PDA

View Full Version : interesting experience



Pages : [1] 2

kiron
27-06-2010, 01:49
Okay so a friend and i popped into my local GW store for a tournament. Both me and my friend are competitive. We are both veteran magic (the card game) players so we enjoy competition (we go to nationals and PTQs) where its WAAC. However, the manager and a couple of players there (well to me anyways) seem to have the poorly designed armies (guy playing empire, had 1 mortar, 1 great cannon, 1 hellblaster, 1 general, 1 priest, 1 mage, 1 BSB, 25 greatswords (8 archer detachment), 30 halberdiers 8 swordsmen detachment, 8 handgunner detachment, 30 spearmen, 8 swordsmen detachment, and 8 crossbowmen detachment, 5 pistoliers, and 9 knights (with priest). His opponent brought 2 great cannons, 2 steam tanks, archlector on war altar, and 3 mages and some other fillers. Needless to say the archlector list smashed the "bit of everything list" but the manager and the players criticized the other player for making the game lopsided and not giving his opponent a chance (despite he was nice all game, i watched the slaughter). Of course the lector player won the tournament while everyone elses lists (to me seemed if anyone plays magic the gathering, find a bunch of cards of 1 color thrown together called a deck). Afterwards, not only was there no congrats (prize was $100 certificate), but your list should be tonned down attitude (give us a chance attitude).

Me and my friend were thinking :wtf:, is this how warhammer community react to winners? I was under the impression a general takes the best of the best to field (same in magic, known as net decks or decks that have been thoroughly tested). We talked with a bunch and asked if any played magic, where the winner did, but the few that did played casual (no idea what the most recent decks were). So who's at fault here? The winner bring the list that has the best odds of victory or everyone else who just happen to bring in my opinion a pre-con (for those who play magic) list.

Even the store manager wanted to give the prize to someone else but couldn't (the guy also had the best painted army too and was a good sport), something tells me the community attitude does not like winners or generals that take the best to the field...but cheers for the guy that takes a rainbow spectrum to the field...(i don't know, in magic AND in life, they are usually the laughing stock)

What made me really annoyed was a kid asked the store manager how much magic should he take in 2k (WE) to improve his list and the manager replied 1 mage and only 1 scroll and told to take waywatchers because they have killing blow. I almost lost it there, seriously WE one mage and 1 scroll (where magic missiles are their biggest weakness) and take very point inefficient waywatchers (with minimal magic defence) that I had to step in and ask the manager why only 1 scroll when magic missiles were WE greatest weakness due to low T and AS. The manager replied because waywatchers got killing blow and can kill enemy generals with one shot (there I knew he was not a even competent player who understands probability or his opponents were all idiots leaving their generals out in the open).

Is most of the warhammer community all like this? Playing fluffy list that have no hope in winning against a competent player? I know 8th ed. will fix a lot of powergaming list, but if the players refuse to build strong lists, doesn't seem like all the changes GW do will give them a chance against a well prepared opponent.

It appears that people who strive for success are looked down on and criticized in this store, i seriously hope this isn't the case for all warhammer, as this is definitely not a good reality check since one of the biggest driving factor is competition whether in games or life...

kormas
27-06-2010, 02:01
ummmm, i think you might want to take a step back and think about this.
you have to take into account the local metagame, some areas are much more lax and play for fun without the pressures of WAAC. others will be full of WAAC and will bring out cheese max lists.

the thing that you seem to be missing is that people like winners when they actualy achieve somethingthat they had to work for, that guys list was maxed out cheese, no wonder people didnt like it when it appears that the other lists were more friendly. it honestly doesnt look like it took any skill at all to actualy win the tourni.

"Is most of the warhammer community all like this? Playing fluffy list that have no hope in winning against a competent player?"

that is a really sad view of the gaming community, you obviously take the compeditvness of the game WAY to seriously, there is such a thing as friendly fun you know, it doesnt allways have to be WAAC (esspecialy at tournis where they have comp)

and about the last statement, think about it, way watchers are fairly expencsive to buy...thus making more money for the store. while the actual reasoning is a bit silly, it is entirly possible that the person liked the models, which tbh is reason enough to have anything in an army.

"It appears that people who strive for success are looked down on and criticized in this store"

thought i might as well look at this as well and say that you have to think of the different perspectives here...

jet_palero
27-06-2010, 02:02
Something the competitive of us have to remember, is that if you whollop someone in a way so they don't have fun, they might not come back. And then you've got 1 less person to play with.

Also, sometimes GW puts out really rottenly balanced codexes. Who wants to win just because their army book can be abused more easily.

It's a fine line to walk between staying fun, and staying competitive.

Its not a problem to make suggestions (in a really friendly way) to help people improve their army. And sometimes it doesn't hurt to go easy on newbies.

Charistoph
27-06-2010, 02:30
While the player who won could have been a little more gentle in his list, it WAS a tournament, so everyone should bring their A game. At least the player was a good sport and not a complete ******* about it. If he was, then the manager would be in full rights to be giving him flack about it.

But I think the people judging him so harshly were far worse about it then the player bringing a WAAC Empire list. Yes, the guy won. Yes, he used a very powerful and rather unfluffy list. BUT, from what he was reported, he did not lord over everyone and try to use it as justification to verbally grow is epeen and brow beat the losers with it.

riotknight
27-06-2010, 02:34
Okay so a friend and i popped into my local GW store for a tournament. Both me and my friend are competitive. We are both veteran magic (the card game) players so we enjoy competition (we go to nationals and PTQs) where its WAAC. However, the manager and a couple of players there (well to me anyways) seem to have the poorly designed armies (guy playing empire, had 1 mortar, 1 great cannon, 1 hellblaster, 1 general, 1 priest, 1 mage, 1 BSB, 25 greatswords (8 archer detachment), 30 halberdiers 8 swordsmen detachment, 8 handgunner detachment, 30 spearmen, 8 swordsmen detachment, and 8 crossbowmen detachment, 5 pistoliers, and 9 knights (with priest). His opponent brought 2 great cannons, 2 steam tanks, archlector on war altar, and 3 mages and some other fillers. Needless to say the archlector list smashed the "bit of everything list" but the manager and the players criticized the other player for making the game lopsided and not giving his opponent a chance (despite he was nice all game, i watched the slaughter). Of course the lector player won the tournament while everyone elses lists (to me seemed if anyone plays magic the gathering, find a bunch of cards of 1 color thrown together called a deck). Afterwards, not only was there no congrats (prize was $100 certificate), but your list should be tonned down attitude (give us a chance attitude).

