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.

Updating the topic as its not working as intended. I was wrong and used bad wording. Underscored old one.
Hello,
basing on my experience and my local gaming group I have a feeling that most players are WAAC players.
Share your experience.

Are most TT players power players.
Hola.
Just as said I feel like most of players just want to win at all costs, bringing broken armies and sometimes misinterpreting rules.
What are your thoughts on this?

TT?

There is an enormous gray area here that you ignoring IMO. First is that players are either WAAC or CAAC, second is that most players can and do play differently depending on the context. It would be silly to bring a terrible list to a tournament and intentionally be loose with the rules, just as it is silly to bring out the most OP list you can make and a rules lawyer attitude to a league night designed for new or newer players. Both cases are against the spirit of the event, and would lead to less fun to those involved.

This topic is not a black and white kinda thing.

I have a feeling we will never hear back from the OP... just a hunch.

I have fun by winning

I play for fun.

Winning is fun.

Jendi wrote:
Hola.
Just as said I feel like most of players just want to win at all costs, bringing broken armies and sometimes misinterpreting rules.
What are your thoughts on this?

My thoughts are that you're incorrect. Also, I'm assuming by TT, you mean "table top". I think that a lot of players enjoy the journey. They want to win, and they want to learn to do whatever it takes to get there. But there's two complicating factors. First, it's really hard to get to a place where you're constantly winning. Secondly, if you do even ever get there, you end up picking up a new army and trying to go along the path to success all over again. I think a lot of players want that journey and the stress of trying their best, and the thrill of victory. If they don't get either of those things, they tend to lose interest in the game.

I can't vote in this poll because I don't believe either extreme exclusively. I like to win games but I like for me and my opponent to both have a fun time, somewhat equally.

 Yarium wrote:

Jendi wrote:
Hola.
Just as said I feel like most of players just want to win at all costs, bringing broken armies and sometimes misinterpreting rules.
What are your thoughts on this?

My thoughts are that you're incorrect. Also, I'm assuming by TT, you mean "table top". I think that a lot of players enjoy the journey. They want to win, and they want to learn to do whatever it takes to get there. But there's two complicating factors. First, it's really hard to get to a place where you're constantly winning. Secondly, if you do even ever get there, you end up picking up a new army and trying to go along the path to success all over again. I think a lot of players want that journey and the stress of trying their best, and the thrill of victory. If they don't get either of those things, they tend to lose interest in the game.

Sound like a definition of power player for me. But it's sad that for some people win is the only fun.

Power player probably make up less than 5% of any playerbase, but they are a lot more active. The best way to win a game like WMH, W40k or Infinity is to play more games and gain more experience than other players so they always have a bigger impact on the meta.

I think you'll get a lot of people who claim to play for fun but secretly (or openly) everyone hates them because they do that low-key power gamer thing where they don't explicitly use WAAC lists but it's not beyond them to only use the "good" options with the "good" weapons.

It's cool. I do the same myself. If a unit is good that's not your fault. I've run genestealers and carnifexes my entire 20 year long tyranid career. Not my fault they're great now. But its when you take lists so hard it sucks the fun out of the game it becomes a problem. 40k does not exist for your sole entertainment. It's a two player game and if I need to make intentional bad decisions or use experimental lists and expect to lose so the other player can enjoy himself then so be it. I have actually used a Adeptus Ministorum list comprised of only the close combat Elite choices, transports and some Grey Knights vs a Guilliman gunline before and it was great fun.

What about people like me that want to run lists within the constraints of fluff as best they possibly can, but while staying within the constraints of fluff want to win?

For example, I could either take an Imperial Guard Techpriest to repair my tanks in an IG detachment, or a Mechanicus techpriest to repair my tanks in an AM detachment.

Doing the latter nets me a stratagem and warlord trait that makes the paltry d3 wounds recovered into 2d3+2 wounds recovered. Doing the latter, however, is "more casual" because you're not souping and playing monofaction.

