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.
Wayniac wrote: This is not a TCG. it is a social hobby where the theme and entertainment of the game is just as important, if not more so, than having things as balanced as possible for matched play. That's what seems to be the disconnect here. Some people can't fathom wanting to play loose with the rules, others enjoy it.
Just because you say that doesn't make it fact. It's a game with a winner and loser, period, full stop. It should be treated like any other game with a winner and loser. If you want to treat it some other way, that's up to you and your play group. You seem to be confusing what is important to your playgroup and what is important to other people or groups that play the game.
Wait what?
Are you seriously claiming that you treat "every game with a winner and a loser" the same, whether you're playing Bacchi Ball against a five year old, or in an Olympic swimming contest?
Yep, just like how the goal of any game of DnD is for the players to beat the GM, and the GM's goal is to kill all the players, no exceptions. I expect everyone to game their hardest!
"Got you, Yugi! Your Rubric Marines can't fall back because I have declared the tertiary kaptaris ka'tah stance two, after the secondary dacatarai ka'tah last turn!"
"So you think, Kaiba! I declared my Thousand Sons the cult of Duplicity, which means all my psykers have access to the Sorcerous Facade power! Furthermore I will spend 8 Cabal Points to invoke Cabbalistic Focus, causing the rubrics to appear behind your custodes! The Vengeance for the Wronged and Sorcerous Fullisade stratagems along with the Malefic Maelstrom infernal pact evoked earlier in the command phase allows me to double their firepower, letting me wound on 2s and 3s!"
"you think it is you who has gotten me, yugi, but it is I who have gotten you! I declare the ever-vigilant stratagem to attack your rubrics with my custodes' ranged weapons, which with the new codex are now DAMAGE 2!!"
"...which leads you straight into my trap, Kaiba, you see I now declare the stratagem Implacable Automata, reducing all damage from your attacks by 1 and triggering my All is Dust special rule!"
Wayniac wrote: This is not a TCG. it is a social hobby where the theme and entertainment of the game is just as important, if not more so, than having things as balanced as possible for matched play. That's what seems to be the disconnect here. Some people can't fathom wanting to play loose with the rules, others enjoy it.
Just because you say that doesn't make it fact. It's a game with a winner and loser, period, full stop. It should be treated like any other game with a winner and loser. If you want to treat it some other way, that's up to you and your play group. You seem to be confusing what is important to your playgroup and what is important to other people or groups that play the game.
Wait what?
Are you seriously claiming that you treat "every game with a winner and a loser" the same, whether you're playing Bacchi Ball against a five year old, or in an Olympic swimming contest?
Yep, just like how the goal of any game of DnD is for the players to beat the GM, and the GM's goal is to kill all the players, no exceptions. I expect everyone to game their hardest!
LOL! How funny would it be if GW just deleted the concept of winning from the game. "Once the battle is over, count up your victory points. The side with the most buys the other side a beer, no exceptions."
So take out the cheapest single model in your army and play just below 2000 points. Why is that so difficult? I've had to make that decision hundreds of times in the last 20 years of writing lists for this game.
"Oh crap, the list I want is 6 points over. I don't want to lose that 10 point upgrade, guess I have to remove this 12 point guy from the list completely and play at 1994." It's really simple. There's this free app called Battlescribe that even allows you to do it in a matter of seconds and print out the result to give your opponent before games. Crazy how far modern technology has come. In the 90s I had to keep flipping back and forth in the codex and scribbling stuff on paper. Yet somehow, even then, I always managed to keep my list AT or UNDER the agreed upon point value no matter how limited my funds and model collection was.
You'd think in this age of ever reducing space to actually play people would just be thankful to get a game and not cry like a spoiled brat over half a dozen points.
YOU'RE PLAYING WITH TOYS YOU SMEGHEADS...TOYS!!!
I imagine some of the people here got pissed when playing cowboys and Indians that they were using an imaginary revolver but their friend was using an imaginary revolver that holds more rounds with a single use shotgun on it.
But they got it for free!!!
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/12/19 18:35:07
the_scotsman wrote: Yep, just like how the goal of any game of DnD is for the players to beat the GM, and the GM's goal is to kill all the players, no exceptions. I expect everyone to game their hardest!
I can't tell if this is sarcastic, because I though the point of a game of DnD was to explore a story. If you are on a competitive relationship with the GM, they can win with little difficulty. They can easily set up a Kobiashi Maru that would turn Spock's hair white, and avoiding it would be boring.
Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Megavolt wrote:They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right.
From a gaming stance I'd agree. most people today don't seem to really care about the story as it pertains to their game. They may like the background and read and engage with it but during gametime that is all secondary to the game itself and winning it.
