PDA

View Full Version : "Powergaming"



Major Defense
06-01-2006, 20:39
So I play FB and used to play 40K but both only with friends and I'd never be interested in hanging out at a game shop where you can't drink, smoke or listen to good music at the appropriate volume. I read some people here talking about magic heavy armies and "powergaming" armies as if there is something *wrong* with them but at the same time they're admitting that the all-your-eggs-in-one-basket approach has some inherent weaknesses. So go ahead and flame me with your enlightening opinions but somewhere in there please confirm two suspicions for me.

1. "Powergaming" involves few expensive units like dragons or greater demons.

2. People who hate these tactics do so out of fear of them and have difficulty dealing with these kinds of armies.

Gorbad Ironclaw
06-01-2006, 20:46
1. "Powergaming" involves few expensive units like dragons or greater demons.



Nope, thats the first step where people go wrong. Powergaming isn't about taking big expensive units. It's about twinking your armylist to be the most powerful it can possibly be, with no regards for anything else.

It usually doesn't involve big expensive things like Dragons and Greater Demons actually!

Kahadras
06-01-2006, 20:48
1. "Powergaming" involves few expensive units like dragons or greater demons.

Not really. The most feared armies seem to be the Skaven SAD and the Bretonnian RAF. Then there is the all magic, all mounted High Elf army and the Empire/Dwarf gunline. The 'one big monster' aproach is very limited due to the fact it can get shot down very quickly by warmachines.

Kahadras

Frecus
06-01-2006, 20:56
Powergaming did, at some point involve big monsters though. But that was mainly during the day of rules like 'flying high'...

Frecus
The glade wanderer
Madwarrior

Tulun
06-01-2006, 21:05
What's the Bretonian RAF? New to the game, enlighten me :)

Gorbad Ironclaw
06-01-2006, 21:07
Bretonian Royal Air Force.

Take a bret lord on a pegasus, 4 units of pegasus knights, and a bunch of knights. It might be mistaken for a game of Warhammer, but don't count on it.

Cpt. Drill
06-01-2006, 21:17
LArge expensive models are not powergaming.... there is a certain point where something becomes too expensive... as it will only see a limited number of combats in the game and so might not make those points back....


The RAF is very difficult to deal with....

Makaber
06-01-2006, 21:19
Powergaming occurs generally when people mistake Warhammer for a compeditive game like, and form army lists and tactics based around winning the game, instead of having a good time. They then angle it so they claim the normal player simply doesn't have the cahones to play at their level. This is of course rubbish, Warhammer isn't a competition the same way blood bowl and chess is.

Festus
06-01-2006, 22:03
I couldn't agree more!

Warhammer can be played as a competitetive game, and is played as such in tournaments, but THB, this is not my cuppa anymore.

I had my fair share of tourney-experience, and I don't really miss it.

Powergaming IMO is not about big scaries. They are easy to deal with. As are the *eggs in one bsket*. It is not very demanding to play if you know that you will only have to worry about one target and one target alone.

Powergaming is: Min-maxing your army until it perfectly uses the nooks and crannies of the army book regardless of everything else.
Powergaming is rules exploitation.
Powergaming is simple maths without any thought givne to the fantasy/background/narrative aspect of the game.

Powergaming is WAAC.

Imagine a historical tabletop game. Let's say WWII. The Germans assault with an entire company of Tigers supported by a few Königstigers. A few Panzergrenadiere to fend of infantry - or better, make them elite Waffen-SS.
While hideously effective, this setup is equally hideously wrong: There never were such formations, and if they ever had existed, a nearby part of the frontline would have been devoid of troops and resources.

You can fall into a similar trap in WHFB (Did I already mention my pet hate: All Ratlings with 20-25 strong Skaven regiments?).My advice: Don't.

Greetings
Festus

Mad Doc Grotsnik
06-01-2006, 22:05
Take my 2,000 point Dark Elf army.

Highborn on Black Dragon, Beastmaster on Manticore, 2 War Hydras, 4 Cold One Chariots, 30 Crossbows.

Could be accused of being power gamery. However, this is a very, *very* small 2,000 point army with absolutely bugger all magical defence, and one where the real powerhouses are pretty much impossible to hide. Sure, it hits hard, but it's not particularly easy to use!

mightygerm
06-01-2006, 22:39
1. "Powergaming" involves few expensive units like dragons or greater demons.

2. People who hate these tactics do so out of fear of them and have difficulty dealing with these kinds of armies.

Not really. There's nothing wrong with making a list that is competitive - the problem is when options are abused (min-maxing). Some armies can abuse these way more than others. Example:

#1 Offender: Skaven SAD with maxed out ratlings, jezzail, wlc, and magic. The problem here is the army book is just too powerful here. The skaven weapons are supposed to be unreliable but really they are some of the best ones in the game. Add to this all of the skaven special rules about shooting into battle, leading from the back, etc. This book needs a revamp asap. If you want proof just look at some recent GT results where 5/6 top armies were skaven.

#2. Flying circuses. Offenders are brets and daemonic legions. The problem is not flying units perse, but that you can make your list almost completely out of flyers. Not only will you control the charge, you can always run around the enemy so they can never catch you, etc. In case of the brets they will always get the charge off which is devastating, and the tzeentch demons will just whittle you down with magic.

Those are the two serious ones I think need to be addressed. Not saying they can be beaten, but they basically need an equally beardy list tailored to it, which will in turn get dominated by the other top killer. Of course there are armies with tooled out dragon lords with 3+ wards (hi tzeentch), maximum magic lists, gunlines (the sea guard list in particular is the most un-fun thing I've ever seen) but they have weakness that a 'balanced' list could deal with. -

bigchris1313
06-01-2006, 23:44
There is no such thing as abuse. Not even the Siren Prince.

The RAF, Flying Circus, and SAD are all legitimate ways to play the game. GW gave us rules, and they aren't always balanced. You play to win the game. You play to win the game. If you didn't, you wouldn't bother playing. People who design new lists and innovate from them to build the most powerful lists should be lauded, not scorned. They've done better. They've improved. They've outdone average players like me.

It's just like capitalism. You play to win the game with the rules you're given. If you don't want to play the hardcore players, you don't have to, unless you're in a tournament. But even among your group of friends who don't play to "WAAC," deep down you know that you're still playing to win, no matter what you claim. After all:

"Beware of altruism. It is based on self-deception, the root of all evil."

kd7svh
06-01-2006, 23:53
There is no such thing as abuse.
:wtf: Uh... Yeah, right.


You play to win the game. If you didn't, you wouldn't bother playing.

Ah... The rallying cry of the cheese-monger. Do I like to win? Sure, but it is most certainly NOT why I play the game.


People who design new lists and innovate from them to build the most powerful lists should be lauded, not scorned. They've done better.

Yeah, lauded as the cheesy a$$-hats they are. They do better at that for sure.


But even among your group of friends who don't play to "WAAC," deep down you know that you're still playing to win, no matter what you claim.

Nope. I play to HAVE FUN!! And I have had fun losing many times.


"Beware of altruism. It is based on self-deception, the root of all evil."

Where did you get that piece of inane propaganda??? Which BTW doesn't even apply. It isn't a case of people not trying to win, it's people understanding that winning isn't the end-all be-all of having fun playing Warhammer.

Flypaper
07-01-2006, 00:10
It's a discussion I've always been grimly fascinated by. I was actually on the other side of the fence on (of all places) the Neverwinter Nights board back when that game was still in development and was promising a perfect recreation of pen-and-paper D&D.

...However, I have a lot of trouble applying that true role-playing feel to Warhammer miniatures. Ironic, of course, since D&D started out as a tactical miniatures game and wasn't originally supposed to be LARPed in the "getting into character" sense we see in modern tabletop RPGs. ;)

Partly it's because I find Warhammer "fluff" utterly unengaging. Hacksville, seriously! :angel: Partly it's because I'm finally beginning to enjoy the high-level competitive aspects of my other current nerd-hobby Magic: The Gathering. A major part is probably the gap between characterising an 80-model army and Method Acting a single role!

However, there are some deep-down flaws with playing Warhammer as a 100% competitive hobby:

- Aesthetics and modelling. Every army involves hours of painting - hundreds of hours if you're as glacially slow as I am! And it takes a very jaded soul indeed to not bias towards models you like over ones that provide all the power. Let's not forget the financial and general modelling-difficulty biases as well.

- Metagaming is too expensive! It's too hard to re-arrange the tournament environment with a single tactical breakthrough, just because re-writing a list involves buying hundreds of dollars worth of product, then painting and assembling the wretched things!

- Rules support. GW rules are, let's face it, extremely sloppy. While on one hand they provide the occasional avenue for twinking out combos, usually at the highest level of competition I imagine the slopiness would be more a source of annoyance and frustration for people who are genuinely competitive but want a level playing field in which skill can play the largest role. Compare the WFB rules to the M:tG comprehensive rules (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=magic/rules/tourneyplayer) - formally drafted, professionaly templated, and backed up by five levels of Judge accreditation. Also painfully tedious to read. :p

Note that I'm not saying this is the direction WFB should take - I'm just pointing out how an ultra-competitive environment should be supported. In the current environment, as I pointed out, Warhammer's general rules and philosophy make it unsuited to be the fantasy equivalent of a 100% tactics-and-skill game like Chess.

Makaber
07-01-2006, 00:35
Yes, thank you. I don't mind people playing games to win, however Warhammer is not that kind of game. The rules are great fun for most porposes, but it's just too open and unstandarised to do competitions with. Add that to the mentioned hobby aspects, and it should be obvious to most.

Also, bigchris1313, I don't care how you like to play Warhammer, because you don't live nowhere near me and I don't have to play you. However, I'll be damned if I'm going to be told how I enjoy the game. Sure I could take a 14-power-dice madhouse from hell to town and steamroller over my friends, but gamewise it would be incredibly dull. Furthermore, my friends wouldn't enjoy it, the atmosphere would be horrible, and as an extent, I wouldn't enjoy it either.

And sure, when I start a game, it's my goal to win it. However, I don't sacrifice the enjoyment of the game to reach that goal, and neither does my friends. Hence, our lists are evenly matched, however they're not tooled to win at the expense of my opponents gaming pleasure, so in the end, we have tense and highly enjoyable games.

archonbrujah
07-01-2006, 01:23
You play to win the game. You play to win the game. If you didn't, you wouldn't bother playing.

Um, I actually play to have fun. If I wanted to play a game that was all about winning, I'd be playing Starcraft or DoW.

Besides, all my opponents know that by beating the tar out of me, they're doing me a favor. The more I lose by, the faster I can put my toys away at the end of the day :)

In the end, to each their own.

Archonbrujah

edit: spelling hates me.

Tiberius Frost
07-01-2006, 01:27
I agree. The game should be about having fun first, and winning second. And for me, it is. Partly this is because I don't play many games these days.
Generally I agree with my opponent about what sort of lists we'll be using beforehand, for instance 'let's only use one wizard each'. I also have a tendency to tell them what the list involves, rather than try to 'surprise' my opponent in order to win the game.

I've never played in a tournament and from what I've heard, I probably never will. I'd also like to add that in the falsified setting of a tournament, of course some armies will be better than others.

Personally, I think that playing scenarios and campaigns is much more fun than the 'equal points pitched battle' type game. This often means that one side will have more points fielded than the other, but it still makes for an interesting game.

In the back of the rulebook there's a paragraph from Tuomas Pirinen which says "Warhammer was never meant to be a game where the rules become more important than the enjoyment of the players." Reading through tounament threads on this forum, I fear that the rules are being allowed to take over.
My opinion, at least.

bigchris1313
07-01-2006, 02:54
In the back of the rulebook there's a paragraph from Tuomas Pirinen which says "Warhammer was never meant to be a game where the rules become more important than the enjoyment of the players."

Considering how the Godly rules system he gave to us before he left is the single greatest thing since beer, I can surely forgive him just this once.

Trunks
07-01-2006, 05:22
Take my 2,000 point Dark Elf army.

Highborn on Black Dragon, Beastmaster on Manticore, 2 War Hydras, 4 Cold One Chariots, 30 Crossbows.

Could be accused of being power gamery. However, this is a very, *very* small 2,000 point army with absolutely bugger all magical defence, and one where the real powerhouses are pretty much impossible to hide. Sure, it hits hard, but it's not particularly easy to use!

I play my Dark Elves in a totally different manner myself. I wouldn't consider yours to be a powergaming army. It seems like you are going for a beast themed army rather than trying to be overpowering, even though you have some powerful aspects.

It also has some glaring weaknesses like the lack of models and magic defense.

I could imagine your army to be intimidating to a beginner or someone who has yet to develop diverse tactics, but overall it isn't so bad in my opinion. Someone I know plays an army with a Beastmaster on Manticore and 2 Warhydras, he usually loses, but I'd blame that on picking bad choices for the rest of his list.

How do you do against undead armies? Just curious since it seems like you have to rely on choosing your fights and winning combats in one round.

Sorry to take the topic off track :)

TeddyC
07-01-2006, 11:07
If everyone thought powergaming was so great why is the only guy not have a regular opponent the powergamer who take Khorne knights of death army....

My experience... it makes for a dull one sided game that should be consigned to tournaments

gortexgunnerson
07-01-2006, 11:57
I have a tendency to play armies that may appear cheesy due to my lazyness as a painter meaning i rarely have enough painted models for what I want and by the time I do I have changed army lol so have a tendency to play magic heavy with my non dwarf armies (my first and true calling).

I agree that maxed out lists aren't that much fun to play against and can ruin the fun aspect but I hate it that powergaming is now banded round for anything that wins game and might require a novel tactic to beat it. My Dwarf army is 20% artillery, 20% missile troops and 35% fighting troops, 25% characters. The amount on characters is alittle high but nothing in comparison to choas or magic heavy armies. Because it has won our store tournment a couple of times and it qualified for the GT final (Played HE in the final) people say it is cheesy as has a powerful unit of ironbreakers (so apparently I'm maxing out on cheesy characters) and I'm a good shot with guess range weapons (So am apparently maxing out on artillery according to other people).

I wouldn't so much mind if people actually tried to take it on in a novel manner but basically I went down to a new games night the first 5 or 6 people just front charged my dwarfs with lord lead heavy knights, and because that didn't win with it's deep stratigic thinking then the army was cheesy and powergaming. (I dont go down their anymore my stress levels rose rapidly)

My personal thoughts on powergaming is I love it! but only in situations where it is expected and both sides are prepared. I don't powergame in stores or in casual matches but I like tournment play and writing lists which play to strength and the elements support each other. I like to start with a theme of an army and then tweak it to make that army a playable competetive army. After watching Van Helsing I did my werewolf themed Von Castein list, Dire wolfs and Wolf form characters, Choas hound spirt host etc I think this is a very themed army and has lots of conversions and specially found old models to get the werewolf theme. But to make it competetive I took the best set of models I could get within my theme, So scouting dire wolves, summon wolves ability, wolf form thralls. And because this army will mop up most artillery or shooting based armies then it is labled as cheesy

Dr Death
07-01-2006, 12:34
Power gaming shouldnt even be allowed in tournements, it should be consigned to the 7th circle of hell where all the hyper competitive, something to proove nutters who indulge in it should be summerarily trounced by Satan and his minions.


You play to win the game. You play to win the game. If you didn't, you wouldn't bother playing (i have a feeling you will become very quoted very quickly BigChris1313 and not in a good way)

What if i was to say to you that i dont, that i play the game to hang around with friends and playfully mock each others painting skills and generalship? Where does such an aim fit into your image of a "ultimate goal" of power gaming?


People who design new lists and innovate from them to build the most powerful lists should be lauded, not scorned. They've done better. They've improved.

Now thats the biggest amount of pure idiocy i've heard in a very long time. They have not done better, they've just prooved they have the spare time in their life to piddle about figuring out the maths to win a game of toy soldiers. Its not a case of pushing the boundries, its not like real life where we dont know our true capacity for any given task. In a wargame we work within the parameters of the rules, given the incentive people could put their heads together to find "the ultimate" list that had the highest chance of winning, just because most cant be bothered to seek that goal does not make them inferior to those who do.

What power gamers dont seem to be able to get their head around is not everything is an excercise to proove oneself and that people who dont power game, rather than aspiring to and not being able to simply dont see the point of it.

