PDA

View Full Version : Appocolypse and fun.



zeep
25-11-2007, 06:48
So I walk into the game store, and I overhear something I've been hearing alot lately.

"Apocolypse is for fun, just talk to your opponent and it should be ok."

Great... but heres the kicker to me, When did standard 40k become not for fun? Right on page 5 it lists the golden rule, yet Im always hearing fights over raw vs rai, Can I take this, can I do this... Fluff vs tactics, etc.

When did tourney think start to dominate how we play? Ive played for close to 18 years and for the life of me I cant see when the change happened. Was it that incremental a thing?

More importantly, why have we let this happen?

azimaith
25-11-2007, 06:57
We didn't let anything happen we didn't want. Your free to try and find people who are as easy going as you are about it, theres still alot out there. The forums are a place for RAI v RAW because lets face it, a discussion that is two posts long and says: "In my opinion it should be this way." and another saying: "I Disagree, I think it should be this way, but neither of us has any evidence to argue anything anyhow." Would be a rather large waste of time.

Seth the Dark
25-11-2007, 08:35
I would attribute it to the growing importance of tournaments in the hobby. The ultra-competative attitudes of people tend to bring out the worst in people.

Darnok
25-11-2007, 08:44
When did tourney think start to dominate how we play? Ive played for close to 18 years and for the life of me I cant see when the change happened. Was it that incremental a thing?

I think it didn't even happen. "Torunament legal" is an issue often brought up in forums like this. Here you have a place to discuss the best (or worst, how you want to see it..) out of a Codex, in a "legal" way. And here you have a place for all the tournament players to discuss with each other their experiences.

That often gives the impression of tournament play being the most important way to play the game - or even the only true one. I don't think that this is the case, but that you don't hear that opinion with the same heat and regularity as the first one, has to dowith another fact: casual gamers, who just play once in a while and care more about a relaxed game, or even regular "fun gamers" are less likely to go online and praise their "way of fun gaming". You can't define fun for everyone, and there is not much point in discussing it.

There is no "standard 40K", and nobody can force you to play it a way you don't like. So keep it as relaxed as you want, and just enjoy the game. :)

Stella Cadente
25-11-2007, 08:49
"Apocolypse is for fun, just talk to your opponent and it should be ok."
Apocalypse is FAR from fun

Great... but heres the kicker to me, When did standard 40k become not for fun? Right on page 5 it lists the golden rule, yet Im always hearing fights over raw vs rai, Can I take this, can I do this... Fluff vs tactics, etc.
its the same with me, I haven't had a proper "fun" game in years, everyone wants to be a RAW or RAI Nazi, and only care about how competitive they can make there army, not how fun and interesting they can make it

When did tourney think start to dominate how we play? Ive played for close to 18 years and for the life of me I cant see when the change happened. Was it that incremental a thing?
I also missed the sudden Tourney way of thinking creep in, but when I realised it was here, this hobby died for me

Agrip. Varenus Denter
25-11-2007, 08:51
So I walk into the game store, and I overhear something I've been hearing alot lately.

"Apocolypse is for fun, just talk to your opponent and it should be ok."

Great... but heres the kicker to me, When did standard 40k become not for fun? Right on page 5 it lists the golden rule, yet Im always hearing fights over raw vs rai, Can I take this, can I do this... Fluff vs tactics, etc.

When did tourney think start to dominate how we play? Ive played for close to 18 years and for the life of me I cant see when the change happened. Was it that incremental a thing?

More importantly, why have we let this happen?

I've found that in "my" store, all that arguing over RAW vs RAI, etc... that's really from the players who are mad that they have to get home to mom and dad's house by curfew or are stressed out that they have to mow the lawn to get their allowance. I'm lucky enough that the groups that I play with, as well as the fellow veterans that go to the store that I frequent for games don't get caught up in all of that crap and enjoy the game for the sake of it.

At the end of the day, I think somewhere along the lines it just became cool to be negative about everything... perhaps it's very "emo" or something.

GMillar
25-11-2007, 08:55
People who take this GAME too seriously make me sad. Since when was winning an inconsequential game more important than enjoying the game? :S I try to make a point of making all my army lists out of units that I like, and want to play with, whether they'll win me the game or not. Sure, it's great to discuss tactics, and the merits of certain units over others, but when it really comes down to it, all that really matters is what you think would be awesome. :)

Darnok
25-11-2007, 08:55
I also missed the sudden Tourney way of thinking creep in, but when I realised it was here, this hobby died for me

I might be mistaken, because there could indeed live only rules layers and worse guys in your area. But what does stop you from playing the way you like it?