Wayniac wrote: This is not a TCG. it is a social hobby where the theme and entertainment of the game is just as important, if not more so, than having things as balanced as possible for matched play. That's what seems to be the disconnect here. Some people can't fathom wanting to play loose with the rules, others enjoy it.
Just because you say that doesn't make it fact. It's a game with a winner and loser, period, full stop. It should be treated like any other game with a winner and loser. If you want to treat it some other way, that's up to you and your play group. You seem to be confusing what is important to your playgroup and what is important to other people or groups that play the game.
Wait what?
Are you seriously claiming that you treat "every game with a winner and a loser" the same, whether you're playing Bacchi Ball against a five year old, or in an Olympic swimming contest?
If you're just letting your child win every game you play against them, they're gonna get the expectation they're better than they are, and then wonder why they keep losing against other people.
What you DO is teach them to get better at said game. For example, my brother wanted to learn chess from me (7 year old vs a 15 year old at the time), so I went over the basic premise, so for fun the first game I did the class four move Checkmate, and taught him how to avoid such a silly loss with the next game by simply asking, "Do you know what to do, and if you don't do you want to learn how?"
Just because he was little doesn't mean I don't have expectations. Children are sponges; if they're actually wanting to improve on an activity, they'll take in whatever they can.
CaptainStabby wrote: If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.
jy2 wrote: BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.
vipoid wrote: Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?
MarsNZ wrote: ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Where's the line drawn though?
If you're allowed a Power Fist and you're telling me *I* have adjust my list (even though I'm the only one in this scenario capable of creating a proper army in the limit), I have to find points for models I don't have. OR I start getting upgrades and all the sudden I'm at 2007! I have to say I'm at 2007 and you need to find somewhere to spend the points. Now you're looking and you've only got a Flamer, and that's an additional 7 points.
So why not just play a bigger game if you're so concerned about using all the models you like? Your inability to construct lists at lower point levels is something YOU need to rectify, and I shouldn't cater to you because of your accusations "Oh you hate fun". Rules exist for a reason.
The line is drawn wherever you want. By asking if they can change the point value, they are renegotiating the terms of the game. The other player can:
1) Accept it and just start playing.
2) Accept it and adjust their list to accommodate.
3) Refuse it and ask their opponent to adjust their list.
4) Refuse the game and seek another opponent.
That is not cheating, yet considering it cheating is the point that Peregrine has repeatedly made. It's not even poor sportsmanship. The person ASKED to make the adjustment before the game began. A cheat would have not bothered mentioning being over points. A poor sportsman would start yelling and screaming at the other player (whether they were the one being asked or the asker being refused) or slammed the door on the way out of the room.
A player who asks to play with the ITC rules is not necessarily cheating because, even if using the ITC rules might benefit them (and could just as easily hurt them), there is a reason for using the ITC rules besides personal benefit. A reasonable person can believe that ITC is better for the game as a whole, including for their opponent, and therefore should be used. Perhaps there's some player out there who thinks "lol this guy doesn't know ITC I can beat them with it", but most pro-ITC players are advocating a popular alternate format independently from any question of who has the advantage in a single game.
A player who asks to play at 2005 points is clearly doing it for personal benefit. They're very obviously starting with a standard 2000 point game and asking for endorsement of an illegal list. And there is no player-neutral benefit to playing at 2005 points to believe in as an alternate motivation. No reasonable person can argue that 2005 points is better (for all players in all games) than the standard 2000 or an alternative of 2010, 1995, 2011, etc. The choice of 2005 points over 2000 is driven purely by one player's selfish interest in having an extra thing added to their list.
Exactly.
This would be like playing MtG draft and forgetting to shuffle something in, and just asking your opponent if you can just have it in your opening hand.
No. Try again.
Peregrine's statement is quite disingenuous and is making a lot of assumptions about the other person's character and condemning them without any further thought. He also ignored many different facts, some of which he even quoted. A person wanting to play a specific format is always because they find an advantage in it, be it experience in it, to gain experience in it, or whatever. That is no different than wanting to play the point values of the models you want to put on the table.
MtG is rather a poor example for many different reasons, being designed as a competitive game being one of them. Your example is even worse. In order to "forget shuffling something in", you are presenting the game has already started, while point negotiation happens before models are even deployed. I don't know many people who would ask to renegotiate points while they are putting models on the table.
Bharring wrote: I think Peregrine's comment about "who is the rule for" is important.
If someone commits to a 2k game, then last second says "But I'm at 2006", and they clearly knew they were 6 points over beforehand, it might be skeevy.
