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.

So what I am getting from all of this is that it's kind of a 50/50 mix. I think I definitely need to take a step back and really think of what I want, and if that means ignore some fluff things then so be it, because really the people around me don't seem to care about the fluff to that extent, and I certainly don't need to give myself a migraine because I'm constantly thinking of how to do something but do it in a fluffy way; that's just silly.

I've gotten out of GW games for the most part. I own a lot of models, paint them still, but have not played a game in many months because of this issue.

I like being competitive, but I don't like chasing the meta. I don't like having to buy and paint a new force everytime rules change just so that I am not getting wiped out.

Being competitive, which I spent over a decade being, means that the forces you have to choose from are actually very small.

Take all of the models in AOS or 40k. Now remove 90% of them. What you have left is what you'll see and use.

I don't like that. I pick factions based on their story and look, but in GW games I can't do that unless I don't mind getting tea bagged every match unless I get lucky and the army that attracts me is also OP.

So what do you do?

I don't have an answer for you, your environment sounds like mine. Its all competitive all the time. Even in our casual events, its heavily competitive internet meta lists.

I am painting models still and I think I'm going to start a narrative wargaming channel to do battle reports from a narrative sense, but I iwll likely be playing the same couple guys or myself to do that.

My ideal environment is a campaign environment where story -considerations come before game-considerations, but that is simply not gamer-culture.

I would be more inclined to play if the power slope was not as steep and the factions/models more balanced but that has pretty much never happened in any edition of warhammer or 40k.

Vaxx wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:
Fun and competitive are not mutually exclusive. That concept seems to confuse you.

If that was intended for me, I am not confused at all. In fact, I even said I agree they are not.

On the same note though, some people only have fun when they are winning and only using top tier means to do so.

Basically if you are a win no matter what type....in a game that doesn't mean jack in the grand scheme of things....then you only have fun when being competitive. Nothing wrong with that I guess, but I find those people rather amusing. Same as the people chasing Steam Achievements, and equivalents on the Xbox and PS. So much epeen over something that does not even matter.

I just have a hard taking plastic models, paint, and rolling dice and moving "toys" across a board too serious. Fun? Yes! Serious bid-ness? Oh, Hell no. Anything over casual is just not for me.

Just an opinion, and just from once source. Nothing wrong with having a different view.

The bolded tells me that you and Davor would probably make a good gaming club together. He too has some obsession with people having competitive playstyles and diminutive genitalia.



As far as the OP: why are the two mutually exclusive? In the game, you have what the background dictates an army is comprised of, and sometimes the game mechanics lean toward some of those units being subpar to genuinely terrible. Take Empire, for instance. Under the last few editions, halberdiers are a substandard choice compared to spearmen or swordsmen, but the fluff basically states that Empire armies are predominantly halberdiers. For some reason, especially on forums, people would think that the two choices are lots of halberdiers or as many Inner Circle knights and cannons as a player can fit. There IS a happy medium, it's just that the most vocal people in any group are the ones on the extreme end. The WAACs scream "Death before Forge The Narrative!" and the FTNs cry "Death before Win At All Cost!" while the bulk of the community tries to argue point that the middle ground exists. As time goes on, it's the middle ground group that gets crushed and driven out faster than the extremes, either by becoming one of the extremes or leaving a toxic community.

You shouldn't have a crisis of conscience because your list can handle itself. Now spamming some egregious Unbound list isn't an admirable alternative, don't get me wrong. I think that's one of the many issues with both games as they've progressed. The FOCs of both games reigned in quite a bit, with comp scoring at events reigning in the rest. Round robin tourneys also did a lot to stem the tide. It was army book/codex creep that shifted the balance out, and it never fully recovered. In fact, you can almost say the current state of the game is GW basically saying "Okay, you're gonna take the optimum thing anyway, here's rules to simply spam the top 1%. I feel for you, I really do, but I found it simpler for me to try and find a club of retrogamers and go that way.

My advice is to stop playing pick-up games, and instead find a core of similarly minded individuals that want to play games in a way similar to yours, and play with those people.

Don't change the way you want to play, change the people you play against.

Eh, I wouldn't be so quick to blame the players. There is always "that guy", but that guy is IMO a tiny minority of the players. I promise you most of them are perfectly fine opponents for a range of games.

