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.

And, furthermore, there is a reason that video games are called video games. They are a spectacle. There's nothing really spectular about watching you spam throws. There's nothing spectacular about watching you waste 10 minutes scrolling through your items list and trying to determine which sword you want to equip to your character.

Traditio wrote:
And, furthermore, there is a reason that video games are called video games. They are a spectacle. There's nothing really spectular about watching you spam throws. There's nothing spectacular about watching you waste 10 minutes scrolling through your items list and trying to determine which sword you want to equip to your character.

And yet again you don't understand that other people enjoy different things about games. This is all just your personal preference, nothing more. You like the spectacle, some people prefer analyzing sword stats. So please stop presenting your subjective opinions as some kind of objective truth about gaming.

Peregrine wrote:Unless the other player is equally competitive, in which case neither of them is shut down.

Except, we're playing a game. Why would you intentionally set out to play a game in which your opponent isn't playing at all? That doesn't make sense. "But I want to win!" Sure. But that's not all that there is to a game. There's also...you know...the playing involved. That's kind of what games involve. Games are played.

Then get better at the game and fight back. And read http://www.sirlin.net/ptw/ for why this "cheese" is only "cheese" if you're a newbie who never tries to improve your fighting game skills.

I got pretty good at Dragon Ball Z budokai tenkaichi 3. My favorite character was majin vegeta. Basically, I would do some serious melee with that guy and would do some truly spectacular and extended attack chains. One day, my opponent is like: "Y'know, I can stop this." We each play 3 characters or whatever, maybe 5. I forgot. His selection? Robotic Cooler. Times 5. He spams a dash move. Basically, every time I stand up, I find myself caught in a cut scene.

"Really?"

"Yup."

Then get better at the game and fight back. Neither counterspell nor land destruction decks are unbeatable. If you're losing constantly to them you're probably either playing a weak deck or haven't learned things like how to bluff a spell through an opponent's counterspells.

The fact that you would play like that in the first place just strikes me as odd. Basically, the casual player says: "Here is what I want to do." The "competitive" player says: "Here's what I don't want my opponent to do. I want him to sit in his chair and twiddle his thumbs."

I am not amused. For one, my time is worth more than that, and if that's what you're (and not you in particular, of course, but the competitive player in general) going for, then frankly, I just think that you're (and again, I don't mean you in particular) pathetic. The fact that that is your idea of fun..."Hey, let's play a game!" "Ok...what's the goal?" "For you to sit there and do nothing while I laugh at you." "Oh...well feth you too, then. Go find a magnifying glass and some ants, creep. Or a therapist. "


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Peregrine wrote:And yet again you don't understand that other people enjoy different things about games. This is all just your personal preference, nothing more. You like the spectacle, some people prefer analyzing sword stats. So please stop presenting your subjective opinions as some kind of objective truth about gaming.

Then why is it a video game? Wouldn't the competitive player be better off doing math problems for fun?

Traditio wrote:
Why would you intentionally set out to play a game in which your opponent isn't playing at all?

Because in non-40k games this nightmare scenario only applies when one player has a major skill advantage over the other. For example, in MTG a game against a counterspell deck involves things like playing a aggressive opening to win the game before the counterspell deck can get its defenses up, bluffing with weaker spells to draw a counter and leave an opening for your real threat, etc. It only consists of "can I cast this? Nope" over and over again if the non-counterspell player doesn't have the skill or experience required to play effectively. But when both players are at the same skill level the counterspell deck is an interesting matchup where both players are playing the game on multiple levels, even though one of them has cards that mostly consist of "you can't do that".

Since you don't understand this I'm going to guess that you never played MTG seriously enough to learn things like anti-counterspell strategy, or labeled them "cheese" immediately and excluded them from your group instead of learning their strengths and weaknesses.