Me and my friend were thinking :wtf:, is this how warhammer community react to winners? I was under the impression a general takes the best of the best to field (same in magic, known as net decks or decks that have been thoroughly tested). We talked with a bunch and asked if any played magic, where the winner did, but the few that did played casual (no idea what the most recent decks were). So who's at fault here? The winner bring the list that has the best odds of victory or everyone else who just happen to bring in my opinion a pre-con (for those who play magic) list.

Even the store manager wanted to give the prize to someone else but couldn't (the guy also had the best painted army too and was a good sport), something tells me the community attitude does not like winners or generals that take the best to the field...but cheers for the guy that takes a rainbow spectrum to the field...(i don't know, in magic AND in life, they are usually the laughing stock)

What made me really annoyed was a kid asked the store manager how much magic should he take in 2k (WE) to improve his list and the manager replied 1 mage and only 1 scroll and told to take waywatchers because they have killing blow. I almost lost it there, seriously WE one mage and 1 scroll (where magic missiles are their biggest weakness) and take very point inefficient waywatchers (with minimal magic defence) that I had to step in and ask the manager why only 1 scroll when magic missiles were WE greatest weakness due to low T and AS. The manager replied because waywatchers got killing blow and can kill enemy generals with one shot (there I knew he was not a even competent player who understands probability or his opponents were all idiots leaving their generals out in the open).

Is most of the warhammer community all like this? Playing fluffy list that have no hope in winning against a competent player? I know 8th ed. will fix a lot of powergaming list, but if the players refuse to build strong lists, doesn't seem like all the changes GW do will give them a chance against a well prepared opponent.

It appears that people who strive for success are looked down on and criticized in this store, i seriously hope this isn't the case for all warhammer, as this is definitely not a good reality check since one of the biggest driving factor is competition whether in games or life...

I came from one of the most competitive metas in all of Ontario, moved out to the west coast for school, brought one of my "Lighter" lists from home... I got some dirty looks at running Tzeentch WoC. But I've adjusted, I don't think my lists are ultra-competitive, and I know they aren't, but This way it's fun for both me and my oponent, and every now and then, I bust out the game breaker list. But with 8th on the horizon, everything is up in the air now, so expect some growing pains as we figure out the new game-breaking builds ;)

Also, Warhammer is a hobby, not JUST a game.

jamano
27-06-2010, 02:53
I have similar experiences, I used to play card games in alot of tournaments, so I play to win and make sure to know what every army is capable of etc etc. Sometimes its more than just bringing a cheese list, just having an army thats built with synergy and no useless parts and playing it properly can have a player who has never really tried to be competitive crying cheese. If you play with the same 4 people and none of you really make lists to win, you wont even know what you're doing wrong listwise. I personally think you can try to win and have fun, and make a fluffy list thats trying to win. In the end though I think these people will learn new strategies and change their list unless they're too stubborn, and will enjoy the variety of the game more. (the people I would consistently beat down early on now do much better, and are excited about trying a new list on me)

Most tournaments have some sort of composition rules which would have hammered the double steamtank list, but from what you described that player probably could've won with any well constructed list. If theres 100 bucks at stake you know I'm gonna bring my A game!

Volker the Mad Fiddler
27-06-2010, 02:56
Okay so a friend and i popped into my local GW store for a tournament. Both me and my friend are competitive. We are both veteran magic (the card game) players so we enjoy competition (we go to nationals and PTQs) where its WAAC. However, the manager and a couple of players there (well to me anyways) seem to have the poorly designed armies (guy playing empire, had 1 mortar, 1 great cannon, 1 hellblaster, 1 general, 1 priest, 1 mage, 1 BSB, 25 greatswords (8 archer detachment), 30 halberdiers 8 swordsmen detachment, 8 handgunner detachment, 30 spearmen, 8 swordsmen detachment, and 8 crossbowmen detachment, 5 pistoliers, and 9 knights (with priest). His opponent brought 2 great cannons, 2 steam tanks, archlector on war altar, and 3 mages and some other fillers. Needless to say the archlector list smashed the "bit of everything list" but the manager and the players criticized the other player for making the game lopsided and not giving his opponent a chance (despite he was nice all game, i watched the slaughter). Of course the lector player won the tournament while everyone elses lists (to me seemed if anyone plays magic the gathering, find a bunch of cards of 1 color thrown together called a deck). Afterwards, not only was there no congrats (prize was $100 certificate), but your list should be tonned down attitude (give us a chance attitude).

SNIP

It appears that people who strive for success are looked down on and criticized in this store, i seriously hope this isn't the case for all warhammer, as this is definitely not a good reality check since one of the biggest driving factor is competition whether in games or life...

So, what you are saying is a someone showed up with a cheesy list to what everyone else expected to be friendly tournament- ie. everyone else brought armies to fantasy wargame and one player brought a min/max. collection of models to take advantage of the game rules even though this was totally out of character for the world in which the game supposedly take place. Of course he won. The problem is, baring abject stupidity AND horrendous luck on his part he couldn't not win. It is like me arm wrestling my students- of course I win, but is that really an accomplishment? Can I really be called a winner? [*Note I only arm wrestle my students because they get a kick out of trying to beat me and most think it is funny when they can use two hands and I lift them off the floor]

Your comparison to Magic is not entirely valid. It may have changed, but back when I played Magic [The Dark through Fallen Empires], competition was really the only way to play as there wasn't a convincing or appealing mythos to the world nor even a coherent storyline. The was no roleplaying element. The 'fluff' was just flavour text and pictures on a card that while interesting individually didn't convey cohesive world. Warhammer is different, people play for different reasons and a min/max. collection of models will always be looked down upon by a group who wants to play with actual 'fluffy' armies, just as a 'fluffy' army will always be looked down on by a group who plays with min/max. collections of models. The key is to find a group who matches your playstyle.