The problem for all these players who want a non competitive experience is that they want that to be the baseline expectation of the game. It's not, and I can't remember a time when it ever was. Certainly, and thank goodness, not every pick up game is a no holds barred WAAC fest between the most ridiculous net list out there at the moment.

That said, if you show up for a pick up game against someone for a game of Warhammer, or X wing, or war machine, Kings of war, etc... The expectation is absolutely one of competitiveness. You can, and probably always should, be casual ( as in friendly, helpful, and non rules lawyery). But blaming the other players for not meeting your own unspoken expectations is not right.

The game and setting absolutely matter here to create context for these discussions. I am TOTALLY down for some custom scenarios, a campaign, pre game house rules (including agreements on things like no flyers or super heavies, no combo X because we both know it's BS, etc...), discussions on intentionally avoiding certain units because you really want to use X but it's got a hard counter, blah blah blah.

But if you don't say anything to me I'm going to assume we're playing bog standard Warhammer where the rules, point values, army restrictions, etc... Are all agreed upon beforehand. If you're not OK with something in the rules, you need to speak up yo! I will listen, as I am confident most players would.

For a real life example someone was talking about almost this exact same thing in X Wing a while ago. Someone immediately presented two great alternate options, one being some epic games and the other the awesome fan made cooperative expansion called heroes of the Aturi Cluster. All these guys, most of them experienced tournament players, immediately agreed that either one would offer a nice break from the standard competitive game format once in a while.

Problem freakin solved. Did I mention HoTAC is awesome, btw? It's really cool to fly cooperatively against the AI and build up a squad with your friends.

 Easy E wrote:
My advice is to stop playing pick-up games, and instead find a core of similarly minded individuals that want to play games in a way similar to yours, and play with those people.

Don't change the way you want to play, change the people you play against.

Cool idea. But it can be a real challenge if your pool of opponents is dead set on playing all competitive all the time.

Perhaps learn to not be so emotionally invested in the game's result, such that losing isn't such a hard thing?

I've lost many times to my housemate. He runs slightly more competitive lists than me (largely because I like to play with painted minis and WYSIWYG rather than proxies). He also has a lot more play experience and rules knowledge, and tends to find small angles for advantage.

I don't have a problem with this, because he's teaching me to be a stronger player. We have fun - win or lose (and most games are close, and occasionally I do win).

40K does not make a solid competitive tournament ruleset. If you want to play something watertight, I suggest M:tG.

zerosignal wrote:
Perhaps learn to not be so emotionally invested in the game's result, such that losing isn't such a hard thing?.

Reread his post, it's not about him being heartbroken over not winning. He's basically saying he's having a crisis about being a fluff/casual player if he gets ROFLstomped every time he fields what he feels is a fluffy/narrative/casual list.

And while we're at it, how does wanting to have a CHANCE to win equal emotional investment?

zerosignal wrote:
40K does not make a solid competitive tournament ruleset. If you want to play something watertight, I suggest M:tG.

zerosignal wrote:
Perhaps learn to not be so emotionally invested in the game's result, such that losing isn't such a hard thing?

Most people don't care if they win or lose, as I said on the previous page....

In reality, I think most people are competitive in that they want to win and try to win and the game loses its spice if you completely throw competitiveness out the window, but they also don't cry over losing and aren't reliant on winning for their sole source of enjoyment.

I don't have a problem with this, because he's teaching me to be a stronger player. We have fun - win or lose (and most games are close, and occasionally I do win).

The problem with 40k is that being a stronger player largely revolves around purchasing the "correct" models and not starting one of the gakky armies.

I don't care if I win or lose provided the game wasn't a blowout based solely around the armies being fielded.

I want a good game. I care most about having a good game.

I don't enjoy a game where I've lost before the game has even started because 2000 points vs 2000 points was actually 4000 points vs 1000 points due to the army list skew.