I got pretty good at Dragon Ball Z budokai tenkaichi 3. My favorite character was majin vegeta. Basically, I would do some serious melee with that guy and would do some truly spectacular and extended attack chains. One day, my opponent is like: "Y'know, I can stop this." We each play 3 characters or whatever, maybe 5. I forgot. His selection? Robotic Cooler. Times 5. He spams a dash move. Basically, every time I stand up, I find myself caught in a cut scene.

"Really?"

"Yup."

So let me get this straight: this attack is unbeatable, and there is nothing you could have done to stop it? Is the game really that broken, or did you just give up in frustration because your "spectacular attack chain" didn't work?

PS: the goal of the game is to win, not to perform the most spectacular attack.

The fact that you would play like that in the first place just strikes me as odd. Basically, the casual player says: "Here is what I want to do." The "competitive" player says: "Here's what I don't want my opponent to do. I want him to sit in his chair and twiddle his thumbs."

The whole point of MTG is to tell your opponent that they can't do anything by killing them and winning the game. If you play a creature I play a creature kill spell, beat it in combat with my own creature, etc. If you play a spell to kill my creature I counter it. If you bring land destruction I bring a deck with low casting costs that can overwhelm you before you can destroy enough of my lands, denying you the ability to do your thing.

And really, I don't know why you're assuming that one player just passively accepts that they can't do anything instead of saying " you, I get to play my spells" and winning the game despite the counter-strategy. If you're sitting in your chair twiddling your thumbs instead of playing the game then honestly, it's your fault for not bothering to learn how to play the game better.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Traditio wrote:
Then why is it a video game? Wouldn't the competitive player be better off doing math problems for fun?

I don't know, ask your friend why they enjoy optimizing gear so much. But please stop acting like your preferences are the One True Way To Play Games.

This again...

I don't see why some people can't see that being utterly destroyed is not fun and that some people just want to go and play a game for fun without being deeply involved in hours of detailed analasys of the maths, optimising lists and decks, concentrating several turns ahead. It is not something unique to 40k or to imbalanced games. It happens in boardgames too, and in card games and many other areas:

http://gil.hova.net/2014/03/23/competitive-imbalance-the-invisible-board-game-group-killer/

I know someone who plays poker at a competitive level. When he plays a "pro" (he is not a pro, but dose play against them) level he concentrates on every card, watches the other players, learns what he can about them before every game etc. If he played like this with friends he would destroy them, win every time and they would not play with him. Instead with friends he has a few beers, a chat, and just has a laugh. Yes, he normally comes out on top because he is automatically making better choices and picking up on things, but he dose not make them feel like they should just have handed him a tenner and gone home, and this is playing for money.

It's the same with 40k and MTG. No one should have a problem playing against a better player. The issue is not people being good, but bringing nasty lists or decks and exploring every little thing. Dial it back. I know someone else who played MTG in tournaments in the past. When he plays friends he does not bring the nasty decks that he knows will, for example, shut down an unsuspecting player and mean they feel impotent. I also know a guy who spends hours optimising 40k lists for every game night, Brings multiple tailord lists based on who he is playing and what they are likely to put on the table. He struggles to find a game and does not understand why despite people telling him time and again he is no fun to play against. It's not about the sore loosers, which there are some, but about people's expectations of how seriously a particular game is going to be played, be that MTG, 40K, poker or playing monopoly against your family at Christmas.

The issue seems to be to me an attitude of some people saying "well, the aim is to win" and "they should learn to play better". That's just justifying their behaviour. If one person is not having fun their is an issue. It could be that person is a sore looser, but if your going in to every game with the attitude of optimisation then it's probably not.

Peregrine wrote:Because in non-40k games this nightmare scenario only applies when one player has a major skill advantage over the other.

Be that as it may, that's what the competitive player is going for. You call it a "nightmare scenario." It's not a nightmare scenario for the competitive player. That's his dream scenario. That's what he specifically was going for.

I just think there's something wrong with that. Considered from that perspective, it just strikes me as sociopathic.