When I've seen this situation, it's been more like "Are there any small upgrades you can add to be about 6 points over?" or "Can you add another Troop or something?" If the person who wnated to go over 2k winds up playing 2006pts vs 2010pts, it very clearly shows they weren't just looking for an advantage.
Very disingenuous.
Player 1 gets a whole unit or significant upgrade that he just couldn't take otherwise (if it were just a melta bomb or a single troop model he'd have just dropped it to get under points) and player 2 gets a tiny upgrade.
Not the same thing at all and this is precisely why being 10pts over is not the same as being 10pts under.
Bingo again.
[sarcasm]Yes, because playing 6 points over is so much more an advantage than being 10 points over. It is obviously a "bingo".[/sarcasm]
1. It's cheating due to breaking the original army sizes and then asking if it's okay. Cheating with permission is cheating still. It also isn't my fault you can't even build an army in 5 minutes for a particular point limit. Learn to add.
It also begs the question of why not play a bigger game if your REAL concern is fitting in all the models you like. I have several models I like, but I already know I can't bring every single one of them into a 2000 point game. I accept that because I'm not a child that asks to break rules to make it easier for myself.
2. I used Draft Format as an example for MtG for that reason. It's the same concept of this bizarro world you created where you need to create an army list instead of having several ready. When I'm ready to go into a shop, I'll have enough models to do 1000, 1250, 1500, 1850, and 2000, all standard numbers, ready to go. They all have different constructions because you don't just ADD points to an army unless you're doing Escalation (in which case you have to be strict with your points anyway).
3. Both numbers are advantage. Even 1 point over is you looking for an advantage. If list construction is too hard for you in this case, start net listing if you don't have the skill yet.
CaptainStabby wrote: If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.
jy2 wrote: BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.
vipoid wrote: Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?
MarsNZ wrote: ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
Crimson Devil wrote: The basic problem is a matter of civility. Like any human interaction between two people, you have to come to an agreement on the interaction to have a positive experience. Just because someone says yes doesn't mean you can inflict all of your fetishes on them. Find common ground and begin there, or walk away. No game is better than a bad game.
Civility is how much of a good sport you are, it has nothing to do with list building. If the other person brings a subpar list and has a bad experience because of that, it is not my fault.
It has everything to do with context. And context has everything to do with list building. That is the crux of the issue.
(Situation A) If I play with someone who is more interested in narrative (not the game mode, the concept) and they are going to bring a list which is based around the lore they have written for their Iron Warrior warband led by Warsmith Siegathor the Demolisher, then I'm going to bring my Imperial Fist successor's 3rd Company strike force led by Captain Polrik Talavox, who has heard rumors of Iron Warrior activity and wishes to avenge the past blows against his parent chapter.
(Situation B) If I play someone who wants to practice for a GT then I'm going to bring 2000pts of whatever the most effective stuff I can put together from either Space Marines, Imperial Guard, or Eldar.
Those are two very different scenarios and yes, it does matter. Moreover, it applies to literally every other example you listed.
Toofast wrote: If someone picks a terrible hero in Dota and loses because of it, not my fault or problem.
If someone goes to a LAN party and joins 9 other people to play a fun match with your "signature" heroes, then they and their team intentionally pick a meta split push line-up...
(I'm not saying they pick their signature heroes and happen to end up with a good line-up. I'm talking like they have someone who normally plays pos 1/2 on a Wisp because no one on the team mains support, while the other team is running 5 cores)
...then congrats the 5 of them are being gakholes.
Toofast wrote: If someone plays some jank deck or drafts poorly in MtG, not on me to replace my power cards with more lands to help them.
If someone shows up to a casual new player booster draft (yes, people do run event nights for inexperienced/new players) and then proceeds to draft in the same way as though they were in a pro draft tournament...
...then congrats they are being a gakhole.
Toofast wrote: If someone lines up in the lane across from me with 100 less hp at the 1/4 mile, I'm not going to short shift.
If someone goes to a classic car rally with a car tuned for street racing and decides to drag race random people at the intersection...
...I'm really not even sure what to tell that person to be honest. "You like like a gakker" would do it I guess.
Toofast wrote:If someone shows up the 3 gun meet with a Glock, and I have a $4k custom shop 1911, I'm not going to shoot left handed.
If someone shows up at a gun club, goes to the range, and fires of a grouping with a competition grade pistol then starts asking to compare groupings against other random people on the range...
...I'll let you figure it out.
Toofast wrote:I'm not sure why people seem to treat Warhammer so much differently than anything else with a winner and a loser.
