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.

 Azreal13 wrote:

This graphic is an apt description of how this night has been going across those various threads

But yeah, I never blame a player for being competitive, I also never blame a player for exploiting rules (unless he's being a dick about it, but then that's a different topic, I'm blaming him for being a dick not for exploiting the rules).

I place the blame squarely where it belongs on the writers of the rules that have done such a poor job and charge top dollar for them.

But none the less, it can be frustrating when you show up with a knife to a gunfight... I mean Pyrovores to a Wave Serpent fight.

that is true. it's easy to get frustrated trying to get a point across and that does tend to make the brain explode. Good advice. I'll take a breather to re-organize.

When in doubt, read through some long thread of two other people's armies. There are some REAL doozies of examples of cognitive dissonance over in YMDC. Gate of Infinity always being popular.

 EVIL INC wrote:
Not all competative players play tau.

Never claimed otherwise.

Likewise, why should YOU hate someone for saying those 4 words? By saying that it is the rules and not the player, you are essentially saying that you are buying into the hate all comepetive players thing for that reason.

Um. No? I don't hate anyone. And I explained why the perception exists.

I can tell you I have YET to see even a single person be hated because they say the 4 words" I'm a competetive player".

You live in a special corner of the world then.

I HAVE seen ones be avoided with the phrase, Oh good lord. It's HIM again and he's bringing the cheesed out list. He never uses anything else".

Wait - it's not that he is rude or abusive or stinky, it's simply the list? And that's not a rules/balance reason?

Again, Just because a player is competative and likes to win I refuse to follow your guidance and hate them for that reason. I will wait until they actually do some sort of action to warrent it.

I've never given you that guidance. In fact, I've advocated against that.

You obviously hate me.

... wat.

Likeely it is because I enjoy winning and have played in a few tournies. I play guard without the min/maxing. I just take whatever list I happen to slap together on the fly with units that catch my eye and i have handy. I dont act like a jerk in game, dont use exploits and usually just give over any questions to avoid any conflict and usually lose out. But even if you did not hate me before, you would hate me simply because I said I like to win or i played in tournies because that automatically made me into some sort of waac monster that is all that is evil in the world (pun intended with the moniker lol)

So ... you haven't read my responses at all? What are you actually replying to?

I'd like to address this again:

You obviously hate me.

I've never said that. I've never advocated that. I have gone so far as to say, multiple times, that I don't hate anyone.
I'd appreciate you actually reading my posts and responding to what I type instead of assuming anything. That's the polite thing to do.

 EVIL INC wrote:

Game one- Guy is a total jerk loudly claims he only plays fotr fun. Smells of 3 month old dirty swetsocks and dirty underwear. spills soda across the table knocks over my models ect ect. i totally trounce him.
I will not play this person again
Game two- guy brings soda/pizza, is socially adept has amazing painted models, give me some good tactical tips as the game progresses and even reminds me of an assault I almost miss making. He wins. He tells me he is a compative player.
I will gladly play him again. Because I enjoyed the game and want to learn more tips.

Ok, I agree that the player being a dick is one of the biggest things that will affect my game, and nobody wants to play a dick. But most players aren't dicks. I'd say, the following two games are much more realistic situations:

Game 1: Guy is a nice guy. Friendly, helpful, reminds you of things you forgot. Plays the absolute best top-tier list. The game is fun, but you have no chance of winning at all. You lose by turn 2, but had a laugh at least.

Game 2: Also a nice guy. Also friendly and helpful. Plays a list of a similar balance to yours, the game is close and fun and you both have a good chance of winning. Whichever way the game goes, you enjoy it.

Both those games were fun, right? Everything is fun because of good players. Wanna do the same next week? What about the week after? Wanna play Game 1 every single time? Probably not. Game 1 is fine occasionally, but Game 2 is much more fun.

The player attitude is massively important. But the fact that both those sorts of games are a possibility in 40k and not as much in other systems (and that this can be due to what toys you own rather than player skill) points to game balance being a big problem too.