For example, in MTG a game against a counterspell deck involves things like playing a aggressive opening to win the game before the counterspell deck can get its defenses up, bluffing with weaker spells to draw a counter and leave an opening for your real threat, etc. It only consists of "can I cast this? Nope" over and over again if the non-counterspell player doesn't have the skill or experience required to play effectively. But when both players are at the same skill level the counterspell deck is an interesting matchup where both players are playing the game on multiple levels, even though one of them has cards that mostly consist of "you can't do that".

Seriously. It's a game. Why would you do that? Casual player: "Alright, we can play magic the gathering now!" Competitive player: "No you can't! Not with my deck. I'm going to do my best to make sure of that!" "But you just asked me if I wanted to play MTG..." "Yup!" "O...k.... "

Since you don't understand this I'm going to guess that you never played MTG seriously enough to learn things like anti-counterspell strategy, or labeled them "cheese" immediately and excluded them from your group instead of learning their strengths and weaknesses.

"Seriously"? I mean, I played MTG for a while. I was never really big on tournaments or anything, but it was a game that I played fairly regularly. I have like 5-7 decks from my high school years.

So let me get this straight: this attack is unbeatable, and there is nothing you could have done to stop it? Is the game really that broken, or did you just give up in frustration because your "spectacular attack chain" didn't work?

It turned into a chain of: Dash. Cut scene. Stand up. Dash. Cut scene. Stand up.

I don't remember whether or not there was a way out of it. But frankly, I don't care. I was getting caught in a cut scene everytime I got up from the last cut scene. There's nothing fun or interesting about that.

PS: the goal of the game is to win, not to perform the most spectacular attack.

Only if you're the kind of guy that likes to fry ants with magnifying glasses. I participate in games to play them. I may beat this level in Judge Dredd vs. Death by killing everyone instead of arresting them. But dang it, that's just not how you play Judge Dredd! You shoot the gun out of their hands and arrest them. All of them! Oh, here's a room full of thugs? Sure, I could take out my law rod and shoot them all into bits. Or I could throw a smoke grenade and arrest them, because that is more consistent with what Judge Dredd would do.

The whole point of MTG is to tell your opponent that they can't do anything by killing them and winning the game.

That's how the competitive player sees things. I just think this just displays serious problems with that player's mentality. "The goal of playing this game is to end it as quickly and painlessly (for me, anyway) as possible, and then relish in the glory of having burned ants with this magnifying glass." Uh...really?

 Steve steveson wrote:
The issue is not people being good, but bringing nasty lists or decks and exploring every little thing. Dial it back.

Why is it that the "competitive" player has the obligation to "dial it back" instead of the "casual" player having an obligation to improve their skills and compete at a higher level?

 Peregrine wrote:

 Steve steveson wrote:
The issue is not people being good, but bringing nasty lists or decks and exploring every little thing. Dial it back.

Why is it that the "competitive" player has the obligation to "dial it back" instead of the "casual" player having an obligation to improve their skills and compete at a higher level?

I think it boils down to what I said earlier.

If your idea of me improving my skills and competing at a higher level is no longer playing the game, but rather preventing you from playing the game, then there's something wrong with that. I don't want to play a game in which we're doing our worst to prevent each other from playing. That makes zero sense.

And really, aren't there more time-effective ways of preventing your opponent from playing/winning the game? All you have to do is not ask him to play in the first place! He doesn't get to play. And you save a ton of time both for you and for him! I count that as a win!

But of course, you don't get to waste your opponent's time...so that's a win for him too, I suppose, and that's not really what the competitive player is after.

Play against someone who feels exactly the same way about the game as you do, wants the same thing from it. Simples! As the Meerkat says.

I once played in a doubles game of Infinity where one of my opponents made the statement "I want to blow up that man in the goat suit with this missile launcher." His partner could just not get his around why someone would want to do something like that, it had absolutely no tactical value and was a waste of a use of a powerful weapon. His colleague's answer was "how many opportunities am I ever going to get, in my life, to blow up a man in a goat suit with a missile launcher?"