What I'm basically saying is that I worry WAY too much about something that "fits" the background, because I like the fluff/background (it's the main reason I play/want to play, because let's be frank here the rules leave much to be desired). But that, to me, often means playing an underpowered list that fits the background which can result in me getting burned out and quitting if/when I lose all the time, or compromising my views and picking something stronger even if it doesn't seem as fluffy to me, and/or pretending the fluff isn't a thing if, for example, I really want to play Marines but there's a lot of Marine players at my shop (because unless I am grossly mistaken, fluffwise actual Marine vs. Marine fights, beyond like brawls/duels, are super rare occurrences).

So this means I spent a lot of time thinking of an idea, and then say something like "But to not lose I have to use X, and I want to use Y instead" or "I want to play X, but X is very powerful and people may not like it" and change my mind so often it actually gives me headaches thinking about it sometimes, not to mention results in me either not buying anything or buying lots of little things (e.g. start one army, decide against it, buy another, decide against it).

I'm thinking I need to come to grips with the fact that I can't really have both, at least not in a feasible way. So if I want to play let's say Necrons (seriously considering them) I should do it, not care that oh but Decurion is OP, because I want to play it. And maybe not focus too much on the fluff other than as the background by which I mean, I like to name characters, theme the army entirely. Just nobody else around me really does that, so it's an exercise in frustration sometimes because that makes me want to play fluffy when others don't let it bother them.

 privateer4hire wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
My advice is to stop playing pick-up games, and instead find a core of similarly minded individuals that want to play games in a way similar to yours, and play with those people.

Don't change the way you want to play, change the people you play against.

Cool idea. But it can be a real challenge if your pool of opponents is dead set on playing all competitive all the time.

Yeah, I know from experience. You have to find a new pool to swim in or you will be wasting your time and money then burn out.

If we can stick to discussing the subject matter rather than making cracks at/about other users please.

Thank you.

 Easy E wrote:
My advice is to stop playing pick-up games, and instead find a core of similarly minded individuals that want to play games in a way similar to yours, and play with those people.

Don't change the way you want to play, change the people you play against.

This is legit. it's entirely possible that 'your community' is the problem, not the game.

dosiere wrote:

Eh, I wouldn't be so quick to blame the players. There is always "that guy", but that guy is IMO a tiny minority of the players. I promise you most of them are perfectly fine opponents for a range of games.

I think it's more complicated than this. There’s blame, and there’s blame. In the context of ‘that guy’, as you say, most folks will be perfectly reasonable people. That said, blame is a thing in some ways. for all that, as gamers, we are often our own worst enemies. In my experience, both online and in real life, a lot of gamers, on some level at least come across with a great sense of entitlement. Inertia, as well is one of the great problems of our community as is, sometimes at least, a lack of proactivity. I find a lot of gamers tend to be uncreative in terms of ‘how’ they play, and tend to be prisoners of ‘officialdom’. By this, I mean a lot of people won't step out of whatever is regarded as the 'default' play, regardless of how 'poor' a fit this is. And often that contributes hugely to the problems we face as a community. That blame does lie, at least partially, if not substantially on the shoulders of the players. A lot of people seem to scoff at the idea of the ‘social shock absorber’, and the idea that we, as gamers share responsibility for ‘how’ we play our games and would rather shrug this off as the responsibility of someone else and instead, would rarther adhere rigidly and unquestioningly to the rules, regardless of how fit for purpose those rules are, because that’s what the rules say. Gamers will not step out of their comfort zone. Too often I see people unbendingly insist its all the company’s fault (whomever that may be), and they shouldn’t have to do anything for themselves or their community. In that sense, yes, I do think that sometimes its fair to blame the players especially when we do nothing proactive to help ourselves.

dosiere wrote:

The problem for all these players who want a non competitive experience is that they want that to be the baseline expectation of the game. It's not, and I can't remember a time when it ever was. Certainly, and thank goodness, not every pick up game is a no holds barred WAAC fest between the most ridiculous net list out there at the moment.

I disagree. Why can’t it be their default expectation of their games at least? The game is whatever you make of it, it is not a defined 'thing'. How you play matters.

I see from your flag that you are American. There is a general sense around that American gamers tend to default to the competitive/pick up game ‘mode of play’ a lot more so than European gamers, and I tend to think there is at least some truth in that. The Internet also tends to attract and amplify the perspective of the more hardcore elements of the community as well. Depending on how your group approaches the game, non competitive very well might be the default approach.