Warhammer is ultimately elaborate monopoly, rolling dice to determine the fate of little metal peices with (in ye olden days) lots of peices of paper. Do you play competitive monopoly? I'd hate to hear the cheers and shouts when someone lands on your 4 hotelled Mayfair. Like monopoly, you dont play it because it is an artform to perfect upon honing your technique of winning, you play it because its a laugh, winning the thing is a secondary matter and, like warhammer, many games of monopoly generally go unfinished once someone starts to emerge as the obvious candidate. Would you stick religiously to the rules in monopoly, even if it meant trouncing your little sister who hasnt had the best of luck so far? Of course not!
What Warhammer is not is a spectator sport, its not a game where the bets of half a country are riding on it and a place to be the 100 and god knows how many-th winner of X trophy and it really really shouldnt be treated like that.

I would like to clarify here that i dont mind a competitive spirit. One of the joys of playing among friends rather than people you simply meet to game with is that you develop a style of play that suits your particular group, if that is a more competetive style then thats great, knock yourself out. But power gamers by my definition force their own style of play upon their opponant regardless of whether it is enjoyable or not. Thats when good old competitive spirit becomes offensive.

Anyway i think that's satisfied my rage for now.

Dr Death

Festus
07-01-2006, 13:24
Hi

GW gave us rules......and God said *fiat lux!* and there was light!:eyebrows:


...and they aren't always balanced
This is exactly what makes powergaming pointless:

It is not the skill of the player in developing new tactics and new styles, but it is the inability (and unwillingness) of GW's to provide comprehensive rules that cannot be exploited.
The powerplayer's only merit is to spot the unbalanced things and work them into his armylists. How *laudable*! No, it is *laughable*...

WHFB (as most tabletops excluding DBM) is an unfinished game, to be modified to suit the players' needs and styles.

If you want to hone your skills in competitive games, wargames at that, go and play chess.:rolleyes:

Festus

Warsmith Strader
07-01-2006, 14:03
Soo, Would a Mortal Khorne army be considered a cheese army because its geared to destroy magic?

Just curious

Festus
07-01-2006, 14:23
Hi

No, Mortal Khorne is a pretty weak army, actually.

If you have any means to trick or tarpit units, those Khorne boys sudddenly lose a lot of their - believed - potential.

It can dish out a lot, sure, but its Frenzy and high points cost are its Achille's heels IMO.

Greetings
FEstus

Neknoh
07-01-2006, 14:28
Depends on HOW geard towards destroying magic, if that means taking five Chariots of Khorne, a Lord with the Spelleater Shield and Mark of Khorne, One Exalted Champion of Khorne, bearing the Collar of Khorne and sticking them both in a small unit of Warhounds to save points, then, taking two undivided lvl 1 sorcerors, one carrying two Dispell Scrolls and the other the Staff of Sorcery, then, spending the rest of the points on small units of 4 Knights with the Mark of Khorne.

Now, an army like that would generate above 15 Dispell Dice, have 2 Scrolls, 2 units with Magic Resistance 2 AND have +1 to all Dispell attempts.

Of course, it would be called cheesy and powergamey by armies that depend on their magic (which not even Tzeentch armies should btw), and the huge ammount of Chariots and small units of Knights might also be considered cheesy by anything but Dwarfs and Empire Gunline (though the EGL would probably cry cheese when they reached their lines).

So, it's actually how extreme you make something in order to win that is the case, if you designed a list like that ONLY to shut down magic, knowing all players in your area often go magic-heavy, then, it's not really fair play imho

Festus
07-01-2006, 14:58
Hi

So, it's actually how extreme you make something in order to win that is the case, if you designed a list like that ONLY to shut down magic, knowing all players in your area often go magic-heavy, then, it's not really fair play imho
This is not my definition of power-gaming:

If he adapts to win against magic heavy armies, it is simply fair.
Maybe his oponents will learn that there are other ways to play...

IMO a group of WHFB players should strive to have well balanced take-on-all-comers-armies and still add some surprises or tweak the armylists.
If there is the one or other broken army showing up sometimes, it just adds to the fun and makes it a little less boring...

...but to always take you SAD, or to always use the Magic Army of Doom or to always play one-trick-Bret-Warhorse is more like power-gaming.

Don't be surprised if noone wants to play against such an army after a few nights.

Festus

Frankly
07-01-2006, 15:50
Hi

No, Mortal Khorne is a pretty weak army, actually.



Greetings
FEstus

Man I love flat assed statements like that.

Its funny, because my mates Khorne mortal army is constantly doing well, he'll be clad you called his 4 units of knights, 4 chariots, 4 hero's, flyers and 60 hounds pretty weak, I haven't found it very weak to play against.

To be honest, most non-tournament goers call it a power gaming army, while tournament goers seem to like facing it... go figue.

Personally I like playing and I like winning ... I just like playing more.

Frankly
07-01-2006, 15:56
IMO a group of WHFB players should strive to have well balanced take-on-all-comers-armies and still add some surprises or tweak the armylists.


I disagree ... let people play what they want, its their money they're spending, its their army they are creating.

Let the chips full where they may. I like playing random personilities, when I get a bad apple which is incredibly rare ... it gives me something to bitch about.

Sorry for the double post.

Kenshinzo 7
07-01-2006, 16:28
Powergamers are really just insecure people in disguise and you don't just find them in Wargamming. They haunt RPG's, CCG's and just about every other area of the hobbyworld.

Festus
07-01-2006, 16:59
Hi

Man I love flat assed statements like that.
Yes, isn't it nice. :)

My CDs would not even let one of those units come close to my lines, apart from a few of the hounds, who can do nothing in close combat against Dwarfs.

The rest is simply shot to death and slowed down. Dirt cheap Bolththrowers, Earthshakers and fast cav Wofriders for Marchblocking come very handy.

If neither works, the frenzied units will be drawn to the table edges by a few fast cavalry Wolfriders.

A Khorne Army (especially if pure Khorne) will ulitmately be played by me, the oponent as soon as the screening Hounds are gone or I manage to get my fast cav between his lines.


I disagree ... let people play what they want, its their money they're spending, its their army they are creating.

Let the chips full where they may. I like playing random personilities, when I get a bad apple which is incredibly rare ... it gives me something to bitch about.

Yes, let people play the way they like to with their armies, but I still have my preferred way to do things. Hence the IMO (in my opinion)...

Greetings
Festus

kd7svh
07-01-2006, 17:30
I disagree ... let people play what they want, its their money they're spending, its their army they are creating.

That's absolutely correct. However, there are consequences to choosing to power game. Take a guy who is in our gaming group. He plays good old SAD; max Ratling guns, Jezzails, WLC, and either the Bell or the special Warlock that gets lightning and fire lores. Yeah, he wins against everyone he plays. But then again, he doens't get to play very often, just when someone knew comes along.

So I ask you, was it worth it to get into this hobby (building what he chose) only to be able to play a game when you have an opponent who doesn't know the SAD army? I couldn't imagine a more boring or sad situation personally.

MadJackMcJack
07-01-2006, 17:46
I admit, I play to win. And I'm pretty sure most other players do too. What I won't do is spend ages looking over army lists in order to find that "perfect" combination. I generally make army lists based on what I've got, not get models based on an army list. And I generally get models based on how cool I think the model is, or how stompy the unit feels (regardless of how it turns out it really is). If it works, yay. If it doesn't, then as long as it puts up a good fight, yay. I much prefer a closely-fought defeat then a ****-easy victory.

bigchris1313
07-01-2006, 20:19
Ahh.

How did I know this is the reaction I would get on Warseer? Well, I guess I'm just good like that. In regards to the idea that innovators and creators of uberlists shouldn't be lauded, I have to respectfully dissent. Yes, I know the rules of Warhammer are hard and fast, unlike the game of life. But that doesn't mean it isn't impressive to do better. Of course it is. And if you aren't playing Monopoly to win, I just don't understand. You play Monopoly to Monopolize the board and wipe everyone else off the map. You think I've ever played a Monopoly game for fun? The game is called Mono poly: One Seller. The rules tell you that you win by wiping out everyone else. And yes, there are times when you allow your youngest sister to survive, but that's when she's 9 and your little sister. Not when she's a 17+ year-old male who's playing a competetive wargame.

To anyone playing "to have fun" and not to win, you can say whatever you want and I'm not going to say anything about it. I'm sure most of you believe it; I don't. But whatever.

I take it most of you are very englightened and compassionate Democratic Socialists who believe that capitalism is a scourge upon the earth and that anyone who makes gross sums of money should be punished with high taxes and a permanent guilt trip because he/she should give the money away to other people at his/her own expense?

Kahadras
07-01-2006, 20:31
In regards to the idea that innovators and creators of uberlists shouldn't be lauded, I have to respectfully dissent. Yes, I know the rules of Warhammer are hard and fast, unlike the game of life. But that doesn't mean it isn't impressive to do better.

The problem is that it ain't hard to come up with a 'good' list. Some people seem to think it takes real skill to make a broken list. Why laud someone who has the ability to go onto the net or into his local GW store? I don't buy the fact that you can be 'skilled' at Warhammer by list building. Even playing with foresaid list normaly requires less 'skill' than an army that is not so 'overpowered'. That's just my view on the situation anyway.


I take it most of you are very englightened and compassionate Democratic Socialists who believe that capitalism is a scourge upon the earth and that anyone who makes gross sums of money should be punished with high taxes and a permanent guilt trip because he/she should give the money away to other people at his/her own expense?

Actualy I support Capitalism but really don't think it needs to extend to a game involving model soldiers. The idea of Capitalism is that the amount of work you put in equals the amount of money you get out (very basicaly). I fail to see how this relates in any way due to the simplicity of building 'broken' armies.

Kahadras

Sylass
07-01-2006, 20:33
[...] I take it most of you are very englightened and compassionate Democratic Socialists who believe that capitalism is a scourge upon the earth and that anyone who makes gross sums of money should be punished with high taxes and a permanent guilt trip because he/she should give the money away to other people at his/her own expense?
Please let us leave politics, personal attacks, name calling and what not out of this discussion. I have a strong feeling it'll not do anything good to the thread. Ok?

Thanks.

Sylass,
WarSeer Admin.

bigchris1313
07-01-2006, 20:38
Oh no. It's the Warseer Secret Police. I guess someone smelled a powergaming supporter.

In all seriousness, I wont' say another word about politics, even though I have a feeling it might explain almost everything that has transpired. But I'll shut up anyway.

Festus
07-01-2006, 20:43
Oh no. It's the Warseer Secret Police. I guess someone smelled a powergaming supporter.


Right, exactly the attitude I tought you'd show... :rolleyes:


In all seriousness, I wont' say another word about politics, even though I have a feeling it might explain almost everything that has transpired.
You, boy, don't have a clue of

1. the theory of speech-acts
2. politics
3. capitalism.

As you seem to grasp the concept of WHFB powergaming well enough, I daresay that WHFB is not mightily complex, or is it?


But I'll shut up anyway.
Thank you...

Festus

mujadaddy
07-01-2006, 21:07
Festus, I'd love to give you "what-for" sometime with my Khorne boyz :D

...but I don't get to that side of the Atlantic much ;)

bigchris1313
07-01-2006, 21:08
Right, exactly the attitude I tought you'd show... :rolleyes:


You, boy, don't have a clue of

1. the theory of speech-acts
2. politics
3. capitalism.

As you seem to grasp the concept of WHFB powergaming well enough, I daresay that WHFB is not mightily complex, or is it?


Thank you...

Festus

Hey, Mods, what happened to no personal attacks?

EDIT: FWIW, the secret police gag was a joke. I figured the "Seriously" would indicate that, but I suppose people will read what they want to read.

Kahadras
07-01-2006, 21:19
I think the point is that it could be taken seriously. The lack of smiley and the new paragraph do make it slightly unclear whether you are refering to what you just said or just to what other people are saying.

Kahadras

Festus
07-01-2006, 21:21
Hi

Festus, I'd love to give you "what-for" sometime with my Khorne boyz :D
I will be honored to smash your red-brassy boys to pieces
It wouldn't be the first time seeing a Chaos Player cry :cool:

...but I don't get to that side of the Atlantic much ;)
Well, maybe next time I come your way. :)

Greetings
Festus

Festus
07-01-2006, 21:27
Hi

Hey, Mods, what happened to no personal attacks?
Guilty as charged...

...and the only thing I really am sorry for is that I fell for this Troll-bait :(
(As did others, if I might say so).

Nevertheless, your lack of any sign as to the meaning and tone of your - written - posts let you come across very "smart-ass-y" or "know-it-all-y". You might like to consider that and change it accordingly.
If not - you are old enough to know what you are asking for, I assume.

Back OnT:

If you want to play WAAC (as you do in M:tG to the best of my knowledge), do so. But better not go around and advocate that this is the best/only/proper/laudable/whatever way to play WHFB.

It isn't.

Festus

mujadaddy
07-01-2006, 21:29
Aw, I wouldn't cry :D

What are you primarily again? Chaos Dwarves? blankety-blank war machines

Festus
07-01-2006, 21:34
Hi

Yes, I am CDs mainly, and I think that they have the right tools for the job: Earthshakers to slow you down, Wolfriders to stop you from marching and to shoot the Hounds, Boltthrowers (30 measly points a piece, 2 to a Special choice) for Knight or Biggy killing and Dwarfs in Heavy Armour with or without Can-Openers to finish you off.

Maybe there is a way to play over the net, like mail gaming :)

Greetings
Festus

mujadaddy
07-01-2006, 21:47
Hi
Maybe there is a way to play over the net, like mail gaming

Greetings
Festus:D GW would shut us down quick :p


Honestly, the last time I played FB was... jeez almost 7 years ago, back when we still had Winds of Chaos and Magic Cards :)

I've recently been told my old army has been nerfed, but I could find something to throw together :evilgrin:

archonbrujah
07-01-2006, 21:55
To anyone playing "to have fun" and not to win, you can say whatever you want and I'm not going to say anything about it. I'm sure most of you believe it; I don't. But whatever.

Actually, you can ask any of my opponents whether I play to win or have fun. I'm sure every single one of them will agree that I can build a power gaming, hell bent for victory list like anyone's business, but I don't. I generally know the rules better then any of my opponents, and don't take advantage of them for it. I'm the guy who tells his TK opponent that my Throne of Power has any unit on the board attacks, so he might not want his Heirophant sitting outside the unit, before turn number one, then lets him pop the Heirophant into the unit. So, believe, or say, or don't what you will, obviously victory isn't the main concern.



I take it most of you are very englightened and compassionate Democratic Socialists who believe that capitalism is a scourge upon the earth and that anyone who makes gross sums of money should be punished with high taxes and a permanent guilt trip because he/she should give the money away to other people at his/her own expense?

Works for me :)

Archonbrujah

mujadaddy
07-01-2006, 22:00
Ahh.

I take it most of you are very englightened and compassionate Democratic Socialists who believe that capitalism is a scourge upon the earth and that anyone who makes gross sums of money should be punished with high taxes and a permanent guilt trip because he/she should give the money away to other people at his/her own expense?Does wanting to eat the rich count? :skull:

Da GoBBo
07-01-2006, 22:42
To anyone playing "to have fun" and not to win, you can say whatever you want and I'm not going to say anything about it. I'm sure most of you believe it; I don't. But whatever.


:rolleyes: Kind of a silly expression don't ye think? Of course ye play to have fun, everybody does. Everybody plays to win too, just like with monopoly, couldn't agree more. Thing is, some people (including you?) can only have fun while winning, which makes them really sad persons in my point of view. Having fun and wanting to win are two different things and shouldn't be connected the way you connect them.

GranFarfar
07-01-2006, 23:03
If you want to play WAAC (as you do in M:tG to the best of my knowledge), do so. But better not go around and advocate that this is the best/only/proper/laudable/whatever way to play WHFB.

It isn't.

Festus

This is very true indeed, but I would like to add - not directed at you Festus - that this is also true the other way around. Some people is actually clamining the opposite - that is, that power gaming is "wrong". I do understand why people don´t like powergaming and mostly agree, but it is easy to forget that power gaming might mean two completely different things to two different players.

I think alot, ALOT of people on Warseer would consider me and the people in my group "power-gamers". Our armies are not particullary fluffy and are usually designed to beat our opponents. But to me this is not power gaming as such.
To me power gaming is using flaws in the rules and obviously "over-powered" units and such.

god octo
07-01-2006, 23:03
Everyone could build a killer, power gaming list, but then playing warhammer would be as fun as stapling your face to a wall. Most people (you other you know who you are) play warhammer with their friends, for the sole purpose of having fun. Winning is alsways enjoyable, but if your powergaming army wins in turn two, what fun do you have? My friend has years more expierience then me, and i lose all the time, but we play to have fun. He plays high elf but he doesnt have 18+ power dice and he doesnt play to win (although it happens alot:cries: )I personally think that power gamers should burn.:evilgrin: Its the fun you have doing warhammer, not the winning thats the best part.

