PDA

View Full Version : Power Paranoia?



Mad Doc Grotsnik
01-07-2008, 14:12
Recently, there have been an awful lot of posts complaining about armies being broken, overpowered, beardy, cheesy or what have you.

Now, whether you agree with these statements is largely immaterial to *this* thread, as it is not about the definition of the above labels, so much as the knock on effect such lists seems to have.

There is one unifying theme running through all the discussions. Rarely, and I mean by that never to my knowledge, is the whole army described in such a way, so much as specific lists. For example, the Magic Heavy, plans on raising Zombies and Skellies to save on point Vampire List, or the all Nurgle Daemonic Horde of much skanky illness.

And here's the thing. Does all the discussion about pretty specific army lists give a false view about the game? After all, there are hundreds of possible combinations in each army book, and the negative discussion tends to deal with only two or three of these. The result, as I see it, is that what is most likely valid discussion about very specific examples, suddenly leads to a false understanding that any list from the book in question is going to be horrendous, and worse than that, you are extremely unlikely to see anything but the power list.

And this is where I fear it has a knock on effect into the rest of the Hobby. Given enough air time, people will soon come to expect these lists, and thus, plough through their own book in search of a counter-list to ensure an easier time against them. At this point, the old fashioned way of picking your army goes out the window, and the game becomes something of an arms race.

Now, this might be fine and well in the Tournament scene, but it will, inevitably spill over into the more mainstream gaming, which does not suit an arms race at all. Certainly, most players I enjoy playing against have highly stylised armies, which you can tell at a glance are that persons. Sure, some might take a theme which is bordering on the lists being discussed, but you can tell by the way they have painted, modelled, and indeed, behaved during a game, that it's because the 'power list' happens to be close to their vision of the army.

So, how many of the complaints about the power lists are genuinely born out of paranoia of meeting one on the field of battle? Don't get me wrong, if someone has spotted it, someone has fielded it. And if someone has fielded it, someone has played against it, so it can't all be paranoia. So I guess the question boils down to how likely are you to come up against these lists?

kroq'gar
01-07-2008, 14:14
Well, in every battle its occured, regardless of the army im fighting, 14 PD isnt fun. Period.

If some newer armies find great ease in obtaining this, its still in the same vein.

EDIT: my regular vampire oppoennt doesnt even mean to field a magic heavy list, yet his magic phase is still overwhelming (and believe me, i bring disp items.) corpse carts, every character casting, PD and choice of spells coming out the whazooo.

Try stop it with a reasonable skaven list. i dare you (26 gouls raised in one turn in a 2k battle. I had a greyseer and AM warlock).

Mad Doc Grotsnik
01-07-2008, 14:24
Think you might have the wrong end of the stick here.

As I said, it's not about is the list/build/design cheesey/broken/overpowered etc, but how likely you are to actually meet it.

There is one player in my area who does Gunline, and since people no longer play him, it's kind of done and dusted. However, my experience may differ, and thats what I am trying to ascertain.

vinny t
01-07-2008, 14:30
In my area we have no OP lists expect for one guy that does different cheesy deamons each week but he is a blast to play with and a really good sport so we let it slide. Barring that we have 2 moderate deamon players, TK, Bretonnia, lizards, etc, etc.

Condottiere
01-07-2008, 14:33
How can you counter a cheesy list? More Cheddar, please.

kroq'gar
01-07-2008, 14:34
@ mad doc

I get you.

Playing an obviously overpowered list is ok a few times, but if your just fielding it cos noones beaten it yet... well yeah, ignore the player. I think most peoples hatred of these lists stems from tourney based enviroments. I dont need to worry about my opponent taking a ridiculas vamp list- hes actually returning to his dwarves for a bit to give the other lists a chance to catch up.

Friends are friendly- otherwise whats the point.

logan054
01-07-2008, 15:00
Recently, there have been an awful lot of posts complaining about armies being broken, overpowered, beardy, cheesy or what have you.

Sadly this is always the nature of people, its usually the bad experiences that stick in our head far more than the positive, i think also people dont feel the need to talk about the good so much as they have already had the pleasure from this.


Now, whether you agree with these statements is largely immaterial to *this* thread, as it is not about the definition of the above labels, so much as the knock on effect such lists seems to have.

There is one unifying theme running through all the discussions. Rarely, and I mean by that never to my knowledge, is the whole army described in such a way, so much as specific lists. For example, the Magic Heavy, plans on raising Zombies and Skellies to save on point Vampire List, or the all Nurgle Daemonic Horde of much skanky illness.

You are 100% correct, it always about small aspects of the game rather than a list as a whole, the problem is that warhammer balance relies on the players far more than anything else. A sad fact in life is that some people are willing to go higher extremes than another to prove they are better than someone else. That really is the bottom line, powerlists seem to me about proving your better than the other guy, thats certainly whats comes across when you read the posts defending them "no im just better at making lists than you".


And here's the thing. Does all the discussion about pretty specific army lists give a false view about the game? After all, there are hundreds of possible combinations in each army book, and the negative discussion tends to deal with only two or three of these. The result, as I see it, is that what is most likely valid discussion about very specific examples, suddenly leads to a false understanding that any list from the book in question is going to be horrendous, and worse than that, you are extremely unlikely to see anything but the power list.

And this is where I fear it has a knock on effect into the rest of the Hobby. Given enough air time, people will soon come to expect these lists, and thus, plough through their own book in search of a counter-list to ensure an easier time against them. At this point, the old fashioned way of picking your army goes out the window, and the game becomes something of an arms race.

Well i guess it really depends on how you play game, if your like me and go into either GW or a local gaming club a sad fact is that so many people do use the powerbuilds, its pretty sad actually. I guess the other problem as i said in another topic is that if anyone asks advice on building a army they given advice to build a army heading towards a powerbuild, as i said before, apparently this is a balancing act for younger players? I personally dont see it.


Now, this might be fine and well in the Tournament scene, but it will, inevitably spill over into the more mainstream gaming, which does not suit an arms race at all. Certainly, most players I enjoy playing against have highly stylised armies, which you can tell at a glance are that persons. Sure, some might take a theme which is bordering on the lists being discussed, but you can tell by the way they have painted, modelled, and indeed, behaved during a game, that it's because the 'power list' happens to be close to their vision of the army.

Now you see the problem is that tournament players generally want to test these lists out, by doing this i would say that it is already spilling out into the casual game scene.


So, how many of the complaints about the power lists are genuinely born out of paranoia of meeting one on the field of battle? Don't get me wrong, if someone has spotted it, someone has fielded it. And if someone has fielded it, someone has played against it, so it can't all be paranoia. So I guess the question boils down to how likely are you to come up against these lists?

I can only speak for myself but i have great pleasure of facing many in my times, its rarely enjoyable because as with many powerlists win or loss you just get a good game, so really this paranoia is really a display of concern for the hobby, really i dont want to have to screen armies before i play them.

Kerill
01-07-2008, 15:49
I think the arms race for uber lists has been on the internet for a long time and isn't getting particularly worse, although complaints are appearing more serious due to special rules being more widespread and people having more trouble dealing with them. This seems to lead to tooling against current Uber/tier 1/cheesy/broken army X then more cries of pain when a new strong army enters the metagame.