You've got to both want the same thing from a game. If you don't, and the rules allow you to diverge significantly in terms of how you play (and I guess there is a lot more room for disparity with this in some games) then the chances are it's not going to be fun for either player. Unless you are that guy who wrote "I want to see my enemies driven before me, taste their tears" without the hint of any irony. Impose your own personal restriction order of 50 yards in those cases!

 Pacific wrote:
Play against someone who feels exactly the same way about the game as you do, wants the same thing from it. Simples! As the Meerkat says.

I once played in a doubles game of Infinity where one of my opponents made the statement "I want to blow up that man in the goat suit with this missile launcher." His partner could just not get his around why someone would want to do something like that, it had absolutely no tactical value and was a waste of a use of a powerful weapon. His colleague's answer was "how many opportunities am I ever going to get, in my life, to blow up a man in a goat suit with a missile launcher?"

I was just, a few hours earlier, playing a sniper game...in which my predominate goal was to ignore my sniper rifle as much as possible and shoot people with my side arm. They have assault rifles? Oh yeah? Well I gots this hand gun!

Traditio wrote:
Be that as it may, that's what the competitive player is going for. You call it a "nightmare scenario." It's not a nightmare scenario for the competitive player. That's his dream scenario. That's what he specifically was going for.

No, you just have a rather poor understanding of MTG strategy. The competitive player isn't aiming for a one-sided "game" where their opponent can't do anything, they're expecting their opponent to bring a deck that is capable of fighting back against the counterspells and have a game of subtle move vs. counter-move, bluffing, etc. It's a nightmare scenario because it only happens when there's a huge skill mismatch, the better player doesn't anticipate it, and the weaker player is completely overwhelmed.

Seriously. It's a game. Why would you do that? Casual player: "Alright, we can play magic the gathering now!" Competitive player: "No you can't! Not with my deck. I'm going to do my best to make sure of that!" "But you just asked me if I wanted to play MTG..." "Yup!" "O...k.... "

Oh FFS, cards that say "you can't do that" are a fundamental part of MTG. Creatures are killed by creature removal spells. Spells are countered by counterspells. Etc. If your deck is so fragile that any attempt to attack it results in it being completely shut down and removing all fun from the game then the problem is your own lack of skill. But instead you're blaming the game and demanding that 90% of the game be removed so you can each play a game of solitaire and then talk about how awesome your deck was.

"Seriously"? I mean, I played MTG for a while.

Apparently not long enough to learn much strategy, because you're saying the exact same things that a lot of other inexperienced players have said.

I don't remember whether or not there was a way out of it. But frankly, I don't care. I was getting caught in a cut scene everytime I got up from the last cut scene. There's nothing fun or interesting about that.

Then find the counter to it. Don't just ragequit as soon as your opponent comes up with something that beats you, figure out how to beat it and win the game. Seriously, this article describes you perfectly (just don't take "scrub" as an insult): http://www.sirlin.net/ptw-book/introducingthe-scrub

Only if you're the kind of guy that likes to fry ants with magnifying glasses. I participate in games to play them. I may beat this level in Judge Dredd vs. Death by killing everyone instead of arresting them. But dang it, that's just not how you play Judge Dredd! You shoot the gun out of their hands and arrest them. All of them! Oh, here's a room full of thugs? Sure, I could take out my law rod and shoot them all into bits. Or I could throw a smoke grenade and arrest them, because that is more consistent with what Judge Dredd would do.

And there you are again, arrogantly telling everyone how your preferences in gaming are the One True Way To Play Games and everyone else is doing it wrong.

That's how the competitive player sees things.