There is no 'warhammer community as whole' [that would require far too much agreement from wildly diverse and numerous groups of people and as we all know if you get a enough people together eventually some will disagree about the colour of the sky and whether it is raining or not]. So, if you don't like the 'fluff' emphasis from one group at one store, simply find another group that better suits you [easier said than done sometimes], or try gaming a different way and learn to best utilize a non min/maxed army. Who knows, you might even enjoy a break from your usual style.

jamano
27-06-2010, 02:59
How was he supposed to know his opponents would be no competition? get thier lists ahead of time? If they want to have a tournament and still be extremely fluffy, then they should have composition rules.

kiron
27-06-2010, 03:12
So, what you are saying is a someone showed up with a cheesy list to what everyone else expected to be friendly tournament- ie. everyone else brought armies to fantasy wargame and one player brought a min/max. collection of models to take advantage of the game rules even though this was totally out of character for the world in which the game supposedly take place. Of course he won. The problem is, baring abject stupidity AND horrendous luck on his part he couldn't not win. It is like me arm wrestling my students- of course I win, but is that really an accomplishment? Can I really be called a winner? [*Note I only arm wrestle my students because they get a kick out of trying to beat me and most think it is funny when they can use two hands and I lift them off the floor]

Your comparison to Magic is not entirely valid. It may have changed, but back when I played Magic [The Dark through Fallen Empires], competition was really the only way to play as there wasn't a convincing or appealing mythos to the world nor even a coherent storyline. The was no roleplaying element. The 'fluff' was just flavour text and pictures on a card that while interesting individually didn't convey cohesive world. Warhammer is different, people play for different reasons and a min/max. collection of models will always be looked down upon by a group who wants to play with actual 'fluffy' armies, just as a 'fluffy' army will always be looked down on by a group who plays with min/max. collections of models. The key is to find a group who matches your playstyle.



I dunno, when $100 at the stake, why wouldn't you try to win...I remember reading Sun Tzu Art of War, a general brings his best to the field and manipulates the elements to his advantages...(or in this case, take advantage of the rules and bring the best army possible), and the player was friendly, but with $100 at stake, that's like playing a halo tournament and telling a pro player that his sniping is too overpowering...

How is my analogy to magic not valid, there is a storyline in magic, with the recent planeswalker cards and novels, where there are cards of the main characters where decks true to storyline do exist, but of course, people play powerful decks using weird color combinations (that would not fit the storyline), but they are most synergistic and efficient as even a minor tempo loss could result in game loss.

Charistoph
27-06-2010, 03:13
How was he supposed to know his opponents would be no competition? get thier lists ahead of time? If they want to have a tournament and still be extremely fluffy, then they should have composition rules.

Agreed. There was bad sportsmanship involved, but it was hardly all (if any) on the winner's end.

Ultimate Life Form
27-06-2010, 03:46
Me and my friend were thinking :wtf:, is this how warhammer community react to winners?

Yes.

They're a strange bunch. When I read here on WarSeer that a tournament winner was booed because he won with Daemons I almost lost it. Expect no sympathy or appreciation from them, for they are an envious lot.

I have a long history of playing MtG as well (picked up WHFB only recently) and I know exactly what you mean; while not an active tournament player I really enjoyed the WAAC aspect of the game.

The problem here is as you noted a failure of understanding and wrong expectations. In WHFB I like playing nice and fluffy lists (the 'I take this unit because I like it' type), but I don't necessarily expect to win with it. I know that I'll be steamrolled by a maxed out list, but it works for me because we all play in a casual environment with the same understanding of how the game should be played and there are no maxed out lists.

However in a tournament situation it's clearly competitive and like you I expect everyone to do their best and bring the list with the best synergies and choices. If I enter a tournament with a crap list I have no right to complain if I don't win, it's just as simple. But apparently many players don't understand that and yell abuse and insults at you. Truly pathetic. That is bad sportsmanship, not bringing a list that is expected to do well.

If some books lend themselves to abuse it's not our fault but GW's, but usually there are tournament restrictions in place anyways so even less room for complaints.

Plagueridden
27-06-2010, 04:06
hence one of the many reasons I just paint & collect;)

larabic
27-06-2010, 04:08
That's why all tourny's should have a sportsmanship score to be awarded each game by the opponent. Bringing a cheesed out list thats no fun to play against is unsportsmanlike like in my opinion.

Duke Georgal
27-06-2010, 04:29
OP:

Stick with magic my friend. Competition and collecting are the heart of MTG.

The object of Warhammer is to win, but the goal is to have fun. Sucking the fun out of an event ruins it for everybody. How did the winner get good sports scores. I would have dog-balled him out the door for a list like that.

Sportmanship starts when you make your list.

Raditz
27-06-2010, 04:30
That's why all tourny's should have a sportsmanship score to be awarded each game by the opponent. Bringing a cheesed out list thats no fun to play against is unsportsmanlike like in my opinion.

So that when you win, I give you a bad sportsmanship score? Cheese can be called whatever my list cannot handle effectively.

kiron
27-06-2010, 04:41
OP:

Stick with magic my friend. Competition and collecting are the heart of MTG.

The object of Warhammer is to win, but the goal is to have fun. Sucking the fun out of an event ruins it for everybody. How did the winner get good sports scores. I would have dog-balled him out the door for a list like that.

Sportmanship starts when you make your list.

can't you say the same for magic, the objective is to win, but the goal is to also have fun? I know a lot of tournament WAAC players love playing magic (creating and experimenting new decks) and still have loads of fun despite being slaughtered or massacring someone else. Why are warhammer players so much different? You lose/win a game, learn and adjust your list to prepare for the future (albeit easier since u don't have to spend hours painting, since price is about the same nowadays with expensive magic cards $20-80 range).

Ultimate Life Form
27-06-2010, 04:59
When everyone brings a good list they'll also have fun. How can you purposely bring a bad list to a competitive environment and then act offended when you do not win, making up nonexistant moral highground on the fly? That's the silliest thing ever. If you don't want to play competitive, then don't. One of the mods once told me: If you don't like a thread, don't post there. Well, and that is truly an insightful comment, and also true in this case: If you don't like competitive environment then why'd you show up in the first place.