When I see threads like these I cant help but notice that it always turns into 2 groups, the "I want to play competitive all the time" and the "I play fluffy so your a WAAC player for playing competitive" when really its both of these parties being at fault on some level. However I am a Competitive player (my entire store is pretty competitive) but that does not mean I am a WAAC player. Im going to break down some things for EVERYONE:

-Everyone has the right to play with the models they want to play with be it for how "great they are on the tabletop", fluff reasons, look of the model ect. People who spout of "I hate that model/rules and I wont play against it" due to their fear of playing against it or any other reason outside of they don't have anything to deal with it are WRONG. I hate showing up to a game store and people giving me the stink eye because I brought my Elysians or Tau who have no good reason for it other then "they don't like it". The biggest problem also is that so many people REFUSE to change their tactics and feel that they should win with the same list regardless of who they face and demand their opponent change their list so they can, sorry it doesn't work like this. Adapt and overcome!

-Attitude is everything, though I am a competitive player for the most part that doesn't mean I am a total jerk. In ALL of my armies I have the ability to tone it down and bring a more game friendly list, I suggest for ALL Competitive players that you do this for the sole purpose of not soul crushing a newer player or someone who plays for fluff. Now that being said I still bring a semi-strong list (I will never HAND) my opponent the win, but if its a friendly game and against a newer player I am always sure to point out advice and tactics that he could utilize to help improve his game. If its against a fluff opponent I will do something silly fun to mix things up (Farsight Crisis Suits charging an Ork Boyz horde? YES PLEASE! One thing I cant stand is a good player curb stomping a noob or a fluff player and acting like they are God, guess what if you keep doing that SEE how long you have until people stop refusing you games.

Small rant but basically feel that these are some of the big issues, there is nothing wrong with being a competitive player and bringing what you want, just realize and be willing to dumb down your list a little for friendly games against newer players/fluff players. Not saying completely neuter your list but dumb it down a little at least.

There im done

-

Ok, a breather and fresh mind.

I can see where the rules can assist someone who s a jerk competetive player be a jerk. That is not an issue and I said that literally years ago in earlier editions and have maintained that stance.

MY point is that not ALL competetive players fall into the same category and the lines become fuzzy. The OP is saying that all players hate all competative players. This is simply not true. Some players make the claim offhand but when it comes down to actual practice, you'll find that they "hate" the jerk players more so than the "cool guy" competative players. It is an act of lumping all "competative players together.
Along with my point is that I am seeing posters here suggest that we SHOULD hate all competitive players. Not that it is a common occurrence or anything like that but because the rules are bad that we HAVE to hate the players.
Like I said before, I refuse to do that. I will instead base my personal angst towards other players on behaviors and actions. oU are free to just hate them because of the rules. that is your right. My point is that I also have a right to choose who I hate and why I do so. ALL players should have that right instead of having it forced on them.

 EVIL INC wrote:
Like I said before, I refuse to do that. I will instead base my personal angst towards other players on behaviors and actions. oU are free to just hate them because of the rules. that is your right. My point is that I also have a right to choose who I hate and why I do so. ALL players should have that right instead of having it forced on them.

I concur, I also feel it should be extended towards the models they want to play with or how they design their army. Not everyone who takes an Imperial Knight, LoW, Riptide or Wraithknight is doing it to be TFG. For example, I grew up watching Gundam and love the idea of Mech Suits, hence my love for Crisis Suits and Riptides. People just need to have a great attitude and be willing to change up their list to make the game more fun depending on your opponent.

 gmaleron wrote:
When I see threads like these I cant help but notice that it always turns into 2 groups, the "I want to play competitive all the time" and the "I play fluffy so your a WAAC player for playing competitive" when really its both of these parties being at fault on some level.
-

Neither of those parties is 'at fault'.

People are perfectly entitled to only want to play the game the way they like to play it. The key is to find like-minded opponents, rather than playing against people with a different mindset and then complaining that they don't enjoy the game the way you do. That's like buying a Pepsi and then complaining that it doesn't taste like Coke.

 gmaleron wrote:

 EVIL INC wrote:
Like I said before, I refuse to do that. I will instead base my personal angst towards other players on behaviors and actions. oU are free to just hate them because of the rules. that is your right. My point is that I also have a right to choose who I hate and why I do so. ALL players should have that right instead of having it forced on them.