GranFarfar
07-01-2006, 23:08
I take it most of you are very englightened and compassionate Democratic Socialists who believe that capitalism is a scourge upon the earth and that anyone who makes gross sums of money should be punished with high taxes and a permanent guilt trip because he/she should give the money away to other people at his/her own expense?

Always interesting when someone takes and rahter complex political view which has been around for the last 100 years and is constantly developing(as all politic do) and "explains" it in one sentence.
What I fail to grasp is what this has to do with Warhammer?

I am glad my friend did not see this, he would go through the roof, and poor me would hear about it day out and day in. :p

Flypaper
08-01-2006, 00:06
I'm a teensy bit annoyed at the amount of vehemence that's been thrown around in the last three pages. Makes me wonder why I tried for a balanced and fair argument in the first place. :angel:

Look, what's so morally wrong with seeing Warhammer as a competitive hobby in which you get all Sun Tzu on each other?*

It may not be the way you like to play, but that's not a reason to jump back on the "powergamers have no friends LOL" bandwagon. Depending on how literate you are (carefully avoiding the whole personal attacks thing!) it either comes accross as petulant self-righteousness or - even worse - as voicing an opinion because it'll make you look cool in front of the big kids.

...Also, bigcris got jumped on way too hard by Ye Olde Frenzied Masses. The capitalism analogy was pretty dumb, though. ;)

Somewhat back on topic, I'd like to point out an obvious problem we've all seen pop up from time to time: not everyone knows what a true powergaming list looks like. The fact of the matter is that certain lists often take new players unprepared - ones with maxed out characters, large monsters and generally rock-hard expensive troops spring to mind - but these (with few exceptions) don't represent true tournament archetypes in the slightest.

The problem? Little Timmy (who knows perfectly well that the point to the game is to have fun) will start wondering why he's not being protected against those Chosen Knights of Khorne by the Universal Rules of Fairness (tm). Worse, he'll go onto message boards and post inflammatory rhetoric - completing the circle. ;)

I've brought up my M:tG experience before (I know the environment better, what'cha gonna do.) - I'm saying I've seen this work out in an infinitely more competitive context. Certain - hideously weak - decks work viciously well against My First Elf Deck (tm). So what happens? Kids get upset and start spamming about what a powergamer so-and-so is and how horribly broken and unbalanced the rules surrounding his deck are... Which just adds a lot of unjustified emotional charge to already heated arguments.

*The answers to the obvious retorts are "because it has a larger user base so it's easier to find opponents" and "because the models look cool". :cool:

archonbrujah
08-01-2006, 01:08
Look, what's so morally wrong with seeing Warhammer as a competitive hobby in which you get all Sun Tzu on each other?*:

Nothing wrong with it. You play how you want, I play how I want, and neither of us is wrong or right. Just don't expect me to play you twice, and I doubt you'd find my attitude as such that you'd play me twice. Unless you just enjoy stomping me down, and I want to get stomped :)



It may not be the way you like to play, but that's not a reason to jump back on the "powergamers have no friends LOL" bandwagon. Depending on how literate you are (carefully avoiding the whole personal attacks thing!) it either comes accross as petulant self-righteousness or - even worse - as voicing an opinion because it'll make you look cool in front of the big kids.
:
Some people like to powergame, some don't. I'd imagine we both find opponents, or we wouldn't play? Whatever floats your boat, it's all good, just different play styles. I happen to not enjoy cutthoat competition, when I did play that way I was a real jerk. I mean a serious, major rules lawyer jerk from Hell. I found that the new, laid back me (tm) :) enjoys the game 10 times more this way at least.



The problem? Little Timmy (who knows perfectly well that the point to the game is to have fun) will start wondering why he's not being protected against those Chosen Knights of Khorne by the Universal Rules of Fairness (tm). Worse, he'll go onto message boards and post inflammatory rhetoric - completing the circle. ;) :

I think more to the problem, is that Little Timmy gets taught by the "old guard" at his local store or group that this is the way to play. So we get another Uber army of death, where the player sells it on e-bay before long because he's missing out on alot of the complexity and depth of the game. Then Little Timmy gets back into the hobby is a few months, with another army that doesn't compare with the first uber army. So he switches to CCG's :)

That being said, I don't have issue with CCG's, I just find that the WHB opponents I have that are mainly CCG players are far more competitive then the full time WHB players.

Archonbrujah

Frankly
08-01-2006, 01:21
However, there are consequences to choosing to power game.



And thats good, thats fine, I totally agree, let his environment sort him out, let his friends, gaming group or club work it out with him. Same thing happens around here.

The problem I have is random people using their opinion of what powergaming is, thinking its the law, pointing their finger and judging people accordingly.

It's as boring as playing a powergamer and it happens to often.

It's also got out of hand, e.g. basically if you go to a tournament and you take alot of weapons that will negate 3+ saves, your armylist will have a high chance of being called cheezy, it seems to be the new fashion in 40k for what is considered powergaming for 40k whinners and thats just silly.

I took a big bugs list to a tournament, some people thought it was "...to hard to kill that many M.C.s..." ... and so it got called powergaming in some circles.

My skinks list gets called a powergaming list, even though it doen't have 6 salamanders in it, it doen't have a saurus hero, or 5 mages, but it is MSU(funny that, being a skirmishing army), but people just don't like it despite its hughe and many down fulls, even so its still been callled a powergamers list, go figue.

Basically I'll found that their are more name-callers out there ready to point the finger, then I've found powergaming armies at the moment.

MadJackMcJack
08-01-2006, 02:06
Look, what's so morally wrong with seeing Warhammer as a competitive hobby in which you get all Sun Tzu on each other?*


I just don't like it when people sacrifice fun on the altar of victory.

As for the 40K 3+ save-killer armies, I don't consider that powergaming at all, more giving one of the faceless Marine hordes a kick up the **** to collect a different army.

Trunks
08-01-2006, 04:51
There are people who inadvertantly create a powergaming force without that being the intention though.

Such as someone who has yet to ever see a Skaven army on the field, decides to make one and chooses Skyre because they appeal aesthetically and stylistically to them. Not having read on the net that going heavy on this portion of the list is unbalanced, they go ahead and create their army.

gortexgunnerson
08-01-2006, 05:45
Well in responce to Trunks thats a very yes and know thing. Yes but random chance someone could choose troops not realising their power in the example of a SAD if they wanted it themed they would maybe have one of everything, so maybe 10 Jezzails, ratling gun warp fire etc, if they turn up with everything ratling guns and magic the I would doubt it was very themed but you never know

Anyway I would say I power game in army sense but I think the true element is how you act about the game to your oppenent. I have at home a most sporting trophey from a major tournment and generally score good marks for sportmanship in tournments though I generally play a list viewed as a powergaming list, I think this mainly becuase I don't rules lawyer and I think the most important thing is being friendly and getting on with the oppenent. The only time I'm quite and serious is generally a morning game when I'm too hammered from the night before lol :)

by the way sorry for spelling is 5 in the morning and I am in no state to be posting lol

Flypaper
08-01-2006, 06:20
Nothing wrong with it. You play how you want, I play how I want, and neither of us is wrong or right. Just don't expect me to play you twice, and I doubt you'd find my attitude as such that you'd play me twice. Unless you just enjoy stomping me down, and I want to get stomped
...I talk bigger than I act (http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?p=282670#post282670). When it comes right down to it, modelling considerations and a bit of quirkyness usually beat out on raw power in my army lists (and in my Magic: The Gathering decks, for that matter!). ;)

Frankly ended up making my point much better, though: that the vitriol is getting too over the top...!

Nell2ThaIzzay
08-01-2006, 06:30
There are people who inadvertantly create a powergaming force without that being the intention though.

Such as someone who has yet to ever see a Skaven army on the field, decides to make one and chooses Skyre because they appeal aesthetically and stylistically to them. Not having read on the net that going heavy on this portion of the list is unbalanced, they go ahead and create their army.

That's pretty much the case with a friend of mine.

Me and a couple friends started learning about Warhammer a couple years ago, and we started learning about the armies and stuff, and each bought a regiment of core units. We all picked our armies based on the appeal those armies had to us, with no knowledge of what's a broken army or not. I selected Vampire Counts because I like Necromancy in RPG's and wargames and stuff, one friend picked Empire cuz he's into knights and stuff, and my other friend got into Skaven, because he thought the "unpredictable" play of stuff blowing up and shooting his own units would be fun.

Well, we ended up getting out of it, never having played a game, and just recently within the past couple months, have gotten back into it, finished up assembling and painting those first regiments we bought, as well as buying new stuff to complete some 1000 point armies. My Empire friend switched to Bretonian's, because he liked their models better, but that's kind of besides the point.

My friend that plays Skaven has, well at least in my eyes, a very powerful army. In all the games we've played, I've beat it only once, and I think that was a fluke. However, he doesn't intentionally powergame.

His list contains a Ratling Gun, a Warpfire Thrower, and sometimes uses Jezzails, Warplightning Cannons, and often uses an Assassin, sometimes equipped with the Warpstone Stars. He didn't make this army list with the intention of beating me everytime, that just happened to be the result. I have expressed my feelings to him that Skaven are overpowered, but at the same time, we're playing to have fun as well, so I don't want him to change around his army lists just because I don't like going against certain units.

I've also been told that Vampire Counts are an overpowered army. Now, I myself don't see that, as I haven't had much luck using it, though I haven't played any 2000 point + games to allow me to get my lords, but at the same time, even if it is, that certainly wasn't my intention. I knew nothing of the Vampire Counts when I chose them, only that they were the Necromancers of the game, and that's what I wanted to play. I played a Necro in EverQuest and Diablo 2, in WarCraft 3 I play the Undead, and in Morrowind I use Conjuration as a major skill in every character I create. I just like that kind of play.

I do play to win. I go through my army book, and thegreatuncleanone.com to come up with new army lists and items and strategies that I can use to try to win. But at the same time, it's a friendly competetiveness.

You can play to win without being a powergamer, and I don't think that people who play to win should be put down. Afterall, the objective of the game is to win.

But I do understand the concern over people who build the "uber" armies for the sole purpose of never losing a game. I've played against those decks in Magic: The Gathering, and it can be quite annoying.

Skitter-Squeek
08-01-2006, 07:09
I can See My beloved Skaven Getting the bad rap again in this Discussion... No biggie=P

In all Honesty I Strongly Disagree with the All skyre army lists but in all honesty I do not see it as the most over powered army in the game and in no way need a revamping on the book... Normally in a 2 thousand point army i take one ratling one warpfire thrower and a warlock engineer... maybe on occasion ill take 5 jezzails. But compared to the Huge units of clanrats and core troops i feild My opponents never worry about my shooting too much. Cause they know ill always roll three dice on my ratling gun no matter what and my warpfire thrower blows up evertime.

Now to those playing against two warplighting cannons three ratling guns two warlocks and like 20 jezzails yea that sucks bad But it all comes down to everyones list... I have seen a skyre army like that beaten numerouse times by an army that is well rounded . of course another person trying to be a power list person taking all knights or huge troops would get wasted by that but the dude who takes a ton of core troops like everyone should will easily get into combat before there entire army is gone.... now i am not siding with the skyre people just saying everyone can be beaten.


in all honesty the army i think i fear the most is the 4 necromancer all zombie skeleton armies by the end of turn 6 i saw a guy have more units then i could count i was amazed.

anyhow i am going off topic but yea power game list suck but nothing anyone can do about it bu tnot play that person or suck it up and beat em fair and balanced .. just will make your victory that much sweeter.


Hope to see some of you at the chicago Gt=D

Eldacar
08-01-2006, 09:18
In all Honesty I Strongly Disagree with the All skyre army lists but in all honesty I do not see it as the most over powered army in the game and in no way need a revamping on the book...
I think that part of the problem is that while you may not overpower your army, there are people out there who undoubtedly will, and in doing so, they reduce the fun of the hobby for everybody else. When I look at a tournament listing and see that the top six or seven places have been taken by SAD's, it seems to me that something is obviously wrong.


or suck it up and beat em fair and balanced .. just will make your victory that much sweeter.
And then you get the "how could your list beat my list? Your list is weak..." comments.:p


I've also been told that Vampire Counts are an overpowered army.
They can be, if somebody brings a Strigoi Flying Circus or uses the Summoned Horde.


The problem I have is random people using their opinion of what powergaming is
Powergaming is WAACy.:D

Seriously, though, I simply define a powergamer as somebody who does everything possible to make his/her list the hardest it can be. Somebody who exploits holes in the rules (30" Killing Blow Swordmasters come to mind) is cheesy/beardy, but not necessarily a powergamer.

bigchris1313
08-01-2006, 09:29
In regards to my "stupid" capitalism analogy: read Atlas Shrugged. Then you'll understand what I mean when I say that we should praise powergamers, not blast them.

Eldacar
08-01-2006, 09:47
In regards to my "stupid" capitalism analogy: read Atlas Shrugged. Then you'll understand what I mean when I say that we should praise powergamers, not blast them.
Or, to save me (and others) from running out to get it, you could just summarise the pertinent information here.;)

Festus
08-01-2006, 10:34
Hi

Basically I'll found that their are more name-callers out there ready to point the finger, then I've found powergaming armies at the moment.
I am still not convinced that this is a bad thing, you know.

It is the majority that makes the rules, and if the majority abhorrs *powergamers*, there will be no other options for those same *powergamers* than to stick to their own kind OR adapt to the majority.
It is called integration and I do believe that the community of gamers can only win in the long term.

Which rules the majority are setting, is constantly changing and evolving, though. There is something like a Metagame to WHFB as well, partially fuelled by the players choosing a particular army/armies in abundance, partially by some tournament results (of *powergamers* fame, I like to add), and partially as well as most importantly by GWs changes to the rules, new armybooks, updates, advertising, etc.

At the time, *powergaming* has a bad name, and - speaking from the obvious point of the majority - rightly so.

If you are not prepared to play against a powergaming army, you will lose. Lose badly. There is no fun in it (and I daresay that there is no fun in it for the *powergamer* in the long run, either).
As most n00bs and many of the casual gamers have not developed a proper strategy, or tactics, or even an army to play AND win against *powerarmies*, and probably never will, they resort to their only alternative: Social pressure.

And if this pressure makes the game more enjoyable for the majority of players, then be it so: What we need to continue playing is - first and foremost - a strong player base of as many players as possible.

If a few spoil the fun, this player base will sooner or later disintegrate IMO.

(Note that I have not even attempted to define *powergamer* in any way. This happened on purpose.)

Greetings
Festus

Dr Death
08-01-2006, 11:38
My my, last time i read this anti power gamers were being called communists now look whats gone on in my absence;).

Like many others in this thread i must dearly strive to keep this from being personal. That said, i'll probably fail.:p


In regards to my "stupid" capitalism analogy: read Atlas Shrugged. Then you'll understand what I mean when I say that we should praise powergamers, not blast them.

I'll put my hands up and confess, i havnt read said book, and as Eldacar suggest, perhaps one should post the books message, and/or notable quotes for our reveiw. I doubt it will change my veiw because as a rule i dont base life philosophy on a single text (such a tactic could be very messy if said text was mein kamph...for example).

I fully appreciate the goal of bettering oneself and others, pushing the boundries of human endevour, but Warhammer is not the place for it. Warhammer, contrary to your beleifs is a simple game and a hobby, it is not a place to proove something. It is not a competitive game, despite it having the element of having a "winner" and "looser", it is worth noting that before the greeks invented the concept, war was never thought about in terms of victory and defeat as goals in themselves.

That someone would delude themselves to beleive that victory at the expense of fun or even simple entertainment can be justified because they're supposedly furthering the craft of a self contained finate game system i have to say is, in my opinion, a highly unworthy goal.


To anyone playing "to have fun" and not to win, you can say whatever you want and I'm not going to say anything about it. I'm sure most of you believe it; I don't. But whatever.

Well on what authority do you claim to have insight into the souls of however many people do not share your veiw, enough to say in effect that we're all lying b*stards and in denial? If it is simply by the text you reference (but explain nothing of) then may i suggest further reading?


I take it most of you are very englightened and compassionate Democratic Socialists who believe that capitalism is a scourge upon the earth and that anyone who makes gross sums of money should be punished with high taxes and a permanent guilt trip because he/she should give the money away to other people at his/her own expense?

Now this is quite an interesting quote because you use enlightenment, compassion, and democracy as insults:eyebrows:, where they are in fact some of the few remaining facets of human emotion and thought which are actually admirable. While this isnt really the place for a political discussion, or indeed debate, i have no issue with capitalism, it works considering the essentially selfish and competitive nature of mankind which you appear to champion and encourage others to do so.