At the end of the day, I think somewhere along the lines it just became cool to be negative about everything... perhaps it's very "emo" or something.

Now come and visit Germany - that attitude has made it into our gene pool. ;)

Agrip. Varenus Denter
25-11-2007, 08:57
Now come and visit Germany - that attitude has made it into our gene pool. ;)

Heheheh bro - I live in that little lovely land directly above you. Believe me, I know. ;)

Ward.
25-11-2007, 09:00
azimaith pretty much summed it up right there.
But I'll continue, with a few things lead to the illusion of competitive gameplay

A) the game itself: It's a sci-fi strategy game based members of a different race with the object of war, this means most of it's players will be the common sci-fi fan, IE a nerd that doesn't want to see his chosen race loose or someone that plays for a story to unfold.

B) The raw and rai arguements tend to heat up over not so much the rules in question, but in basic human frustration, personally there's nothing more annoying for me (right now) then trying to explain how the actual rule is written to someone, only to have another person attempt to argue real world physics and fluff as to why its not written that way, only to finally read it and understand and leave by shooting off some snide comment about how they'd never play like that and I'm the reason the hobby's dying.
-but these things happen with all discussions about any rules or instructions.

Stella Cadente
25-11-2007, 09:01
I might be mistaken, because there could indeed live only rules layers and worse guys in your area. But what does stop you from playing the way you like it?
players. because they hate experimenting, if its not in the book, or doesn't benefit them, THEY WILL NOT PLAY, heck some of them refuse to let me use my own dice and tape measure
and of course GW itself, you cannot make your own scenarios up, you cannot use units/vehicles that are NOT 10000% GW, you cannot do this, you cannot do that, and heaven forbid you talk about something thats NOT GW related (but thats nothing to do with the way you play, but it detracts from the FUN side)

I like creating new scenarios, with progressing objectives, I like creating units that are strange and outlandish in some way, I like using my IMAGINATION, but everyone else fears it, and GW suppresses it with an iron fist

Darnok
25-11-2007, 09:09
players. because they hate experimenting, if its not in the book, or doesn't benefit them, THEY WILL NOT PLAY, heck some of them refuse to let me use my own dice and tape measure
and of course GW itself, you cannot make your own scenarios up, you cannot use units/vehicles that are NOT 10000% GW, you cannot do this, you cannot do that, and heaven forbid you talk about something thats NOT GW related (but thats nothing to do with the way you play, but it detracts from the FUN side)

I like creating new scenarios, with progressing objectives, I like creating units that are strange and outlandish in some way, I like using my IMAGINATION, but everyone else fears it, and GW suppresses it with an iron fist

Holy crap, that sounds nasty. But living in England shouldn't make it impossible to find people outside the GW zoo. You have a high densitity of gamers in your country, try finding some of your mindset. And don't play in a GW store.

You should at least give it another try, I believe it would be worth it. :)

eek107
25-11-2007, 09:10
players. because they hate experimenting, if its not in the book, or doesn't benefit them, THEY WILL NOT PLAY, heck some of them refuse to let me use my own dice and tape measure
and of course GW itself, you cannot make your own scenarios up, you cannot use units/vehicles that are NOT 10000% GW, you cannot do this, you cannot do that, and heaven forbid you talk about something thats NOT GW related (but thats nothing to do with the way you play, but it detracts from the FUN side)

I like creating new scenarios, with progressing objectives, I like creating units that are strange and outlandish in some way, I like using my IMAGINATION, but everyone else fears it, and GW suppresses it with an iron fist

That's an issue with the players, NOT GW. I can't for the life of me see where they're saying not to make things up for fun (besides in tournaments, which is quite fair). And, in fact, in Apocalypse they tell you to make stuff up.

Just out of curiosity, where do/did you play? Local GW store?

TheOverlord
25-11-2007, 09:19
Probably store policies. Some store owners have some very weird notions on a hobby about toy soldiers...

Fortunately I go to an independent store, so it's a lot less rule-strict, although the atmosphere of the place reeks of power gamers, unfortunately this affects the younger (or stupider) elements of the place. Sad though, especially when one of those elements start losing they get a little huffy (or worse, they start bragging about how powerful their units/combo is, whilst losing the game, annoyingly)

Adept
25-11-2007, 09:25
I would attribute it to the growing importance of tournaments in the hobby. The ultra-competative attitudes of people tend to bring out the worst in people.

I think it's a non issue. Standard 40K is fun.

When folks say 'Apocalypse is just for fun' they really mean 'Apocalypse isn't meant to be an even competition'.