I concur, I also feel it should be extended towards the models they want to play with or how they design their army. Not everyone who takes an Imperial Knight, LoW, Riptide or Wraithknight is doing it to be TFG. For example, I grew up watching Gundam and love the idea of Mech Suits, hence my love for Crisis Suits and Riptides.

I agree. Despite holding many critical opinions about GW and 40K in general, I make no apologies for being a massive fanboy when it comes to Knights. The models are awesome, I have three and plan on adding at least two of the FW variants once I'm happy they're not going to release a new version which I go gaga over minutes after I order it/them.

Make no mistake, should I decide to give them an outing on the table, it will be in a pre-arranged game against a willing and prepared opponent.

The trouble is, by doing this I ensure I will not be a jerk by ambushing my oppo with an army that is near impossible to tackle if you're ambushed by it, but I then put the onus on my opponent to not be a jerk by list tailoring and taking exclusively anti armour, thus potentially skewing the game massively in his favour, and ruining my fun. I couldn't even blame someone for doing this, why waste points on anti infantry options/units when you know they'll be useless?

Were the game better put together, I wouldn't have to warn someone ahead of time to use an army comprised of models I'm collecting because of no reason other than I genuinely love them, I could just turn up and play without being considered a jerk - neither would my opponent have to resist the temptations of list tailoring by being warned ahead of time.

People just need to have a great attitude and be willing to change up their list to make the game more fun depending on your opponent.

I disagree. People should try and put pressure on GW to make a product which makes this behaviour irrelevant. Except the good attitude. One should always have a good attitude.

 insaniak wrote:

 gmaleron wrote:
When I see threads like these I cant help but notice that it always turns into 2 groups, the "I want to play competitive all the time" and the "I play fluffy so your a WAAC player for playing competitive" when really its both of these parties being at fault on some level.
-

Neither of those parties is 'at fault'.

People are perfectly entitled to only want to play the game the way they like to play it. The key is to find like-minded opponents, rather than playing against people with a different mindset and then complaining that they don't enjoy the game the way you do. That's like buying a Pepsi and then complaining that it doesn't taste like Coke.

They are both at fault because they have the wrong attitude about it, I totally agree people have the right to play the game they want to, however having a good attitude and being flexible in regards to both ways I have found helps out, especially if the player base in your area is limited.

-Everyone has the right to play with the models they want to play with be it for how "great they are on the tabletop", fluff reasons, look of the model ect. People who spout of "I hate that model/rules and I wont play against it" due to their fear of playing against it or any other reason outside of they don't have anything to deal with it are WRONG. I hate showing up to a game store and people giving me the stink eye because I brought my Elysians or Tau who have no good reason for it other then "they don't like it". The biggest problem also is that so many people REFUSE to change their tactics and feel that they should win with the same list regardless of who they face and demand their opponent change their list so they can, sorry it doesn't work like this. Adapt and overcome!

Why would I want to waste my time and yours setting up a game that I know is going to end by Turn 2 because of what you, or I, is fielding?

You can "adapt" by dropping another $600-$1000 dollars on a new army (GW would love that), or you can look at the game and its design and say "Feth that" and go to a game where any two players can pretty much set down any models they have and both have a pretty good chance of winning.

Also, incidentally, saying that a competitive player has to "dumb down" their list to play against a fluff player is... incredibly insulting. There's not much brainpower behind Riptide or WS spam, after all.

Why not play two games? After the first one, exchange lists and play the same game. Give both players the same shot at winning?
of course, I still maintain that I have the right to "hate a player" based on their actual behavior, actions and attitudes and how they treat me as a human being rather than what words are printed on a piece of paper in a book despite how many people in this thread tell me to hate them based on the words on the piece of paper in a book alone.

 EVIL INC wrote:

of course, I still maintain that I have the right to "hate a player" based on their actual behavior, actions and attitudes and how they treat me as a human being rather than what words are printed on a piece of paper in a book despite how many people in this thread tell me to hate them based on the words on the piece of paper in a book alone.