Also this list-sportsmanship correlation is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard, for there are clearly things some armies can't tackle while others have no problem with it. For example if I take lots of ethereals. An O&G player will tear his hair out for he cannot wound them, but a Daemons player will thank me with a handshake for my army consisted mostly of T3 models with no save whatsoever. What now? This will result in entirely different sportsmanship ratings despite the list being the same. Sorry, but this is just plain dumb. You say I should make a list that's fun for you to play against? Well there are 3 problems here: a) I am not obliged to make the game fun for you in any way, that's your job b) How should I know what list you play beforahend and c) there are also other players who may have a different idea of what a 'fun' army is, how can I cater to all at once?

shakedown47
27-06-2010, 05:14
I might suggest here that the average WFB player has more invested, both time and potentially money-wise, in his army than a MtG player does in his deck composition. If you want to "learn and adapt" and change your deck it takes a bit of money and either some friends with cards to trade with or a shop to buy from. If you want to do the same with your WFB list, it usually involves a few hundred dollars and countless hours spent painting and basing.

Tournaments are by nature competitive, yes, but that competitiveness can be put into some sort of perspective by the tournament organizers. I don't know of any tournaments that are completely impromptu; many are organized weeks or even months beforehand, and I've never attended a single one that didn't give at least some indication of what would be considered an acceptable list to bring. Doesn't anyone else think it's a bit odd that every other player at the tourney brought a "softer" and more fluffy list? How did they know, intuition? My guess is that it was understood long before the event what kind power level the tournament was aiming for.

Different areas will have different "meta" games (god I hate that word) obviously, but even if you come from a region that likes to power exploit you should have some idea of how to act in a store that clearly leans towards a bit more egalitarian style of play.

I have to disagree with something ULF said (and a common sentiment among WFB players) in regards to the army books, that it wasn't the gamers' problem but GW's that the books are unbalanced. So what? What in any of the fluff leads anyone to believe that all Old World armies are equal? In my opinion daemons should be the most powerful force in the old world, they're undying, constantly increasing their numbers, and can definitely afford to take the longview. To reflect this, it's fine by me that their book be as powerful as possible.

However, that doesn't mean that players can't police themselves when facing opponents. Most groups of players have an agreed upon style of play, and it is nothing short of rude to be a guest at a strange venue and screw up the established order for any reason, let alone something as petty and short-lived as fiscal gain.

TheSanityAssassin
27-06-2010, 05:23
I came from one of the most competitive metas in all of Ontario.

Phoenix in Kitchener? If so, we still sent Frank down to kick your butts =P If not, where abouts? Ottawa region?

I guess the only comment I can make regarding the rest of the thread is "yes, warhammer players get whiney. Arguably too much so." One of the problems with WAAC in Warhammer rather than MtG is that Magic has really clear cut rules that aren't abusable. Like you said, you win by finding the best deck online, buying it, and figuring out the tricks of playing it. Warhammer a lot of people who WAAC try and do so by exploiting holes in the rules in order to win through tricks and the like.

I think Magic has much more of a gambling/poker feel to it in terms of players these days, where you DON'T play to have fun, you play to win. Not that people don't enjoy themselves some of the time, but the mood/atmosphere at any Magic event I've sat around has been frighteningly tense and hostile. Not that anyone is generally being mean...but it's like everyone is on the verge of a heart attack all game.

MOST Warhammer players get into it from a video or board game mentality where they want to sit down, roll dice and have fun. Yes they want to win, and try to improve their play, but MOST already have an army that is at least somewhat based on models and fluff you enjoy. Most also don't build their armies with Top Tier tourneys in mind, but to enjoy a game in the basement or at a club with friends. These people come out to tourneys at GW stores because for a lot of them, it's a chance to get in three games in one day, rather than the 2 a month they might find otherwise (if that). It doesn't excuse the whining or poor sportsmanship at all, and I'm somewhat disgusted that a manager would rip on a player for winning, so long as he wasn't an jerk about it (I've run tourneys for 5 years, and only ever came down on 2 players, and both were for severe sportsmanship issues). And despite the cost of magic rising drastically, the average warhammer player either can't afford to, or is unwilling to overhaul his whole army to keep up with the "net list" everyone should play. It doesn't help that half the time by the time it's built and painted, it's not good anymore.

You also have to consider codex creep and the like. Seriously, if people were to take Warhammer lists MTG style you would see 3 (maybe 4) of the armies in the game used, and maybe 5 different lists in total. Doesn't make for an exciting time in my opinion.

But really, and this isn't meant to be a slight at you kiron, if you can't understand how NOT to WAAC, you need to find a VERY specific group to play Warhammer with, or else stick to magic. I've played GW games for years, and will never forget the day I realized how liberating it was not to spend a week stressing over my list leading up to every time I had to play....

HeroFox
27-06-2010, 05:28
It appears that people who strive for success are looked down on and criticized in this store, i seriously hope this isn't the case for all warhammer, as this is definitely not a good reality check since one of the biggest driving factor is competition whether in games or life...

Hi there :) I come from competitive RTS games such as StarCraft, WarCraft, AoE..etc. I also come from competitive FPS like CS and CoD.

I learned a long time ago what the competitive scene is like and what kind of players enjoy that sort of stuff and who don't. Warhammer, is more a hobby than a competitive game. Don't get me wrong, I apply what I learn from RTS to Warhammer a lot; resource management and cost effeciency being the big two.

At the end of the day though, not many people share the same mentality. It's all about what's both fun for you and what's fun for your opponent. For this reason, I am not a WAAC player in THIS particular hobby (miniatures gaming). Besides, any game based around dice and no absolutes (Warhammer TT compared to StarCraft for example), can't be taken too seriously :P

Aluinn
27-06-2010, 05:52
I also play both M:tG and Warhammer. I'm pretty competitive about M:tG, just like you; I haven't done a large event in a while but pretty much all I play are local tournaments, and of course in a tournament my first goal is to win. It's important to be nice and friendly and a good sport, but not to pull any punches in-game. However, I realize that you can't bring exactly the same attitude to Warhammer and expect to have a good time in it, because there is a lot more going in in a tabletop miniatures game.

For example, in Magic there might be some motivation to play a card because you like the art, but that never comes anywhere close to the issue of using minis that you think look nice and avoiding ones you think are ugly. I've rarely met anyone who regards the quality of the art on a magic card as a big contributer to its worth when they buy it as a single; if they're buying singles at all (except rather cheap ones) they're probably at least competitive enough to be more concerned about the power level of the card. By contrast, most everyone I know who plays Warhammer, even the competitive players, feel a bit ripped off spending a lot on minis that they think are poorly-sculpted even if they know their army could use the unit. Few people outside of large-ish competitive events have truly optimized armies for this reason. (A lot are very close, but there's usually some oddball unit thrown in there because the player loves the model, or one left out because the player hates the model.) Essentially, you can buy up a Magic deck and set to playing it that very moment, but building up a sizeable Warhammer army takes enough time and effort that people care about things like appearance, theme, and so on a lot more.