Stella Cadente
25-11-2007, 09:30
Holy crap, that sounds nasty. But living in England shouldn't make it impossible to find people outside the GW zoo. You have a high densitity of gamers in your country, try finding some of your mindset. And don't play in a GW store.
problem is where I live theres not many GW stores, theres not many Independents with gaming space, and theres not many people who play 40k, AND not having any friends can be a problem, traveling to find like minded gamers costs money, another thing I don't have, and time, yet another thing I don't have.

Just out of curiosity, where do/did you play? Local GW store?
I'd rather not say, just in case, you never know how some of those nutters would react, there not extremely friendly people, but there the only ones that play the game

Probably store policies. Some store owners have some very weird notions on a hobby about toy soldiers...
well the staff say its policy for ALL stores, direct from HQ, so I've always assumed its the same everywhere

maybe I should just quit a game I can't enjoy

TheOverlord
25-11-2007, 09:45
that... really really sucks man... If you truly no longer enjoy the environment you're playing in anymore, you should definitely move to another spot, but if that's not an option, I guess you might as well quit, no point torturing yourself with a game you don't have fun with. Or just collect miniatures, they're still nice.

Gorbad Ironclaw
25-11-2007, 10:10
When did tourney think start to dominate how we play?

It does?
I haven't noticed. I think that's much more a perception online than actual reality. Or at least it is in my experience.
(as a side note, none of the tournament players I know are the ultra competetive sort that Warseer seem to assume tournament players are. I only know of one or two you might classify as such, and they are generally thought badly about on the tournament circuit as well)

We(being the local players) do go to a few tournaments, and games might be practicing using this or that tournament ruleset, but that doesn't stop us from doing other things, trying out rule changes, alternative army builds, scenarios or things of that nature.

If things have changed it's because players are more lazy and don't bother doing those things. All it takes is asking your opponent if you can do this or that. I would think that most people are happy to try out things if they seem fun/reasonable.

Tulun
25-11-2007, 10:16
Comes down to what people's definition of fun in 40k is. It's not the same.

as two examples...

Some people *love* fighting the most twinked out hardcore list, and pitting it against their own (twinked or not), because they like the challenge.

Some people prefer to play fluff based armies, which are not necessarily effective, and enjoy fighting against similar.

There are tons of ways to enjoy the game in friendly gaming. you just need to find the right opponents... which is kind of the problem. Your expectation of the game, too, should also be made clear beforehand. If your opponent and you agree to play 'friendlier' lists, than that's okay. If you both agree to play tournament, hardcore lists (etc), than your expectations will change and you might still enjoy the game...

Just as long as things are clear beforehand...

the anti santa
25-11-2007, 10:23
I agree zeep.

Though it does seem that the internet does bring out the worst of the complainers and lamers, so we tend to see the worst of things on boards like this.

I think it needs to be pointed out that tournament players are a minority, and GW games are designed primarily for fun play. Of course you can play tournaments using their rules but they will never be perfectly balanced, there will always be certain armies and units that are more powerful than others, and always players who care about winning more than having fun.

That's why GW tournaments award points for sportsmanship, painting and background, (and a quiz sometimes) to encourage players to explore the full range of areas of our hobby.

eek107
25-11-2007, 10:38
problem is where I live theres not many GW stores, theres not many Independents with gaming space, and theres not many people who play 40k, AND not having any friends can be a problem, traveling to find like minded gamers costs money, another thing I don't have, and time, yet another thing I don't have.

I'd rather not say, just in case, you never know how some of those nutters would react, there not extremely friendly people, but there the only ones that play the game

well the staff say its policy for ALL stores, direct from HQ, so I've always assumed its the same everywhere

maybe I should just quit a game I can't enjoy

Might be a good idea to look for a local club, even if it does involve travelling. I'm 10 miles away from mine, which meets twice monthly, but it's well worth the effort. If not for that then I'd only have my brother to play against.

But if that ain't possible then... well, it's unfortunate to feel unwelcome in the hobby like that.

Adept
25-11-2007, 19:07
none of the tournament players I know are the ultra competetive sort that Warseer seem to assume tournament players are.

It's a stereotype that really irritates me, perpetuated by self-righteous 'fluff and fun' gamers.

I go to a lot of tournaments, on every scale from the local club organised events, right through to the GTs. Very (and I mean very) rarely does an ultra competitive powergamer rear his ugly head. Tournament players, I've found, are the more sociable, friendly and easy going gamers than those who only play at the local games club.

Rikens
25-11-2007, 19:56
Darn tootin'. Tournaments are fun!