I'm somewhat confused as to who exactly has been telling you to do that. Most of the people so far have been arguing the opposite, even, that it's not the player at fault but the rules. If the rules are set up so that two people can each build an army, and one has a massive advantage just because of what codex they chose, that's an issue. If a player happens to love giant stompy robots and builds an almost all riptide army, how much does it suck when he shows up to play and ends up either not getting a game in, having to listen to people complain about his army, or winning by turn two? Not one of those things sounds fun to me, but I love the look of the riptide, but I'd feel horrible bringing an army of them. The same thing can be said of most of the "Super Competitive Lists". Is it really fun for the IK army players to have a good half of their opponents army essentially useless, because it's designed to handle infantry that simply isn't on the table? Great big stompy robots are awesome, it'd be nice to be able to throw them onto the table against someone and have the outcome not be decided immediately based on whether or not they brought craptons of anti-armor. At that point you may as well flip a coin, then go play a different game.


I think that most players would prefer a game that has an unknown outcome. I mean, isn't that the whole point? Would you really want to play chess if playing white conferred such an advantage that it won ninety-nine times out of a hundred, regardless of player skill? The fact that there are such horribly balanced matchups in this game is fairly sad, especially given the price GW puts on their rule books. Don't get me wrong, I love modeling and painting, I love playing wargames, and I even love playing 40K. When me and my friends hash out ahead of time what our lists are, when we ignore or alter more than a few rules, and when we come up with our own scenario. Which again, is somewhat sad. When I go to the shop on the weekend to get a game or two in, it's an awful lot like gambling and all I can do is hope that it turns out well.

 Psienesis wrote:


Why would I want to waste my time and yours setting up a game that I know is going to end by Turn 2 because of what you, or I, is fielding?

You can "adapt" by dropping another $600-$1000 dollars on a new army (GW would love that), or you can look at the game and its design and say "Feth that" and go to a game where any two players can pretty much set down any models they have and both have a pretty good chance of winning.

Also, incidentally, saying that a competitive player has to "dumb down" their list to play against a fluff player is... incredibly insulting. There's not much brainpower behind Riptide or WS spam, after all.

You are taking this WAY to literally man, let me answer these:

-Then you don't play them? Go find another game that is on you or your opponents level? If you know you or your opponent will lose then play another game, never said you HAD to play the person.

-Then why are you even playing the game if you have so much issue with it? And since when would you have to change your entire army? You run the army you want but just purchase items to change things up, why I field 2500pts. gives me options.

-It is a turn of phrase, it is not literally saying "your list is bad and dumb, let me make it easier for you". You are being way to sensitive to what I am saying, all I said was if you know your army is much better it does not hurt to change things up to make things more even.

Throughout the entire thread, it is being suggested and put forth that we should hate all "competitive players" because the rules are broken. We have ALL wanted to win a game or tried to win a game at one point in time or another. That means that unless we ve intentionall tried to lose every game we have ever played we are or have been a competetive player at one point in time or another. Therefore we should hate all players including ourselves.

I just refuse to let someone coerce me into unreasoning hatred of another human being (as is being suggested, nay demanded we do in this thread) for something that small. I think we SHOULD reserve our"hatred" for those players who do more then desire or try to win a game. I feel we should base it on their attitudes actions and behaviors instead. I seem to be alone in this.

That being said, I can see how some players who may deserve that "hatred" can abuse the poorly written rules of the game to their own ends. I'd rather wait until the player actually do something like that before "hating" that player.

gmaleron, you have it. it doesnt even have to be to make it more "even. You can take the opportunity to experiment and try out different combos you want to give a shot. Pull out and use models you dont use often. Heck, you can even use it as a training excersize to play as an underdog to hone tactics and strategies.
No one is asking you to "dumb down". You can even keep your uber list (if it is even an uber list and not just any old run of the mill one as is usually the case), Play two games, trade lists after the first one so both players get the same chances of winning/losing.
Play in a friendly fashion where both play in a civil atmosphere and after the first game the "non-competetive player (no such animal) will know what to expect for future games and react/list build themselves accordingly
To me, it comes down to how nice and friendly of a guy the player is MUCH more so than their army list or the rules in the main book when it comes to disliking that player on a personal level..