Because Warhammer 40k is a game with over 30 years of lore, tens of narrative campaign supplements, hundreds of novels, multiple (bad) movie adaptations, over a dozen video games, audio dramas, themed rock bands, an incredibly expansive range of miniatures (some of which were even made for non-gameplay usage, such as the old 150mm space marine statue), clothing, tableware, and probably a couple other things I'm forgetting (calendars I suppose).
Do you honestly believe that even a fraction of that exists because of 2000pt ITC Maelstrom missions? Because I will tell you flat out, it does not.
Toofast wrote:If you refuse to make a decent list and also can't handle losing to good lists, go play D&D. Any game with a winner and a loser, I will try my best to win. In Warhammer it means I take a good list, in MtG I play the best deck I can play, when I go to the track I am setting my car up to win, when I go to a shooting match I'm taking the best gun and ammo I can get my hands on. I do not lack civility because I try to win when there is a winner and a loser in an activity.
And if in all of those cases you are going to an organized competition then that's totally fine, because the context in each of those scenarios is that it is understood (or at least it should be) by all participants in advance that the goal was to bring your A-game and go for the gold.
However, this thread is not about that. The past 10+ pages of argument, have not been about that.
Which is exactly why context is important, because neither Crimson, Smudge, Wayniac nor any of the other sensible posters in this thread have made any comments regarding organized competitive tournament play.
This argument has always been about the non-tournament space. Friendlies, pick-up games, bracketed store events, etc.
If you are exclusively a tournament player then your comments are not relevant, warranted, or useful in the context we are discussing. In fact, I only commented on your post because it has so many parallels to what Peregrine and Slayer-fan have been saying.
If you think there is a single correct way to play 40k, a single correct set of rules for every match, a single goal shared by every player of the game then you are wrong. Objectively. No contest. Period. Bolded. Underlined.
Now, before you get upset and reply, read this next bit. There is nothing wrong with the way you want to play. I'd describe your style of play as a "list building challenge". Basically you agree to play a certain points (it sounds like 2000) with specific rules (ITC?). You value a sense of fairness be present throughout your games, that there are strict rules and they must be followed.
I have not seen any of the sensible repeat posters that you have argued with say that your way of playing is wrong. (in an objective sense of being invalid) If I missed it (I actually have read through all 21 pages over the past week), then I'm sorry.
All Crimson, Smudge, Wayniac have seemed to ask for (myself included) is that you show a little more respect for players who enjoy the game in a different way. I play the game because I like building miniatures, thinking up lore for my armies, socializing with my friends, socializing with other hobbyists, and pushing little plastic dudes around a table.
You'll notice that nowhere did I include "list building" in the reasons why I enjoy this hobby. I don't hate list building, but I have an all encompassing apathy towards it. It is the means which allows for the ends (me playing the game).
If someone asked if I was cool with them being 2 pts over, I wouldn't care.
Heck, if someone asked to play a game where we both just put a bunch of stuff on the table and played it out, assuming they sound like they genuinely want us both to have fun, then I'd be down with it. (I once asked a friend during 7e if we could play a match where I field equal pts of only conversion beamer Mechanicum Secutors against his Tau'nar)
If you want an example of someone playing a game like that using PL, hamstringing themselves with fluffy restrictions, and still managing to have a close game that is fun here is a recent batrep from winters SEO.
Spoiler:
The space marine player runs a lore accurate demi company. Excatly 50 non-HQ marines even going as far as not taking the 6th Aggressor and Inceptor that he paid PL for just so he had even squads of 5(they come in groups of 3).
Also at one point both players have their primarch shout a duel challenge and "wont allow" any of the troops under their command to intervene. (until Mortarion cheats and has his daemon prince cast a debuff on Roboute, which leads to Morty eating a face full of bolt rounds)
If you don't enjoy playing games like that, then just don't play with those people. As long as you don't insult their preference then it isn't rude towards them, it just means that you know what you're about.
If you aren't willing to talk to someone about what sort of game they want to play, and then spew abuse at them for having different expectations, would you really be surprised if they didn't want to play with you? Because they would feel just as attacked as you say you are feeling now.
Wayniac wrote: This is not a TCG. it is a social hobby where the theme and entertainment of the game is just as important, if not more so, than having things as balanced as possible for matched play. That's what seems to be the disconnect here. Some people can't fathom wanting to play loose with the rules, others enjoy it.
Just because you say that doesn't make it fact. It's a game with a winner and loser, period, full stop. It should be treated like any other game with a winner and loser. If you want to treat it some other way, that's up to you and your play group. You seem to be confusing what is important to your playgroup and what is important to other people or groups that play the game.
Wait what?