I honestly think tooling up to beat a specific opponent is, whilst not necessarily poor generalship, certainly limiting what you can learn and is generally setting you up for disappointment later. I honestly believe that all-comers lists are still viable against anything in the game (with the exception of magic heavy VC which demands you have a lot of magic defence or fast hard hitters). Against daemons, high elves, medium magic VC and almost anything else an all-comers list with a fair bit of variety should be able to handle anything. Now by all-comers I DON'T necessarily mean equal in every phase (mid magic, mid shooting, mid combat) you can load up on the aspects you like but as long as you can compete in 2 of the three killing phases (magic, h-t-h- and shooting) and have reasonable movement you will always have a chance against any opponent as long as you take the time to think about it.

Changes in the metagame do require a couple of tweaks here and there (an extra dispel scroll here or whatever) but the total re-write of lists is hardly necessary.

Tournament armies tend to be a little more well-put together than your average pick-n-mix without thought but despite what people on these forums tend to make out, choosing halberdiers instead of swordsmen is NOT the end of the world.

TBH I think that people who build powergaming/powerbuild armies themselves are the ones that scream CHEESE the loudest since they tend to have invested a lot of points in one small area only to find that it doesn't work against the newest army because of X. Are dryads undercosted- even if we agree they are by 2 points and your opponent has 20 of them- that's only a 40 point advantage to them overall, not that big a deal (this is just an example BTW I'm no trying to start a dryad debate or anything). Dark elves are turdlike in power and ogre kingdoms are big steaming patties of weakness. Despite this people enjoy playing them, can win tournaments with them

My Tzeentch daemons have been routinely massacring vampire counts by turn 4 with almost every unit wiped out or near wiped out. Now these aren't the hardest VC lists possible (mid magic lists) but the reason they are losing (I think) is the lack of zombies. Zombies are the laughable, underpowered crap that everyone sniggers at on the internet but if my opponent had two units of them my army would suffer immensely.

Regardless of how much "hero hammer" is allegedly appearing the most humble troops still have an important role on the battlefield. Spending all your points on regenerating great unclean ones, plaguebearers and heralds may sound unbeatable until your GUO disappears into a pit of shades and your opponent can simply march block and avoid you for a major victory. I think the only difference that has really entered the field lately is that magic has become more powerful and more useful. For a long time in 6th edition (apart from VC and the HE seer council) magic was the pathetic younger brother of shooting and having more troops was almost always the more powerful option. Now taking magic for defence is more vital (due to VC) but also magic attack allows you a lot more options for tailoring your list without changing any of your troops.

Seriously though, where is this list that can defeat any army without tooling almost all the time. Every army has the tools to take down most threats in the game, and if your army has a smattering of something for all occasions you will always have a chance. A certain matchup may be against you but then the list that has an advantage against yours will be at a disadvantage against another list.

One final point is the continual hearkening back to the days when everyone took the crappest selection of troops they possibly could with no thought of winning whatsoever and the joys thereof. There has never been a time in warhammer (not since 4th edition anyway, since I've been playing) when this Utopian warhammer existed and, frankly, from a role-playing point of view it sounds great, from a wargaming point of view average at best.

Take an army, base it around why you like that army and that army's fluff, fill in the cracks that exist against possible combinations and play that army with the spirit of fun. There is no happy land of crappy lists with bearded old ones too decrepit to move the figures whilst tears of joy shine in their eyes and the pure WAAC crowd for whatever sad pleasure they get for beating someone to death with an idiotic list will suffer more than their fair share of pain on these boards from seeing another army that theirs can't stop and they hadn't had the foresight to collect, Karma in action.

EvC
01-07-2008, 15:52
I'd say about 1/2 - 2/3 of the armies I face are of the nasty variety. Thinking back to my last few games:
1) Daemons. Broken- at least the combos in this army were. (Lose)
2) Thorek Ironbrow. Gunline. My opponent switched out a Master Engineer from his previous game to put in another Runesmith. Broken to the very core. (Lose)
3) Empire. Lots of infantry. Great fun. (Win)
4) Forest Spirits. Double treemen, but no BSB. Some might call it cheesy. (Win)
5) Lizardmen. 2nd Gen Slann. Definitely cheesy, but he rolled bad spells. (Win)
6) Chaos mortals. Tried his best with the old mortals list, everything was really fast, but it wasn't cheesy. If his Lord was riding a Dragon instead, I'd have not enjoyed the game. (Win)
7) Lizardmen. Rookie, lots of Saurus. Not cheesy in the slightest. (Win)
8) High Elves. A Moon Dragon, all the anti-VC tricks he could muster, but not cheesy. (Lose)

So as you can see, I face a lot of cheesy armies that I'd rather not play unless I'm specifically looking for a challenge (I imagine them as boss fights). In fact, more often than not I'll be playing against someone that's brought an army deisgned to win at all costs, and those are usually the armies that beat me. I was glad to lose to the High Elf player really, no cheese in the army but a hard-fought win for him. Gave me hope that my own VC army (A whole 6 power dice!) is not that cheesy.

wizuriel
01-07-2008, 16:01
I do agree its the build and not the army that is cheesy but VC and daemons just make it too easy.

the abusrd amount of cheap special characters (though more of a high elf and daemon issue imo) and the stupid price slashes don't help. I understand that no one liked elite infantry because it wasn't much better than cheap infanty. Making elite infantry the cost of chap infantry though I don't think is the solution.

right now I would say daemons and VC are broken. I think once every book gets 7th edition versions (minus a few like bret and wood elves that are still strong and 8th edition for orcs and goblins) it will be alot better.

W0lf
01-07-2008, 18:02
My group play stictly non-tailored lists.

This means a 2K list has to be very powerful to deal with all opposition.

As we have just about every single army between us (and many doubles) lists have to be very resiliant to a huge variety of lists.

Non-tailoring i feel lends itself to power-play. I want to minimise any disadvantage i might have before a game starts so i can have a 'fair' game.

Urgat
01-07-2008, 18:15
Mmh, well, my bro tends to be kind of heavy on the pegasus knights side, but it doesn't really bother me because:
1) pegasus knight ain't as hard as people make them be
2) my army, though an all comer list (well, almsot all comer, I have a hard time with stuff like dragons), seems pretty adapted to facing these (eat that fanatic, you skank!)
3) aside from the pegs, he pretty much fields at least one of each unit of the armybook, so I can't really call "cheese!"

As for me, I almost always play more or less the same list, and I don't think I'm a powerplayer at all. The most nasty things in my army are a unit of four trolls and one or two units of 7 hoppers. The rest is gobs, gobs and more gobs (I even take common ones, I think I'm a pretty isolated kind around here).

In conclusion, I don't seem to suffer from paranoia considering other people's lists.

Bac5665
01-07-2008, 18:44
Like W0lf, my club plays non-tailored lists most of the time. We bring a list to game night, and play some one on a whim without knowing what they brought, or at least not what build they brought. We tend to make take-all-commers lists, and that makes balance easier.