I'm not a casual player. If I can, I will bring a Mechanicus Tech-Priest over a Militarum Tech-Priest, because in the fluff they're the same person, so the fluff is fine, and at the end of the day, I don't like making subpar choices for any reason other than fluff reasons. However, if, for example, the fluff of the future changed so that Superheavy Tanks were only fielded in companies of 5, rather than 3-5, I would have to stop playing the army at 2k points, because it would no longer fit without betraying the fluff (except in team games, since when other regiments are present the superheavies can be split up to support them. Or if I ever build a 2nd regiment).

Swap out their weapons for plows. Set up a table with a farm terrain and have both sides work together to grow turnips if that fits your fancy. Forge your own narrative.

Edit add: winning and having fun isn't mutually exclusive

 ProwlerPC wrote:
Swap out their weapons for plows. Set up a table with a farm terrain and have both sides work together to grow turnips if that fits your fancy. Forge your own narrative.

Write that scenario and I'd play the gak out of it. I'd like to simulate tyranid land cultivation.

Aha true true. Both Nids and Orks bring built in terraforming properties with them.

 ProwlerPC wrote:
Swap out their weapons for plows. Set up a table with a farm terrain and have both sides work together to grow turnips if that fits your fancy. Forge your own narrative.

Edit add: winning and having fun isn't mutually exclusive

One of my favorite Sci-Fi series is about a world that was conquered in a brutal war centuries ago from aliens that are essentially orks (reproduce from spores underground). The Bolo tanks (essentially artificially intelligent 40k superheavies) are kept on-world because when the alien re-infestation reaches critical mass they always attack again, boiling up from underground and psychically calling to their comrades from space (iirc). So they just leave the superheavy tanks on-world.

In between fights, of course, the gigantic tanks don't just sit around - they use them as heavy equipment for all sorts of stuff. In fact, some of the tanks think it's fun and engaging to put their minds towards problems other than war (e.g. how do I plow this field without flattening it). So a scenario where my superheavies are repurposed into farm equipment and I have to figure out how to put something that large to good use actually replicates one of my favorite sci-fi short stories.

We play it like Medabots. The winner choses a model/unit of the enemy and keeps it for himself.

This is serious business boy.

In the game of Warhammer, you win or you die.

Holy gak! Not touching my models. Paint your own lol.

Jendi wrote:
Sound like a definition of power player for me. But it's sad that for some people win is the only fun.

I think you may have 100% missed the point of my post.To re-explain; it's about the journey. They have fun when they lose too, but the fun part is in trying to win.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
I play for fun.

Winning is fun.

I feel like a lot of players have this attitude, and I do appreciate it for its simplicity. Of course a deeper look will quickly reveal that it isn't true.
Warhammer is at its core a social game. You've got an opponent, and you and him will be committed to what is more than likely a several hour long game session. You will be talking with them, rolling dice, and god forbid talking and otherwise socially interacting with him or her!

This is amplified when you go to a FLGS for a pick up game or other open play type event. You will be meeting a new person and forming a relationship with them for several hours. Your list, and the way you play it has a definitive effect on how our opponent sees you as a person, and it also modifies your reputation as a player in the community at large. Every game of Warhammer, or any mini game for that matter, is a social contract. Generally, for the game to be "fun" both players should be having a good time, I have partaken in one sided battles before, both on the winning side and the losing side. Maybe I am not a social vampire but I do not extract joy from causing misery on my opponent, especially an opponent who is expected to stay for the duration of a 2 hour gaming commitment. Its important to take a look at the scene you are attending, and take a list applicable to the situation.

If you are a good player, and you know if you are, and have some rock hard lists in your back pocket, talk to your opponent before the game. If you and your opponent agree (or you are at a tournament) then take the gloves off and unleash your worst on the opponent. But if you talk to your opponent and quickly learn that he is a new player to the game, still learning the rules, and has a limited collection of models... maybe don't take that Alaitoc Reaper spam list... What fun are you possibly having poisoning the experience for a new player while he somberly packs up his tactical marine squads as you just shoot them into a bloody hole in the ground while his return fire is reduced to hitting on a 5 or a 6?