Are you seriously claiming that you treat "every game with a winner and a loser" the same, whether you're playing Bacchi Ball against a five year old, or in an Olympic swimming contest?
Yep, just like how the goal of any game of DnD is for the players to beat the GM, and the GM's goal is to kill all the players, no exceptions. I expect everyone to game their hardest!
That's not the goal of D&D.
To be more specific, for most groups, there isn't a DM vs. Player thing.
There isn't necessarily one winner and one loser, even discounting draws.
In some games, if one player didn't have fun, both players lost. Even the one who got more VP.
WHat it takes to make sure both players have fun is complicated. For some, it requires both players try their hardest to win within "the construct". For others, that's not what matters most.
I've played a number of Ork players who enjoyed games they lost that had tons of CC happen, but not enjoy games they won with little or no CC. So, for some Ork players, I started tailoring my list to ensure we'd see more CC in our games. For other players, even that sort of tailoring is within "the construct", so doing so hurts their enjoyment of the game.
"The game" isn't an Eternal War mission with no secondaries where there is one set of objectives, and they're all that matter. "The game" is more a Maelstrom mission. With each individual having their own deck. The sets of things they care about ("objectives") are roughly in the same vein as eachothers', but the finer points, and immediate concerns, shift all the time. And Player A having Objective X doesn't mean Player B has Objective X.
This is why D&D comparisons come up. Some peoples' objectives are more story or fluff based than others. Very few 40k players' objectives are as story-focused as the average D&D player. However, far fewer Chess players care about the in-universe narrative inside a Chess match than 40k.
"It's cheating due to breaking the original army sizes and then asking if it's okay."
So if we think we're going to play a 1k game, then realize we have all afternoon, so decide to play a 2k game, did we both just cheat?
"Cheating with permission is cheating still."
Cheating is explicitly doing something against the rules. The rules are that the points value is what is agreed upon. Permission to use a certain number of points is agreement on that points value. Thus, it's impossible - by it's very definition - to 'cheat with permission'.
"It also isn't my fault you can't even build an army in 5 minutes for a particular point limit. Learn to add. "
I'm sorry, I have neither the time nor inclination to douse my VoidWeaver in gasoline, light it up, watch it burn, assemble, and paint a few more Troupers. I know of noone who does that in 5 minutes.
" I used Draft Format as an example for MtG for that reason. It's the same concept of this bizarro world you created where you need to create an army list instead of having several ready. When I'm ready to go into a shop, I'll have enough models to do 1000, 1250, 1500, 1850, and 2000, all standard numbers, ready to go. They all have different constructions because you don't just ADD points to an army unless you're doing Escalation (in which case you have to be strict with your points anyway). "
So if I bring my Harlies to go along with my CWE for a 1500 list, and someone suddenly wants to play 1000, but still face my Harlies, I shouldn't juggle my list on the spot? As the example given, fitting 1000 was easy - it just involved using some CWE and not some of my Harlies. In that case, we both liked the idea of going straight Harlies was more fun (and good luck arguing I chose mono Index Harlies over Codex CWE to gain an advantage...).
"Both numbers are advantage. Even 1 point over is you looking for an advantage. If list construction is too hard for you in this case, start net listing if you don't have the skill yet."
In what world is being 6 points over an arbitrary number that your opponent is 10 points over also considered an advantage? It's a 4 point disadvantage.
Automatically Appended Next Post: "With the new Ork codex there are several ways to get into melee. No excuses."
So my experiences over my history with the game could not have happened and must be discounted because they now have different rules?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/12/19 19:30:53
Bharring wrote: There isn't necessarily one winner and one loser, even discounting draws.
In some games, if one player didn't have fun, both players lost. Even the one who got more VP.
That's your view on things. I don't have fun doing anything when I lose, whether it's a game of pickup basketball, Dota, Warhammer, MtG, drag racing, shooting competitions, going to a football game, etc. You're not supposed to have fun when you lose. If we lost a football game, the team bus or plane was to be absolutely silent the entire ride home. You sit there and reflect on what went wrong. Anyone trying to goof around with their buddies after a loss would be running stadiums until they puked the next day at practice. Obviously certain losses are far more serious than others, but having fun losing isn't really something I've ever done. I'm not going to be a bad sport or be in a bad mood all day over losing a game of toy soldiers, but it's still not my idea of fun.
"There's nothing to talk about besides mission and point values. Simple as that."
I don't want to play you. I'm not talking about "personal" reasons either. When I play a game of 40k, talking to my opponent - craptalking, discussing random fluff, whatever - is a not-insignificant part of the experience.
If all you care about are missions and points values, there are many much tighter-constructed games with far less overhead. The tabletop absolutely pales in comparision to software simulations these days.