As you say, not every pick up game is a no-holds barred WAACfest (thankfully!) but not every game is a pick up game – again, this could be the American perspective coming through. As a counter, I play with a group where non-competitive/narrative is simply the done thing, and pretty much always has been. And generally in my experience, the ‘play at home’ community tends to be a lot more laid back and non-competitive, or even not-so-competitive as the store/FLGS-going side of the community.

I think talk of baselines is dangerous. That implies there is one ‘root’ of gaming, and everything else is essentially an offshoot of that ‘root’. I disagree with this. Like I said above, gamers are very conservative and uncreative in ‘how’ they play – they wont branch out once there is a sanctioned ‘default mode’. Rather than baselines, I think in terms of parallel routes. Don’t get me wrong - Competitive is absolutely fine. Pick up play is absolutely fine. Home brew, narrative and non-competitive are also perfectly acceptable. There is a general gradient across the spectrum. All have value if you ask me, but often tend to be somewhat separate beasts from each other rather than offshoots.

dosiere wrote:

That said, if you show up for a pick up game against someone for a game of Warhammer, or X wing, or war machine, Kings of war, etc... The expectation is absolutely one of competitiveness. You can, and probably always should, be casual ( as in friendly, helpful, and non rules lawyery). But blaming the other players for not meeting your own unspoken expectations is not right.

I am generally in agreement with you here. Pick up play, by its very nature, encourages a pretty simple, straight-forward and very pragmatic approach to gaming (though a lot will get sacrificed on the alter in order to make it so. Which is fair enough for what it is. Whether those sacrifices are worth it - well, that's up to each individual. I know folks that don't.). I like Privateer Press’ terminology where they refer to it as ‘organised play’. By its very nature, there is a certain expectation of ‘how’ you play it. Their games their community and their organised play comes 'pre filtered' in a way. You turn up, plonk your stuff on the board, roll with an approved scenario, play it out, trade barbs, win/lose/draw, shake hands and go beering after. Essentially, the main strength is that you can just get on with it, with a bare minimum of fuss.

That said, not every game is a pick up game, and as you say, you need to talk about what you want if you want something different. However, in my mind, the second you start discussing things and ‘game building’ is the second something starts to stop being a pick-up-game. you shouldnt blame people for wanting a different type of game when you yourself haven’t stepped up and said what kind of game you are after. I make the point regularly that if this is what you want, you need to communicate and organise ahead of time. Pick up play is the wrong kind of medium to make this work.

dosiere wrote:

The game and setting absolutely matter here to create context for these discussions. I am TOTALLY down for some custom scenarios, a campaign, pre game house rules (including agreements on things like no flyers or super heavies, no combo X because we both know it's BS, etc...), discussions on intentionally avoiding certain units because you really want to use X but it's got a hard counter, blah blah blah.

Seems perfectly fair and reasonable to me. I wish more people played like this.

dosiere wrote:

But if you don't say anything to me I'm going to assume we're playing bog standard Warhammer where the rules, point values, army restrictions, etc... Are all agreed upon beforehand. If you're not OK with something in the rules, you need to speak up yo! I will listen, as I am confident most players would.

Hmm - I think you shouldn’t assume on ‘bog standard warhammer’ or even assume what bog standard Warhammer is, because more and more, ‘standard’ Warhammer is becoming less and less of a thing. What’s standard for you might not be standard for me. I think its important that both players need to step up and speak up, even if it is to just say ‘1500pts, full rules, anything goes’ etc.

dosiere wrote:

For a real life example someone was talking about almost this exact same thing in X Wing a while ago. Someone immediately presented two great alternate options, one being some epic games and the other the awesome fan made cooperative expansion called heroes of the Aturi Cluster. All these guys, most of them experienced tournament players, immediately agreed that either one would offer a nice break from the standard competitive game format once in a while.

Problem freakin solved. Did I mention HoTAC is awesome, btw? It's really cool to fly cooperatively against the AI and build up a squad with your friends.

I often make the point that people shouldn’t just play one ‘type’ of wargame. If all you do is pick-up-play, or competitive, sooner or later people will burn out. I have. You probably have. Most folks here will have done so too. Some probably far worse than others. I think its great not only to play different games, but to play those same games differently. That HoTAC campaign sounds interesting – I’ll have to give it a quick read.