This comes down to the primary draw of Magic being the rules and the play experience while the primary draw of Warhammer, at least for the majority of us, is the models. It's not that we're willing to play with rules we feel are atrocious and hideously imbalanced; it's just that the rules are not top priority. (I know I can't speak for all Warhammer players, but in my experience this is true for most.) I don't want to go into whether this is the reason why Magic is perceived to have airtight rules while Warhammer's are often seen as a bit sloppy--I personally think it's due quite simply to one being a card game and the other a miniatures game--but the end result is that Warhammer has more of an emphasis on just throwing down and having an amusing experience. If you have to compare it to Magic, it should probably be compared to some oddball, non-PT format like Elder Dragon Highlander.

In other words, Magic has been designed from the ground up, at least in relatively recent years, to be a competitive game. Warhammer is designed with tournament play in mind, but the rules have different priorities.

Now having said all that you were playing a tournament with, I might add, a pretty large prize. A $100 credit that we can spend on minis might as well be a $100 bill to us plastic crack addicts, after all :). In light of this you have a point, and I do think when a big prize is at stake people should expect their opponents to be bringing the pain. It seems like what happened is just that a culture developed at this particular venue where there was an unspoken agreement not to do that. I don't think that they can expect an "outsider" to simply pick up on that immediately if they don't say anything, though, so this really is not your fault.

In the future I think you should ask about this when you hear about the tourny. It does no one any good to pretend that Warhammer's rules are meant explicitly for tournaments or that all tournaments are created equal. Magic's have established formats and an organization (the DCI) that regulates and sets the tone for them around the world; Warhammer has no such thing at all. As such, everyone needs to start discussing what level of competitiveness is expected before events or even individual games if we want to avoid the kind of experience the OP (or his defeated opponents for that matter) had. It sounds like no one walked away from that feeling especially good, but a brief conversation could have saved the grief.

Also, tourny organizers: If you want to run a more casual event, for one thing it probably shouldn't have a whopping huge prize, because that strongly encourages a WAAC approach, and for another you should consider placing some additional restrictions on armies. These things would also help.

Tenken
27-06-2010, 06:17
Two things. One, no one likes "that guy." You all know "that guy" he brings the cheesiest most OP lists, and argues about the rules CONSTANTLY. He will happily argue a minor rule for 30 minutes if he stands to gain any advantage out of it. Generally "that guy" intentionally tries to misinterpret poorly written rules, who's intent is clear, to his advantage. "That guy" will make you measure everything to the micron, and will never give you the benefit of "close enough." "That guy" is a jerk, someone no one wants to play with, and is generally ostracized by the community. It sounds like that one empire player was "That guy."

Second, to many people (myself included) competition isn't about winning, per se, it's about overcoming a challenge. If I bring a super tooled list, and you bring a super fluffy, but horribad list, odds are good neither of us will have fun. There is no challenge for either side. We both know when we put our armies down who the victor is going to be. But if we both bring lists of roughly equivalent competition levels, we'll both have fun, as there's a challenge involved for both sides. I find it much more rewarding to win with a mediocre list, than a tooled one. My greatest pride as a general, to this day, is beating a nationals level tourney player in warmachine, he had a super tooled sorscha list, and I had an eVlad list I had put together earlier that morning. The fact that he was a nationally ranked comp player, with a super tooled list, and I was able to overcome him, was both exiting and astounding.

Generally speaking though this isn't a game about winning. Sure someone is declared the victor at the end (sometimes, around here after the game is done we usually don't bother doing vps or anything, no one cares who won really) but that's not what's important. What's important is the social aspect, this is a game that requires you to have or make friends basically. If you're playing with people and not having fun for whatever reason odds are it's not the game, it's the people. I like competition as much as the next guy, but I'd never sacrifice my opponents fun (and my fun at that point too) just to win a game. It's always good to remember there's another person across the table, play the game WITH them, not against them.

Green Feevah!
27-06-2010, 07:22
This is exactly why there shouldn't be tournaments for Fantasy or 40k. It's a game built by hobbyists. These are HORRIBLE systems for competition. The rules are awful. The lists are terribly imbalanced. 7th edition was a perfect example. Certain lists were auto-win, others aren't worth taking.

Playing GW games just to win is like walking into a kindergarten to pick a fight. If you want real competition, and a competitive game, go do something else. Otherwise you are just paying a lot of money to stroke you e-peen. Being a 'champion' at Warhammer is just paying for a trophy.

This is a game meant for fun, not competition. It's a great rules set for relaxed, casual gaming. GW's biggest mistake was encouraging tournaments. They should stick with their strengths, great models and Quasi-roleplaying battle games.

~PrometheuS~
27-06-2010, 07:57
Okay so a friend and i popped into my local GW store for a tournament. Both me and my friend are competitive. We are both veteran magic (the card game) players so we enjoy competition (we go to nationals and PTQs) where its WAAC. However, the manager and a couple of players there (well to me anyways) seem to have the poorly designed armies (guy playing empire, had 1 mortar, 1 great cannon, 1 hellblaster, 1 general, 1 priest, 1 mage, 1 BSB, 25 greatswords (8 archer detachment), 30 halberdiers 8 swordsmen detachment, 8 handgunner detachment, 30 spearmen, 8 swordsmen detachment, and 8 crossbowmen detachment, 5 pistoliers, and 9 knights (with priest). His opponent brought 2 great cannons, 2 steam tanks, archlector on war altar, and 3 mages and some other fillers. Needless to say the archlector list smashed the "bit of everything list" but the manager and the players criticized the other player for making the game lopsided and not giving his opponent a chance (despite he was nice all game, i watched the slaughter). Of course the lector player won the tournament while everyone elses lists (to me seemed if anyone plays magic the gathering, find a bunch of cards of 1 color thrown together called a deck). Afterwards, not only was there no congrats (prize was $100 certificate), but your list should be tonned down attitude (give us a chance attitude).