Dr Death

Frankly
08-01-2006, 14:01
Hi

I am still not convinced that this is a bad thing, you know.




I'm not trying to convince anyone, I was responding and a reply to a post I made.



Honestly festus what are you going on about ..."the majority" .... "pushing boundaries of human endevour" .... "social pressure".

Brother. Please, go have a drink, pop some pills, have a smoke, have a shag, just ease up alittle and make some sense and add alittle substance.


For example:

The majority ... who's the majority?

Who do we have to disagree with to get kicked out of the majority, what kind of armylist do we have to play with to get back into the majority?

What are your rantings based on, where's the facts, proof, examples?

What pressure? It's a hobby for christ's sake, why does this phantom majority have to rule over the rest of the hobby and put"pressure" on them to change.

If the few spoil what? and why will it disintergrate? huh? why? what? how?

Prove it. Prove all your statements please, give us some when's, where's, who's and how's. Please, I'd then be happy and I'd believe in what your shoveling.

What does that quote of mine have to do with your drunken, random, rumbling ... stuff of a post?

Anyway.

I'd still like to know who has the right to point the finger? who gets to caste the first stone? what makes them more right then the others?

Festus
08-01-2006, 14:43
Hi

Honestly festus what are you going on about ..."the majority" .... "pushing boundaries of human endevour" .... "social pressure".

Brother. Please, go have a drink, pop some pills, have a smoke, have a shag, just ease up alittle and make some sense and add alittle substance.

Who needs to ease up here? Maybe you should stop popping all those pills yourself and going on drinking binges on saturday night?



What are your rantings based on, where's the facts, proof, examples?

What does that quote of mine have to do with your drunken, random, rumbling ... stuff of a post?

While you write coherently, I don't? Well, how ridiculous can it possibly become?

So, the private talk done, let's consider the point at hand:rolleyes: :

I didn't even talk about *human endeavour* and such stupid ****. First I talked abut the kind of *Metagame* many Fantasy- and SF-Tabletops have going on.
Second I merely taked about gamers, who in most cases happen to be found in groups: gaming groups, clubs, peer groups, etc. They meet in several places, like a Club House, a FLGS, a member's basement or garage...

Those groups will have a certain - well, I'll call it *style*.

This means that some things will be encouraged within this gaming environment, and some things will be frowned upon. Can you follow me up to here?

As in any goup, there are poeple who are more influential, and some are less so. Whether this is due to their skills, charisma, or any other factor is of no concern here. Those people will shape a large part of the groups *style*.


The majority ... who's the majority?

Who do we have to disagree with to get kicked out of the majority, what kind of armylist do we have to play with to get back into the majority?
The group decides, and "majority" means that there are numerically more people in favour of one idea as opposed to the "minority", which is the smaller group of people. This relation is anything but stable, dependant on the question/problem/issue at hand.
So the majority and its opinions are - as i said before - in a constant change.


What pressure? It's a hobby for christ's sake, why does this phantom majority have to rule over the rest of the hobby and put"pressure" on them to change.
Do you really believe what you want to tell me here? While you yourself are trying to make a point and insist on your point of view...?:eyebrows:


Prove it. Prove all your statements please, give us some when's, where's, who's and how's. Please, I'd then be happy and I'd believe in what your shoveling.
I don't need to prove. Go out and play a few games and you will see socio-dynamic processes even in something as insignificant as a WHFB gaming group. Those processes make a group coherent and hence the group decides on its preferences and aversions. The set I will call *style* in short.


I'd still like to know who has the right to point the finger? who gets to caste the first stone? what makes them more right then the others?
One word: Mainstream...

Festus

Dr Death
08-01-2006, 16:22
Just to ease the pressure on Festus there, it was me who started going on about human endevour. Think of it what you will but i get the feeling that in some people, their attitude to power gaming extends to other things as well.

Apologies for putting foward such a nonsensical argument.

Dr Death

Lady Bastet
08-01-2006, 16:33
Look, what's so morally wrong with seeing Warhammer as a competitive hobby in which you get all Sun Tzu on each other?*

Key parts of Art of War address the need to fight and being a good loser

"The art of war is of vital importance to the State. It is a matter of life and death, a road either to safety or to ruin. Hence it is a subject of inquiry which can on no account be neglected"
- Sun Tzu, the Art of War

"To capture the enemy's entire army is better than to destroy it; to take intact a regiment, a company, or a squad is better than to destroy them. For to win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the supreme of excellence. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the supreme excellence."
- Sun Tzu quotes

Festus
08-01-2006, 16:50
Hi

Just to ease the pressure on Festus there, it was me who started going on about human endevour. Think of it what you will but i get the feeling that in some people, their attitude to power gaming extends to other things as well.

I hope I have not offended you with my analogies to *the human endeavour*, and your text sees it in a very different context than Frankly wants to make us believe.

You wrote:
...pushing the boundries of human endevour, but Warhammer is not the place for it. Warhammer, ... is a simple game and a hobbyemphasis mine

This is my take exactly, and there are quite a few people out there who want to make WHFB more than that.
THB, there is a temptation to do so, as WHFB, WH40K and similar games universes can be highly addictive in their provision of means of escapism. I know, been there - seen that. It is a fully developed system/hobby/thing in which one can immerse oneself completely. I lived more in WH40K than the real world for the best part of a year, until I noticed that something was *very* wrong...

Now I only play Tabletops for their relaxing value, while still being fond of the tactical-strategical aspect and of course the competitive aspect. Yes, I like to win, but I like it better to have a good game with nice and easy mates, all of us having fun.

Greetings
Festus

Shimmergloom
08-01-2006, 17:13
I got a question.

I've never played vs a SAD or RAF, but I can imagine how ridiculous playing vs armies like that are.

But what I don't understand is. If so many people are playing just for fun and don't care if they win or lose, then why are they all saying 'don't expect me to play vs you more than once if you're a power gamer'?

If you truly are just playing for fun, then why do you care is you lose to SAD's or RAF's each time?

Wouldn't it be preferrable to try and beat those armies with tactics to show those army players that they aren't unbeatable?

Festus
08-01-2006, 17:22
Hi

It simply is no fun playing against those armies. To stand a fighting chance, you will have to out-cheese your list as well.
And then it loses its fantasy appeal, and turns into a game of M:tG, as is numberscrunching.

Those armies are bland, boring and predictable.

Greetings
Festus

Dr Death
08-01-2006, 17:53
I hope I have not offended you with my analogies to *the human endeavour*, and your text sees it in a very different context than Frankly wants to make us believe.

No offense taken Festus:).

And as to shimmerglooms point, i dont care if i win or loose (mainly), thats not where i get the pleasure of playing from. However, power gamers make the process of loosing an arduous and tedious one, still quibbling over every tiny rules loophole they might use unrelentingly and unremittingly. The whole attitude basically turns you into a bystander as the army which had already won on turn 4 continues to chew through your forces in a manner usually completely inappropriote for the army being played. Like Festus says, its a mathematical exercise, not a game.

Dr Death

bigchris1313
08-01-2006, 18:15
Atlas Shrugged: I wish I could sum up 1000+ pages in a single post, but I'll give you the general gist of things, though not the plot. But here's the theme: Life is a choice between existence and non-existence for living creatures. Choosing to live means helping yourself. Morality doesn't exist in the way that religious or political leaders claim: the only moral action is to help yourself, because it proves how much you love your own life, the only thing given to you. The extreme of altruism is suicide, while the extreme of egoism is ultimate self-preservation. Our society preaches that we must help others; we must reject this foolish, suicidal notion and help ourselves instead. But all this is done with voluntary exchanges of currency: not with force.

Basically, Greed is good. Pride is the sum of all virtues. I wish I could go further, but there's just so much to cover. But Rand definitely praises people who are able to make huge amounts of money because it shows how much they love themselves. And no, they don't really care much for others, execpt perhaps for their lovers. Regardless, one quote sums it all up:

"I swear by my life, and my love of it, that I will live for no man, nor will I ask any man to live for me."

gqelements
08-01-2006, 18:18
I gues as a rookie, my opinion has limited 'weight', but since WH or 40K or any GW game has a goal [winning the battel] and rules [the codex/rule book] the re is NOTHING wrong w/ playing to win. I don't undersand the concept of crying foul when over 'cheeze'. the army organisation charts/pont values already restrict the user in some way, the rules of the game restrict them further.

to me this is equated to smart thinking, and maximising your chances to win, which is what any game with a scoring system is about. its using the rules properly and [often] cunning strategy. if you can't win - practice and get better or don't play [or at least play with loosers that can't win either ;) [this is a joke]] also if you play 'for the fun' [and some weird people have lots of fun wihtout wining] then you should not complain either, because you can be having fun loosing to a 'powergamer' or a 'regulargamer'

as far as 'this is not realistic' and 'in real life you can't have...' - well in real life you can't have warhammer either....

PS: this is written by a player who is only getting back in the game, but consistently fields [mostly winning] 40 man 1000 pt marine army, so not much 'cheeze' here. and after all this is just personal opinion so no need to be hot-headed ;)

Regards,
D

f2k
08-01-2006, 18:26
Atlas Shrugged: I wish I could sum up 1000+ pages in a single post, but I'll give you the general gist of things, though not the plot. But here's the theme: Life is a choice between existence and non-existence for living creatures. Choosing to live means helping yourself. Morality doesn't exist in the way that religious or political leaders claim: the only moral action is to help yourself, because it proves how much you love your own life, the only thing given to you. The extreme of altruism is suicide, while the extreme of egoism is ultimate self-preservation. Our society preaches that we must help others; we must reject this foolish, suicidal notion and help ourselves instead. But all this is done with voluntary exchanges of currency: not with force.

Basically, Greed is good. Pride is the sum of all virtues. I wish I could go further, but there's just so much to cover. But Rand definitely praises people who are able to make huge amounts of money because it shows how much they love themselves. And no, they don't really care much for others, execpt perhaps for their lovers. Regardless, one quote sums it all up:

"I swear by my life, and my love of it, that I will live for no man, nor will I ask any man to live for me."

That sounds very much like Satanism if you ask me…


As regards powerplayers: I don’t hate them as such, but I detest the attitude that they usually have. Note that I said “usually” – not all powerplayers are bad opponents, but most are.

I play to have fun and to win – in that order. As long as my opponent is fun and friendly to play against, the outcome of the game couldn’t matter less.
This is also why I never go to tournaments these days. I’ve tried a few times, but the ultra competitive WAAC attitude has driven me away for good…

Festus
08-01-2006, 18:38
Hi

...many things about Atlas Shrugged and its author, Ayn Rand...

I really don't want to get into a political discussion here, as it doesn't belong here. But I see the corner you are coming from... and I understand it.

There is much ambiton, anger and idealism in it. It is very tempting as an idea (as Communism is, I like to add :p ). And it is examining the sunny side of competition.

Only problem is: Libertarianism (or Objectivism, or vice versa) is pretty much a concept for young, idealistic, and elitist people. And as such, it has proven time and again that it doesn't hold any water, although it sounds good at first, makes you think second, and makes you abhorr its awful Elitism last.

Thank God it is a concept of the past, the hayday of the Libertarians/Objectivists is thankfully over (as is the one of the Communists, I like to add, too :p ).

It is a process of maturation and there are times when the one idea seems to be right, only to be exchanged by a *new* idea born out of *different* circumstances.

I think that competition is a good thing, a motor and motivation to progress, but *egoism* isn't and *altruism* is the only way we as a species/society can thrive.

Enough of my - Frankly would say drunken rambling - rant.

I see your point, I don't share it. Simple.

Greetings
Festus

Dr Death
08-01-2006, 20:19
BigChris: An interesting book no doubt, i did a quick search on Wikipedia after reading your explaination and i have to say its more subtle than you gave the impression of. Its an interesting theory and one well worth acknowledging but one that is ultimately wrong on several points, or at least wrong in the manner with which you are interpreting it.

I apologise profusely to the mods for going off topic here but im a philosophy student and its just too tempting.:p

Only doing good by yourself never got anyone very far, we have long learnt that things only mean anything in large amounts and people are no exception to this. In most species in the animal world this heroic individualism means death, simple. However big our heads are, we are not big enough to take on the world single handedly. That is not to say no man is an island, in the comparitively secure, closeted life we live you can well be an island, and it is upon that same tenutive foundation that theories such as Ayn Rand's can flourish, but if you applied these theories without that foundation you would simply crash and burn.

The simple fact of the matter is that mankind has in some form or another accepted the concept of "do unto others as you would have done unto you" to roughly quote the bible. It may not whittle down the human race to its biggest and best like the rather perverse form of survival of the fittest you've been preaching, but means that every single person out there gets a fair shot at life, and that works, because it favours the many over the one. Which is louder, one person shouting as a thousand or a thousand shouting as one?.

Dr Death

Frankly
08-01-2006, 20:24
I don't need to prove. Go out and play a few games and you will see socio-dynamic processes even in something as insignificant as a WHFB gaming group. Those processes make a group coherent and hence the group decides on its preferences and aversions. The set I will call *style* in short.


One word: Mainstream...

Festus


Thanks Festus, its good that you didn't prove it.

It's good that you explained what a majority is though.

Still a lack of substance to the rest of your arguement, still talking about a phantom majority, that I seem to be missing, some "mainstream" group that I don't see down at tournaments, down at the club or in my gaming group.

Being mainstream isn't a reason to pressure another player into how he wants to enjoy his hobbies.

No the mainstream don't have the right to choice for the rest.

It's still up to each person to choice, build and pay for his own army/armylist, its still his choice.

@Dr Death, sorry for the miss-quote.

mujadaddy
08-01-2006, 21:52
Yeah, powergaming... that's some stuff there, boyo...

Festus
08-01-2006, 22:16
Hi

It's good that you explained what a majority is though.

Still a lack of substance to the rest of your arguement, still talking about a phantom majority, that I seem to be missing, some "mainstream" group that I don't see down at tournaments, down at the club or in my gaming group.

Being mainstream isn't a reason to pressure another player into how he wants to enjoy his hobbies.

No the mainstream don't have the right to choice for the rest.

The *mainstream* or *majority* - or however we will call it - don't make a choice for the *rest* or the *minority*. They simply can't. They make a choice for themselves.

The *rest*, and indeed everyone has to decide whether to follow the *majority* or not. Ultimately, it's each standing to his own decision. But the pressure of the *mainstream* is not easily ignored, and men more often follow the strong party than the weak.


It's still up to each person to choice, build and pay for his own army/armylist, its still his choice.
Fully agreeing here. Play in whichever way suits you best and live with it. In many instances WHFB-wise this means that birds of a feather will come together: Competetive players will seek out and join competetive players, as relaxed ones will join up with other relaxed ones. Most tourney-players play in groups where most of the players attend tourneys, funnily enough :).
If there is a huge discrepancy between the way players look at the game, the group will probably split up, leaving the majority's point of view in an even stronger position, I daresay.

I think that we can come to a conclusion here:

Each to his own.

While own is A) the way to play, B) the mates to play with, and C) the outlook on the game as a whole.

The only problem still is with players who have little or no way to choose the environment they play in, either beause they are rather isolated (in terms of space as well as resources, friends, etc.) or are particular to some people.
If those players have a different pov to the rest of their gaming environment, I bet that they won't play the game for very long. But this is a personal problem, I suppose... ;)

Greetings
Festus

Lord Anathir
08-01-2006, 22:19
I think we have settled powerfaming shouldnt happen in friendlies. But what about in tournaments? I mean, some people dont have a choice: I could play a mixed high elf army and know before it starts that i wont win. or I could bring an all cav magic army and at least have a chance. Im not sure about you guys but when i pay $80 for a tournament ticket I at least want a shot at the big prize, not show up to have a punk with a broken SAD or whatnot list steamroll me. On the othe hand, for friendlies, i wouldnt mind using my mixed list that wins some and lose some. comments?

mujadaddy
08-01-2006, 22:53
what about in tournaments?
Obviously, broken army lists can be used to create broken armies... Frankly, I don't think that characters add to the gameplay of FB at all. Maybe wizards, I suppose... but not 4-wound monsters... stuff like Empire Battlemages should be the top... Unit Champions are sufficiently killy for tournament settings...

Flypaper
08-01-2006, 23:51
and turns into a game of M:tG, as is numberscrunching.
...Festus, would you stop that? It's, you know, factually incorrect. And annoying as hell. ;)

You mentioned new players being turned off in passing - funnily enough, my own experience tended to the opposite direction. I was originally attracted to Warhammer as a tabletop strategy game which happened to have cool models you could paint and pose.

(I was talked out of Heroclix instead at the last minute by a friend who prefers the fantasy genre :p )

...The single greatest sticking point - after a thorough immersion into Warhammer on the 'net - to my starting the hobby was the existence of "composition" scores in tournaments. Honestly, I found the idea horrifying!