No, it's how the game works. You win the game by destroying your opponent's stuff and dealing lethal damage to them. You don't play a game of solitaire where you cast a bunch of cool creatures and then talk about how awesome they are, which is apparently what you want to do.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Traditio wrote:
If your idea of me improving my skills and competing at a higher level is no longer playing the game, but rather preventing you from playing the game, then there's something wrong with that. I don't want to play a game in which we're doing our worst to prevent each other from playing. That makes zero sense.

So then how do you play a game like MTG? Do you have an unwritten rule that you can never kill your opponent's creatures? Do you play a special version of 40k where you never destroy your opponent's units and remove their ability to play with them?

And let's not forget that your "not playing the game" idea is based on a newbie-level understanding of MTG. Those things that you call "not playing the game" actually involve a high level of skill and player interaction, even if you refused to learn enough about how the game works to see it. Sure, my opponent just countered my spell and "stopped me from playing the game", but that spell was actually a bluff and now that they used up their counterspell I just played my real threat and will win the game in a few turns. But I never would have figured out that kind of thing if I'd just ragequit as soon as my opponent played a counterspell.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Steve steveson wrote:
The issue is not people being good, but bringing nasty lists or decks and exploring every little thing. Dial it back.

Why is it that the "competitive" player has the obligation to "dial it back" instead of the "casual" player having an obligation to improve their skills and compete at a higher level?

Because no one learns anything by being utterly destroyed. It's called pot hunting. It is frowned upon in professional sport too. The better player is much more able to play in a less agressive way than someone is to magicly learn to play better. It's like the sports teacher who thinks humiliating the kids who are bad at sports about their lack of skill gets them to want to play better when all it does is put those kids off. We are not talking about a better player out playing a worse player in a tournament here. We are talking about when people justify destroying someone as being "competitive". The "casual" player learns nothing. That's not fun for anyone.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

Traditio wrote:
Be that as it may, that's what the competitive player is going for. You call it a "nightmare scenario." It's not a nightmare scenario for the competitive player. That's his dream scenario. That's what he specifically was going for.

No, you just have a rather poor understanding of MTG strategy. The competitive player isn't aiming for a one-sided "game" where their opponent can't do anything, they're expecting their opponent to bring a deck that is capable of fighting back against the counterspells and have a game of subtle move vs. counter-move, bluffing, etc. It's a nightmare scenario because it only happens when there's a huge skill mismatch, the better player doesn't anticipate it, and the weaker player is completely overwhelmed.

I think we have some confusion here... Your now saying it only happens when there is this nightmare scenario, but that is exactly the scenario people have a problem with, except it is when the better player DOES anticipate it, and uses it to their advantage. That's where there is an issue, not where a better player wins or there is a lack of understanding.

In my opinion this is why 40k could do with more restrictions on list building.

3rd edition had the FOC, but since then list building has slowly become more and more lax. Losing the 0-1 limits on certain units, inclusion of allies and formations, superheavies, D weapons and unbound.

You see in my opinion once the dice start rolling everyone is playing to win, unless you are using the scatter dice to move your units, you are playing to the objective and trying to outsmart your opponent.

When I think about Necromunda I find you didn't get the WAAC problems, because list building (Gang creation) is largely the same for everyone.

My favorite games of 40K was when we used to play Combat Patrol all the time. And I think it was because of those restrictions on list building. I could build a list competitively, but the advantage it would give me was only slight, and meant games did not become forgone conclusions.

If only 40K could have some more restrictions on the list building again, bar house rules.

 Steve steveson wrote:
Because no one learns anything by being utterly destroyed.

But we aren't just talking about newbies here, we're talking about the "casual at all costs" crowd that refuses to improve their lists/skills/etc because the competitive players are playing "the wrong way". Obviously you should tone things down if you're teaching a newbie, but that's a separate situation.

I think we have some confusion here... Your now saying it only happens when there is this nightmare scenario, but that is exactly the scenario people have a problem with, except it is when the better player DOES anticipate it, and uses it to their advantage. That's where there is an issue, not where a better player wins or there is a lack of understanding.