Me and my friend were thinking :wtf:, is this how warhammer community react to winners? I was under the impression a general takes the best of the best to field (same in magic, known as net decks or decks that have been thoroughly tested). We talked with a bunch and asked if any played magic, where the winner did, but the few that did played casual (no idea what the most recent decks were). So who's at fault here? The winner bring the list that has the best odds of victory or everyone else who just happen to bring in my opinion a pre-con (for those who play magic) list.

Even the store manager wanted to give the prize to someone else but couldn't (the guy also had the best painted army too and was a good sport), something tells me the community attitude does not like winners or generals that take the best to the field...but cheers for the guy that takes a rainbow spectrum to the field...(i don't know, in magic AND in life, they are usually the laughing stock)

What made me really annoyed was a kid asked the store manager how much magic should he take in 2k (WE) to improve his list and the manager replied 1 mage and only 1 scroll and told to take waywatchers because they have killing blow. I almost lost it there, seriously WE one mage and 1 scroll (where magic missiles are their biggest weakness) and take very point inefficient waywatchers (with minimal magic defence) that I had to step in and ask the manager why only 1 scroll when magic missiles were WE greatest weakness due to low T and AS. The manager replied because waywatchers got killing blow and can kill enemy generals with one shot (there I knew he was not a even competent player who understands probability or his opponents were all idiots leaving their generals out in the open).

Is most of the warhammer community all like this? Playing fluffy list that have no hope in winning against a competent player? I know 8th ed. will fix a lot of powergaming list, but if the players refuse to build strong lists, doesn't seem like all the changes GW do will give them a chance against a well prepared opponent.

It appears that people who strive for success are looked down on and criticized in this store, i seriously hope this isn't the case for all warhammer, as this is definitely not a good reality check since one of the biggest driving factor is competition whether in games or life...

Regardless of what others say, you enter tourns to win, and if that means playing a powerful list, then so be it, if others dont bring power list to tourns its there own fault

I myself dont pay money to enter and then take a weak and worthless list that cant fight its way out of a paper bag.... people who do so are just wasting my time

xxRavenxx
27-06-2010, 08:09
The comment that is sorely lacking from this thread so far is this:


"There is a time and a place for everything."

In MTG, if you turn up to nationals, you take a killer deck. If you turn up to a friday night magic event, you bring something fun.

In table-top games, its pretty much the same. You turn up for a friendly game, you dont bring the min-maxed cheese list, you bring something ballanced and fun.

Occasionally you'll make a mistake and bring something "too competitive" for your situation.

You either quickly explain to the TO that you misjudged, and see if he'll let you / like you to downgrade your army list (decklist...) to fit the competition. If he doesnt want you to (rules and all that) you play it down.

You turn up with that empire list, and realise you're going to crush your opponent, you play gently. Maybe deliberately pick the wrong quantity of steampoints. "Misguess" a few charges. Your list will pick up the slack, you'll still win, but your opponent will at least get to blow up a steamtank, and kill a unit or two.

In terms of "it was a tournament". Well unless it was one that needed qualifiers, expect some people there to have fun. If you get a new player, a kid, whatever in your first round, you go easy, they'll filter down into the lower pack natrally and have a great time. What you dont do is trounce them all the way to ebay and the sale of their army...

Its called sporting behaviour. Its actually described in detail in the MTG floor rules too. Winning at all costs is only fair game when its the game your opponents playing too. If your opponents there to have fun, have fun with them.

Novrain
27-06-2010, 08:13
you enter tourns to win


I doubt it. I would propose that most enter tournaments for the challenge, and frankly it is a greater challenge to win with a "normal" list, than some ridiculous exploitative cheese fest.

if others dont bring power list to tourns its there own fault

I disagree, if you bring a list out of all proportion to everyone else, then I believe it is your fault. You have to be able to judge the type of tournament that is to be played. There is only one thing you would achieve in bringing a super hard list to a beginners tournament, spoiling the occasion for everyone, each of whom has invested just as much effort as you have in perfecting your list, in building theres towards a fluffy or aesthetically pleasing direction.

people who do so are just wasting my time

******** mate. People who exploit badly written rules, and unbalanced army books, People who completely disregard the setting of the game, and the fluff and history that goes with it, just to justify a minute increase in game winning "efficiency", those are the people who waste my time.


I agree with Green Feevah, when he writes
"This is exactly why there shouldn't be tournaments for Fantasy or 40k. It's a game built by hobbyists. These are HORRIBLE systems for competition. The rules are awful. The lists are terribly imbalanced. 7th edition was a perfect example. Certain lists were auto-win, others aren't worth taking.

Playing GW games just to win is like walking into a kindergarten to pick a fight. If you want real competition, and a competitive game, go do something else. Otherwise you are just paying a lot of money to stroke you e-peen. Being a 'champion' at Warhammer is just paying for a trophy.

This is a game meant for fun, not competition. It's a great rules set for relaxed, casual gaming. GW's biggest mistake was encouraging tournaments. They should stick with their strengths, great models and Quasi-roleplaying battle games"

The rules dont work for tournament play, because there is something to the fantasy world created by GW beyond things like efficiency and competitveness. It has a story, a narrative, and frankly rules that are not deisgned to survive those looking to maximise thier advantage.

If you want to competitively play Warhammer, do it under a rulesystem that makes an attempt to balance the game, like the ETC rules, but honestly, I wouldnt say you were playing Warhammer anymore, just a game that looked similar but had been stripped of its soul.

Ultimate Life Form
27-06-2010, 08:14
Play like an idiot when 100$ are at stake? You must possess superhuman willpower.

honorandglory
27-06-2010, 08:15
a) I am not obliged to make the game fun for you in any way, that's your job

This is the most asinine thing that I have ever read on a gaming forum. Damn I'm glad I never have to play you.

HeroFox
27-06-2010, 08:21
Its called sporting behaviour. Its actually described in detail in the MTG floor rules too. Winning at all costs is only fair game when its the game your opponents playing too. If your opponents there to have fun, have fun with them.

So true on so many levels.

Ultimate Life Form
27-06-2010, 08:23
This is the most asinine thing that I have ever read on a gaming forum. Damn I'm glad I never have to play you.