The other thing is that we strongly discourage SCs. Even in the new books, the SCs aren't balanced, and some of the older ones take the fun of warhammer away. In the last year, I can only remember one SC being used, and the player was new to our club, and he dropped the SC pretty quick.

We do have one player who is a little monster crazy, but he means well, and just give him a hard time about it, and let it go.

Kahadras
01-07-2008, 20:20
I must say that I've faced many more power builds in 40K than I have in Warhammer (I have played more games of 40K though). I always feel that people are pessimists when it comes to the game and things always seem worse than they actualy are.

Yes there are certainly power builds out there but if you want to avoid playing them then don't go to tournaments and if you are offered a casual game just say no.

Kahadras

theunwantedbeing
01-07-2008, 20:46
People mostly play using lists rather than tactics these days I find.

logan054
01-07-2008, 20:54
People mostly play using lists rather than tactics these days I find.

No no, its paranoia because people are either fortunate enough not have this problem in their area or walk round with their eyes closed ;)

Skyth
01-07-2008, 21:17
The 'paranoia' is one of the reasons that 40k isn't really fun for me any more. All the whining and the black/white fun/cheesy armies just make me paranoid to bring out any list that I consider to be fun to play/play against.

Gabacho Mk.II
01-07-2008, 21:29
May I please ask this-

MDC, just how many games have you played in 7th ed, against how many opponents and just how many varied armies.


I would like to see where you are starting your line of thinking here.

Thanks! :)

Royal Tiger
01-07-2008, 23:03
People mostly play using lists rather than tactics these days I find.
Quoted for massive truthness

Voodoo Boyz
02-07-2008, 03:31
I tend to come across the "power lists" often.

Granted, my local shop(s) tend to be very competitive. Heck, if you look at the standings for both WHFB and 40k for the Baltimore GD Tournament, people from our area did exceedingly well at the events.

On one hand the "core" group of people who play at the local shop are competitive as all get out, but most of us tend to tell people to tone it down against newbies or "people we don't know" at the store. We have even one case where a local guy who was dead set on taking the most broken lists he could was yelled by us locals for playing them against new or younger players in the shop.

Frankly
02-07-2008, 12:11
So, how many of the complaints about the power lists are genuinely born out of paranoia of meeting one on the field of battle? Don't get me wrong, if someone has spotted it, someone has fielded it. And if someone has fielded it, someone has played against it, so it can't all be paranoia. So I guess the question boils down to how likely are you to come up against these lists?

This is funny, because in another thread your on your high horse complaining about people playing lots of cheesy, ruthless armylists at tournaments.

Mad Doc Grotsnik
02-07-2008, 14:15
Which is partially why I started this thread, so it's not funny, ironic or hypocritical in the least.

I've had bad experiences at Tournaments, due to the people I played being Powergamers who seemingly set out to extract the fun from my game. This I object to.

However, this is not necessarily the standard experience of them, hence why I have asked whether the paranoia over meeting said lists is greater than the actual number of people fielding them.

logan054
02-07-2008, 14:25
If you didnt walk round with your eyes closed and your fingers in your ears MDG then you would notice than many people actually experience far more regularly then you like to admit. If you this isnt so common for you im actually pretty envious of you, the only time i dont get this, its usually some guy in 30's who loves special characters, charges them at my army and expects to win (just as fun!!).

Frankly
02-07-2008, 14:43
Which is partially why I started this thread, so it's not funny, ironic or hypocritical in the least.



May I choice which one? ;)


Honestly. I think this is just another brow beating thread where snobs can come and point the finger at any kind of different army type and have alittle warseer rage against it not fitting into their form of how they'd like WHFB played.

Blagrot Squigbreff
02-07-2008, 14:48
I do think the paranoia is far higher than the amount of bad lists/players. When you look around the net thats most of what you see but I've not seen anywhere near the same amount in RL - at tournaments or otherwise. I've moved around quite a bit and played reguarly at about a dozen clubs or stores scattered around England plus a couple in Germany.

Most have had an accepted power level that is fairly reasonable with perhaps a few people intent on breaking that or refusing to play that strong a list, either permanantly (which is annoying for all involved) or because they wanted to be different for a while. I have however found 3 that have a variable level of power, it's not unusual for someone to walk in and say 'I've got an horrific cheesefest, anyone up for a game' or I've got a complete fluff bunny of a list, who wants to play it' and the other people pick a list on that basis.

It doesn't take much understanding of the game to pick lists of varying power and I know I'm not the only person that likes to play several levels of list depending on my moods, I don't know just how many other people play like that but I have met a few others ;).

Lord Inquisitor
02-07-2008, 14:50
People mostly play using lists rather than tactics these days I find.
You think?

I don't get to play as much Fantasy as I would like, but I go to Fantasy tournaments and I typically see balanced, reasonable lists, and while my tactics can be fairly similar each game (refused flank! refused flank!) each new opponent makes things rather different.

There are some exceptions (a dwarf player that used an anvil+miners in combination), but by and large I find that (in Fantasy at least) the list design is secondary to what you do with it.

Then again, I play VC, so perhaps the list does it all for me?

ZeroTwentythree
02-07-2008, 15:12
I do think the paranoia is far higher than the amount of bad lists/players.


I agree with this.

I'd add that some people have a very low tolerance for what is a "bad" list.

I also suspect that part of the "paranoia" is just a small group of people complaining a whole lot/loudly.

Frankly
02-07-2008, 16:11
I'm with zerotwentythree on this one.

EvC
02-07-2008, 16:31
It's impossible for you to gauge whether anyone else is paranoid unless you know their situations. Thus I must believe that you fellows are merely talking from your own paranoid experiences, and not making unwarranted and unfounded accusations towards people who dare to have an opinion that doesn't match yours ;)

Mad Doc Grotsnik
02-07-2008, 17:13
But it;s an open question. Well, I hope it is.

I don't want know about peoples opinions, so much as their experiences. Now, it seems some people do indeed have to face off against the Powerlists more often than not, but equally, there are some who never or rarely face them.

It's a fact finding thread!

Gabacho Mk.II
02-07-2008, 18:47
Mad Doc, you still havent answered my question sir.

I assume that you are still arranging your thoughts.;)



Thanks. :D

Mad Doc Grotsnik
02-07-2008, 18:54
May I please ask this-

MDC, just how many games have you played in 7th ed, against how many opponents and just how many varied armies.


I would like to see where you are starting your line of thinking here.

Thanks! :)

Not a bad question. I've played at least 30 or more games, using my Empire and my Dark Elves (Empire more than Dark Elves) and I am currently beavering away on my Savage Orcs (beavering away being defined as occasionally looking at them, realising I need to paint the Boarboyz and Shamans, buy 40 more Orcses. At the point I usually break wind, and put a film on instead)

Armies are fairly varied I suppose. IIRC, the only forces I haven't met have been, well, the new VC, as since it's release, I've been working until stupid O'clock on a Thursday, severely limiting my chances to get to the shop. The pool of players I have is around the 12 mark, with most having multiple forces they can field. Thrashed old Daemons, got stomped by Tomb Kings (Empire really need a Cannon against them. Stupid Chariots) and had various narrow victories and losses against everyone else.