But how often is this really happening? Are there really that many "competitive" players who mercilessly crush helpless newbies because winning is all that matters? In my experience that's much rarer than the cases where the competitive player is expecting a competitive-style game and doesn't anticipate just how badly outmatched their opponent is.

One fix is to replay the match but switching sides.
Same army gets to go first in the 2nd game and deployment will be identical for forces (even if your opponent put his guys in a rough spot). Call it a historical refight or whatever but making it set piece and as near as possible identical conditions helps show if you win by rules wrangling or if you win because you actually are better at that specific game.

No winning the game because you figured out some CCG inspired combo list that breaks the thing. If you did bring that combo list, get ready to face it the next time---including any rulings on how your army's uber weapon can ignore cover or whatever else you lobbied for during the first game.

It's not a perfect solution but if taking eleventy Necron-Tau-Eldar-Wraith-King to crush your opponents is what you need, imagine the fun you'll have when you face them immediately after this game

HI folks.
I think if we are going to get anywhere in a objective discussion of the thread title we need to do a bit of clarifying and definition first.I will use my definitions, (to try to separate out game , game play, game play drivers etc.)If you know the proper definitions from game design please let me know.

The object of playing a game is to have fun, to have an enjoyable experience.We can all agree on this!
As people have fun in too many ways to list, there are about as many games invented by people as there are ways to have fun!

These games fall in to two basic types of game play.

Co-operative, where the players work together to achieve the same goal. Eg Save the world, survive an apocalypse, get the treasure from the dungeon,etc.

Competitive, where the players work against each other to achieve opposing goals.
This covers practically all war games I can think of.

Does every one agree with these two basic definitions of game play?
And do we agree that 40k has competitive game play?

Next we can look at the way the game play is driven.

Narrative games are all about the story or history of the event.
They are not concerned about a 'fair fight',(Very few historical battle of note were ever 'fair fights', and so the fictional scenarios people base them on are not 'balanced' either.)
Many players of narrative games swap sides to see if they can do better than their opponent did in the same scenario,
Victory conditions in these games are very narrative driven .(hence the description of narrative game.)
They are very rarely just about taking more ground, or killing more enemy then their opponent. And never have to use point values to achieve game balance, as these games do not have to be be that finely balanced.

Balanced games are all about seeing who would win in a fair contest.
These let players select elements up to a points total , within defined limitations.(Point value totals and using army/deck composition rules etc.)
This type of game play driver is ideal for random pick up games and tournament settings, and the only VALID reason to include point values .
Obviously you can used 'Balanced ' elements and put them in narrative scenarios.
(Knowing exactly how out numbered the heroes are in the last stand is not necessary .But it does not detract from the game play experience.)


So to answer the O.P.
As a player who wants to enjoy 'balanced' 'competitive game play'.Only play the rules that commit to support your preferred game play , and game play driver type.
EG clearly defined rules that are focused on resolving game play issues.

 Talizvar wrote:

I am happy to find a player to push it to the max (within game rules!), socially acting badly lends no advantage to a game and pretty much guarantees no repeat games so being nice and civil is a reasonable and necessary part of play.

How can ruthlessness within a game not be construed as being how you are in real life? I feel they do not reflect one another.

Then, perhaps, the issue here is how you behave as you win? A lot of social interaction is empathy. If you stomp someone, try to empathise with them. I've seen a lot of people just be completely cold about it.

Other things include interacting with your opponent, not anyone else. That can be construed as rude. Yes, you may have just had an epic experience and you may want to go tell everyone about it...but wait til the game is done. Really, there are so many times that I've seen someone just run off and laugh, gloat, whatever and their opponent is still there, clearly unimpressed.

Really, to avoid being TFG you have to try to interact with your opponent and respect them. If you know they're less experienced than you are? Try to ease up on them a bit. Sure, defeat brings education but really, you need to teach them on the move. Give them offers, try to be polite and if they mess something up? Give them a chance to fix it. Don't try to lecture them, don't talk down to them and don't be particularly anal about one rule or another - particularly if a judge rules against you because your interpretation isn't the one they are going with.