(That and the lack of application of genuine historical military tactics. Not that I know anything about same, but it'd be nice to learn!)

The existence of a rarefied, holier-than-thou approach to What Thou Shalt and Shall Not Take was also not a promising sign. Particularly since, due to the "bleeding" between what the incompetent percieve as powergaming and what is really powergaming, big cool models like Lords on dragons (!) and any kind of rare-choice-heavy army (i.e. the sort of thing a new player likes because it has all the cool, weird models and is often cheaper to build) got disapproving stares.

...It came (and still comes) across as really, really unfriendly!

Now, I will state - and this isn't any sort of concession, it fits in fine with everything I've said so far - that bringing a tournament archetype to a pickup game is poor form. Knowingly bringing guns to a knife-fight is rude. I would also suggest that anyone who has been around long enough to not only know what the hardest possible list looks like but also to assemble one is probably on their second (at least!) army... And should probably be fielding their first army in this context instead.

(the SAD wins the "sole exception" award here, as even a novice player will quite probably draft one by accident...!)

So it really just comes down to maturity. Festus has been carefully avoiding a definition of "powergamer" - presumably under the reasonable assumption that he knows one when he sees one. However, that conveniently leaves room for "immature" to be assumed as part of that overall definition - which is a bit unfair to those of us on the other side of the argument, since we're not being allowed to refute it!

I'm gonna make a couple of nasty claims here, just to pick up some controversy:

(1) People who intentionally field lists an order of magnitude stronger than their peers in a casual setting are being rude, immature, and intentionally spoiling everyone's fun for the sake of a cheap win.

and its corollary:

(2) People who refuse to progress both tactically and in composition in the development of their armies are missing out on a real and highly enjoyable aspect of the hobby. That or they're slightly too obsessed with roleplaying their figurines and should probably take it to a more apt environment, like D&D or something. ;)

Bingo the Fun Monkey
09-01-2006, 00:55
0mgzr0flwtfpwnedz0rz!!!111oneeleven///? PIE? :(

What I really meant to say is that each person is different and each has a different approach to the game. Me? I like jack-of-all-trades-master-of-none armies. I take my lumps and I dish out a good stomping once in a while. I don't care what attitude my opponents have (sure it's better if he doesn't try to bend the rules every 30 seconds) because I sure as hell am having a ball.:chrome:
I don't mind losing to some ass who shows up with 16 pegasi...you should give these people a good fight. Preaching is totally pointless and the only way to fight is to fight by example. Now...who's 1337er than me?:eyebrows:

Oh, by the way, I sure as hell TRY to win. Who doesn't?

Makaber
09-01-2006, 01:18
Flypaper, I really like those, but the second one is tainted by too much biased sarcasm to be taken seriously. Please allow me to rephrase them a little:


(1) People who intentionally field lists an order of magnitude stronger than their peers in a casual setting are being rude, immature, and intentionally spoiling everyone's fun for the sake of a cheap win.

and its corollary:

(2) People who refuse to do their utmost both tactically and in composition in the development of their armies, and who are expecting light hearted and "fun" games in a compeditive setting, are being naive and unrealistic.

I don't really mind power gaming (or for that matter, friendly toned-down lists), but I do get my panties in a bunch when either side is being rigidly enforced as "the one true way of Warhammer". Especially the patronising rethoric of powergamind advocates ticks me off to no end, with it's "we play on a different level, a level you're not man enough to handle" logic. So let's try to be civil to each other and not enforcing either of the two schools as the "right" one. Case closed, on my behalf.

Mad Makz
09-01-2006, 05:35
Powergaming is bad because the meta is impossible to keep up with in a miniatures game (thus you can't equally powergame against your opponent and have fair competition), thus people can't play with fully painted armies or even accurate miniatures to keep up with the meta, thus they don't, thus the hobby of wargaming is destroyed as you aren't playing with or against painted armies on nice terrain, and you suddenly find you aren't actually wargaming. You are doing something else.

Now, I wouldn't mind this 'something else' so much if the rules were actually good enough to warrant it. But the truth is, there is too much variance and not enough clarity in the rules to warrant it, so at the end of the day powergaming when taken to it's 'Nth' degree leads not only to an ugly, uninteresting game with no artistic expression or sense of personal accomplishment, it also makes for ultimately a BAD game, where the circumstance of dice and terrain will eventually make for a game that equates to flipping a coin, albeit sometimes a weighted coin.

This is the path of the powergamer, the path AWAY from hobbying. Now, if a powergamer can also be a true hobbyist, then I salute them. It CAN NOT succeed within a gaming circle, it does not create a growing following of gamers, it is the DEATH KNELL of any miniature gaming circle when power gaming in it's most purest form is promoted above all else.

So, if you think power gaming is great, that observing the meta and making the best list possible (like you would in a CCG) is awesome, then think about what would happen if everyone else played like you. They took the best army every week to best the army you want to take. An army from any list they choose (because surely that's the only fair way to play) using any models they want (again, that's the only way to use the rules the way they were MADE to be able to play).

How many times do you think you'd actually see the correct miniatures on the table.

At a guess: Never, because it's too expensive and there is no reward.

Power gaming is removing the other elements of the hobby and only focussing on the gaming element. Anyone who proclaims the greatness of powergaming and their own prowess because he can take a powergaming army and beat people is foolish because they are actually playing a different game. If they ALSO were playing powergaming armies formulated before a single miniature was brought, and could change this armies at the drop of a hat, and he continued to win, then he would be right.

However, no one plays this way (because it really isn't miniature wargaming/no one is that rich/can paint that fast) so his power gaming army is a poor excuse for one because he actually has no idea how good it is on the proper playing field. A proper playing field he will NEVER see, because NOBODY plays this way.

If he wants to play that way, he should go play chess, or Magic, or some other game where the highest level of competition can be ruled upon and lived up to (although at hideous expense in the case of Magic.), because then at least he may actually get to a playing field where he can judge himself fairly.

But wargaming, it's just not going to happen.

shadowprince
09-01-2006, 06:01
Powergaming really shouldn't be used for someplace like a small gameing group of friends, thats when you play the wacky lists. But in tournaments it is completly fine,as these are suppose to be competetive. But if you look most of the best players play balanced, as all powergaming lists are one dimensional, except ffor Saven SAD armies, which i to my bias I do have a hard time with, but he who doesn't.

Easiest definition of powergaming is build a hard line list that helps to exploit rules,or abilites in a narrow intese advantage, gunlines,all calv,flying circus are all very good examples. Effective in what they do, but beatable.

Skaven Lord Vinshqueek
09-01-2006, 07:47
1. "Powergaming" involves few expensive units like dragons or greater demons.

2. People who hate these tactics do so out of fear of them and have difficulty dealing with these kinds of armies.Powergaming... *whistles*. Well, the problem of this is that there's not a really specific definition of it. What's powergaming? Really min/max-ing your army, going for the SAD-approach to gaming, or what else. For me, it's not army specific, since the aspect of "powergaming" is defined by the general who commands his/her army. The army itself, is merely a tool.

Though, if we look at my own expertise (skaven), we can pick a splendid example out of the UK GW.com website. If we look at the third heat of the WHF GT (http://uk.games-workshop.com/tournaments/wh-2005-06/3/), we see the first three spots to be won by a skaven player. Though, GW has been very friendly to have put the army of the winner online, which can be viewed here (http://uk.games-workshop.com/tournaments/wh-2005-06/assets/paolo-geninazzi-armylist.pdf). Now just take a look at the list... I'll skip the fact that it's actually 2022 pts instead of 2k, so we go on to the clanrat units. Every clanrat unit misses a standard, so the player doesn't has to worry that his units will lose a combat and his opponent will gain 100 VPs for capturing enemy standards. Short to say, THAT kind of behaviour is powergaming to me.

Greetz

AngelofSorrow
09-01-2006, 08:02
Nothing good ever comes out of these threads although i do enjoy reading all the bickering over how different people play the game.

it goes on and on who is a powergamer who isnt a powergamer.
Personally i've sen some pretty tough lists that some people here consider powergaming lists. I don't see them that way. I don't play people based on their lists. I play them based on their attitudes. If i don't like it I dont play them. I'm not a powergamer my lists are fluffy but I'll be the first to tell ya I want to win when I play. But i have fun (most of the time) regardless of the outcome

Its as simple as this if you dont like how a person plays their games don't play them again.



Every clanrat unit misses a standard, so the player doesn't has to worry that his units will lose a combat and his opponent will gain 100 VPs for capturing enemy standards. Short to say, THAT kind of behaviour is powergaming to me.

Greetz

you know thats not a bad Idea

Da GoBBo
09-01-2006, 16:31
...Every clanrat unit misses a standard, so the player doesn't has to worry that his units will lose a combat and his opponent will gain 100 VPs for capturing enemy standards. Short to say, THAT kind of behaviour is powergaming to me...

I couldn't agree less on this one. Clanrats are sorry creatures to be kicked and abused as much as possible. If a unit was meant to die, why give it a banner? Not giving them a banner is fluffy and bein a smart general. Not bein a powergamer isn't the same as bein a complete ass.

WanderingRogue
09-01-2006, 18:09
as a rule of thumb i have always thought of powegaming as:

min maxing (obviously)

but primarily (and if any one can think of a snappy one or two word version of this then cool), it when someone has seen a sucssfull army (or heard about it) and then gone a done one the same or very similar purely becasue that army always wins, rarely looses, or has a reputation of being uber harsh).

if i see a SAD army or flying circus i think "power gammer" becasue that person has probably seen or heard of the army by reputation then done it cos it'll help them win. not because they like the army or enjoy it primarily.


i realise someone, somewere (maybe even 2 or three someones)would have sat down and gone "right then see what we can do with this list" but you cant tell me every one on the top five tables at a tourney with sad armys just happend to come up with that "theme".

bigchris1313
09-01-2006, 20:16
Rogue, maybe they don't care about the theme like you do. Maybe they just care about winning. Or maybe they think the theme is pretty cool, even if they didn't create it themselves.

Can you fault them?

And since when are winning and enjoyment mutually exclusive?

Bingo the Fun Monkey
09-01-2006, 20:28
SAD armies really aren't that hard to play against when you're over 2000 points unless you've taken a min maxed army yourself. We had a player in my group (who's since switched to chaos tzeench) who regularly fielded 5+ ratling guns (not to mention 3 warlocks, GS, jezzies and 2 WLCs) but we all found ways to defeat it...and, actually, it wasn't that unfun to play against. I don't mind powergaming, not my cup of tea, but they're not "unbeatable"...though flying circusi do give me trouble.

Festus
09-01-2006, 20:30
Hi

And since when are winning and enjoyment mutually exclusive?

Playing and enjoyment should be mutually inclusive to make playing worth it.
It can be fun to lose, but it is no fun to lose against a loophole-using steamroller army that was never intended to be used as such. It is like playing football casually on wednesday nights, when there is a first league pro in the opposing team.

The main goal should it be that *both* players have fun while playing. And losing to a cheesy powergamer's army is no fun at all, I can assure you...

...coincidentially, winning against such a cheesfest is not much fun either apart from the soon to be gone stale taste of victory, as - equally coincidentially - most *powergamers* tend to be sore losers as well...:evilgrin:

So playing and losing and still enjoying oneself should be mutually inclusive.

Greetings
Festus

Mad Doc Grotsnik
09-01-2006, 21:00
If I lose at Warhammer, I'd prefer it to be one of two reasons.

1. My opponent out fought me with his army.
2. The dice hate me.

I do not want to lose a game of Warhammer because my opponent geared his army up with the exclusive aim of pummelling my own selection into the dirt.

Gorog Irongut
09-01-2006, 21:15
Two Cents:

In my opinion powergaming is a very poorly defined term and should in fact not even exist. Playing to win is the normal state for any player. It's when people go WAAC that I begin to take umbrage. People who will do anything they can to win (irregardless of whether they are handing or being handed their backside) are the ones that I blame for the arrival of the term "powergaming".

I believe:
1. Army composition is important.
2. Tactical acumen is more important.
3. Any SAD, RAF, etc. list can be beaten when using the proper tactics.
4. You can have the crap beaten out of you and still have fun.
5. Having fun is the most important thing.

To give you a rough idea of what I mean, I'll recount my last UK GT experience.
Game one I was 60 pts shy of massacring a SAD army with my dwarfs. He threw a hissy fit and made the game a shame.
Game two I played Daemon Legion and it was a fun, competitive game. We drew.
Game three I played another SAD army and this time lost by 600 pts (my s. thrower and cannon blew up first turn). Even though I lost, my opponent was a gentleman and was very fun to play against.
Game four was against an empire player who played for the fun of it. We got so caught up in the actions of our characters that we stopped playing for the win and focused on who would fall first, his steam tank or my dwarf lord (the Steam Tank died turn 4). This was easily the best game that I've ever played.
Game five was against a necrarch/necro horde army. Initially he was a bit WAAC but when he realized that I wasn't going to play that way he chilled out and we had a good game.
Game six was against an Ogre list. This was easily the worst game I've ever played. However polite he may have been he 1. spoke little english 2. played WAAC 3. Didn't know the rules. After about 20 minutes in the game I wanted to pack up my miniatures and leave. After the game was over I found out (like I was really paying attention. I was looking for a gun to put myself out of my misery)that he'd managed a minor victory. All for wasting two hours of my life. He didn't actually make it to the Finals either.

Games 1 and 6 are games that I was offended by (even if I did Solid Victory the first) and wish that I hadn't played.
All of my opponents had armies that were tweaked, min/maxed, were competitive, etc. 4 out of 6 of those games I found to be pleasurable notwithstanding their armies.

That's because it's not what you play, it's how you play that will offend your opponent. Outside of a tournament setting, if I encounter a WAAC player I will either pack up my models, play him and avenge all of the other players who he was a twit to, or pull out my list of The 500 funniest things to do when playing Warhammer and use a minimum of 30 of them on him.

My personal favourite is when he goes for a potty break. I get some of the others guys to help me hide his models (safely of course), turn my watch back 6 minutes, and lie on the floor stricken. When he comes in I tell him that aliens abducted his army. If he doubts me I always have my watch as backup proof, that or some random standbyer who also saw the UFO.

LaughinGremlin
09-01-2006, 22:04
It comes down to this:

Yes, it's a fantasy game, but the fantasy aspects are based on Earth history.
For example, there really haven' been entirely all-cavalry armies -- ever. So, can you make a reltively realistic elf army, which includes some infantry, or do you make an all-cavalry army for the sake of winning more easily?

One may be amazed by the fun he may experience by facing challenges in this game: "I actually took some infantry in my Bretonnian army... now, how the heck am I going to use them?" This could turn out to be an interesting and fun "ordeal."

So, we ask ourselves if we play for realism, fun, or just to win, then, we surround ourselves with players who are like-minded. We cannot change the motivations of others, but we can avoid them in friendly play. (pun intended)

The end.

Mad Doc Grotsnik
09-01-2006, 22:38
Indeed. However, I feel it is important to consider Warhammers country of origin. Now, before anyone gets the wrong idea, please hear me out.

Here in Britain, we very much go for 'it's the taking part that counts'. As this is how we are brought up (for the most part) it makes for very leisurely, and gentlemanly, conduct during games of Warhammer. Units firing out of sequence, declaring charges late, these things are usually left to fly. I would far rather capitalise upon an opponents tactical mistake, rather than absent minded slip up. Armies are designed to provide interesting tactical challenges, both for player and opponent. Dirty tricks are worked out on the battlefield, with sneaky combos being pulled off with style and panache, and always learnt from. If you have played someone out of their depth against you, you talk them through what you did right, and how they could have countered it. After all, the faster they learn, the sooner they will give you a good game.

Powergaming goes against this ethos 100%. If someone forgets to do something it's 'tough. More fool you' Armies are designed to win. Every last rule is exploited in an effort to gain the upperhand. Angles of charge are argued over. Clipping is attempted. In short, the game swiftly becomes tedious and dull.

Someone wrote an article for this very website on psychological warfare in 40k, which basically meant being a ****, not talking and other disgusting behaviour during the game. This is pathetic, and should not be tolerated by anyone at anytime! Tournaments are *not* an excuse for Powergaming. Indeed, you are playing against strangers, so why not enjoy yourself? If I've paid money to play in a tourny, and for overnight accomodation, do you really think I'm going to pat you on the back for bending rules and being a cock in general? No, I'm more likely to knock you out, and refund myself the cost of the total waste of time from your wallett.