Automatically Appended Next Post: "That's your view on things. [...]"
I don't intend to discount that. That's how some people enjoy this game. Different people enjoy it differently. I've "won" games, mechanics-wise, that I consider myself to have lost because the other player didn't have fun (I can be quite the donkey cave, although try not to be).
I'm not saying all players win or lose based on that criteria. I'm saying some players win or lose based on that criteria.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/12/19 19:37:50
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: There's nothing to talk about besides mission and point values. Simple as that.
In your case it indeed might be for the best if you refrained from talking to people as much as possible. It will be a more pleasant experience to the other players that way.
3Slayer-Fan123 wrote: With the new Ork codex there are several ways to get into melee. No excuses.
The entirety of that post just flew over your head. Out of six paragraphs/lines of points and discussion you saw one throw away example of slightly unoptimised play (or maybe the Ork player just rolls nothing but ones, how the feth do you know?) and went "Nope opinion bad argument discarded". I'd say you've simply realised you have no leg to stand on anymore in this discussion and are simply trying to avoid arguments as a result, but even as an outside observer I doubt that's actually the case and think you are just simply THAT stuck into your own mindset.
This thread should seriously get locked. Its obvious at this point that nothing is coming out of this thread other than infinitely repeating circular arguments only designed to make people angry.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/12/19 19:46:18
That's your view on things. I don't have fun doing anything when I lose, whether it's a game of pickup basketball, Dota, Warhammer, MtG, drag racing, shooting competitions, going to a football game, etc. You're not supposed to have fun when you lose. If we lost a football game, the team bus or plane was to be absolutely silent the entire ride home. You sit there and reflect on what went wrong. Anyone trying to goof around with their buddies after a loss would be running stadiums until they puked the next day at practice. Obviously certain losses are far more serious than others, but having fun losing isn't really something I've ever done. I'm not going to be a bad sport or be in a bad mood all day over losing a game of toy soldiers, but it's still not my idea of fun.
It probably is the best to avoid any games where there is a winner and loser then. In an even environment you're gonna lose about half of the time. I really wouldn't bother with a game where I wouldn't be having fun that often.
Crimson Devil wrote: The basic problem is a matter of civility. Like any human interaction between two people, you have to come to an agreement on the interaction to have a positive experience. Just because someone says yes doesn't mean you can inflict all of your fetishes on them. Find common ground and begin there, or walk away. No game is better than a bad game.
Civility is how much of a good sport you are, it has nothing to do with list building. If the other person brings a subpar list and has a bad experience because of that, it is not my fault.
It has everything to do with context. And context has everything to do with list building. That is the crux of the issue.
(Situation A) If I play with someone who is more interested in narrative (not the game mode, the concept) and they are going to bring a list which is based around the lore they have written for their Iron Warrior warband led by Warsmith Siegathor the Demolisher, then I'm going to bring my Imperial Fist successor's 3rd Company strike force led by Captain Polrik Talavox, who has heard rumors of Iron Warrior activity and wishes to avenge the past blows against his parent chapter.
(Situation B) If I play someone who wants to practice for a GT then I'm going to bring 2000pts of whatever the most effective stuff I can put together from either Space Marines, Imperial Guard, or Eldar.
Those are two very different scenarios and yes, it does matter. Moreover, it applies to literally every other example you listed.
Toofast wrote: If someone picks a terrible hero in Dota and loses because of it, not my fault or problem.
If someone goes to a LAN party and joins 9 other people to play a fun match with your "signature" heroes, then they and their team intentionally pick a meta split push line-up...
(I'm not saying they pick their signature heroes and happen to end up with a good line-up. I'm talking like they have someone who normally plays pos 1/2 on a Wisp because no one on the team mains support, while the other team is running 5 cores)
...then congrats the 5 of them are being gakholes.
Toofast wrote: If someone plays some jank deck or drafts poorly in MtG, not on me to replace my power cards with more lands to help them.
If someone shows up to a casual new player booster draft (yes, people do run event nights for inexperienced/new players) and then proceeds to draft in the same way as though they were in a pro draft tournament...
...then congrats they are being a gakhole.
Toofast wrote: If someone lines up in the lane across from me with 100 less hp at the 1/4 mile, I'm not going to short shift.
If someone goes to a classic car rally with a car tuned for street racing and decides to drag race random people at the intersection...
...I'm really not even sure what to tell that person to be honest. "You like like a gakker" would do it I guess.
Toofast wrote:If someone shows up the 3 gun meet with a Glock, and I have a $4k custom shop 1911, I'm not going to shoot left handed.