"How can we have competitive play without being confused with TFG / WAAC?"

 Pacific wrote:
Play against someone who feels exactly the same way about the game as you do, wants the same thing from it. .....

There we go, that's the answer to the original question. Nice one.

The other way to look at this is how can we have a game, which both the casual player and the competative player both enjoy? The whole problem is that WAAC/competition play is not very compatible to casual play, Why don't both go and find other players who actually engage them in their chosen areas.

Gaming itself, for the casual player, is about the fun, about the spectacle, about not the conclusion, but the journey there. If you end up having your board wiped on turn 1 or turn 2 because you either cannot bring an optimal list,, cannot afford the army of the month, or you aren't a good strategist, shouldn't mean you have to essentially try and dial up your game, because thats just typically what a casual gamer doesn't want.

Essentially like the difference between plants vs zombies and Dark Souls in terms of difficulty. If I don't want to play dark souls, I won't. Find someone else to game with.

 Talizvar wrote:
I
Other than a good frank discussion with your potential opponent of the expectation of how the game will be played: how can you play to your very best and try to mitigate the risk of hurting someone's feelings over a game?

Respectfully, there is no other way. Whatever set of expectations you come up with on your own, unless you have a frank discussion with your opponent, it will never be clear what the expectations are for behavior, playstyle and competitive play. I completely understand the desire for standards and codes of behavior, but the hobby is diverse enough that the only way to really make sure that two players are playing the same game is to talk about it. Seems like every week someone posts a thread about a TFG, bad game, power-gamer, fluff bunny, etc and most times it seems obvious that the unpleasantness could have been avoided if they had first discussed their expectations with their opponent.

Of course the best tool for avoiding unpleasantness and hurt feelings is being willing to say "No Thanks" when after discussion it's clear that your aims for the game are irreconcilable.

privateer4hire wrote:
One fix is to replay the match but switching sides.

I offer to do this in Kings of War fairly often, typically after I crush the opponent.

I do this for two reasons - the first is that it lets me play with something different.

The second is that I can find if the army does have a vulnerability that the other player will need to address.

(The third, unmentioned reason - it means that I can crush them with their own list.... (Joking))

Other times I can offer advice to new players before the game because it is obvious - when the enemy army is nothing but Hordes being the most frequent. (Maneuver is everything in KoW.) You need small units to protect the flanks of your larger units.

Another reason is working with my girlfriend to help her get a handle on Orcs.... New army - and I don't normally play orcs either. Things have gotten... squishy, on both sides. Orcs do not play a lot like our dwarf army. We went three months with nothing but draws when our dwarfs fought each other - so she started a new army.... Orcs have slaughtered dwarfs. Dwarfs have slaughtered orcs. Both armies have slaughtered each other in the same battle. The carpet would be running red if miniatures could bleed.)

The Auld Grump - I had the orc army for years, just planning on using the minis for Pathfinder....

 r_squared wrote:

"How can we have competitive play without being confused with TFG / WAAC?"

 Pacific wrote:
Play against someone who feels exactly the same way about the game as you do, wants the same thing from it. .....

There we go, that's the answer to the original question. Nice one.

So how do we go about playing the game in an inclusive community that welcomes more than one type of person, rather than becoming a clique of elitist d-bags who only play with 'our kind' of people?

 Jimsolo wrote:

 AlexHolker wrote:
No, a game where the developer bothered to do the optimisation first, and made sure that the right armies and play styles came out on top. For example, the rules for Warhammer 40,000 should be such that a Space Marine player trying to optimise their army would discover a Battle Company (60 Tactical / 20 Assault / 20 Devastator, plus transports and command) is already a top tier army.

Multiple options for success seem like they would be more fun than a single path to the top.