Wargaming is for fun. At the end of the day, nobody really cares where you placed in the Tournament, so just enjoy it.

bigchris1313
09-01-2006, 22:55
Grotsnik, I, again, don't believe you can't have a good time and powergame at the same time. If my opponent says he's going to rally some troops, and it appears to me that he forgot a charge, I'll always ask: "Is that all you're going to charge?" I'd say I'm a rather jovial guy. I wouldn't call myself the life of every party, but if you're playing Warhammer against me, I get pretty into it and I usually garner a good amount of laughs. I don't know how one would play a game of warhammer in a somer, quiet, "psyche warfare" mood. I just can't find that fun. But I'm certainly going to play to win at the same time. It's certainly feasible. In a powergamer environment, two powergamers can have a great time, even if they are playing to WAAC. They can still talk, joke, and otherwise have a dandy time. Many powergamers are on the level, at least in my experience, and they try to WAAC, but within the rules. I've never had to have a roll-off with a powergamer about whether or not something was in a charge arc. For rational individuals, that's typically a very simple question. A mature power gamer understands that he can play to WAAC, but he still strives to never consciously break any rule.

The most enjoyable games I have played are against a powergamer who is much better than I am, and who whips me on almost every occassion. (The one time he didn't was a draw). He has an incredible ability for spatial relations and general tactics. He experiments with new strategies for effectiveness. The guy has even theorized about the usefulness of the Lore of Metal. He's always looking for new ways to improve his lists. But he's a still a great guy. If I forget to move my gyrocopter, that's my problem when it gets charged and wiped out, just as it's his problem when he foolishly deploys his treeman in the wrong place and my artillery cuts it down on turn 1. But we have a good laugh and continue to play with no other goal other than winning.

A true powergamer is a good loser. He understands that he's been bested, and he takes the opportunity to improve his list and his play.

Flypaper
09-01-2006, 23:38
@ Makabar:

Flypaper, I really like those, but the second one is tainted by too much biased sarcasm to be taken seriously.
M'pologies, but in fact I was being fairly literal: I do in fact think that people who positively refuse to even experiment with the competitive aspects of the game are missing out on an actually enjoyable aspect of the hobby. The second half of the statement, though meant partly in fun, did reflect my opinion that people who can't disassociate themselves from their models for a game-loss or two are taking the hobby the wrong kind of "seriously". :)

...That kind of leads me to your second point - with which I agree entirely, though I'm obviously not as sensitised to it as you are!

I'd never claim that (what I'd call) "advanced casual" players don't exist, and that these don't have the tactical skills and experience to go toe-to-toe with a powergamer. I'd also presume that a lot of people on WarSeer fall into this category - if someoneone posts regularly on an internet forum then they're probably more committed than the average kitchen table player, right?

However, that sort of experience doesn't happen overnight. And it also stands to reason that someone who practices in a competitive environment will eventually become better than someone who only plays casual games angainst not-particularly-adversarial opponents.

(lists that act as crutches are neither here nor there in the long term - if someone never gets better with his SAD then he's not so much a powergamer as an adolescent!)

One thing I've noticed about people I regard as top-level casual players is that most of them say/post at some time or another:

I've tried that, I've played competitively, but eventually decided I didn't like it.

So as my piece of controversy for the day, I'm going to present a hypothesis:

To become the most rounded sort of casual player, one needs to at some point have been a powergamer.

[P.S. in this commentary on relative skills I should add that I personally suck. While I see the natural progression as being beginner casual -> junior powergamer -> senior powergamer = senior casual -> well-rounded player I personally fall well within the "beginner casual" stage. I really should play more and write less... :angel: ]

Here's some more meandering stream of consciousness:

I personally believe that the bad odour competitive play is in has hurt Warhammer's casual side. The focus on fluff over gameplay mechanics - while fine in its place - means that house rules and scenario options tend to be crappily thought through and more embarassing than balancing. But that's by the by: I present to you Exhibit A:

Where is WFB's multiplayer culture?

...I'm defining "multiplayer" as three or more players, obviously. Yeah, you in the back row, you know you were thinking of saying something smart. :p

Far be it from me to aggravate Festus by suggesting that Magic: The Gathering's casual play is better-rounded than Warhammer's, but I've spent months playing hours of Two-Headed Giant with the occasional relaxing six-player free-for-all to clear my head. The best I've seen in Warhammer has been a some throwaway rules for once-off confrontations (and I've yet to see a variant on the magic phase I liked).

...Actual commentary on multiplayer strategy and psychology? Nada.

shadowprince
10-01-2006, 00:54
I agree in the experinced casual gamer sense, as I am mostly a competitive player, played many tournaments etc. And over time most of the elite players I play against rarly powergame. The hardest armie II have ever faced to date, are a baanced cult of slannesh army, balanced skaven, and Goblins. All three where a balanced list. The thing is while a poergame list such as a flying circus quikly propels you to the upper echalone of competetivness, once you are their you will realized how outclassed and one dimensional your army is. For example last tournament I was in the rankings went like this. Balanced Old dwarfs 1st, Balanced Skaven 2nd, SAD 3rd, Balanced high elfs 4th and 5th, Dark elf full fast calv 6th, skink 7th, Grimgorre Hard boyz 8th, wood elfs 9th, Brettonians 10th, With the exception of the SAD player who played the last two place players in the first round, who wherre first timers, the top five where all balanced and experinced players.

Festus
10-01-2006, 08:46
Hi

Dwarfs won a tourney !!! :eek:
Balanced Old dwarfs 1st, Balanced Skaven 2nd, SAD 3rd, Balanced high elfs 4th and 5th, Dark elf full fast calv 6th, skink 7th, Grimgorre Hard boyz 8th, wood elfs 9th, Brettonians 10th, ...

Greetings
Festus

Eldacar
10-01-2006, 10:03
How major a tournament was it? A GT, RTT, WPS, or what? And if the list he used is available, I'd like to see it.

Cyel
10-01-2006, 10:18
For me it holds no sense to create a roster that gives no chance to fight to some standard set ups or armies (ex. all out shooting ChD). Even at the tournament the aim should be to actually play the game rather thanpass them as uickly as possible, treatng them as a boring necessity a player must endure in order to gather tournament points.

I always design my armylists as hard but fair, giving a fighting chance to most possible opponents. If there is little or no possibility that the enemy can actually beat me, the game holds no interest to me. And this rock-paper-scissors situation occurs when a list is being tooled-up to WAAC levels.

Dr Death
10-01-2006, 11:24
Hmmmmmm, some interesting things being said. I'm not entirely sure what conclusion i should draw but lets give it a go.

Mad Doc Grotsnik, i agree with everything you say about the British attitude to wargaming. As the master of all things philosophical in wargaming: Mike Walker put it- "I want to beat my opponant because they're tactically inept, not because they have trouble following the sequence of play." Never a truer word spoken. That amateur psychology thread also was really the most desparate post i've read in a very long time (despite the concept being quite interesting)

I think there is a difference though between competitive wargamers and powergamers and its one that is more to do with attitude than army composition. If you play among friends and seek to outdo each other for the sake of a mutual kind of enjoyment. And if, when playing out of that group you revert to a slightly more moderate style of play considerate of your opponant who may or may not have the same ideals as you then i would say that is all right, then you are not a power gamer so much as a competitive wargamer. A good example of this kind of person might be Pete Scholey who featured in the DoW vrs Beastmen battle report in WD a while back.

Powergamers on the other hand are just out there to win, a bad looser, completely inconsiderate and immobile to mistakes regardless of the player and do things purely out of their own self interest and own personal enjoyment then you are most definantly a powergamer.

For myself, when i do get the chance to play (usually more army list writing than playing) i feild armies which are predominantly themed within the confines of my limited imagination:p. I beleive in "indulging" myself with characters and their relative equipment, even if the combo's arnt particularly effective because im a bit of a fan of the more "high fantasy" or "hero hammer" style of play. That said, i dont skimp on the troops.

For me the most enjoyable games would be those where players basically use what they have. Those beggining stages of a new army where you have no concept of the ins and outs of your force (which is perhaps why i only have one painted warhammer army despite buying the startingblocks of about 12:D.

The first WD i ever bought was issue 224 with a total of 5 articles which solidified my image of how the game should be played. Alongside Stillmania and Tale of four gamers was The Arena of Death, "The spirit of the game" and a battle report featuring the complete collections (points irrelevant) of about 7 Orc and Empire collectors (John Stallard, The Perry Brothers and Jim whatever his name is against Gordon Davidson, Paul Sawyer (or at least his army) and another bloke). That battle report pretty much summed up the "ultimate goal" of any gamer. Looking back on it im tremendously glad i started the hobby on such a positive image.

Still theres your nostalgia for you:rolleyes:

Dr Death

Makaber
10-01-2006, 14:41
For me it holds no sense to create a roster that gives no chance to fight to some standard set ups or armies (ex. all out shooting ChD). Even at the tournament the aim should be to actually play the game rather thanpass them as uickly as possible, treatng them as a boring necessity a player must endure in order to gather tournament points.

I like this, it sums up a lot of my perceptions nicely. It seems to me as well that the persons behind the most outrageous lists aim to boil it down to as simple as foolproof as poosible, treating the game as some unnessecary evil that needs to be shot to death so they can gain their precious generalship points.

WanderingRogue
10-01-2006, 15:13
[
QUOTE]Originally Posted by Cyel
For me it holds no sense to create a roster that gives no chance to fight to some standard set ups or armies (ex. all out shooting ChD). Even at the tournament the aim should be to actually play the game rather thanpass them as uickly as possible, treatng them as a boring necessity a player must endure in order to gather tournament points.


I like this, it sums up a lot of my perceptions nicely. It seems to me as well that the persons behind the most outrageous lists aim to boil it down to as simple as foolproof as poosible, treating the game as some unnessecary evil that needs to be shot to death so they can gain their precious generalship points.[/QUOTE]
spot on!!!!! me too. that basicaly is what i would of said if i could but wrap my feeble mind round the english language properly.

DARKsoulx
10-01-2006, 15:29
. Sure I could take a 14-power-dice madhouse from hell to town and steamroller over my friends, but gamewise it would be incredibly dull. Furthermore, my friends wouldn't enjoy it, the atmosphere would be horrible, and as an extent, I wouldn't enjoy it either.
.

but wouldnt it be alot of fun if both you and your friend did their best to win?
your friend would soon learn how to protect him self from magic and then you would have to come up with something new.

where i play everyone play to win and min/max their armies.

Kahadras
10-01-2006, 16:00
your friend would soon learn how to protect him self from magic and then you would have to come up with something new.


The probelm I have always seen with this idea is that the hobby quickly turns into an arms race. This escalates untill people forget that the whole thing is ment to be a casual game and just start to concentrate on winning. When two balanced armies square off they have several solutions for one problem. An army that just focuses on one thing i.e magic, can be quickly neutered by a large magical defence. Therefore the list has reached a point where it becomes totaly useless which is a waste of time IMO.
The end result is that SAD's and RAF's become the norm and it just becomes a case of rock, paper, scissors. While some people seem OK with this I think that I would quickly get bored with it.

Kahadras

Makaber
10-01-2006, 23:58
but wouldnt it be alot of fun if both you and your friend did their best to win?
your friend would soon learn how to protect him self from magic and then you would have to come up with something new.

where i play everyone play to win and min/max their armies.

Yes, but the result would be that everyone went all out on magic, both trying to cast more spells, but also shutting down their opponents magic phase, so the net result would be an arms race sucking up a lot of points, but not actually contributing to the game. Army selection would be limited to the most extreme armies, with very few orc and beastmen armies, for instance. On the other hand, there would be a lot more "easy" armies, like Skaven gunlines, pegasi lists, ect. Overall, there would be lesser variation in army composition.

You seem to be under the impression that when I turn up for a game, I hold myself back and make an effort not to play my best. This is rubbish, as soon as the game is on, I do my utmost to defeat my opponent, within the bounds of good sportmanship. As do my opponent. However, we have an understanding that trying to win through extremely one-sided armies generally doesn't make the game more fun.

An extreme example: A while ago, T10 and myself wrote a battle report called "Put to the Test", the goal being to try a ridicilous army concept put forth by Brother Edwin, reknowned powergamer. The army is Chaos Dwarves, with all mages, every mage given its full points allowance in dispell scrolls, all the rare and special slots filled with war machines, and the remaining points spend on 12 units of 10 hobgoblins, with no command. Now imagine two lists in the similar vein. There would be viritually no movement, since neither army would contribute from advancing. There would be little to no magic, since there would be so many scrolls. The game would devolve from a contest of strategic scheming, advance planning, and maneouvering, to an artillery yatzee determined by dice rolling alone.

I frankly can't see why anyone would seriously consider playing the army. They would effectivly deny themselves the two most crucial phases in the game: Movement and close combat. And don't tell me charge redirecting with the hobgoblins is tactical genious: First of all, it's the only think you have to think about, so it's not that challenging. Also, if the enemy is actually permitted to charge, the army has failed. Even with a really good powerhouse of an opposing army, the game is bound to be ridicilously boring, since there's little going on beside advancing and getting the **** shot outta you. Even if the opponent would reach the Chaos Dwarves, the combat would be extremely dull since the hobgoblins would be hopelessly outclassed. A lot of the same arguments can be said about power-Skaven (And the RAF, only replace "shooting" with "charging").

(Hypothesis: A powergamer wins by making armies that deducts from the game instead of contributing to it?)

Kahadras
11-01-2006, 01:26
(Hypothesis: A powergamer wins by making armies that deducts from the game instead of contributing to it?)

Agreed.
As far as I can see the 'powergamer' seeks the removal of all other phases but the one or two that he is good at. Magic for a magic heavy army. Shooting phase/magic phase for a SAD. Movement/close combat for an RAF. Shooting for an artillery train etc etc. A 'powergaming' focuses on one or two phases at the exclusion of everything else in order to buld up such an advantage in that area as to be almost unbeatable. I have yet to see a list that was able to outclass an army in every single phase during a turn.

Kahadras

shadowprince
11-01-2006, 02:05
How major a tournament was it? A GT, RTT, WPS, or what? And if the list he used is available, I'd like to see it.

RTT torunament at the local store 750 points, he beet SAd High elfs and brettoians I think. It was somethng like 2 bolt throwers a thane and three blocks f troops, My dwarf knowledge ins't great so I am not sure. But his games where not even close.

Also it seems more about the players than anything else. Most annoying thing I saw was at said tournament somone brought their frinds SAD army just to try to win, forsakeing his own mdels of dwarfs orcs and undead.

Eldacar
11-01-2006, 03:00
A 750 point game doesn't really allow for armies like the SAD (that I've seen). You don't really have the points to really start getting the Jezzails, Ratling Guns and Engineers in there until you break 1000-1500 points or so.

Bingo the Fun Monkey
11-01-2006, 05:18
A 750 point game doesn't really allow for armies like the SAD (that I've seen). You don't really have the points to really start getting the Jezzails, Ratling Guns and Engineers in there until you break 1000-1500 points or so.
On the contrary 2 warlocks (already dominates other races magic at these points approx 85 pts each) and three minimal units of clanrats (100 pts each), 3 ratling guns (180), not to mention countless slaves and maybe up to 5 jezzails.

I've faced this way too many times and, as a horde player, it really doesn't scare me either. Still, that's the core of SAD: you overpower their magic and their shooting as well as any potential armor the enemy might have. They still have the numbers as well but are terribly lacking in true leadership and combat ability.

MadJackMcJack
11-01-2006, 07:15
Someone wrote an article for this very website on psychological warfare in 40k

I admit, I do indulge in a little psych warfare. However, it mostly consists of MWAHAHAHAing whenever I roll a large amount of dice. Typically followed by half my boyz failing animosity tests and my fanatics turning back on the gobbos who released them. I think Gork hates me. Or is it Mork?

Flypaper
11-01-2006, 07:16
Powergamers on the other hand are just out there to win, a bad looser, completely inconsiderate and immobile to mistakes regardless of the player and do things purely out of their own self interest and own personal enjoyment then you are most definantly a powergamer.
...See, that's a fair comment, and if we're agreed on that definition I'm fine with joining the throng chanting "down with powergamers". The problem is that even within the confines of this thread we've got too much of a bleed between what comes under this definition and what counts simply as tactical common sense within the confines of what is, after all, a one-on-one competitive game.

