greater than "It's more fun." "Fun" is is too subjective. Maybe point out that non-comp lists allow them to try units which they wouldn't normally field.

Of course, they are free to decline. Just as you are free to find yourself a different group which is more in line with your philosophy; assuming that you aren't willing to conform.

A different perspective:
Before I moved, my local store had 2 players who had a competitive mindset: myself, and another guy who showed up once every couple months. The rest of the players (about 4-6) were casual. This started when they didn't do well in a couple regional tournaments; they made a hard turn towards "casual/fluffy" gaming while at the same time trying to play to win on a lower level. Thus, our store was filled with a lot of mid-tier lists played by people who just there "to have fun". These included Thousand Sons, Chaos Daemons/SM, Dark Eldar/Eldar, and Tau (which sometimes ran 3 riptides...or none). While at first it was amusing, list building soon became a chore because I had to tailor my army to each list I faced ("ok bob has no plasma so the dreadknight is out, can he kill a land raider instead?) to try and have a balanced 2K game while still not crippling myself to the point that I'd take a meaningless loss. Basically, I had to trim the margin of victory down to an acceptable level. I don't mind doing that for a game with a new guy, but when every game becomes that it took a lot of the fun away.
The point is that even "casual" (which IS NOT synonymous with "fluffy") players play to win. "Competitive" players just do it better.

My advice to the OP is to try and organize a more fluffy activity. Maybe a tourney with the Highlander Rule (no two units can be the same), Apoc Day, or maybe a campaign.

Sure, it becomes a whole lot of work for you... but isn't improving your hobby experience worth doing some work?