 Ailaros wrote:

How a person's behavior effects others is determines by said others, not by the person. And not by "the system" failing to save a person from themselves.

So its not the that the thief stole your car, is that you feel bad about it?.

Problem with this game is that it has way to many and way to unevenly distributed, over the top units. Right now you can field armies that blow each other up by turn 2, couple that with the fact that not all armies have the access to the same potential and you have a recipe for disaster.

I am a long time magic player. I know what cut through gaming is, and have done it for a while. The problem with that and 40k are the following:

1- Lore MATTERS. GWs answer to its inherent and willing incompetence for balancing the armies was to "Magic UP" 40k, aka allies. Problem is 90% of the players out there seem to HATE IT because as i said before, lore MATTERS.

2- This to a lesser extent, in Magic, shorter games are welcome even desired, the exact oposite is true for 40k. In fact i can say that most people wont even bother to set up a game if they know its going to be over by turn 3.

3- 2 directly clashes with 1 and exacerbates it. the more over the top units there are, the more units get removed, the shorter the game is.

Ideally i think most people would be happier if something like 40 to 50% of their armies, made it to turn 4 in a functional state (not like 3 marines left of a unit of 10). So that the game would actually be decided in the later turns (weird huh?).

To the op, like they said before, current 40k direction is not what you are looking for. Go with Warmachine, is basically magic with miniatures.

I'm pretty sure that stealing your car is a jerk move that would warrant it. Apples and oranges.

 EVIL INC wrote:
Throughout the entire thread, it is being suggested and put forth that we should hate all "competitive players" because the rules are broken.

No, it hasn't.

It's been suggested that people do hate competitive players because the rules are broken.

I can see why SOME would hate because of the rules. I would not agree with them though. It is likely, they are looking at all competitive players based on their personal experience with a few extreme examples. Whatever the case, Not ALL people who play and enjoy winning or try to win twist and exploit rules. Likewise, not everyone who doesnt are great guys. I've met total jerks who werent worried about winning and I've met players who enjoy winning be great guys. Perhaps I'm the one seeing the rare exceptions but even if I am, those exceptions show that not EVERYONE falls into the class of player i would declare "hatable". perhaps, I should not say that people are wrong in this unreasoning hatred for that reason. Maybe I'm the one who is wrong on that. Perhaps, I should have said that I personally feel that they are wrong to do so. Likewise, they may not be wrong in demanding that i do as well but my heart is just not hard enough to do so without more reason than poorly written rules the player did not write.

Edit: Never mind. I see what your saying. They are not saying that EVERYONE should hate for that sole reason (although I believe a few are or they wouldnt argue/support it so vehemently but I'll take yer word for it). Good thing because I am not going to. However, they are saying that it is justified. To me, this is supporting that hatred for that sole reaso which to me is almost as bad. Even using that justification, I feel each "competetive player" should be "judged" on their own merits and actuions rather than the possibility of what someone thinks they MIGHT do.

 EVIL INC wrote:
Why not play two games? After the first one, exchange lists and play the same game.

Because I want to play with my army, not my opponent's army? Because I don't want anyone but me to touch my obscenely expensive DKoK army that I've spent countless hours painting? Because I only have time for one game in an evening? There are lots of reasons why "exchange lists" isn't a solution to poor balance.

I can understand your situastion and totally agree with it. You will admit of course, that your situation is not everyones. I did not declare it as the end all be all solution as you are aware. I only suggested that as one of many possibilities that players can come up with if they put in a modicum of effort.
Edit, nicely painted models BTW. Was expecting more infantry but with all those tanks, they dont need a lotta foot schloggers. lol My compliments, Id be afraid to put them in another's hands as well.

 Ailaros wrote:

Blacksails wrote: Its unique to 40k; every other popular wargame doesn't have this issue.