Aaron
25-11-2007, 20:10
The problem with tournaments is that people are playing to win. I've had a lot of fun games at tournaments but that's a secondary concern to some players. Tournaments tend to be more serious and tactically engaging.

It doesn't seem to matter who wins at Apocalypse as long as lots of stuff gets obliterated. Even the way the book is written is relaxed and laid back.

Rhamag
25-11-2007, 20:38
It doesn't seem to matter who wins at Apocalypse as long as lots of stuff gets obliterated.

Truesay. One little secret Ork players keep is that playing Orks is like that all the time... ;)

AngryAngel
25-11-2007, 20:50
I think it depends greatly on the people ya play with. Its hard/impossible to have fun with some people. Like for instance I have one friend..no one wants to play against him, as he only has fun using the most powerfull from all. Trying to jam all the mega power down your throat. Which by itself..isn't bad..but then if he loses..or is loseing..he'll whine the whole while..get all pissed off say how his super dudes should destroying beyond all reason. Or how your so lucky..and if ya wouldn't you wouldn't have a snowballs chance in heck to ever win.

Which is not only annoying..its also insulting. That is what people think..when they think tournament mindset, and he would do it if he wanted to travel to all the tournaments.

There may be friendly..cool..amazing torunament players..but its the very easily noticed bad section that makes them look bad..and lacking in fun.

However with apoc it lets you get away from even the idea of that..and we in our group have not had a bad game of apoc yet. Well..except for the one game where that problem player played with us. Which effectively made one of the players not want to play..and his own teammate told me later how lame he felt the whole time.

We're trying to plan a weekend for a huge apoc battle..and I only hope..he doesn't come around. What makes it so bad for us..is he's a good friend..and fun to be around..just not with games.

Khornies & milk
25-11-2007, 21:02
Well after reading all these posts I am absolutely overjoyed that the People I play with are either family and/or family friends, and we play at either my place or their places.
I consider myself lucky that I have these alternatives available to me. I gave up playing at GW Stores due to the mostly negative attitudes I found pervading them.
Tournaments aren't an issue for me - don't consider myself good enough. The competitive players, and the Powergamers can have this one.
Fair enough, everyone likes to win, and probably more often than not, but to have a 'win-at-all-costs' attitude combined with a bad attitude, doesn't do it for me.
Our little group is around 15 to 17 players, which is enough to keep it interesting.
I am so happy with my gaming situation right now - it's wonderful
Stella - if you lived near me you'd be most welcome.

Zagstruk
25-11-2007, 21:02
To the original poster, as many have said whether or not you have fun depends entirely on you. Personally I'm a pretty competitive guy(don't smite me), now I don't like to play against non-competetive people because it just isn't as fun for either of us usually, now if I fight against another competitive person it's fun, especially if it's a really close battle at the end, because that's what we both want, a hard fought battle to WIN. I guess what I'm trying to say is that it's playstyles that generate the most problems, not just competitive people. Generally the only times I get irked at the game is when something is just insane, like shooting 6 Assault Cannons every turn for 6 turns and not getting a single rending result, which meant that My Deathwing shooting was a lot less than impressive and I got wiped off the board completely, or when people call one of my lists "cheesy" for something as absurd as the fact that I play deathwing

As a side note I think that calling Apocalypse Funner is a more fitting term, and trust me, it really, really is

AngryAngel
25-11-2007, 21:05
Who would call you cheesy for fielding deathwing ?..yeah off the topic..that is insane to hear.

00mrfish00
25-11-2007, 21:22
Going back to the original post. Apocalyspe has the potential to be the ultimate beardy game cause there's no restrictions. This is why the GW staff are saying you should just play it for fun. 40k is designed so that if you want you can play it as a competative game. Apocalyse is not.

Adept
26-11-2007, 01:13
The problem with tournaments is that people are playing to win. I've had a lot of fun games at tournaments but that's a secondary concern to some players. Tournaments tend to be more serious and tactically engaging.

But at the same time, the people playing tournaments seem to realise that 40K is just a game of toy soldiers. Many of the people who only play 'for fun' at the local games club are far too personally invested in the game, and take every loss like a personal insult or slur on their manhood.

Tournament gamers tend to be laid back about the rules (because they know where the grey areas are, and have usually read both sides of the argument already) fairly forgiving of mistakes (if you forget to move a unit or resolve its shooting, for example) and generally just prepared to have fun.

Rikens
27-11-2007, 21:19
Again Adept speaks the truth. When tournament gamers and 'for fun' gamers are dicks it's because they, personally, are dicks. They're going to be dicks where-ever you find them and whatever game you're playing.