I love it when peoplen I've never seen drop in, quote three words from my posts, jump to conclusions and then shout abuse. Are you perchance one of these whiny persons we're talking about?

Please show me a single rule that says 'you must make the game as enjoyable as possible for your opponent'. Doesn't exist? Well then I'm not obliged to do so. That does not mean that I'm trying to ruin the game for you though. In fact I enjoy a good friendly game far more than this horrible competitive scene and you would find that I'm very forgiving and allow correcting mistakes, give you a bit of leeway on the charge and taking themed lists rather than WAAC, but since you decided I'm not woth playing I'm probably wasting my breath. Don't you ever expect me to hold anything back in a tournament though.

honorandglory
27-06-2010, 08:37
So your saying that there must be a rule telling you that your opponent is to have fun in this game.

By the way here is the Merriam and Websters definition of the word GAME.
Main Entry: 1game
Pronunciation: \ˈgām\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English gamen; akin to Old High German gaman amusement
Date: before 12th century

1 a (1) : activity engaged in for diversion or amusement

Again glad I don't have to play you if you need a rule to tell you that both people are suppose to have fun. And the the onus is on you to make sure your opponent is have a good game and a fun time.

Novrain
27-06-2010, 08:41
Isn't it kind of the most important rule ULF?

Ultimate Life Form
27-06-2010, 08:44
In your definition I see no evidence that everyone has to be fun while engaging in an activity to qualify it as game. What's a game to the cat isn't to the mouse.

Again you're failing to understand. I do not need that rule, it's common sense. At the same time as stated twice it's not mandatory, and yes I do admit that if a prize of 100Ä is at stake I frankly care quite little about the feelings of my opponents, but I do not expect them to do, either. This is WAR. After the tournament we can sit down and have a nice friendly game. Again, as has been stated in an excellent post, there is a time and place for everything.

kramplarv
27-06-2010, 09:15
Play like an idiot when 100$ are at stake? You must possess superhuman willpower.

been there, done that. Not warhammer but other games. 100 bucks aint nothing compared to letting several others having a good time. :)

Arbiter7
27-06-2010, 09:19
Playing fluffy list that have no hope in winning against a competent player?

OP this sort of gives you away. Why are fluff and competence incompatible? A competent player and a competitive player are not necessarily the same thing.

In fact, I find MUCH MORE competence in a player who can win without a competitive army than one who wins because of a competitive army. There's your list and then there's generalship. Generalship with fluffy lists is much more challenging than generalship with the blinding obvious.

I'm not saying that all competitive players win because of their lists. They could be very good generals, and I know a few in my gaming group. But being competitive is not a sign of competence. It could just as easily be a sign of weakness, because one is afraid that he will get his ass handed to him if he doesn't use all of the "win" units.

That said, the context is also important. A tournament is supposed to be competitive, unless it is specifically meant to be friendly. Therefore I understand your original post in so far as the context was a tournament. But as far as the rest of the gaming community goes, I think you've missed the point.

Mudkip
27-06-2010, 09:22
A non-WAAC tourny shouldn't be offering money in the first place.

Generally it's not a great idea to completely neglect the fluff aspect of the game in pursuit of competitive army lists. Even competitive gaming clubs generally don't just sit around playing the small handful of top lists constantly, they mix things up. You generally understand that people are capable of writing really nasty lists and occasionally will, but you won't have to face MAX POWER every game. It's more about the challenge than the winning in a lot of "competitive" clubs.

When there's a prize on offer though, then it really is about the winning since you have to win to get the prize. Tournaments are WAAC unless explicitly stated otherwise, in which case it's better not to offer elaborate rewards for winning the tourny.

Dokushin
27-06-2010, 10:21
Personally, I think it's rude to show up with a weak list.

I mean, ok, I spend a fair amount of time creating my list, getting my various parts together, making my machine. I pick parts that fit together, map out a strategy, and make a determination on what I think the best I can do with this strategy is. That's the appropriate response to a tournament. It's a test to see who is the best. It is a competition.

Note, as an aside, that I am not saying fluff is baseless. I love fluffy armies, play them regularly, and they have a huge place -- just not in tournaments.

Back to what I was saying -- I spend all this time on my tourney list. I want to see what it's capable of. I look forward to a good, hard fight. I look forward to seeing the muscle flex, seeing how well I can deal with various challenges, seeing if my line can hold. That's all completely subverted by someone who deliberately builds a subpar list and then enters a tournament with it, meaning the game doesn't provide me with any of the things I was looking for. I'm being told here that I am, after that, in the wrong for wanting a competitive game. In a tournament.

Yes, you have to read the metagame and it's about playing with the right people. But I think it's a little disingenuous to jump on the competitive players every time there is a conflict; it's a failure to meet expectations on both sides, and there is no reason to complain and argue about it; just move on and find games more suited to what you want. IMO, anyway.

sigur
27-06-2010, 10:33
This is exactly why there shouldn't be tournaments for Fantasy or 40k. It's a game built by hobbyists. These are HORRIBLE systems for competition. The rules are awful. The lists are terribly imbalanced. 7th edition was a perfect example. Certain lists were auto-win, others aren't worth taking.

Playing GW games just to win is like walking into a kindergarten to pick a fight. If you want real competition, and a competitive game, go do something else. Otherwise you are just paying a lot of money to stroke you e-peen. Being a 'champion' at Warhammer is just paying for a trophy.

This is a game meant for fun, not competition. It's a great rules set for relaxed, casual gaming. GW's biggest mistake was encouraging tournaments. They should stick with their strengths, great models and Quasi-roleplaying battle games.

I pretty much agree with this sentiment. Magic: The Gathering and Warhammer are two entirely different games, with an entirely different history and purpose. Warhammer is basically a roleplaying game that was robbed of it's roots. It's meant to look good and be fun. Magic: The Gathering is a tournament system, made for competetive play. And it's good at that.

If the fielding of non-optimized lists makes you raise an eyebrow and remarks about the fact that one player schould adapt to the local gamer customs make you go :wtf:, you either have to drastically rethink your approach to Warhammer or just stick to trading card games or at least to tournaments that clearly are WAAC. Learn to differentiate between these tournamens you like and regular gaming.

The main problem about "competitive" Warhammer is that list building is a big part of the thing but it does NOT have all that much to do with competence. I think that some posters in here confuse competence with list writing. And in Warhammer, the "stronger" lists are pretty easy to figure out or just to look up in the internet.