Umm... What on earth are you talking about? EVERY other popular wargame, with the exception of super-restrictive ones like chess, has this problem. Even non-wargames like MTG have this problem.

Even games that have no reason having this problem, like Diablo III have this problem.

It's the players, not the game.

Like how in World of Warcraft, Demonology Warlocks get laughed at, insulted, and booted from groups the moment anyone notices their class specialization, even if they do the most damage, are highly adept at following the mechanics, and haven't been a pain in the posterior.

I don't think everyone hates competitive players. It s just annoying to listen to some of them soap box up and say that this is the only way to play or get the feth out.

 Vash108 wrote:
I don't think everyone hates competitive players. It s just annoying to listen to some of them soap box up and say that this is the only way to play or get the feth out.

This. Yeah, you may win your way, but if I'm winning using a different army/tactics, who cares?

 Psienesis wrote:

 koooaei wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:

 koooaei wrote:
Guyz, when will you get over the "poor rules". 7-th ed and late 6-th ed codexes are showing an extremely good power ballance.

Doesn't stop the core rules from being a broken, schizophrenic mess of a game.

example, pls.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/forums/show/15.page

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/forums/show/20.page
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/forums/show/76.page
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/forums/show/88.page

 koooaei wrote:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/forums/show/20.page
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/forums/show/76.page
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/forums/show/88.page

Now look at the contents of those forums.

The 40k YMDC forum has more threads than the others, and has a lot more long threads than the others. This tells us that a lot of people have rule questions about 40k, and when they ask those questions there is often a long argument about how the rules are supposed to work.

The WHFB YMDC forum looks a lot like the 40k one, but with fewer threads. Given that this is a 40k-heavy site and WHFB in general is in decline this suggests that WHFB's rules are just as bad as 40k's (no surprise since they're both GW games) but the WHFB forum just gets less traffic.

The Warmachine and Infinity YMDC forums have a lot fewer threads and very few of them have more than a handful of replies. This tells us that there are fewer questions, which isn't necessarily a decisive argument since there are probably fewer Warmachine and Infinity players than 40k players here. But it also tells us something very important: when people do post questions in those forums they are usually answered quickly with a single clear answer and there is no room for argument about it. A player asks a question, someone says "page X, {explanation}", the player says thank you, and that's the end of the discussion.

Conclusion: GW's rules are a mess compared to other wargames, and there's no excuse for it.

I acknowledge the rule enterpretation problem and don't even try to state that WH40K rules are 100% clear all the time. Yep, i'm unhappy that they don't release faq's on the problematic ones to solve it once and for all.

But there are not too many of these things in your average game and nothing that can't be resolved. If you don't go rule-lawher, you're gona be completely fine. Besides, note that if you're competitive and aiming for tourneys, most cases are allready taken care of by TO.

 koooaei wrote:
But there are not too many of these things in your average game and nothing that can't be resolved. If you don't go rule-lawher, you're gona be completely fine.

I strongly disagree with this. Even when nobody is being a rules lawyer these arguments happen in games. Most, if not all, of my games have some kind of rule "discussion", and most of the games around me seem to have the same kind of problems. And when it isn't a problem with agreeing on how the game is supposed to work it's spending time digging through the bloated mess of rules to figure out what that obscure thing we just forgot is supposed to do. I would only be exaggerating slightly if I said that most 40k players seem to spend more time flipping through rulebooks than playing the game.

The worst game I ever played was against a "fluff bunny" type of player who rarely gets games in. He spends most of his time making conversions, which are cool, and talks about his army's background story quite often. All that's well and good, but when it took him FOREVER to take his turn because he didn't know any of the rules for his army (necrons) and even when I tried to help him (I also play necrons) he would STILL look up the rule (just to make sure I wasn't trying to cheat him I suppose?), it became pretty annoying.

Add on the fact that he was easily distracted by conversations in the game store and just seemed disinterested in actually finishing the game, and it became unbearable. I quit the game after turn 3...and it took us over 4 hours to get there.

Just goes to show that one could love the game, love it's models, not care at all about rules or actually winning, and still be a pain in the arse opponent. I'm fully in the "it's the players that ruin games" camp.