At least in my experience a fun game for any wargame is one where both players are involved. a curb stomp by either player will disassociate the other player from the game, and this is something that you want to avoid. Especially with a new player who may be on the fence about getting into Warhammer at all.

Represent the community well, its important. We don't want to be seen as a bunch of sociopaths who were tragically born without a sense of empathy. At least if we want to play against some fresh faces every once in a while. Nobody wants to rule an empire of dust.

IG players in my area never get sick of gunline parking lots that table. Don't know what to tell you.

Eldar screens are at least expensive. If I manage to assault the dark reapers, a lot of points go away quickly. If I assault the IG, there's 5 more units where that came from.

Jendi wrote:

 Yarium wrote:

Jendi wrote:
Hola.
Just as said I feel like most of players just want to win at all costs, bringing broken armies and sometimes misinterpreting rules.
What are your thoughts on this?

My thoughts are that you're incorrect. Also, I'm assuming by TT, you mean "table top". I think that a lot of players enjoy the journey. They want to win, and they want to learn to do whatever it takes to get there. But there's two complicating factors. First, it's really hard to get to a place where you're constantly winning. Secondly, if you do even ever get there, you end up picking up a new army and trying to go along the path to success all over again. I think a lot of players want that journey and the stress of trying their best, and the thrill of victory. If they don't get either of those things, they tend to lose interest in the game.

Sound like a definition of power player for me. But it's sad that for some people win is the only fun.

If your definition of power gamer is 'actually tries to play the game well' then most people are.

Most of the people that claim not to be actually are but use passive aggressive means to get wins.

Then you have the few people that just push random models around without a plan whilst moaning about power gamers and cheese.

Akaen identified more or less how I define "that guy" or a WAAC gamer. It has nothing to do with the list, etc...it comes to a singular question: are you concerned with whether or not your opponent is having a good time?

That's all I'm interested in. Now, if you're playing at a tournament, I respect your willingness to ignore that to an extent. I also understand that 94% of us on this forum are probably not as gracious in defeat as we'd like to be. But if you can't look past what you enjoy to determine whether or not your opponent is enjoying themselves, you're "that guy". Now that doesn't take into account that small percentage of people who are exceptionally grumpy/sour losers and won't be happy regardless. I have a couple of them in our local group. We joke that they're pissed if they won because they didn't win hard enough, and they're pissed if they lose, because 'your army is cheap!' etc. They're just perpetual whiners.

I think the goal of any tabletop wargame should be: a close fought game with both players enjoying themselves. Anything less than that and I'm less enthusiastic about it. I like a game where I can be as excited about my opponents dice rolls as mine, coming down to a clutch moment or two near the end of the game. We should end the game with a laugh and a handshake, and a genuine "well frikkin' played!".

Now, I'm willing to put that aside for tournament gamer expectations. I don't do tournaments, but I respect that being secondary in a tournament setting. I'd expect you to play as hard as you can, but remain congenial and respectful of each other. However, if you're a tournament player and can't understand why local pick-up gamers are hesitant to play you - that's probably why. They're two different gaming environments.

Martel732 wrote:
IG players in my area never get sick of gunline parking lots that table. Don't know what to tell you.

Eldar screens are at least expensive. If I manage to assault the dark reapers, a lot of points go away quickly. If I assault the IG, there's 5 more units where that came from.

You should ask them to try those melee heavy guard lists.

Just to be facetious

 Sim-Life wrote:


You should ask them to try those melee heavy guard lists.

Back in my day the muscle of the imperial guard was a potent melee force, capable of beating down those fancy elf space pirates or overzealous heretics with strength of will, numbers, and hidden power weapons alone.