Never really come up against the Powerlists myself, which is again, another reason I started this thread. Since I last managed to get a game in, there are at least a couple of people with armies from the new books, so I shall get back to this once I've chinned a few people!

Wadders
02-07-2008, 19:25
You really need to play against a 14 power dice VC list with stacks of Corpse carts or an all Nurgle Army list in DOC.

Once you have done that I will have more respect your continued rantings about everyone "moaning". Sounds like to theorize and forum post more than actually play he game.

I play in 2 independent stores in Seattle, play as many tournaments as humanly possible and play 3 times a week at least, and i can tell you the game is changing for the worse right now.

I smell a new edition on the horizon already, possibly with new rules for regeneration (making it weaker like they did with rending in 40k due to it being given like candy at Halloween!)

Mad Doc Grotsnik
02-07-2008, 19:33
Please please please read the full thread.

This thread is not about does Cheddar exist. Clearly, it does. Those armies are very different builds from the norm, and thus extremely difficult to tackle successfully.

The thread is simply about how often people meet these said forces. I honestly tried to not ask a leading/stacked question. I have not even made my initial post a statement. If you regularly encounter cheese, then fair enough. If not, fair enough. The point I want to discuss is whether people complain more about cheese than they actually face it, or whether the volume of discussion is indicative of the frequency people encounter it.

Tohellweride
02-07-2008, 21:08
Have to say i am fairly lucky. Have never faced a cheese army. I dont have a "local store" the nearest one being some 140 miles away. I just play with a small group of friends in my local area.
Does cheese exist? I am sure it does. But thanks to forums like this one myself and my friends deliberatly steer clear of such lists.
So i guess the chance for cheese is directly influenced by the number of people you encounter.
Would say the complaints are true and fair enough, but then maybe it comes down to who you are playing not what army you face. If you want to field a WAAC army thats fine, i dont have a problem. Just let me know in advance so i can do the same. ;)

Frankly
02-07-2008, 21:38
....unwarranted and unfounded accusations ....;)


LoL. I thought thats what this whole thread was about ...;)

TheMav80
03-07-2008, 02:36
I just went to a Fantasy Tourney, though sadly we had a very low turnout. Five people, including myself.

Me (Lizards): 2nd Gen Slann, 1 Priest, 1 Scar Vet, 40 Saurus, 15 Temple Guard, 22 Skinks, 4 Terradons

I faced off against the High Elves first. No cheese here. I've played the guy a few times before. Always a cool guy to play. Rather good. I've never found a good way to beat his Phoenix Guard. Ever. My TG decided to fail a stubborn Ld 8 Cold Blooded test and get run down. Had they held, I would have hit the flank with a unit of 20 more Saurus with the Scar Vet. A gamble on my part, oh well.

Then played vs VC. This was my first time against them, so I did no fair to well. Terrain kinda messed me up. I got bottle necked with my large Saurus blocks and couldn't get anything done. By turn three the magic phase became too much for me. I got overwhelmed and lost here too. I'm not sure what kind of list he was using though. It had one Corpse Cart, a Varghulf (which I smoked with Magic Missiles turn 1), a Black Coach, 4 Vampires, a unit of Grave Guard, some wolves, and two pretty big units of Ghouls.

Another guy who I play all the time played his Night Goblins. It is always fun playing his army. I think our record is pretty even. his army is cheesy cuz I hate fanatics. :angel:

The last player was a very new player. He brought along Dwarves and the guy playing VC helped him setup the list. I never got to play him, but apparently he was very new.

I never come up against cheesy lists all that often. The HE player has used Teclis a few times. I actually like it, since I just bust out the 2nd Gen Slann and it is fun to picture to huge magical duel that ensues.

Voodoo Boyz
03-07-2008, 02:40
Not a bad question. I've played at least 30 or more games, using my Empire and my Dark Elves (Empire more than Dark Elves) and I am currently beavering away on my Savage Orcs (beavering away being defined as occasionally looking at them, realising I need to paint the Boarboyz and Shamans, buy 40 more Orcses. At the point I usually break wind, and put a film on instead)

Armies are fairly varied I suppose. IIRC, the only forces I haven't met have been, well, the new VC, as since it's release, I've been working until stupid O'clock on a Thursday, severely limiting my chances to get to the shop. The pool of players I have is around the 12 mark, with most having multiple forces they can field. Thrashed old Daemons, got stomped by Tomb Kings (Empire really need a Cannon against them. Stupid Chariots) and had various narrow victories and losses against everyone else.

Never really come up against the Powerlists myself, which is again, another reason I started this thread. Since I last managed to get a game in, there are at least a couple of people with armies from the new books, so I shall get back to this once I've chinned a few people!

You only have played 30 games of WHFB 7th Edition, which is what over 2 years old now?

No wonder you don't come across a lot of powerful armies. I must have played well over 30 games of WHFB since the beginning of this year, let alone counting what I played before that.

I play in tournaments and every other week or so I get in about 2 games a week with my club, sometimes getting in more on off weeks (Mrs. Voodoo currently works some weeknights, which means I'm off to a shop for gaming).

Honestly the amount you'll run into these kinds of powerful armies depends on the atmosphere of the local gaming store you're at. Here, we have a lot of competitive minded types. So even friendly lists are "hard" amongst the locals who know one another.

Of course many of us play against new folks and in general will tone lists down in that case (I know I and others do), but generally most games are amongst the large group of "regulars" who are in the area who are all pretty competitive.

kroq'gar
05-07-2008, 02:20
I faced off against the High Elves first. No cheese here. I've played the guy a few times before. Always a cool guy to play. Rather good. I've never found a good way to beat his Phoenix Guard. Ever.

Whack blade of realities on a saurus and watch... mmmm t3 no save at all.

I play with 3 mates regularly, sometimes branching out to encompase about 7-8 (brother + friend).

Played... hundreds of games with the new edition. These lists DO exist, the question is do the people you WANT to play field them?

Condottiere
05-07-2008, 05:09
The thread is simply about how often people meet these said forces. I honestly tried to not ask a leading/stacked question. I have not even made my initial post a statement. If you regularly encounter cheese, then fair enough. If not, fair enough. The point I want to discuss is whether people complain more about cheese than they actually face it, or whether the volume of discussion is indicative of the frequency people encounter it.It's a mixture, and sometimes that depends on the individual's mood when he writes up his list.

I've faced Orion, the Dwarven High King, Grimgork, gunlines, etcetera sufficient times to know that my army should stay out of their way, and failing that, find a method, say massive amounts of ordnance, to weaken these units before committing any portion of my combat units.

Does that mean my opponents field cheesy armies all the time? No, but sometimes they're just in the mood to do so.

xinsanityx
05-07-2008, 09:39
This thread is not about does Cheddar exist. Clearly, it does. Those armies are very different builds from the norm, and thus extremely difficult to tackle successfully.