Anyways, I enjoyed your post! Have an Internet beer!

I notice that, maybe it's my area, but Warhammer players tend to be the least likely to think outside the box. Especially the "competitive" crowd. Even things like Kill Team (or Path to Glory for AOS) is dismissed. Leagues or campaigns or any sort of structure are often also considered to not be something worth doing (typically because they have to tone things down or not bring all the toys). At least that's what I've seen; any discussion of a campaign or league is met with silence when people are asked about interest, so nothing materializes and then you have the same handful of people show up every week to play the same boring high points games.

I quit 40k because 6th forced me to use my sw as a gun line instead of the cc army I wanted, I tried for months to get blood claws to work as I played blackmanes great army but every time they'd fail me.

When I learnt 7th would be the same I packed away my armies and walked away.

If you want to keep playing you'll have to sacrifice the fluff and bring the powerlevel up, or quit and find a better balanced system.

hobojebus wrote:
I quit 40k because 6th forced me to use my sw as a gun line instead of the cc army I wanted, I tried for months to get blood claws to work as I played blackmanes great army but every time they'd fail me.

When I learnt 7th would be the same I packed away my armies and walked away.

If you want to keep playing you'll have to sacrifice the fluff and bring the powerlevel up, or quit and find a better balanced system.

Yeah. I'm already eyeing Necrons, not just for zomg power but I actually like their fluff and everything. So maybe I can have my cake and eat it too, as long as I don't go full cheese to "trigger the nukes".

Wayniac wrote:
I notice that, maybe it's my area, but Warhammer players tend to be the least likely to think outside the box.

Do you think it's maybe because Warhammer players tend to not know each other as well and not be close friends?

At least that's my observation in my area. Warhammer players are as flexible and creative as any other players, but you're more likely to be playing a pick up game against someone you barely know, maybe a casual acquaintance more than a "friend" or possibly don't even know them at all. My mates who are close friends are usually up for something different as long as they don't have to learn new complicated rules (hard to convince them to try community rulesets that they'll have to go home and read, easy to convince them to make modifications to rules they already know).

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
I notice that, maybe it's my area, but Warhammer players tend to be the least likely to think outside the box.

Do you think it's maybe because Warhammer players tend to not know each other as well and not be close friends?

At least that's my observation in my area. Warhammer players are as flexible and creative as any other players, but you're more likely to be playing a pick up game against someone you barely know, maybe a casual acquaintance more than a "friend" or possibly don't even know them at all. My mates who are close friends are usually up for something different as long as they don't have to learn new complicated rules (hard to convince them to try community rulesets that they'll have to go home and read, easy to convince them to make modifications to rules they already know).

Yes, I think that is exactly what it is. Which is funny because Warhammer, perhaps more than any other similar wargame, wants you to not be playing against people you don't know at all or in random pickup games. So i feel that trying to push that mindset on the game hurts it.

That is definitely why the "negotiation phase" of the game is looked down on so hard. You are often playing against people you don't know very well, I think.

It's both the biggest strength and biggest weakness of GW games. I don't think I'd ever have started WHFB or 40k if it weren't for the ability to just go down the street and play with some random person rather than having to organise it with one of the few friends I had who also played.

But then it massively highlights all the flaws in the game when you try to play it as-is against someone who isn't a close friend.

It really is. Being able to play at a game store is fine, but I find it does little to encourage a community that talks and tries to do things together so everyone benefits, versus wanting things where you can show up and throw down.

But I think thats also a sign of gamer culture. I note gamer culture is vastly different in europe.

Here in the states we just want anonymous opponents with little talk it seems and story-driven games are not really as wanted. Even the RPG groups here are competitive lol (trying to "beat" D&D)

 auticus wrote:
But I think thats also a sign of gamer culture. I note gamer culture is vastly different in europe.

Here in the states we just want anonymous opponents with little talk it seems and story-driven games are not really as wanted. Even the RPG groups here are competitive lol (trying to "beat" D&D)

Sad but true.

auticus wrote:But I think thats also a sign of gamer culture. I note gamer culture is vastly different in europe.