If someone shows up at a gun club, goes to the range, and fires of a grouping with a competition grade pistol then starts asking to compare groupings against other random people on the range...
...I'll let you figure it out.
Toofast wrote:I'm not sure why people seem to treat Warhammer so much differently than anything else with a winner and a loser.
Because Warhammer 40k is a game with over 30 years of lore, tens of narrative campaign supplements, hundreds of novels, multiple (bad) movie adaptations, over a dozen video games, audio dramas, themed rock bands, an incredibly expansive range of miniatures (some of which were even made for non-gameplay usage, such as the old 150mm space marine statue), clothing, tableware, and probably a couple other things I'm forgetting (calendars I suppose).
Do you honestly believe that even a fraction of that exists because of 2000pt ITC Maelstrom missions? Because I will tell you flat out, it does not.
Toofast wrote:If you refuse to make a decent list and also can't handle losing to good lists, go play D&D. Any game with a winner and a loser, I will try my best to win. In Warhammer it means I take a good list, in MtG I play the best deck I can play, when I go to the track I am setting my car up to win, when I go to a shooting match I'm taking the best gun and ammo I can get my hands on. I do not lack civility because I try to win when there is a winner and a loser in an activity.
And if in all of those cases you are going to an organized competition then that's totally fine, because the context in each of those scenarios is that it is understood (or at least it should be) by all participants in advance that the goal was to bring your A-game and go for the gold.
However, this thread is not about that. The past 10+ pages of argument, have not been about that.
Which is exactly why context is important, because neither Crimson, Smudge, Wayniac nor any of the other sensible posters in this thread have made any comments regarding organized competitive tournament play.
This argument has always been about the non-tournament space. Friendlies, pick-up games, bracketed store events, etc.
If you are exclusively a tournament player then your comments are not relevant, warranted, or useful in the context we are discussing. In fact, I only commented on your post because it has so many parallels to what Peregrine and Slayer-fan have been saying.
If you think there is a single correct way to play 40k, a single correct set of rules for every match, a single goal shared by every player of the game then you are wrong. Objectively. No contest. Period. Bolded. Underlined.
Now, before you get upset and reply, read this next bit. There is nothing wrong with the way you want to play. I'd describe your style of play as a "list building challenge". Basically you agree to play a certain points (it sounds like 2000) with specific rules (ITC?). You value a sense of fairness be present throughout your games, that there are strict rules and they must be followed.
I have not seen any of the sensible repeat posters that you have argued with say that your way of playing is wrong. (in an objective sense of being invalid) If I missed it (I actually have read through all 21 pages over the past week), then I'm sorry.
All Crimson, Smudge, Wayniac have seemed to ask for (myself included) is that you show a little more respect for players who enjoy the game in a different way. I play the game because I like building miniatures, thinking up lore for my armies, socializing with my friends, socializing with other hobbyists, and pushing little plastic dudes around a table.
You'll notice that nowhere did I include "list building" in the reasons why I enjoy this hobby. I don't hate list building, but I have an all encompassing apathy towards it. It is the means which allows for the ends (me playing the game).
If someone asked if I was cool with them being 2 pts over, I wouldn't care.
Heck, if someone asked to play a game where we both just put a bunch of stuff on the table and played it out, assuming they sound like they genuinely want us both to have fun, then I'd be down with it. (I once asked a friend during 7e if we could play a match where I field equal pts of only conversion beamer Mechanicum Secutors against his Tau'nar)
If you want an example of someone playing a game like that using PL, hamstringing themselves with fluffy restrictions, and still managing to have a close game that is fun here is a recent batrep from winters SEO.
[spoiler]
The space marine player runs a lore accurate demi company. Excatly 50 non-HQ marines even going as far as not taking the 6th Aggressor and Inceptor that he paid PL for just so he had even squads of 5(they come in groups of 3).
Also at one point both players have their primarch shout a duel challenge and "wont allow" any of the troops under their command to intervene. (until Mortarion cheats and has his daemon prince cast a debuff on Roboute, which leads to Morty eating a face full of bolt rounds)
If you don't enjoy playing games like that, then just don't play with those people. As long as you don't insult their preference then it isn't rude towards them, it just means that you know what you're about.
If you aren't willing to talk to someone about what sort of game they want to play, and then spew abuse at them for having different expectations, would you really be surprised if they didn't want to play with you? Because they would feel just as attacked as you say you are feeling now.
I think it really speaks volumes about how insane some arguments in this thread are, when long time dakkanauts with low post counts decide to actively join this discussion with long and well thought posts like that.
Bharring wrote: There isn't necessarily one winner and one loser, even discounting draws.