I agree. As long as the "good" army builds are among the top tier lists and any "bad" army builds (ones that are much less fun to play against - the Crippling decks of 40k) are weaker, the more the merrier.

Traditio wrote:

Peregrine wrote:No it doesn't. Netdecking exists in MTG just like netlisting does in 40k.

In practice, though, it's really not as common, is it? I mean, even the "competitive" players I know don't use net decks.

At at least one tournament, six of the top eight players were all playing the same deck (Caw-Blade).

MtG is a game where you can buy power. When it still costs $300 for a playset of four copies of a card like Jace the Mind Sculptor, the guy who can afford to netdeck has a huge advantage over someone who doesn't have as much money to shovel into WotC's maw. And that's not fun. An "ethical" CCG only lets rarity buy complexity, not power. Giving newbies decks that are easy to play competently by putting cards that are simpler to understand in the lower rarities is a good thing. Giving newbies decks that are harder to play competently because rarer, more expensive cards they don't have are just flat out better (compare the Basic War Golem to the Legendary Dr. Boom in Hearthstone, for one blatant example) is just a dick move.

 AlexHolker wrote:
An "ethical" CCG only lets rarity buy complexity, not power.

To be far, MTG has also had its share of powerful commons and uncommons, and those expensive powerful rares are no rarer than the weak rares you can buy for $1 each. And none of them can be bought from WOTC directly. The price of expensive cards is entirely the result of the secondary market trying to get as much profit as possible.

To have a wider gaming community enjoying the same game in different ways.
The game has to be robust enough and have enough definition to cope with a wider range of play styles.
Basically ...
The rules need to be clear and concise.to prevent players mis-interpreting them.(Some times player do this to try to get an unfair ad vantage.)

Any point values used should be an accurate reflection of in game effectiveness.

Any force organization method should promote lists that are in synergy with the background and fun to play and play against.

Inclusion of more narrative based scenarios are helpful.

All these elements are very difficult to get right.That is why players buy rule sets from game companies to give them the maximum game play from the most straight forward rules .

if a rule set is not robust enough for all the players it is sold to, to enjoy it in the ways they want to.
Is not the fault of the players, but the company miss selling the game to players it is not suitable for.

 Peregrine wrote:
And none of them can be bought from WOTC directly. The price of expensive cards is entirely the result of the secondary market trying to get as much profit as possible.

That is untrue. Both supply and demand define the price of a card, and making a card more common both decreases demand on the secondary market (since you opened enough from your own booster packs, so you don't need to go looking for more) and increases supply (since once you've opened more than the four you can use, you might as well trade away the excess).

Using the latest set, Dragons of Tarkir, as an example:
A full playset of a specific common card comes once every 41 packs.
A full playset of a specific uncommon card comes once every 107 packs.
A full playset of a specific rare card comes once every 243 packs.
A full playset of a specific mythic rare card comes once every 480 packs.

Nobody would pay $100 for a playset of Dragonlord Ojutai if they could just pay $164 for a playset of Dragonlord Ojutai and another 611 cards.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Steve steveson wrote:
The issue is not people being good, but bringing nasty lists or decks and exploring every little thing. Dial it back.

Why is it that the "competitive" player has the obligation to "dial it back" instead of the "casual" player having an obligation to improve their skills and compete at a higher level?

But, then they would have to understand how bad they are in the first place. To understand that they could get better.

Lanrak wrote:
HI

The object of playing a game is to have fun, to have an enjoyable experience.We can all agree on this!
As people have fun in too many ways to list, there are about as many games invented by people as there are ways to have fun!

Most of us would agree with that. See a locked thread for the people who says it not important.

Man, glad I never played competitive magic. Looks fun

 malfred wrote:
So...what does the lying have to do with the original topic?

Because Peregrine and Traditio are destined to remain locked in an eternal struggle, like that one episode of Star Trek with the black / white and white / black aliens.

Well that sideline is done for now. At least that particular argument.

Let's leave it at that and continue with the op