Visionary
27-11-2007, 21:50
I've never played apocalypse, nor can i see myself doing it in the near future. The one store game which we had was in a word 'Noobish'. You had people pushing and shoving to put on armies, models got broken and in the first 5 seconds of playing the flamer template (massive one) was snapped in two :wtf: .
In a game of 1v1 between civilised people however I doubt that would happen but I'm just saying that's the image of apocalypse I have. Around 1-2 years ago when someone told me about apoc (didn't post it here because the guy told me a story of the other staff who leaked stuff) I thought it was just like he said 'Massive games' i didn't realise that it would literally be Apocalypse with models being crushed and templates shattered.
I have to say i may have been put off the fun of apocalypse but as has been said the smaller games aren't neccassarily less fun it's just apocalypse gives you new avenues to explore too dangerous for the 'Little uns' to go through.

mossmac
27-11-2007, 22:07
tournaments have not just made for poor playership (real word?) but has also developed a 'fainess' (read sameness/blandness) in all formal army lists - something Apoc tries to break from granted.

In all, tournaments tend to ruin games like this that have such variable rules.

Cheers

Mossmac

junglesnake
27-11-2007, 22:33
I think Apocalypse is fun in the same way that having a Lambourgini is fun. Its nice for a while untill you realise the money you have spent on it, that in six months it will be out of date and will mean you going out of your way to keep it going. Fine if you have the money, but if you don't . . . . .

So for me its not fun going down the store and getting "McDonaldised" style pressure to buy into it when I can't afford to, and watching on as the class devide has been invited into the world of GW - fools.

When I first started collecting it was a pretty flexible hobby and relied heavily on peoples sence of fair play. Then you got the "beardies" who tooled up their characters to the maximum which put the rules under severe strain as this was never the idea. The rules were re-written as to prevent the new generation of gamers from doing the same.

During all of this time the figures remained at a nice price so who-ever you are you could afford them. Blisters of four or five basic troop types for around Ģ5. Now I know prices go up with inflation, but plastic is not the most expencive material out there, especially when you consider that the plastic required to make these miniatures does not have to be virgin plastic.

To me Apocalypse has just opened up the biggest divide, I could at a push afford, although barely justify, going out there and buying one Baneblade - which would not be enough for an army. But as with everything else if I was to do it properly I would need adjust everything I have. I game mainly at home or round a friends place. Not one of us has a table big enough to play a game on.

Play on the floor? Your kidding??!!!! Pets and young children make this dangerous to our precious forces of the future - "I am going to blast your Defiler with this here . . . . oh my god Smudge has just chewed half my Cadians to bits, bad hamster!"

To add to that the incredible unrealistic idea of it! Starting games "12 apart when half of the "big" tanks are equiped with weapons that epic tell us can shoot for miles. What happened? A magnetic storm, technology breakdown, they are all running on MACs?

Sorry if I come across as bitter but to me its just a huge joke and a blatent money making scheme for a struggling GW.

cybertrophic
27-11-2007, 22:34
So I walk into the game store, and I overhear something I've been hearing alot lately.

"Apocolypse is for fun, just talk to your opponent and it should be ok."

Great... but heres the kicker to me, When did standard 40k become not for fun? Right on page 5 it lists the golden rule, yet Im always hearing fights over raw vs rai, Can I take this, can I do this... Fluff vs tactics, etc.

When did tourney think start to dominate how we play? Ive played for close to 18 years and for the life of me I cant see when the change happened. Was it that incremental a thing?

More importantly, why have we let this happen?

I think it came about when they went after the kiddies with 4th edition - took out all the depth and flavour and left it with a ruleset tat only really got interesting if you played in a tourney. I still prefer 2nd Edition, despite its flaws and I'd rather play it any day. Fortunately, I can game with my Fiancee, so I'm lucky - we play the more fun rules and do so with the proper "let's just have fun and see where the narrative of the battle ends up" mentality....just a shame so few newbies get to experience that.

Kahadras
27-11-2007, 22:43
Apocalypse is FAR from fun

True. I watched my first game of Apocalypse a couple of weeks ago. One player had brought along a nice Tyranid army with lots of variety but focusing on the idea of a swarm. The other side brought two Baneblades supported by an entire tank company with a few Space marine tactical/devestator squads in support.

The after game discussion focused primeraly on the mismatch of the forces which led to an arguement with the IG/Marine players stating that they had the right to field anything they wanted. I think the post game 'discussion' ended with the Tyranid player deciding to use Necrons for his next Apocalypse game.