You see, you could form up 3 or 4 Imperial Guard Infantry Squads together, giving you a healthy squad of approximately 30-40 bodies. Taking a Power Weapon on each Sergeant- back when all power weapons were equal and we didn't need any fancy swords or axes. Toss a Commissar in there and give him a Power Weapon to. Back in those days whipper snapper you couldn't lose your Sergeants or Commissar to challenges, and moral wouldn't nuke a whole squad. The enemy would smash into the mass of imperial troopers, and be slowly ground down by the power weapons. The squad wouldn't break because the commissar gave them Stubborn, and if they failed that Stubborn ld 9 test he would kill a guardsmen and the squad would re roll. In true Guard form we showed those flashy superhumans and xenos that the implacable might of the Imperial Anvil could not be broken by heroic charges. Just as we would inevitably wear them down and defeat them at range, we would inevitably wear them down and defeat them in melee. The enemy for all their zeal, unable to kill all of the guardsmen before they were ground to dust under the numberless guard.

Don't think you could just ignore the mighty imperial power blob. it was of course bristling with auto cannons and ranks of las guns. A single order of First Rank Fire! Second Rank Fire! would spue an unholy amount of las fire, or Bring It Down! and taking advantage of the 4 Cannons in the Blob in case there wasn't a good target for las. Many have forgotten the potency of the 'power blobs' of ye olde 5th edition. But what is lost is not forgotten. One day the Guard will be able to pick up their power swords and axes and and face their enemy in glorious close combat again. Grinding them to dust under boot and bayonet.

The unfortunate thing is that many WAAC players scare off the casual players from playing the game. WAAC players happily play each other over and over again, tweaking their lists to tournament-readiness, but gamers that just want fun, casual, fluffy games where they can chill out and roll dice have a harder time having a good time in those environments. So they end up coming here to complain about WAAC players instead.

I can have fun losing in both Sigmar and 40k. For me, it comes down to closeness of the lists. If both players feel like they still have a chance throughout the game, theres a chance. If both players know who has won the game on set up, then why was the game even played?

I had the problem in 40k for most of 8th. I won against my friends tau once or twice and then he picked up Iron Warriors and went hard on forgeworld models. Leviathan with 2 butcher cannon arrays with a contemptor... with two more butcher cannons. If I wanted to bring a lascannon squad to blow them up, he just brought a fire raptor and Sicarian to outrange me and throw a ton of shots into me that my squads just got wiped off the board. These games were super not fun for me. I never felt I stood a chance in those games. I even told my friend that not feeling like I had a chance made me not want to play 40k any time soon. And these games were I was mostly tabled by turn 2 with 80% of his list still on the board.

There's a massive social contract between players who are playing casually that both players should have fun during the match.

Martel732 wrote:IG players in my area never get sick of gunline parking lots that table. Don't know what to tell you.

Eldar screens are at least expensive. If I manage to assault the dark reapers, a lot of points go away quickly. If I assault the IG, there's 5 more units where that came from.

Because it's fun. I'm not sure why I should get tired of running artillery and tanks. There's nothing else that really captures Warhammer 40k as well to me, where even the most heroic of individuals is reduced to insignificant statistic by the mathematics of scale. [or at least was. The events of late 7th and 8th edition have changed that, with all the way the lore has changed and the introduction of certain new units].

akaean wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
I play for fun.

Winning is fun.

I feel like a lot of players have this attitude, and I do appreciate it for its simplicity. Of course a deeper look will quickly reveal that it isn't true.
Warhammer is at its core a social game. You've got an opponent, and you and him will be committed to what is more than likely a several hour long game session. You will be talking with them, rolling dice, and god forbid talking and otherwise socially interacting with him or her!

This is amplified when you go to a FLGS for a pick up game or other open play type event. You will be meeting a new person and forming a relationship with them for several hours. Your list, and the way you play it has a definitive effect on how our opponent sees you as a person, and it also modifies your reputation as a player in the community at large. Every game of Warhammer, or any mini game for that matter, is a social contract. Generally, for the game to be "fun" both players should be having a good time, I have partaken in one sided battles before, both on the winning side and the losing side. Maybe I am not a social vampire but I do not extract joy from causing misery on my opponent, especially an opponent who is expected to stay for the duration of a 2 hour gaming commitment. Its important to take a look at the scene you are attending, and take a list applicable to the situation.