@ Kahadras' definition: So a powergamer with a winning record is effectively just a good metagamer? Metagaming is problematic in Warhammer mostly because of the expense and time involved in list-changing... So where does that leave us? If your logic is correct, then the winners on average must be the canny old vets from Shadowprince's example. However, that (a) doesn't seem to match the popular perception, and (b) doesn't fit in with the hypothetical powergamer mindset. If powergaming isn't bringing in the trophies, then it's not particularly effective powergaming, is it? :eek:

Edit: @ Kahadras and Makabar - while you're probably right, I've rewritten my Lizard list for the benefit of my usual HE opponent. Loaded with indestructible Sacred Plaques, so one way or the other I will teach him not to take the Ring of Corin! :p

Festus
11-01-2006, 08:28
Hi

...See, that's a fair comment, and if we're agreed on that definition I'm fine with joining the throng chanting "down with powergamers". The problem is that even within the confines of this thread we've got too much of a bleed between what comes under this definition and what counts simply as tactical common sense

There are *powergamers* (being a sore loser, completely inconsiderate, and absolutely egoistic) and *tactical common sense*?
TBH, even the most awful Powergamers I have met won't fully fit the bill above. Those described above are absolutely mental...

And WHFB is a
one-on-one competitive game???

Then we often play different games of the same name. True, it can be, and there are many who know no other, but there are countless ways to play it differently.

Greetings
Festus

Flypaper
11-01-2006, 12:24
Then we often play different games of the same name. True, it can be, and there are many who know no other, but there are countless ways to play it differently.

...Sheesh, you write a sentence, you look at it, then you think to yourself:

"Self, do you think that sentence needs a three-paragraph long disclaimer?

"Nah, people won't read that much into it. :angel:

"Have I told you recently how good-looking you are, Self?"

All I meant by the phrase "one-on-one competitive game" is that two players sit on opposite sides of the table. That's it. :cool:

As for the "countless ways to play it differently", refer to my post commenting on the Warhammer multiplayer culture, shameful lack of. I'd love broader play systems to be a shared part of the Warhammer experience, but so far I've seen no evidence that it is in real life or on the 'net; beyond anecdotal accounts of the occasional decent playgroup that's got its act together.

Beastman_Bob
11-01-2006, 15:45
Well, after reading the past 12 pages, I'm now exhausted. Having been involved in this fine hobby for many years, I've come to the conclusion that you will come across people that will:-
1) try to maximise the strengths of their armies, whilst covering up the weaknesses,
2) argue the rules in their favour, whilst forgetting other rules,
3) move/rearrange their figures that extra 1/2" to get them in range,
4) mark you down on 'comp'/'army'/'game' scores because they lost,
...and any other number of things that detract from the enjoyment of playing a game (WAAC, etc, etc).
While point 1) could be classed as Cheesy/'beardy', we all endeavour to come up with a strong army list (whether balanced/themed/MSU/RAF/SAD) in order to give us a good chance of winning. But when this is combined with some or all of the other points then I consider the realms of 'powergaming'.
As a tournament and casual player I have encountered many 'beardy' lists, had some horrific loses, trounced them well and truly and all the other possible results in between, but overall they have been enjoyable ocassions. However, when mixed with the 'powergaming' aspects, then the enjoyment levels start to fall.
In other words, I don't mind playing against strong armies, I just abhor playing against bad attitude...

Festus
11-01-2006, 16:01
Hi

All I meant by the phrase "one-on-one competitive game" is that two players sit on opposite sides of the table. That's it. :cool:
Then why not simply call it a two-player-game? WHFB can be played competetively, and maybe you like to play it competetively, but it by no means has to be played competetively.

IMO this is exactly what this whole thread is about: The measure and level of competition put into WHFB.

If I see it as a competition above all else, I would surely choose a different game, something in which my competence counts in competing or even winning the competition. Chess comes to my mind, or certain card-games...

...in the Tabletops, there are historical tabletop games, where winning matters little: A company of tanks trying to push through a heavily shelled alley, the stout defense of the outnumbered defenders of a barricade. A small raid by elite Commandoes on a fuel depot unknowingly stacked with a company in defense and such. GW tries to emulate this with the scenarios given in the BRB, but they fail with the majority, because most play the simple *Open Battle*.

They attempted to correct this somewhat with the WHFB Skirmish approach, but it was ill supported.

As long as WHFB is seen as a mostly competetive game and not a fantasy-tabletop-hobby-game, as long the inadequaties of the armylist will be badly felt. Let's face it, the Army Books and lists are far from being balanced and far from being perfect. Not to mention the rules themselves.

There are somany loopholes, so many blunders, so many mistakes, that there hardly is any competition left if you use all these to your advantage prior to the game itself.

If I came to the table with an already broken and über-powerful armylist, only to face a well rounded, fluff-adherent force, the conclusion is a foregone one: I will win. If my opponent starts to adapt (to be competitive), an arms-race will start that will end in the ultimate cheese fest.:cheese:

There is competition in WHFB, but this competition should be on the table, not within the armylist.

Chess for example provides both players with the same army. This is not necessary in WHFB, we don't even want it, I daresay. But the forces should IMO at least be evenly matched if there is a competetive aspect.

Greetings
Festus

Beastman_Bob
11-01-2006, 16:12
Festus, I disagree that it would be a foregone conclusion that you would win, a balanced force can beat a broken and uber-powerful list. It depends on the players and tactics used. In fact in last year's UK GT Heat I played 2 such 'broken-uber' armies (1 RAF and a WE all shooty) with a balanced Beast force and thrashed them.

Festus
11-01-2006, 16:29
Hi

Would you care to post (in the relevant sub-forum) or pm your armylist?

Greetings
Festus

LaughinGremlin
11-01-2006, 17:38
Before I play a game of magic with someone, I always ask him, "Do you want to have a fun game or play for fun?" I have very competitive decks and "fun" decks. Fun can be had either way, but the SAME GAME needs to be played by both players.

Before a warhammer match, ask "basic list, or over the top tournament list?"

Like attracts like.

Eldacar
11-01-2006, 18:40
On the contrary 2 warlocks (already dominates other races magic at these points approx 85 pts each) and three minimal units of clanrats (100 pts each), 3 ratling guns (180), not to mention countless slaves and maybe up to 5 jezzails.

So you'd play Victory Point Denial. I could probably fit enough magic to easily overwhelm that list into 750 points if I had to, in any case, but it depends on whether or not you're playing for fun or to win.

Mad Doc Grotsnik
11-01-2006, 21:37
Time for another prescription from the Doc. (sorry, been wanting to say that, especially as I work for an Optician!)

Playing to win is good. Playing to win is healthy. Playing to win is expected. However, playing EXCLUSIVELY to win is neither good, healthy, or tolerable. This is where the Beards go wrong.

I do indeed enjoy a cackle whenever a particularly devious plot is pulled off. But then, I like to give my Cold One Chariots a damn good ticking off mid game when they consider sniffing each others butts more important than charging the enemy. My opponents are exactly the same. Trash talking during a game, in my experience, genuinely enhances it. I play at my local store most Thursday nights. I am on first name basis with everyone, and include most of them in my list of friends.

However, there are at least three buttknockers I point blank refuse to play.

Henderson Junior is possibly *the* single worst offender. He likes his rules play. He claims Pegasus Knights enjoy all the benefits of Skirmishers, AND Cavalry. Thats right. 360 charge arc, -1 to hit with missiles. The lot. This is despite them being mounted on a monster base, and having a unit strength greater than 2. This quantifies them as Cavalry. As such, 90 charge arc, and no penalty for targetting them. He also claimed that Comet of Cassandoras counters are *not* removed when it strikes, and instead just keep on stacking. Granted, the spell does not say to. But common sense does. Not only does it make the spell ridiculously pokey, but otherwise the Warhammer World would have been smashed to smithereens by thousands upon thousands of ******* comets smashing repeatedly into it! He likes to 'mediate' during other peoples games, informing opponents of cunning traps they have missed, and generally just quoting rules, and being an ******. Believe it or not, even if you tell him to, ahem, Foxtrot Oscar, he still hangs around.

He is a Powergamer to boot. Everything he does is to win. And playing him is such a tedious, brainmelting affair. I have had to go for a pint after a game against him just to stop myself thumping him. If you've kicked his **** (not that hard surprisingly. He's not very good!) then he will be so bloody anal about Victory Points, desperate to deny you as much as he can. The rest of us get to the end of turn 6, knock up a quick tally of whats left, subtract it from our army points, and offer the remainder as VPs earned. I don't care whats a minor, major massacre etc. If it's a draw, it's a draw, and a wins a win. If I massacred you, try harder next time, and consider where I went right.

People like this really should be reviled. Warhammer is about having fun, and pitting your wit and wiles against another human being. Not your ability to pervert English! Anyone can make a horrifically beardy list. Take this for example, from the back of the Vampire Counts book. The Lahmian one.

Okay, Lahmian Countess. This allows a swain (a hero choice, plus any legal upgrades, from *any* other army list) which will be Liche Priest, with, oh yes, Casket of Souls. Then a couple of units of Dire Wolves for legality. Maybe a couple of Necromancers for extra fun. Then, *all* my special slots filled by...oooh! Banshees. Any extra points will be sunk into a Black Coach, and some more Dire Wolves. So, that would be...ummm....9 Power Dice, plus 2 extra spells being cast from the Liche Priest, one of which is the Casket, plus (in 2,000 points) a whopping 4 Ethereal Creatures sceerching at your regiments. With units kept small enough, and the Necromancers raising Zombies, I should be able to dance around your force, preventing any and all combat I don't want to fight.

There you go. A truly horrific list to fight. And one I would never, EVER use. Except as a pre-arranged 'what if' Beardfest or to teach a Powergamer that it isn't much fun!

bigchris1313
11-01-2006, 22:42
Henderson Junior is possibly *the* single worst offender. He likes his rules play. He claims Pegasus Knights enjoy all the benefits of Skirmishers, AND Cavalry. Thats right. 360 charge arc, -1 to hit with missiles. The lot. This is despite them being mounted on a monster base, and having a unit strength greater than 2. This quantifies them as Cavalry. As such, 90 charge arc, and no penalty for targetting them.

Doc, you're talking about Royal Pegasi, right? Because Pegasus Knights are only US 2, they are skirmishers, they do do have a 360 charge arc, and you are at -1 to hit them. A Royal Pegasus is a monster. It does have a US greater than 2, it does have a 90 charge arc, and you do not suffer the -1 to hit when shooting it. But pegasus knights aren't mounted on Royal Pegasi, and they do have all those benefits. That's why they're so good.

But I'm just going to assume you meant to say Royal Pegasi.

bigchris1313
11-01-2006, 22:52
He also claimed that Comet of Cassandoras counters are *not* removed when it strikes, and instead just keep on stacking. Granted, the spell does not say to.

Why would you be doing something the rules don't tell you to do? That sounds an awful lot like cheating. Common sense is a misnomer anyway. And the spell can be dispelled while in play, as stated in the description. Throw 3-4 PD at it and it'll poof anyway. And he shouldn't even get it off in the first place. Once dispelled, then the markers disappear. Until then, you have no reason to remove them.

MadJackMcJack
12-01-2006, 07:14
Throw 3-4 dice at it and that's 3-4 dice that could go towards dispelling another spell. And there's ALWAYS a chance to get spells off.

Beastman_Bob
12-01-2006, 09:11
Festus, my army list is already posted on the Herdstone forum, but for a quick precise - pure beast Slaaneshi GBS with 3 more shaman, herds, minos, chariots and a unit of trolls(note - no rare choices).
The point is that any beardy list can be beaten by a balanced force using better tactics. Some might say that 10 levels of magic is beardy, and they might be right, but when combined with a general's leadership of 7 and a majority of core troops (I could have fielded a giant, shaggoth, dragon ogres or chosen chaos knights/warriors) I believe that it balances out.
Because I attend GTs I normally play 2000pt games only and design my armies to take on all-comers, with the intention that who ever I play will be challenged and that we both have a good time. But I also like the challenge of fielding a 'balanced' force and taking on those 'uber' lists. It gives me a lot more satisfaction winning this way after 6 hard fought turns, than taking an OTT list and crushing somebody in 4, yes you win, but where's the fun???

Mad Doc Grotsnik
12-01-2006, 12:55
Exactly Jack. And those dice I have used to dispel it either waste my own Power Pool, or simply allow him to cast it yet again.

And by definition of the rules Bigchris, anything with US2 or greater never gets the -1 to hit bonus, and cannot claim 360 Charge Arc. Which is why mounted single characters lose it. As this is a staple rule of Warhammer (as has been for ages) it stands to reason Pegasus Knights also lose the 360 and -1. Granted, it could be argued that because they can face different directions, it matters less, but what about after pursuit, when they *must* be facing the direction of pursuit at the end of it?

bigchris1313
12-01-2006, 18:02
Doc, what you're saying just isn't supported by the rules. I'm sure you've seen a deductive argument before:

Premise 1: Pegasus Knights follow all the rules for units of flyers, and in addition they are US 2, get a +1 to their armor save, and are affected by spells that affect cavalry. (Brettonia, page 55)

Premise 2: Units of flyers always operate as skirmishers. (Rulebook, page 106)

Premise 3: Skirmishers have a 360 charge arc, and nothing in the rules states that the skirmishers must be man-sized models. (Rulebook, page 115)

Premise 4: Skirmishers have a -1 to hit modifier, as if they were a single man-sized model, not because they are single man-sized models (they are not always man-sized, nor are they ever a single model). (Rulebook, page 116)

Conclusion 1: Pegasus Knights are US 2, skirmishing flyers, with all the benefits of skirmishers, including a 360 charge arc and a -1 to hit modifier.



Bulletproof.

Festus
12-01-2006, 18:10
Hi

And by definition of the rules Bigchris, anything with US2 or greater never gets the -1 to hit bonus, and cannot claim 360 Charge Arc. Which is why mounted single characters lose it. As this is a staple rule of Warhammer (as has been for ages) it stands to reason Pegasus Knights also lose the 360 and -1. Granted, it could be argued that because they can face different directions, it matters less, but what about after pursuit, when they *must* be facing the direction of pursuit at the end of it?
This belongs into the rules forum, really.

But your opponent is right:

Pegasus Knights (the unit, not the characters mounted on Royal Pegasi), are indeed Skirmishers with nearly (exception, see below) all associated benefits:
360° LoS, always marching, -1 to hit against.

They have the Skirmisher's disadvantages as well, obviously:
no ranks (although they could use the Lance if three wide, which happens rarely because they form up according to the opponent in h-t-h), no rank denial, and additionaly they have been ruled to pay the move penalty for woods and other difficult terrain.

Greetings
Festus

Kahadras
12-01-2006, 19:21
It says in the Bretonnian armies book that Pegasus knights are flying cavalry and that it follows the rules for flying cavalry in the BRB. Therefore they have a 360 degree charge arc as units of flyers always operate as skirmishers. If the Pegasus knights did not get any of the skirmish rules then it would have been printed in the book along the lines of "Pegasus knights are flying cavalry but do not gain any bonuses for skirmishing". As it is it just gives exceptions. This mearly says that they count as unit strength 2 as well as getting the bonuses for skirmishing etc.

Kahadras

Flypaper
13-01-2006, 00:42
Then why not simply call it a two-player-game? WHFB can be played competetively, and maybe you like to play it competetively, but it by no means has to be played competetively.
...Wait, you don't ever count victory points?

Are you saying, in fact, that you never remove models when they are taken as casualties in hand-to-hand or from shooting?

You treat a roll of a six on any die as being 100% identical to a one?

The only possible reading I can make of your post is that you "play" Warhammer by placing your models on the table and then complimenting your opponent on how well he paints. Which is fine! I've done it often enough myself! But it makes one wonder what the point of having that big fat rulebook is in the first place... :cheese:

...That, or you're intentionally misreading my post so you can be self-righteous. :wtf:

Let me restate this in words of several syllables:

In Warhammer, it is not unknown for one player to win and the other to lose. Consequently, people do things like not charging every model they own directly off the side of the table, vicious powergamers that they are. :angel:

Festus
13-01-2006, 05:32
Hi

...That, or you're intentionally misreading my post so you can be self-righteous. :wtf:

I think that you are the one deliberately misreading posts, namely mine.

There is a very clear distinction between a two-player-game and a competetively played game. WHFB is not necessarily restricted to one of those sides, though. As a *fantasy* game, you can use for a kind of *roleplay*, as a tabletopgame, you can use it to play *scenarios* (gasp, what a foreign concept) and let a story/campaign/development unfold.

Of course you can always just square up your armies across the table and slug it out competition-style. But this is not the end of it, not by far.

As you don't seem to grasp this concept, I will say no more and this was the last time I fell for this troll-bait.

Festus

Ganymede
13-01-2006, 05:43
Exactly, the random nature of die rolls allows for very entertaining, nad often unexpected results. You can get some good enjoyment by just winging it and watching what happens

hiram
13-01-2006, 06:39
nothing is qute as nice as watching a unit of chosen knight(@ 1000) taken of the board by glade gaurd scouts in turn 2.

moral1: play to have fun and don't be a dick.

moral2: if you do happen to play in a tourney watch out cause scenario players will kill you every time.