Kahadras

SquishySquig
27-11-2007, 23:13
:skull: Well if you have a proper pregame discussion with Apocalypse then you won't have such a negative post game discussion. Though that's the case with all table top games. I think Apocalypse is fun. Course I think normal 40K, CoD, and Combat Patrol are fun. I also just game with my friends so my view is a very narrow one based on limited experiances.

Anyway at the OP. 40K never stopped being for fun. There's just additional guide lines in the form of expansions that help people find more ways to have fun.:skull:

M1A2 Commander
28-11-2007, 01:43
I dont play in Tournys any longer due to some players getting all bent outta shape and ruining the gaming fun for all. I have fun even when I get smacked, which is 60% of the time. If you cant have fun, dont play. That is why I like Apoc, however our group will be setting up blocks to lessen the cheese factor a bit.

Have fun. It's the most important part of a great game.:)

RUSSADER
28-11-2007, 02:08
True. I watched my first game of Apocalypse a couple of weeks ago. One player had brought along a nice Tyranid army with lots of variety but focusing on the idea of a swarm. The other side brought two Baneblades supported by an entire tank company with a few Space marine tactical/devestator squads in support.

The after game discussion focused primeraly on the mismatch of the forces which led to an arguement with the IG/Marine players stating that they had the right to field anything they wanted. I think the post game 'discussion' ended with the Tyranid player deciding to use Necrons for his next Apocalypse game.

Kahadras
I think its funny that most "Not all" but most rule Naxis and advocators of RAW are SM and IG players, more SM than IG. That's why when I go to a local store to play I always request anything but SM. Not saying that all are. Infact I bet lass than half the SM players are this way, but the numbers are significant enough that I don't mind going against 100 nidzillas vs risking a game against a "Win at all costs" SM.

Darnok
28-11-2007, 08:44
True. I watched my first game of Apocalypse a couple of weeks ago. One player had brought along a nice Tyranid army with lots of variety but focusing on the idea of a swarm. The other side brought two Baneblades supported by an entire tank company with a few Space marine tactical/devestator squads in support.

The after game discussion focused primeraly on the mismatch of the forces which led to an arguement with the IG/Marine players stating that they had the right to field anything they wanted. I think the post game 'discussion' ended with the Tyranid player deciding to use Necrons for his next Apocalypse game.

Kahadras

That is why there should have been a pre-game discussion. Apoc is not meant to be played as a pickup game.

Kahadras
28-11-2007, 09:13
That is why there should have been a pre-game discussion. Apoc is not meant to be played as a pickup game.


Apparantly there WAS pregame discussion. However one persons idea of 'balanced' wasn't another persons idea of 'balanced'. According to the IG player it would have been unfair for him to bring along IG infantry as they would die in droves against the Tyranids.

Kahadras

Varath- Lord Impaler
28-11-2007, 09:45
Apparantly there WAS pregame discussion. However one persons idea of 'balanced' wasn't another persons idea of 'balanced'. According to the IG player it would have been unfair for him to bring along IG infantry as they would die in droves against the Tyranids.


Ahhh

Against this sort of imperial guard player you have multiple options:

1. Berate him "HA! No infantry?! You call yourself a guardsmen? with all that armour you just have wet dreams about being a marine"
2. Question his sexuality "Wow, look at all those phallices you've pointed at me. *also good if you refer to the shooting phase as the orgasm phase*
3. bring along the Imperial guardsmens uplifting primer and say that if i nid has it, why doesnt the guardsmen?
4. Most importantly: Wear this shirt:

http://us.st11.yimg.com/us.st.yimg.com/I/yhst-34640480252896_1973_2126293

TheOverlord
28-11-2007, 09:49
Then the IG player is a jerk and an ass, through no fault of Apocalypse. It was designed with the notion that all players are in agreement before the game, not just discussing what is balanced or not. Miscommunication makes for bad apocalypse games.

Personally I hate players who just blandly forget the one major point of apoaclypse and simply just focus on the 'may bring everything you want' aspect of it. They miss the point of it, and should not be played with. Retaliation with the other side bringing another cheesed out list just makes the whole game retarded, and it would be pointless changing armies. Changing opponents gives the same effect of not having you day spoilt by retards too petulant to allow fun for the other player to have as well.

Shas Mal'caor
28-11-2007, 10:05
Having watched the described Tyranid versus IG game call the guard player a jerk is over the top. He did have troops but there was no way they were getting out of their transports.
I think the general conclusion was that just bringing, HQ, Elite and heavy support is the way to go for apocalypse if you just bring armies along. The other alternative is to have a ref write up a scenario and troop lists for each side based on pre discussion of what models are available. In either case we could and have in the past easily done this with out the need for the apocalypse rulebook.
The only real outcome of the couple of apocalypse games that have been played in the club is to ensure the players who left 40K for other games from other campanies have absolutely no intention of returning and boosted the play of non-GW games. All round an outstanding success.