I would have to say those armies are most certainly not different from the norm. 30 games isn't really all that many. Not trying to be rude, just pointing out some math. At 30 games, and 15 different WHFB books out there, you've seen at most 2 army lists from every book. (of course its probably more like 4 lists from this book, 1 from this one, 0 from this one, 2 from that)

I can tell you that since 7th edition came out i've slowly seen this game change into a list building game of hero hammer. I actually think its morphing into 40k.

I rarely see an empire list with out a walter and at least one steam tank, I rarely see a dwarf list without an anvil and 4 warmachines, i rarely see a wood elf list without a treeman, i have never ever seen a new VC army without bloodknights and 4 vampires, and I've yet to see a demon army without plaguebearers, flamers, and a greater demon. Thats right, all 4 demon lists i've seen have had those 3 elements. There used to be so much more variety in the lists 3-4 years ago, and the only thing that has changed really are the army books. The players are still the same, and so are the core rules.

I think if you go around to many different tournaments, and play this game once or twice a week, you start to see a trend in all the lists. At leasts that's been my experience, and it wasn't like that 3-4 years ago.

soots
05-07-2008, 09:55
Theres a difficult problem with powergaming in WFB.

WFB is a tactical game, we love to flex our minds and compete against each other.

You see the thing is, if you dont take in a strong army, you're basically denying your opponent the privelege of competing against you and beating you. I know for a fact that i hate playing sport against ANYONE who isnt trying. Its like theyre wasting my time and ANY victory at all is a completely hollow victory.

The reason why chess is so great is because its a preset army and you know its equal to begin with. In WFB, you know army selection is absolutely vital to having a fair match/competing and with so much options there are bound to be inconsistencies.

This is always going to be a problem, and if you think its bad now, seriously, it pales in comparison to old 5th edition Hydra swords, black amulets, etc etc.

The game is getting better, its just that we play a couple of dodgy games and we start calling out blue murder. With VC and Daemons, they are always going to be a lot harder to balance because theyre so far away from the norm that you really need to take in a tailored list and even then its going to be hard against them.

People wanted options, and we are getting options.

logan054
05-07-2008, 11:50
WFB is a tactical game, we love to flex our minds and compete against each other.

Your spot on here, thats exactly what warhammer is about


You see the thing is, if you dont take in a strong army, you're basically denying your opponent the privelege of competing against you and beating you. I know for a fact that i hate playing sport against ANYONE who isnt trying. Its like theyre wasting my time and ANY victory at all is a completely hollow victory.

The thing is you can still take a strong army without Thorek and his anvil or a 2nd gen slann, the thing is using such units contradicts your first statement, how exactly are you flexing the mind by having a single model that decides the outcome of the game (or just a few like with the empire examples), how exactly are flexing your mind when you using a gunline at just allocating damage to units and rolling dice? Im sorry but i just fail to see the mental stimulation, the thing is these styles of list avoid large parts of the game, this in itself i see as the sign of a weak player.


The reason why chess is so great is because its a preset army and you know its equal to begin with. In WFB, you know army selection is absolutely vital to having a fair match/competing and with so much options there are bound to be inconsistencies.

But in chess you dont remove the pawns and the king and just load up on queens?


This is always going to be a problem, and if you think its bad now, seriously, it pales in comparison to old 5th edition Hydra swords, black amulets, etc etc.

Yeah 4th and 5th ed was a nightmare when i look back on it, i think the problem is people are just unable to adapt to a different style of play, mind you i cant remember at 2k every using more than 3 heroes anyways.


The game is getting better, its just that we play a couple of dodgy games and we start calling out blue murder. With VC and Daemons, they are always going to be a lot harder to balance because theyre so far away from the norm that you really need to take in a tailored list and even then its going to be hard against them.

I think the intent of the balance is good, fewer armies are having the option to max out on certain things, the problem is that when a player cant max on say knights he looks for something else. Daemons are a very nasty army to play against and i agree this is one of the times you do need to tailor your list, in think until the split of chaos my mortals also had to slightly tailor for HE (changing minotaurs for chariots and using CW with HW+SH)


People wanted options, and we are getting options.

The problem is you can never please everyone, is good if your in the right wing, back in the left.

Mad Doc Grotsnik
05-07-2008, 11:54
Theres a difficult problem with powergaming in WFB.

WFB is a tactical game, we love to flex our minds and compete against each other.

You see the thing is, if you dont take in a strong army, you're basically denying your opponent the privelege of competing against you and beating you. I know for a fact that i hate playing sport against ANYONE who isnt trying. Its like theyre wasting my time and ANY victory at all is a completely hollow victory.

The reason why chess is so great is because its a preset army and you know its equal to begin with. In WFB, you know army selection is absolutely vital to having a fair match/competing and with so much options there are bound to be inconsistencies.

This is always going to be a problem, and if you think its bad now, seriously, it pales in comparison to old 5th edition Hydra swords, black amulets, etc etc.

The game is getting better, its just that we play a couple of dodgy games and we start calling out blue murder. With VC and Daemons, they are always going to be a lot harder to balance because theyre so far away from the norm that you really need to take in a tailored list and even then its going to be hard against them.

People wanted options, and we are getting options.

Sorry, but I cannot agree.

The armies I field I like to see as being fairly unique, and certainly unusual. With the amount of themeing I put in, I will inevitably have a massive weakpoint. If my enemy can exploit it, then he deserves the win. If he fails to spot it, or I confound his attempts at doing so, then I get the win. And yet, regardless, I am more or less certain of an entertaining game. I don't Metagame, Mathhammer or any other such nonsense. I take what I like, convert it up, put it on the field, and discover my tactics and strategies that way.

In short, I prefer my opponents to have to overcome my tactical knowledge and cunning than my ability to write a powerlist. ANYONE can write a powerlist. MOST people can win with a Powerlist. But my style is all about a different challenge, a break from the norm. I enjoy it, and like I said in my original post, my opponents certainly seem to enjoy it.

soots
05-07-2008, 14:57
But in chess you dont remove the pawns and the king and just load up on queens?



If the rulebook said you could either field 10 queens, or 10 pawns, i bet people would probably field the 10 queens. Common sense prevails

GW set the rules, we play with them :)

Mad Doc Grotsnik
05-07-2008, 15:02
No, taking 10 Queens would be taking advantage of the rules I'm afraid.

soots
05-07-2008, 15:05
I think theres 2 ratings to each player. Their competitive rating, and their roleplaying rating.

Some people prefer to field more in theme armies, and they like shouting and making noises and theyre happy when their army falls apart as long as its part of the script, while other people prefer to think about whats going to happen and the best strategic approach to the game.

It really is about finding your perfect group of players that think similarly to you.



But my style is all about a different challenge, a break from the norm.

MDG, you fall in the RPG area. You prefer more of roleplaying element than competing against someone. Thats perfectly fine, its just that if someone prefers the competitive side you're really denying them your best effort.

Im not defending GW, im defending those who play look at the rules, and then think of the best way to win within said rules. GW should have definately playtested and balanced all those shoddy combinations that are completely obvious and appeals to peoples common sense. Hey, atleast theyre not cheating :p

soots
05-07-2008, 15:10
No, taking 10 Queens would be taking advantage of the rules I'm afraid.