If you are a good player, and you know if you are, and have some rock hard lists in your back pocket, talk to your opponent before the game. If you and your opponent agree (or you are at a tournament) then take the gloves off and unleash your worst on the opponent. But if you talk to your opponent and quickly learn that he is a new player to the game, still learning the rules, and has a limited collection of models... maybe don't take that Alaitoc Reaper spam list... What fun are you possibly having poisoning the experience for a new player while he somberly packs up his tactical marine squads as you just shoot them into a bloody hole in the ground while his return fire is reduced to hitting on a 5 or a 6?

At least in my experience a fun game for any wargame is one where both players are involved. a curb stomp by either player will disassociate the other player from the game, and this is something that you want to avoid. Especially with a new player who may be on the fence about getting into Warhammer at all.

Represent the community well, its important. We don't want to be seen as a bunch of sociopaths who were tragically born without a sense of empathy. At least if we want to play against some fresh faces every once in a while. Nobody wants to rule an empire of dust.

It's not strictly winning that is the be all and end all of everything, but I hold that everybody should be striving for victory. To do otherwise is kind of insulting and disrespectful. Hence my usual response to people who start a game [or end one] with "I play for fun."

I do get the "go easy on new players," thing. At the same time, they should be made extra conscious about what decisions are contributing to victory and defeat as they play their first games and build their army, which will help them be better players overall as they go off on their own.

 Elbows wrote:
Akaen identified more or less how I define "that guy" or a WAAC gamer. It has nothing to do with the list, etc...it comes to a singular question: are you concerned with whether or not your opponent is having a good time?

That's all I'm interested in. Now, if you're playing at a tournament, I respect your willingness to ignore that to an extent. I also understand that 94% of us on this forum are probably not as gracious in defeat as we'd like to be. But if you can't look past what you enjoy to determine whether or not your opponent is enjoying themselves, you're "that guy". Now that doesn't take into account that small percentage of people who are exceptionally grumpy/sour losers and won't be happy regardless. I have a couple of them in our local group. We joke that they're pissed if they won because they didn't win hard enough, and they're pissed if they lose, because 'your army is cheap!' etc. They're just perpetual whiners.

I think the goal of any tabletop wargame should be: a close fought game with both players enjoying themselves. Anything less than that and I'm less enthusiastic about it. I like a game where I can be as excited about my opponents dice rolls as mine, coming down to a clutch moment or two near the end of the game. We should end the game with a laugh and a handshake, and a genuine "well frikkin' played!".

I don't mind one-sided games. A one-sided defeat is an opportunity to return to the drawing board, analyze my and my opponent's failings and successes, and return next week to return-to-sender that beatdown [which is, perhaps, the single most satisfying kind of game].

Clutch tactical decision are also satisfying, particularly when your opponent [or you] makes a mistake that can be exploited to win. A defeat feels fine and a victory feels better if the game was won fair and square, and nothing feels worse than a game that came down to a single roll.

I like to think I'm gracious in victory and in defeat. I've been told that I'm fun to play with because I'm cheerful and talkative while playing regardless of whether I'm winning or losing, but I've also been told that my post-game debriefs, talking up and down about what worked and what didn't for both sides and how it should be countered, are rather obnoxious by people who are less into an in-depth analysis and re-living of the game.

I don't really care about winning when I play, however I think the challenge of trying to win is what makes the game fun, thus I owe it to anyone I play against to do my very best to win for their enjoyment and I expect my opponents to do the same.

The WAAC player and CAAC player profile are just hypothetical extremes. Hardly anyone even comes close to them in reality. Most people fall in the grey area in between somewhere.

I myself enjoy trying to win in casual play with very sub-optimal and unusual lists that are intended to make it an interesting game. In events it's time for the first string though. Despite what the internet armchair generals believe, many tourney players ARE really good at the game, and they don't need me to gimp myself pre-game to have a good shot at me.

Anyway the way you set up the poll could use some improvement. You have a very loaded and leading question, (It's obvious which answer you consider "correct" just by the way you asked, and in fact it's obvious you have a pretty negative opinion of the ones who answer the other direction,) and you also don't address other very likely possibilities. It honestly makes it feel like either an online venting session or a troll attempt. Maybe you should try reconsidering the poll to be something actually constructive and informative?