Spell_of_Destruction
13-01-2006, 16:08
Frankly I think some people have given this subject waaaay too much thought.

On an abstract level we seem to have two extremes, playing for fun and playing to win. Now, I find it hard to believe that anyone finds themselves at either extreme of this spectrum.

Now, before I continue I will say that of course there is no ONE way to play the game. There is nothing inherently wrong with powergaming. But there is a palpable sense that within the GW community this is an issue that many feel very strongly about and therefore it should be addressed.

I play the game to have fun and also to play competetively. 95% of gamers I meet are also like this. I will construct competetive lists but not so competetive that they trample all over the fluff.

Now, some peoples' idea of fun might be to destroy others with the most competetive list they can concoct with a total disregard for the fluff. Fine I suppose, but I find it difficult to understand why someone would be attracted to Warhammer/40k if this is what they are looking for.

First of all it shows that you aren't interested in the fluff, a major part of the game.
Second, none of GW's games are particularly optimised. Sure there is playtesting but game balance isn't very tight. Therefore, I'm not sure what you prove to yourself and others by taking it to such an extreme. There are other games out there that are far more conducive to this style of play, such as chess. Luck may balance out over 100 games, but that doesn't alter the fact that it can rear its head at anytime.

To be perfectly honest though, I can't get too worked up by this subject. If I have a game with someone that is no fun whatsoever because of that individual's attitude I simply won't play them again. There are plenty of other gamers out there who want the same things from that game as I do who I can play instead.

bigchris1313
13-01-2006, 18:37
But, Spell of Destruction, that's the problem with Chess: it is perfectly balanced, but there's absolutely no spice there. There's no fun. Everyone gets exactly the same number of peices with exactly the same statistics in exactly the same order. That's not fun at all. You can't customize which peices you bring. I can't bring a Pawn Horde. I can't bring a Rook Godzilla army. My uber-Queen can kill a pawn just as easily as your uber-Queen. And there's absolutely zero chance of my uber-Queen wiffing all her attacks and sitting there, having not killed the pawn. It will happen every time.

Do you see what I mean? Without variety, the game just isn't fun. That's why Fantasy is so much better than 40k: you see every army, not just Marines. In fact, because 40k is so predictable in that regard, it is more like chess, and more apt to be played competetively, as any smart player will tool his list to be an anti-Marine list.

In regards to destroying the fluff, which you describe as "a major part of the game," I disagree. Make your own fluff. This is high fantasy. You can justify pretty much anything. If you want to take 8 Spear Chukkas in a list, I'm sure you can come up with some storyline to justify it. But don't tell me that I should think twice before making a certain version of the list because some non-WAAC player doesn't agree with my interpretation of the background.

Spell of Destruction, please don't see my post as a powergamer attack on you. You've been one of the most civilized people in this thread. I was just addressing two points that you promulgated that hadn't already been discussed.

taer
13-01-2006, 19:09
I like painting small metal soldiers, and occasionally I like to watch them die on the table top.

mujadaddy
13-01-2006, 21:16
Without variety, the game just isn't fun. That's why Fantasy is so much better than 40k: you see every army, not just Marines.
THAT'S not why Fantasy is better than 40k... it's b/c the rules of Fantasy have only changed very slightly in the past 20 years and EVERY TIME they make a new 40k it's further and further from the stability of WHFB...

bigchris1313
13-01-2006, 22:55
Oh, daddy, you're absolutely right about that. But that's certainly part of it.

And movement values. Oh, how 40k misses movement values. And modifiers for that matter.

mujadaddy
13-01-2006, 23:02
Yeah, I was really offended when I picked up a 3rd edition book and saw how it had been "Epic-ized..."

Which brings me to my "joke..."

An oddly dressed man appears out of thin air on King's Road... He looks panicked and ill at ease... He spots a knot of young people hanging about on the corner and, grabbing one by his lapels, demands, "WHAT'S THE ARMOR SAVE OF A TERMINATOR??? WHAT'S THE ARMOR SAVE OF A TERMINATOR????"


:p

Mad Doc Grotsnik
13-01-2006, 23:05
It spelt Armour. Nyah!

40k has evolved into a game different from Warhammer. It's more about fast paced play, and is more suited to a structured campaign where units are pre-defined.

Warhammer is for a more relaxed affair. Ideally, a game of Warhammer (to my mind) should last most of the Evening, and be 2,000+, up to around 3,000. In my experience, things get silly beyond 3,000!

mujadaddy
13-01-2006, 23:37
OOps! you caught me... I'm a Colonist... ;) (and it's spelled, "SPELLED" :p )

40k was ALWAYS "faster paced" ... I just think what they've trended toward is cramming more models (ie, more $$$$ for GW) into the same points values. Remember when you could spend 1,000 points on a SINGLE SQUAD? (ok, ok, they'd have to be terminators or a huge squad of Orkses, but ...) ...then 500 points was "unthinkably large" for a squad... now, make a THREE HUNDRED point squad and people call you daft/gimmicky/beardy/powergamer-y .... Sigh...

When RT was released, it *WAS* the fast-paced, customizeable game for which many of us were looking... when 2nd Ed. box came out, we went, "well, it seems they've fuXX0red the rules, but I get HOW MANY marines, orkses & gretchin? I'll buy and play that..." Then they just kept releasing more and more versions of the damn game that got futher and futher away from what got me (at least) into the game in the first place... /sigh...

Flypaper
14-01-2006, 07:01
troll-bait.
...OK, now I'm actually angry, and that takes a lot of doing.

So I'd better stop posting, in this thread, I guess. :)

Dr Death
14-01-2006, 10:04
40k has become rediculously dumbed down, which is why i've spent the better part of the last 3 years trying to boot it up to a more reasonable standard. I dont promise it'll be particularly balanced but play it with the right mindset and it'll give a bloody fun evenings play. As far as its relation to fantasy goes, i quite liked the difference: Fantasy was arguably the better game but 40k 3rd ed produced a system that could basically just be thrown together at a moments notice and people could have a bit of a rumble.

Fantasy feels wrong when played with less than at the very least 1000pts preferably 2000. Games of Fantasy generally take up more space due to the increased figure count and the rigidity of their formations but assuming you have the figures, the opponant and the space fantasy can become a fantastic game to play. If Lotr's afternoon tea and 40k's a night down at the pub, fantasy is a boozy dinner party of a game.

Dr Death

Erestor
14-01-2006, 10:51
Having spent an hour and a half reading this thread, I feel my time would be wasted if I didn't chuck in two bobs worth.

Whilst I don't agree with BigChis1313's philososphy, I think a part of what he says is, in some way true, that we get some measure (different for all of us) of self gratification, self worth maybe, from investing of ourselves in plastic and metal, in building, painting and converting toy soldiers. Otherwise we wouldn't do it. That said, I doubt many socialists or communists would indulge in such selfishness, let alone the money invested in the models, paints, scenery etc. I'm sure they would think it decadent and frivolous.

As far as power gaming goes, I think at heart some people are just that way. I know of three.

One buys no models (he casts his own), paints poorly and thinks long an hard about the best way to make a list which will beat everyone. He seems to enjoy only winning and moans mightily when he loses.

The second buys many models, never paints, and can within 5 miuntes instinctively choose the most effective combination from any army book. He never plays arranged games, surprises people with his armies every week, and will make up a list on the spot (this takes at least half an hour...) to maximise his chances of winning, after he sees his opponents list.

The third has a couple of armies, paints to a mediocre standard, takes the SAD all the time, but chooses who he plays against. He is also in Mad Doks category of people who "advise" others during games, but only his friends, and only when they have made mistakes which harm their chances of winning, and when the opponent makes a mistake which increases his chance of winning.

I don't consider my self a power gamer. I play in tournaments, I enjoy them, I enjoy pitting myself against other people and trying to best them, without a pre-determined idea of who they are and how they play the game. I'm a modeller and painter first, and for the most part games are a tedious intelude to my next painting fix. That said, I hate it when the beasts and men I have spent so long painting get killed. They are my family..:cries: ;) I choose armies for the background, not the winnability, and I'm constantly amazed at peoples ability (see above) to see things which had never occurred to me.

Power gaming is many things, I would hate to be forced to choose one of the many definitions put about here.
I think its not respecting your opponents and not playing in the spirit of the game. The game is just a game, it's not perfect, it's just a published version of what a group of guys came up with over a few pints. That they made a successful business from it speaks volumes of the fact that a whole bunch of us thought it seemed like a good idea. That there are loop holes says to me that the GD team aren't power gamers, or rules lawyers, that they don't want to stomp on peoples creativity and ability to find small areas of leeway, or that they just don't care that much about it to get dragged into the pettiness.

In closing, please don't turn this into another 40K slag fest. I love 40K. It's a great way to relax in a fun way, after all the tenseness of charge arcs and wheeling and rigidity of Warhammer ( I love Warhammer too or I wouln't spend so much time doing it). Multiple movements just complicate things. Let it go.

PS, I hate chess, it annoys me more than any game on the planet as being only a contest of who can best remember the exact seaquence of (finite) moves which can win any game. It's boring and far from being the 'ultimate strategy game' proponents would have you believe.

crashbang
14-01-2006, 12:11
Take my 2,000 point Dark Elf army.

Highborn on Black Dragon, Beastmaster on Manticore, 2 War Hydras, 4 Cold One Chariots, 30 Crossbows.

Could be accused of being power gamery. However, this is a very, *very* small 2,000 point army with absolutely bugger all magical defence, and one where the real powerhouses are pretty much impossible to hide. Sure, it hits hard, but it's not particularly easy to use!


that must be hell fun to play. whats your win/loss rate with it?

and by the way, how do i say this... i think, and always have thought that winning tournaments should be based on skill, and NOT on a list you've made to beat everyone. most tournaments are based on skill, the reason why they strip unfair things out of them like drugs in sports. the same should apply. Not stripping things out, simply preventing powergamed armies to a certain degree, so to make more about tactical descisions that swing a game, rather than mass-ganging unit after unit with flying beasties, or in the case of skaven, 40 marines and eldar 'just blow everything to shreds'. i am going to try and make a set of tournament rules that prevent this.

oh and btw, a mass chariot tzeencth army is another powergaming one.

as for the 40k stuff, 40k is 40k. you cant compare it, and to be honest no army in fantasy will ever comare to my nids

Eldacar
14-01-2006, 12:39
and to be honest no army in fantasy will ever comare to my nids
I think that a Seer Council and Chariot Horde could give you a run for your money, Crashbang. But then, I don't know how good a player you are.

mujadaddy
14-01-2006, 23:37
you cant compare it, and to be honest no army in fantasy will ever comare to my nids:eyebrows: Which aspect of "comparison" are you getting at? Cuz I can think of LOTS of WHFB armies that'd be right at home scrappin' with Tyranids. Night gobbo fanatics for one, nyuk, nyuk, nyuk...

crashbang
15-01-2006, 09:50
:eyebrows: Which aspect of "comparison" are you getting at? Cuz I can think of LOTS of WHFB armies that'd be right at home scrappin' with Tyranids. Night gobbo fanatics for one, nyuk, nyuk, nyuk...

just 'first army syndrome' really. and we'd win easy-theres millions of us, already infiltrating the halflings, the halflings will soon rebel, destroy the empire, woodies and brettonia, evolving into a race of hybrid stealers.

...not ever gonna happen is it?:rolleyes:

Bjoernes
15-01-2006, 10:38
Hi all!

One of my regular opponents might be a "powergamer"... I will give you a brief description and leave you to decide;)

All unclear rules situations are argued to "logicaly" favour him:wtf:
Distances measured to be a few millimeters over the range counts as "in range" for him but "out of range" for me:wtf:
He adores special characters with loads of special rules...
He moans about his lousy dice throwing at every opportunity.... One time he even went so far as to record the amount of 1's he rolled during the game....
If you win against him, he allways puts it down to his unlucky rolls, and your super golden luck with the dices..... And makes a endless tirade about how he would have creamed you if he only had rolled more than ones on the dices in this and that situation....
This is the usual way playing with him is like....
I still play him though since I do not have a large amount of opponents to pick and choose from... But usualy I end up thinking I could have used the time better for other things...

immortal99
15-01-2006, 12:27
He's a power gamer. I know someone like that except they don't even bother to paint their models, constantly have "illegial" armies and is even worse :eek: than the guy you play. Suffice to say I never play him anymore.

Spell_of_Destruction
15-01-2006, 14:45
=
If you win against him, he allways puts it down to his unlucky rolls, and your super golden luck with the dices..... And makes a endless tirade about how he would have creamed you if he only had rolled more than ones on the dices in this and that situation....

Probably my least favourite type of player. What's worse is that when I play someone like this I get so angry that I sometimes end up stooping to their level :mad: .

Best way to deal with them is to either shut up and say nothing or point out a blatant tactical error on his part that resulted in his loss :D.

Brother Edwin
15-01-2006, 16:36
So I play FB and used to play 40K but both only with friends and I'd never be interested in hanging out at a game shop where you can't drink, smoke or listen to good music at the appropriate volume. I read some people here talking about magic heavy armies and "powergaming" armies as if there is something *wrong* with them but at the same time they're admitting that the all-your-eggs-in-one-basket approach has some inherent weaknesses. So go ahead and flame me with your enlightening opinions but somewhere in there please confirm two suspicions for me.

1. "Powergaming" involves few expensive units like dragons or greater demons.

Can be. Generally choices are made because they are effective and made to win. Like skinks over saurus. Or ratlings.

2. People who hate these tactics do so out of fear of them and have difficulty dealing with these kinds of armies.

Can be. Also some armys are impossable to beat for them and not fun to play against. Like my lizzard list. It wins because it has 17 powerdice hideing in a wood which you will never be able to kill.

Festus
15-01-2006, 17:41
Hi

Generally choices are made because they are effective and made to win. Like skinks over saurus. Or ratlings.
What a big pile of BS :(

Generally, choices are often made because someone likes the look of a certain unit, choices are made because the unit/item fits the style of the army/player/fluff.

Nearly always, choices are made, because the player likes the army and its appeal. If the player chooses his army on effectivness alone, chances are that he is a *powergamer* of the worst kind and will probably never play with painted minis, let alone the proper minis for his *choices*.

Hopefully, most WHFB-players still choose the army they play with because they are attracted to its style, looks and background. Hopefully, most WHFB-players pick their units not only for their power, but for their looks and feels. Hopefully, most WHFB-players still play to play and not play to have an army being *effective and made to win*.
Units are *made* by GW to play, to fit the Army's background, to fit within the rules system (usually, a few exceptions: STank), and to give a fighting challenge.

No:
Army Book and its units are not made to win, but to sell models. And models are not sold by tons of rules, but by design, background and advertisment. *Powergamers* rarely buy miniatures, they often proxy with substitutes to use their lists - or do you own some 150 Hobgoblins, or the components of the Armylists you always post? I don't think so.:eyebrows:

Festus

Brother Edwin
15-01-2006, 22:33
Computer says no.

If you actuallyy READ my post you would see I am explaining what powergameing is.

Please do not embarrase yourself again.

Next time play better.

Nkari
16-01-2006, 03:20
Wohah..

Now you all must accept this as the ultimate truth..

Power gaming is when one of the participants in the game does not have fun whilst playing the game..












*shudder* its 4:30 in the morning after reading throu this whole thread, and I cant bring myself to do a coherent post at this time...

Mad Doc Grotsnik
16-01-2006, 14:42
Erestor has hit right upon another clear indicator of the Power Gamer.

Currently, I am defending my title in our stores Winter War. As ever, I have written a 1,500 point list, which, Magic Items aside, will remain fairly immutable (mind you, I have got 8 CoK awaiting assembly!). This is the list I will go to war with. This is the list that will have to take on all comers. This is the list I will win with.

Henderson however, will simply bring his ridiculously bulky bags with him, and spend half an hour once you have agreed to a game writing out a list for his Bretonnians with the specific intention of exploiting each and every weakness my Dark Elves, your Ogres, Bobs Wood Elves etc.. might have. And then claim it as Tactical genius!

As you can see, a Powergamer will take every opporchancity possible to get an advantage. And I hate it. Now, granted, I know who my opponents are in Winter War, I play against them pretty much all year. But as to what they are taking, and whether they are using the army they normally do, I dunno. Hence my single list is unusual, and I hope, pokey enough to see me through! But to design a list once you have seen the other person and know what they are taking, thats tantamount to cheating in my eyes!