I bet bobby Fischer or that Russian champion would field 10 queens if the rules allowed them, and i bet their opponent would too.

You call it "taking advantage of", i call it common sense.

If you decide to take 10 pawns, do you think thats the strategically best idea?

Say you have a friend, whos really really wants to beat you in chess, and every game you play with him, you remove all your peices and only pay with the king, do you think he would be really angry or do you think he would be proud if he finally beat you?

Mad Doc Grotsnik
05-07-2008, 15:13
YEs and no. Once my force has taken to the field, I play aggresively. Flanks turned, fleeing units run down, you name it. I know dirty tricks, and still find new ones with each game.

But what I object to is someone letting their list, rather than their tactics, do the talking. It just seems pointless. GW give us books which offer open army creation. Very few now have 1+ options (just Brets and Ogres beyond the necessary general IIRC) so we are free to theme our lists how we want. Now, a Nuln list is likely to be Cannon and Handgun heavy, sure. But when someone claims it is themed with 4 Wizards, I disagree. Nuln is famous for it's guns, and it's engineers. Stick in a Captain or Lord equivalent to lead, and load up the rest on Engineers, and that *I* would say is themed.

Take my Savage Orcs. My theme goes beyond the list, and into the modelling. I saw Gralphs Wyvern conversion, and wanted to copy it (quite shamelessly). But, a Savage Orc Warboss, I figured, would be prone to leaping out the saddle in an attempt to get to grips with the enemy. So I modelled him underslung, lashed in cheerfully with ropes. And this is what I look for in an ideal opponent. Someone who is willing to make the models reflect their list.

And that is why I steer clear of Tournaments, and encourage others to do the same. The chances of meeting a Cheeselord are higher, and I'd rather not play them. Not because I won't win, but because I won't enjoy the loss!

Frankly
05-07-2008, 15:51
GW set the rules, we play with them :)


Like, lets say both players decide to play a 2000pt game where they get to choose whatever list they would like to construct within the realms of their books army construction.

So its their choice. And not someone else's preconceived notions of how WHFB lists should be made or played.

His opponent always has the option of not playing him.

Condottiere
05-07-2008, 17:00
I think the problem lies in the costing of troops and their capabilities. Despite ASF, no one really thinks that HE are underpriced. The same can't be said for Daemons, VC and the forthcoming Dark Elves book (allegedly).

soots
05-07-2008, 17:13
But what I object to is someone letting their list, rather than their tactics, do the talking. It just seems pointless. GW give us books which offer open army creation. Very few now have 1+ options (just Brets and Ogres beyond the necessary general IIRC) so we are free to theme our lists how we want. Now, a Nuln list is likely to be Cannon and Handgun heavy, sure. But when someone claims it is themed with 4 Wizards, I disagree. Nuln is famous for it's guns, and it's engineers. Stick in a Captain or Lord equivalent to lead, and load up the rest on Engineers, and that *I* would say is themed.


heh, in every game ive played, we have spent more time picking armies and deploying than actually playing the game.

And id say about 50% of the time we can see who is going to win after deployment. Fact is WFB units do not move much at all, and a poor deployment is often the difference between a win and a loss.

I enjoy picking armies and i think its one of the most important parts of the game (since covering all bases is strategically easier than trying to make do with what you have)

logan054
05-07-2008, 17:18
If the rulebook said you could either field 10 queens, or 10 pawns, i bet people would probably field the 10 queens. Common sense prevails

GW set the rules, we play with them :)

The thing is the army book dosnt say you can field 10 queens does it, it says you can can field a whole selection of troops/pieces, some people just lack the ability to play a game of tactics.

I have seen many times people baching Khornate lists and suggesting they stunt a players growth, i just dont see how using a cheesy army helps a person advance.


I think theres 2 ratings to each player. Their competitive rating, and their roleplaying rating.

Some people prefer to field more in theme armies, and they like shouting and making noises and theyre happy when their army falls apart as long as its part of the script, while other people prefer to think about whats going to happen and the best strategic approach to the game.

It really is about finding your perfect group of players that think similarly to you.

I dont think your actually correct here, you see while you do have two sets of players one of those would be the one who noticed the word Warhammer armies: and actually creates a army, the other is the person who one who sees numbers and maths. While both players see a game they both see very different games. No the later one is usually under the self delusion that he is highly skilled player with a keen eye for strategy, infact he is convinced his ability to use maths (something taught to small children usually with great ease) makes him a far better player.

Im sorry, any idiot can make a cheesy army, just not everyone has the confidence to use what i would even class as a army, 100's of men ready to fight.




MDG, you fall in the RPG area. You prefer more of roleplaying element than competing against someone. Thats perfectly fine, its just that if someone prefers the competitive side you're really denying them your best effort.

Im not defending GW, im defending those who play look at the rules, and then think of the best way to win within said rules. GW should have definately playtested and balanced all those shoddy combinations that are completely obvious and appeals to peoples common sense. Hey, atleast theyre not cheating :p

To be fair if you have read any of Gavin thorpes comments (on another Forum) its sounds to me like he thinks Warhammer is a roleplaying game anyways, your defending yourself and others who think maths is a skill, people such as myself and MDG are not playing a RPG, we are playing a battles with toy soliders, a battle has armies, so many cheese combinations can hardly be called armies.


heh, in every game ive played, we have spent more time picking armies and deploying than actually playing the game.

And id say about 50% of the time we can see who is going to win after deployment. Fact is WFB units do not move much at all, and a poor deployment is often the difference between a win and a loss.

I enjoy picking armies and i think its one of the most important parts of the game (since covering all bases is strategically easier than trying to make do with what you have)

I think thats rather sad you spend more time picking armies than actually playing, i feel for you, still their is a difference between covering all bases and getting out a pope mobile and 2 stanks ;)

Boogyboy
05-07-2008, 18:09
Lots of good comments here! And an interesting subject as well. Recently had reason to reflect on this one myself...

Here in Southern Sweden we have a fairly developed WFB tournament culture, and I gather we have a *lot* of restrictions compared to other places. The "anything goes" attitude can be found here as well, but banning SCs and having various systems of restrictions really helps a lot. I could not even imagine playing at a GT, the sort of armies you may play simply isn't warhammer to me anymore.

Though, even with all that you're still paranoid sometimes. Fortunately there are always people who'll play for the fun of it no matter what.

Frankly
05-07-2008, 23:35
.... you see while you do have two sets of players one of those would be the one who noticed the word Warhammer armies: and actually creates a army, the other is the person who one who sees numbers and maths. While both players see a game they both see very different games. No the later one is usually under the self delusion that he is highly skilled player with a keen eye for strategy, infact he is convinced his ability to use maths (something taught to small children usually with great ease) makes him a far better player.

Im sorry, any idiot can make a cheesy army, just not everyone has the confidence to use what i would even class as a army, 100's of men ready to fight.

To be fair if you have read any of Gavin thorpes comments (on another Forum) its sounds to me like he thinks Warhammer is a roleplaying game anyways, your defending yourself and others who think maths is a skill, people such as myself and MDG are not playing a RPG, we are playing a battles with toy soliders, a battle has armies, so many cheese combinations can hardly be called armies.