TheOverlord
28-11-2007, 10:12
Well there were no mention of troops in the original description, so I'm sorry if it was over the top, but the fact remains that you really shouldn't bring an army in anticipation of what the enemy brings. Apocalypse needs a ref and planning, scenarios and limitations, otherwise games are going to deteriorate when people start bringing in 90 obliterators 'just cause they can', or nothing but baneblades against an army you know lacks in anti-tank capabilities 'just cause apocalypse allows you to'. Apocalypse should be fun, and this by no means should be equated to 'bring whatever the hell you can so you can blast everything away' game.

Brother Loki
28-11-2007, 10:16
To the people who say that Apocalypse is far from fun, what you in fact mean is that you haven't had fun playing apocalypse. The players are what make the game.

I played most of my games on the floor for the first 10 years or so of playing wargames. It's not hard to keep your models safe - just shut the door so the kiddies/pets can't get in.

I'm sorry, but I find the idea that Apocalypse introduces a 'class divide' into 40k frankly laughable. It's designed as a team game for goodness sake! Play a 2 on 2, 3 on 3 (or 10 on 10) with your normal 1500 point armies if you don't have enough models. However the majority of players I've ever met have several armies, with more than 1500 points for each.

Furthermore, anyone who's actually read it knows that it recommends that someone - either one of the players or a non-playing GM - acts as the organiser and sets up any special scenario rules or army restrictions, as well as setting up the terrain, to ensure a fun game for everyone. I don't see how this is so hard to grasp.

Pete

Micro
28-11-2007, 10:44
@topic:

i think you cannot overgeneralize the GW hobby, i.e. the gamers in such a way that 'tournament-thinking' has infiltrated the whole mentality. there are quite different layers of hobby mentality in GW (and other games as well)

as for fluff, everybody has to make that out with himself. do you want to play an army which composition you like yourself, or are you just wasting your money and time trying to build up a force able to beat anything at all costs (?). of course, it is possible to have a competitive list that is indeed fluffy.

nevertheless, i don't mind lists that are made to win and i don't think that the main reason people play at tournaments is to win. when i go to a tournament (locals, i dont go to GW ones because GW-staff members live in a world too opposite of mine), i try to design a competitive list as well that can deal with any opponent. but this is not out of WAAC reasons, but simply because i

a) like to design a force that is well working together, considering pros and cons of the single units and trying to compensate the cons with other units/wargear/tactic/strategy

b) like the surprise factor, i.e. that i dont know which type of army and player i will face. playing the same people all over again gets rather boring.

c) i don't like to build a list against a certain army which i know beforehand, as this is the point the boredom really starts for me

d) i like the competition. playing highly competitive lists truely lets you think about tactic and strategy, hence IMO, playing competitive lists is when you learn the most (if the players good/experianced too)

e) tournament players are mostly experianced players (at least where i come from), hence you learn most in those games and generally don't have to expect RAW-nerds

f) talking to experianced players on how to get the most of your list can be very educating (in hobby terms). it's not about the 'uber killer unit of doom' but also army composition in general and how to use a unit in the best strategic and tactical fashion. this is the point when you fully understand to use a unit, and even those which are considered 'bad'

AND most importantly, competitive/experianced players very rarly whine and complain about something. i simple hate to play against players who think they made an ace list (and maybe even have one by chance) but don't know the rules, have not much experiance, sometimes even don't know their own codex and/or don't have a clue of the armies they are playin against.

sry, i didn't intentent to go on for that long when i started to write ... :P

junglesnake
07-12-2007, 00:29
Then the IG player is a jerk and an ass, through no fault of Apocalypse. It was designed with the notion that all players are in agreement before the game, not just discussing what is balanced or not. Miscommunication makes for bad apocalypse games.

Personally I hate players who just blandly forget the one major point of apoaclypse and simply just focus on the 'may bring everything you want' aspect of it. They miss the point of it, and should not be played with. Retaliation with the other side bringing another cheesed out list just makes the whole game retarded, and it would be pointless changing armies. Changing opponents gives the same effect of not having you day spoilt by retards too petulant to allow fun for the other player to have as well.

This reminds me a lot of why the decided to kill 2nd edition. It's history repeating itself. Why design a game and then say that you can have an army of anything you like only to find that when people do a completely different war not involving miniatures breaks out. Smacks of naivity anyone?