In some games, if one player didn't have fun, both players lost. Even the one who got more VP.
That's your view on things. I don't have fun doing anything when I lose, whether it's a game of pickup basketball, Dota, Warhammer, MtG, drag racing, shooting competitions, going to a football game, etc. You're not supposed to have fun when you lose. If we lost a football game, the team bus or plane was to be absolutely silent the entire ride home. You sit there and reflect on what went wrong. Anyone trying to goof around with their buddies after a loss would be running stadiums until they puked the next day at practice. Obviously certain losses are far more serious than others, but having fun losing isn't really something I've ever done. I'm not going to be a bad sport or be in a bad mood all day over losing a game of toy soldiers, but it's still not my idea of fun.
Well that just seems like a really awful way of living.
Playing with someone that is unable to enjoy a game if he doesn't win, is a definitive reason for me to never play with that person again.
I find this thread enjoyable. Not for the squabble, but that I enjoy seeing everyone's point of view.
However, as has been said repeatedly in this thread I think this bears repeating(or quoting in this case).
If you don't enjoy playing games like that, then just don't play with those people. As long as you don't insult their preference then it isn't rude towards them, it just means that you know what you're about.
I would like to add that no group is superior to one another and I do feel the crux of the entire argument is that people in certain groups do want to believe their take on the game is superior. It's a bit like the "PC vs Console" conflict except in this case it is competitive vs. non-competitive, non-fluff vs fluff players, and so on.
Only thing I would suggest is that people follow the etiquette of your FLGS and the group there if you are into getting PUGs. I do it myself as I bring very standard lists if I am aiming for PUG game. If I want something more fluffy or weird(I tend to play 3-4 player games in AoS where we pit Order against Chaos) then I always suggest talking to the people beforehand to make sure that nobody gets to the table with any wrong ideas and everyone leaves more or less happy after the game.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/12/19 20:09:56
The point of the game is to win. The Object of the game is to have fun.
If you can't have fun while striving to win, or you can't have fun while your opponent is striving to win, your a bad sport, please go play some game I'm not.
auticus wrote: From a gaming stance I'd agree. most people today don't seem to really care about the story as it pertains to their game. They may like the background and read and engage with it but during gametime that is all secondary to the game itself and winning it.
Most people you know, you mean. Most people I know care about having fun, and winning the game is secondary.
Regarding the thread,
I really don't understand why the same people who complain about the poor writing of the game rules also consider winning said terrible game to be a meaningful act.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/12/19 20:21:12
However, as has been said repeatedly in this thread I think this bears repeating(or quoting in this case).
If you don't enjoy playing games like that, then just don't play with those people. As long as you don't insult their preference then it isn't rude towards them, it just means that you know what you're about.
Whilst that is certainly is a good advice if the styles are totally incompatible, I think it is a good thing if people stop at least for a moment to consider whether some compromise can be reached, or whether they can occasionally play in a way they're not used to. It is easier to keep gaming communities alive that way. Perhaps this week we play a 2000 point game with ITC missions and the best lists we can build, and in the next week a narrative mission with Power Levels. Because personally I would be willing to do either, if that's what the other people wanted to do, even though I'm not a huge fan of either ITC missions or Power Levels.
However, as has been said repeatedly in this thread I think this bears repeating(or quoting in this case).
If you don't enjoy playing games like that, then just don't play with those people. As long as you don't insult their preference then it isn't rude towards them, it just means that you know what you're about.
Whilst that is certainly is a good advice if the styles are totally incompatible, I think it is a good thing if people stop at least for a moment to consider whether some compromise can be reached, or whether they can occasionally play in a way they're not used to. It is easier to keep gaming communities alive that way. Perhaps this week we play a 2000 point game with ITC missions and the best lists we can build, and in the next week a narrative mission with Power Levels. Because personally I would be willing to do either, if that's what the other people wanted to do, even though I'm not a huge fan of either ITC missions or Power Levels.
Which is why I would like to enforce an important aspect that I mentioned in my post: Communications. Communicate with people and see what they want - their desires so to speak. As long as all communications happen beforehand and nobody is wasting a trip, time, or anything that adds up to a bad mood then everyone should be able to get something out of the hobby. It is also why I mentioned that it is good to know the lay of the land when it comes to your FLGS.
Also, if the FLGS isn't supporting your type of game then build the community. It's what we've been doing with AoS back here. Nobody wanted to touch that, neither the 40k players or the WHFB players. Then a few of us started communicating, planned some AoS meetings, had a few battles, posted some reports online in the FLGS Warhammer FB group, and then the ball started rolling and we now have a nice group.
60PL 
12PL 