I think thats rather sad you spend more time picking armies than actually playing, i feel for you, still their is a difference between covering all bases and getting out a pope mobile and 2 stanks ;)



This is all crazy mouth foolishness, drunken talk and funny-less wit.

You claim to know so much, but logan, you never have any proof to back up what your saying. Like why is the 'later' under 'self delusion'? Where did you get all that stuff from logan, did you make it up? How did you get from being able to use maths to self delusion anyhow? What weak thread connects your baseless arguments?

I do agree logan, any idiot can make a cheesy list(then again any idiot can make a themed list). And thats where you loose me, because why would that idiot make an army for YOU to 'even class as an army', why would anybody? Why are you the yard stick to measure the class of an army by?

People spend money on THEIR armylist, on their hobby, spend their time modelling and painting their models. Why do you have to judge them? Your idea and other hobbists ideas of army types don't have to be the same, which I'm sure you know. It's just you logan are always ready to bad mouth fellow hobbists because they don't live up to how YOU think the game should be played.

So why with such spite and misdirection logan?

How many tournament players come on these forums and bash painters or hobbists or themed armylists. How many threads do power gamers start about lame, weak themed lists that are boring to play against because they're easy beats and people that play them are 'idiots'?

None.

Yet logan, your always already to LABEL tournament goers in this thread and in others. Your ready to bad mouth anybody who has got an army type you don't like or will play the game alittle harder then you. Well, some players out there might be cheezy or whatever you want to call them logan, but atleast they don't constantly whine and name calls at their fellow hobbists like you do logan.


Logan, maths is a skill, its a great skill that(yes your right)you learn as a small child, then for some at high school and for others at Uni. Maths is good, it helped make rockits and microwaves and lots and lots of other lovely stuff.

Maths is also helpful in WHFB, people can combine themed armylists and maths, its been done logan, so don't feel 'rather sad' for people who have fun making armylists and use maths, he seems to be enjoying the hobby so let him be logan.

I'm from New Zealand, not USA by the way logan, your were wrong.

EvC
05-07-2008, 23:38
One of the armies I fought at the tournament I was at today:
Lord of Change, Will of Tzeentch, Know-all-spells from the Tzeentch Lore
3 x Tzeentch Heralds, all with fly and Power Vortex, one with a 100 point banner for hardass Gift of Chaos bound spell
3 x 10 Horrors
3 + 4 Screamers
2 x 6 Flamers

That's 19 power dice. I don't think I'm paranoid ;)

Frankly
06-07-2008, 00:00
Atleast it was well themed.;)

logan054
06-07-2008, 00:34
This is all crazy mouth foolishness, drunken talk and funny-less wit.

Of course it was


You claim to know so much, but logan, you never have any proof to back up what your saying. Like why is the 'later' under 'self delusion'? Where did you get all that stuff from logan, did you make it up? How did you get from being able to use maths to self delusion anyhow? What weak thread connects your baseless arguments?

I claim nothing, i voice opinion, i have seen so many posts in the past about the greatest players place upon themselves for using such lists, i have even pleasure of playing such people, i have yet to have a decent game against a power gamer, they either win big or lose big.


I do agree logan, any idiot can make a cheesy list(then again any idiot can make a themed list). And thats where you loose me, because why would that idiot make an army for YOU to 'even class as an army', why would anybody? Why are you the yard stick to measure the class of an army by?

Obviously not, obviously you need self control or as i said confidence (yes confidence, clearly you lack it if you need to powergame), this clearly is something lacking, i suggest perhaps you look at what a army is, its also my right to have this opinion and voice, people such as yourself just add fuel to the fire, and that really is just the purpose of your post, hence why i ignored you last post.


People spend money on THEIR armylist, on their hobby, spend their time modelling and painting their models. Why do you have to judge them? Your idea and other hobbists ideas of army types don't have to be the same, which I'm sure you know. It's just you logan are always ready to bad mouth fellow hobbists because they don't live up to how YOU think the game should be played.

we all have our narrow little boxes of how the world should be, this is part of mine just as clearly powergaming is yours.


So why with such spite and misdirection logan?

Neither of those, just dislike, and what spawned this dislike, the countless armylist topics or what should i collect filled with advice on how warhammer should be played, the looking down upon for using something different, the constant insinuation that players who dont powergame are just weak players or whining because they got beat, thats my dislike. I guess its funny when the show is on the other foot because such players dont like such treatment ;)


How many tournament players come on these forums and bash painters or hobbists or themed armylists. How many threads do power gamers start about lame, weak themed lists that are boring to play against because they're easy beats and people that play them are 'idiots'?

You can look tournie players bashing the themed players in the topic ;)


Yet logan, your always already to LABEL tournament goers in this thread and in others. Your ready to bad mouth anybody who has got an army type you don't like or will play the game alittle harder then you. Well, some players out there might be cheezy or whatever you want to call them logan, but atleast they don't constantly whine and name calls at their fellow hobbists like you do logan.

No they just whine about people having a negative opinion on the way they play game, that infact they cant accept that someone may have a problem with it.


Logan, maths is a skill, its a great skill that(yes your right)you learn as a small child, then for some at high school and for others at Uni. Maths is good, it helped make rockits and microwaves and lots and lots of other lovely stuff.

Yes but hate to say making a armylist is hardly comparable to the maths behind a rocket, its more like school boy maths, everyone is taught it.


Maths is also helpful in WHFB, people can combine themed armylists and maths, its been done logan, so don't feel 'rather sad' for people who have fun making armylists and use maths, he seems to be enjoying the hobby so let him be logan.

I never said it wasnt helpful, i guess thats just a baseless statement hey ;) I dont think you understood how i meant feeling sad, hardly surprising.


I'm from New Zealand, not USA by the way logan, your were wrong.

Well damn, i was mistaken, i made a assumption here, most Americans seems to experience less cheese at tournaments than brits, oh well.

blackspring
06-07-2008, 02:14
Everybody likes to win.

I don't mind if I win or lose as long as I feel that the possibilities of winning or losing are fair-that I didn't get shafted simply because my opponent got his army book first. The problem with the new army books is that there are certain lists possible that are nearly impossible for some of the older army books to deal with without resorting to "cheese" or to list tailoring. This imbalance will often continue for YEARS until your new army book catches you up with the other lists.

I think this power paranoia is not paranoia but is a very valid complaint about how the army books are designed and then released. While I think it is good for a game to evolve lest die, there has to be a better way. Hopefully I didnt' stray too much from the point of this thread.


GW set the rules, we play with them

Precisely my point. GW needs to take into consideration that there are players out there who will abuse the game. To say something like "just play for fun" while ideal, completely disregards the fact that for many people playing competitively is their idea of fun.

marv335
06-07-2008, 02:18
the only "power list" I've faced has been the thorek gunline.
didn't enjoy that game much.
It's like the power lists in 40k. I hear about them on the 'net, but I've never seen them.
BTW I play 2-3 games a week when I'm not at sea

kroq'gar
06-07-2008, 04:36
Everybody likes to win.

Some of the best games i've played i lost.