I am not defending the people who field armies of Baneblades etc, believe me I like balanced or at least structured games. Lets face it not all of the standard missions are nessesarily balanced in points at all times, but the scenario of the battle should be balanced.

Another thing to add is that apparently they are to release a plastic titan for Apoc, to me this just asks, why not play epic?

Sister_Sin
07-12-2007, 00:39
The book says you *can* bring everything you like. It also states, very clearly, that pre-game discussion and agreement is necessary.

Personally I go from the whole respect for my opponent and myself angle. I want a good game that'll be challenging and fun. That's what I negotiate for. If things can't be agreed on, I play someone else.

It really isn't a pickup style of game; it really does require getting everything sorted out ahead of time. If people have a hard time, appoint a sort of Referee for the game. The book talks about that too.

I tend to build a list as a balanced basic 40K list and then add on stuff for Apoc. But that's me. Mileage differs.

Sister Sin

junglesnake
07-12-2007, 00:46
To the people who say that Apocalypse is far from fun, what you in fact mean is that you haven't had fun playing apocalypse. The players are what make the game.

I played most of my games on the floor for the first 10 years or so of playing wargames. It's not hard to keep your models safe - just shut the door so the kiddies/pets can't get in.

I'm sorry, but I find the idea that Apocalypse introduces a 'class divide' into 40k frankly laughable. It's designed as a team game for goodness sake! Play a 2 on 2, 3 on 3 (or 10 on 10) with your normal 1500 point armies if you don't have enough models. However the majority of players I've ever met have several armies, with more than 1500 points for each.

Pete

You don't think that Apoc introduces a class divide? I never suggested it introduced a class divide - more that it highlights the class divide.

By this I mean people of all backrounds could afford to assemble 2000 pts reletively cheaply on a buy-a-bit at a time. A battleforce for example was Ģ50 (still is?). That normally contains at least 500pts. You compare that to Apoc and its a drop in the pond.

Look at the bulk sets etc - they are way out of my price range. Its not a game where you can buy bits at a time for. Its for people who either collected large armies and wanted to use the lot or people who wanted big beastie expencive tanks.

Now some may well question my committment to the hobby here but I have been collecting for at least 15 years. I still put my gf, my family, my friends, football, and work above gaming in my list of priorities. They are all more essential to my life - and believe it or not bar football all are worthy of more money.

I don't earn a lot but I earn enough to keep a guy happy and it is clear to see that the type of people Apoc is attracting are people with a lot of spare cash and few responsibilities in their lives, please don't take offence to this if you have just forked out on tons of stuff. Its not an attack on Apoc-ers more an observation on GWs target audience.

Believe it or not I used to work for GW and I know their market targeting strategy from being on the inside.

I also realise I have made a rash generalisation that will upset many but what I have seen is quite astonishing. There are many of us who for years have eyed the forgeworld baneblade, especially when it first came out. Some even remember the instructions on how to build your own which were published in white dwarf. I even admit I dream of having one but for Ģ50 I have to seriously consider if my relationship with my gf is worth it!

That and the fact I am saving up for more important things like a car, an engagement ring, a deposit for a house etc. It may not seem like a lot to some but I am looking at around Ģ500-Ģ1000 for a cheap run-about 2nd hand car and Ģ50 is quite a chunk of that when you have other commitments to keep as well.

I have always liked the fact that if I manage to get a spare Ģ5 to treat myself I can pop down GW and either buy a model I like to paint, or expand a choice in one of my armies.

Apoc is out of my league, and it is out of quite a few of my friends leagues.

javgoro
07-12-2007, 04:58
The way I see it, many "fluff" players tend to create a background for their army, or attempt to focus on a game from the narrative point of view, which most tournament (or even competitive) players donīt care much about. This often means that the (often unoptimized) fluff army gets pounded to bits by the tourney army, which leaves the fluff player bored and frustrated (letīs face it, itīs fun when both armies are obliterated, but not so much fun when your army is obliterated while the enemyīs ends up with almost as many models as it had when the battle started). As a result, the fluff player thinks that tournament play isnīt fun, when in fact, for the tourney player, is clearly fun (otherwise he wouldnīt play them).
I donīt think that itīs not that one way of playing isnīt fun, but that the definition of fun is different for different people, and also that in general, when playing to win, the emphasis on doing wacky, fun things, is lost (which is what Apocalypse is about, mostly, doing those fun, wacky things). The game stopped being fun when we forgot that we should have fun playing it, and only cared about one side of the game, be it fluff, be it game balance, or tournament play.