Here in the states we just want anonymous opponents with little talk it seems and story-driven games are not really as wanted. Even the RPG groups here are competitive lol (trying to "beat" D&D)

I think this is quite incorrect. What gamers in the states want, basically, is to get dice rolling as soon as possible. AFTER the match has always been when the best convos happen, usually at the local karaoke joint after we've all gotten a bite to eat. THEN you learn more about what the other players are like, what they look for personally in a game, ideas for nonstandard play, the like. You paint a picture almost like a gunfight in the old West where two US players show up at the same store and just start playing without a word edgewise. It's absurd and really doesn't paint our gaming community in the correct light.

 Just Tony wrote:

auticus wrote:But I think thats also a sign of gamer culture. I note gamer culture is vastly different in europe.

Here in the states we just want anonymous opponents with little talk it seems and story-driven games are not really as wanted. Even the RPG groups here are competitive lol (trying to "beat" D&D)

I think this is quite incorrect. What gamers in the states want, basically, is to get dice rolling as soon as possible. AFTER the match has always been when the best convos happen, usually at the local karaoke joint after we've all gotten a bite to eat. THEN you learn more about what the other players are like, what they look for personally in a game, ideas for nonstandard play, the like. You paint a picture almost like a gunfight in the old West where two US players show up at the same store and just start playing without a word edgewise. It's absurd and really doesn't paint our gaming community in the correct light.

That sure seems to be how I see things, too. There's very little communication that I've seen, it IS mostly just show up and start playing, usually with the only real communication being asking if the other person wanted a game, and how many points.

There really shouldn't need to be any sort of massive discussion, except maybe allowing SC's, what terrain counts as, picking scenario, points. The game should be in a good enough state that you don't NEED to essentially assemble the game each time you play, but it hasn't been anywhere NEAR that level since 2008 or so.

 Just Tony wrote:
There really shouldn't need to be any sort of massive discussion, except maybe allowing SC's, what terrain counts as, picking scenario, points. The game should be in a good enough state that you don't NEED to essentially assemble the game each time you play, but it hasn't been anywhere NEAR that level since 2008 or so.

It wasn't really then either if you ask me. Warhammer isn't the sort of game you can just show up, ask whoever else is there if they want to play a game, and throw down.

Once again I disagree. Even against total strangers, unless they were completely new and were being nursemaided through their first game or five, I could get a game going with maybe 10 minutes of conversation before hand. And it wasn't ever an unenjoyable experience. Sometimes you'd have to wait for a table, so you could sit down and kill time by talking with the other waiters. THEN was usually when some crazy gaming idea would come out, or some SC challenge gauntlet thrown. Back during those times you knew pretty much what to expect, most people ran all comers lists, and the game issues weren't NEARLY as bad as they have been with the last three editions of both games. Granted, you can't do that NOW, and I doubt you'll ever be able to again. I concede that. I, however, won't concede that it was true for 3rd/6th.

 Just Tony wrote:

auticus wrote:But I think thats also a sign of gamer culture. I note gamer culture is vastly different in europe.

Here in the states we just want anonymous opponents with little talk it seems and story-driven games are not really as wanted. Even the RPG groups here are competitive lol (trying to "beat" D&D)

I think this is quite incorrect. What gamers in the states want, basically, is to get dice rolling as soon as possible. AFTER the match has always been when the best convos happen, usually at the local karaoke joint after we've all gotten a bite to eat. THEN you learn more about what the other players are like, what they look for personally in a game, ideas for nonstandard play, the like. You paint a picture almost like a gunfight in the old West where two US players show up at the same store and just start playing without a word edgewise. It's absurd and really doesn't paint our gaming community in the correct light.

Well, thats because where I am thats pretty much how a lot of games go. I mean there is some socializing but the rule is official rules only, tournament standard missions, and go. There is no discussion about what type of game. You're going to be playing competitively or you're not going to be playing (or you're going to be curb stomped if you are not playing competitively)

If you try to put together a public campaign, you take a lot of stink and a lot of politics to shut that down because "its not playing correctly and you're teaching new players wrong".

So to me, from my perspective, it is show up, agree to play someone, insinuate / assume tournament standard points, tournament standard missions, and tournament level lists and play. Very minimal communication period. Campaigns and the like should be kept in private OUTSIDE of the store in someone's garage or basement.