Precisely my point. GW needs to take into consideration that there are players out there who will abuse the game. To say something like "just play for fun" while ideal, completely disregards the fact that for many people playing competitively is their idea of fun.


They also need to consider this is a hobby- it takes all types. I play for fun, as do many others. i dont have to deal with powerlists, so when an army gets nerfed to stop some tourney abusing list, it hurts me as a gamer because for no reason i've lost an option.

Tournies are something done with the game- they are not THE game.

blackspring
06-07-2008, 05:30
Some of the best games i've played i lost.

I can say the same, as some of my most memorable games were ones I lost and enjoyed. I've also played some games that are memorable because the prick I was playing had fielded three units of skinks as his core and filled the rest of the list with cheddar. Sure, I can say, 'You Bastard!" and blame him for playing like a jerk, but a greater responsibility lies with the game designers-like was said before, and I will paraphrase: They are GW's rules, we just play with them.



They also need to consider this is a hobby- it takes all types. I play for fun, as do many others. i dont have to deal with powerlists, so when an army gets nerfed to stop some tourney abusing list, it hurts me as a gamer because for no reason i've lost an option.

So you're concerned that your army list is getting nerfed because of competitive players? If you play purely for fun, then why do you care if a list gets nerfed?

Does it really hurt? Are you now unable to have fun playing the game?

I find it a bit ironic that the same players who complain about competitive play and the streamlining of army books turn around and talk about how the options they used to make their units 'better' at what they do are no longer available. Do you see how that is contradictory? Sorry if this sounds a bit abrasive, but I see a lot of these sentiments that don't make much sense.

Just admit it, we play because competition is fun. It is a large part of the game, larger for some and smaller for others, but always a factor. When you have two armies, forces, what have you, facing off across the board from one another, one side wants to win. Whether you look at it from a fluff-wise point of view or from a competitive point of view, everyone likes to win, although it is not necessary for a good time, it definitely helps. :D

soots
06-07-2008, 08:37
I think thats rather sad you spend more time picking armies than actually playing, i feel for you, still their is a difference between covering all bases and getting out a pope mobile and 2 stanks ;)

I enjoy army selection and deployment as much as i enjoy flexing my mind during other phases, probably more.

You may think its sad, but we think its sad to see grown men get far too involved/in character with a game whereas my friends and i look at it as a strategic game.

I dont know why you think your so high and mighty and everyone should enjoy it specifically the way you think they should?

Like they say, different horses for different courses.

Frankly
06-07-2008, 09:12
we all have our narrow little boxes of how the world should be, this is part of mine just as clearly powergaming is yours.






ahhh ha ha ha. Classic logan, baseless, unfounded name calling.

thanks for the laughs Logan.

thanks for the replies.

logan054
06-07-2008, 10:38
ahhh ha ha ha. Classic logan, baseless, unfounded name calling.

thanks for the laughs Logan.

thanks for the replies.

if you noticed that statement applied to myself ;) hardly baseless and besides seeing as your "champion" (Ie fighting for it) of power gaming you either are one yourself or you just arguing for the sake of it, please, pick one.


I enjoy army selection and deployment as much as i enjoy flexing my mind during other phases, probably more.

You may think its sad, but we think its sad to see grown men get far too involved/in character with a game whereas my friends and i look at it as a strategic game.

I dont know why you think your so high and mighty and everyone should enjoy it specifically the way you think they should?

Like they say, different horses for different courses.

I think you will find im personally very into the strategy of the game, i personally dont understand the enjoyment of moving 3 models around a board, i also cant see it as a very exciting strategy, we obviously have very different definitions of what strategy is.

Frankly
06-07-2008, 11:08
if you noticed that statement applied to myself ;) hardly baseless and besides seeing as your "champion" (Ie fighting for it) of power gaming you either are one yourself or you just arguing for the sake of it, please, pick one.





That statement is 100% wrong.

You were referring to me as a powergamer.

sooo ... it did apply to both of us. :eyebrows:

And no, I don't have to choose.

I'm arguing against your constant whining about the way OTHER hobbists choice to play the game, your constant unfounded statements and your contant finger pointing and name calling.

logan054
06-07-2008, 11:14
obviously my statement isnt 100% wrong if it refers to myself ;) I think you statement says it all, and my statements are not unfounded at all, unless of course you claim people have never such statements as "you complain about powergaming because you lose"

Its funny however, its always whining when its a statement against other "hobbyist's" choice to powergame, which is pretty much the same as "You have no right to voice your opinion" Freedom of speech is a bitch ;)

Finnigan2004
06-07-2008, 14:30
In answer to your original question, in an attempt to get things back on track before the thread gets locked, I have to say that I don't think that the incessant whining is much about power levels-- I think it's about attitude. I have a luxury that some others may not, and that is a large collection of models. I find that I can enjoy playing a powergaming style or a very low power style, if I bring a list of an appropriate power level to challenge my opponent, while not overwhelming him.

Most of the time, based on their postings, many of the people who whine are dogmatists. Many seem to feel that they are the holy guardians of the way that warhammer should be played, and the hostile nature of their posts often reflects this. I think that a lesson has to be learned about the fact that warhammer is a great game, and there is no right or wrong way to play it (well, barring cheating).

We all have our preferences about how the game is played. I could scream when I see five lances of Brettonian knights-- and my wife owns such an army (she owns a dwarf gunline too). Would I like to play against them every time out? No. Are great armies for a casual or beginning player who plays against more frequent players? Yes. Are they tougher than some other builds? Yes. Does having them make her a power player? No. Does it mean that she loves to paint knights and ladies? Yes.

In summary, the real life whining that I have encountered is very rare. The internet whining is common. It has to do with the safety of the medium, which is a positive and a negative. Generally, when talking to people who complain about power in real life, the reason when it comes right down to it is that certain builds dictate how they play the game, which is not really a complaint about power at all. Often they like: games decided by blocks of infantry rather than cavalry (me most of the time-- I hate you cavalryhammer) :mad:, games that are not decided by magic (me when playing khorne) :angel:, games that do not have large monsters to deal with (me when playing with all infantry high elves) ;), games without spell spamming vampires (everyone but vampire counts players) :cheese:, etc, etc. ....

When it comes right down to it, the power paranoia is really a coded request to "play the game my way". The best way to accomplish this in casual games is to talk to your opponent in a mature manner. It goes like this-- "Hey, if I use the bloodthirster this game and you bring your star dragon, I'll try another game with nothing but blocks of bloodletters next game." This approach usually works. When it comes to tournaments, contact the organizer. If the comp restrictions look too stringent, and that bothers you-- don't go. If it looks like a no comp bloodbath, and that bothers you-- don't go.

Skyth
08-07-2008, 01:02
Most of the time, based on their postings, many of the people who whine are dogmatists. Many seem to feel that they are the holy guardians of the way that warhammer should be played, and the hostile nature of their posts often reflects this. I think that a lesson has to be learned about the fact that warhammer is a great game, and there is no right or wrong way to play it (well, barring cheating).

Quoted for truth. The bullying and name-calling that goes along with the game has killed my interest in 40k (That and the new edition).