A non-WAAC tourny shouldn't be offering money in the first place

NO tournaments should be offering money AT ALL.

Dasyatis
27-06-2010, 10:57
Personally, I think the problem is with them calling it a tournament in the first place.

If you want a couple of friendly games of Warhammer then call it a campaign day or something and tell people that points will come from fluff. If you call it a tournament then expect people to come with their best armies.

You don`t become better by playing against weak opponents. I`ve become better by being routinely slaughtered by veterans and then thinking what I could do differently next time.

kramplarv
27-06-2010, 11:02
But there is a BIG difference between being beaten by a veteran or by an army list. Big Big difference. :)

Maldred2
27-06-2010, 11:05
This is a very nice thread to read, and some very good points have been brought up.

I'll re-evaluate my list for the upcoming 40K doubles tournament I'm entering.

I probably shouldn't be playing the Tervigon, as it is

-very powerfull in a 750 points list
-I don't have a suitable conversion yet. Just dropping down a Carnifex and calling it a Tervigon doen't feel right.

I know it isn't fantasy but the ideas in this topic have value for the entire Games workshop hobby scene, or perhaps even the entire table top hobby.

Thx for the input everybody!

sigur
27-06-2010, 11:15
But there is a BIG difference between being beaten by a veteran or by an army list. Big Big difference. :)

True. And I would like to point out again that writing up a strong list is NOT the "skill" part of Warhammer.

Dorack
27-06-2010, 11:17
I feel WHF and 40K both have an intrinsic "story line" in the fact that 2 or more armies are facing each other. I donīt play Magic, but I donīt see how you can get that "story line" going there.

Ultimate Life Form
27-06-2010, 11:23
Magic has an intrinsic storyline as well as cards are tied to factions and depict certain events, and it is possible to make fluffy decks (like my all-spirits-Kamigawa decks). However when it comes to tournaments it is all stripped down to the bare game mechanics, and the same is certainly possible for Warhammer.

If I enter a tournament I do so to win (that is actually the definition of a tournament, look it up), and skill alone is not enough, you actually need a decent list, and it is a fact that some lists just don't cut it, just as a random conglomeration of cards doesn't make a good deck. Again there is nothing stoping you from entering the tournament with a ridiculous list but then don't start crying when players with a more serious approach trample you in the dust.

logan054
27-06-2010, 11:34
Okay so a friend and i popped into my local GW store for a tournament. Both me and my friend are competitive. We are both veteran magic (the card game) players so we enjoy competition (we go to nationals and PTQs) where its WAAC. However, the manager and a couple of players there (well to me anyways) seem to have the poorly designed armies (guy playing empire, had 1 mortar, 1 great cannon, 1 hellblaster, 1 general, 1 priest, 1 mage, 1 BSB, 25 greatswords (8 archer detachment), 30 halberdiers 8 swordsmen detachment, 8 handgunner detachment, 30 spearmen, 8 swordsmen detachment, and 8 crossbowmen detachment, 5 pistoliers, and 9 knights (with priest). His opponent brought 2 great cannons, 2 steam tanks, archlector on war altar, and 3 mages and some other fillers. Needless to say the archlector list smashed the "bit of everything list" but the manager and the players criticized the other player for making the game lopsided and not giving his opponent a chance (despite he was nice all game, i watched the slaughter). Of course the lector player won the tournament while everyone elses lists (to me seemed if anyone plays magic the gathering, find a bunch of cards of 1 color thrown together called a deck). Afterwards, not only was there no congrats (prize was $100 certificate), but your list should be tonned down attitude (give us a chance attitude).

This is the problem with the current state of warhammer, if people with different out looks on the game play each other neither is going to enjoy the game and the loser is going to feel like they where robbed of a few of his/her life. I respect that certain people take the game abit seriously, personally i dont (well i try not).

GodlessM
27-06-2010, 12:29
This is a very simple situation really. Was the winning player told in advance that it was a 'friendly' tournament and not to bring a hard list? No. So was he being a WAAC jerk? No. And besides, my community is very lax on hardness and I am the only tourney regular there and so from traveling around etc. I have developed to be the competitive one in the group. Yet when I bring my normal list as I am trying to keep it in practice for up and coming tournaments I don't get shunned by my group and same if I travel and the group turns out to be lax. There's no need for it. Now albeit I am competitive I don't usually bring lists like what the winner of this story brought, but the morals are still the same.

Foxbat
27-06-2010, 12:46
This is a very simple situation really. Was the winning player told in advance that it was a 'friendly' tournament and not to bring a hard list? No.I too think what the OP observed was the inevitable outcome of an unengaged Tourney Organizer (“TO”). Clearly, the local players and tourney had an unwritten set of composition rules. As a result, I don’t blame the player with a competitive list, I blame the TO who should have made such comp rules clear in the tourney advert. The player that brought a really powerful legal army is just as much a victim in this story as this person’s reputation may be negatively impacted in the minds of the other players.

jamano
27-06-2010, 12:55
OP this sort of gives you away. Why are fluff and competence incompatible? A competent player and a competitive player are not necessarily the same thing.

In fact, I find MUCH MORE competence in a player who can win without a competitive army than one who wins because of a competitive army. There's your list and then there's generalship. Generalship with fluffy lists is much more challenging than generalship with the blinding obvious.

I'm not saying that all competitive players win because of their lists. They could be very good generals, and I know a few in my gaming group. But being competitive is not a sign of competence. It could just as easily be a sign of weakness, because one is afraid that he will get his ass handed to him if he doesn't use all of the "win" units.

That said, the context is also important. A tournament is supposed to be competitive, unless it is specifically meant to be friendly. Therefore I understand your original post in so far as the context was a tournament. But as far as the rest of the gaming community goes, I think you've missed the point.

It's true that its a faulty assumption to say that fluffy means incompetent, but it also is to say that every bad list is a fluffy one. Not everyone chooses to play a fluffy list, alot of people just play in a very small pond with only a few people. Some stores think its cheese to do a flee action to redirect, because they dont do it and only play a certain way. Tournament competitiveness is an equalizer in this sense that you use all the tools at your disposal in your list and your strategy.

Also I agree with Dokushin, in that bringing a bad list can be just as unfun for the player with a well made list as it is to lose to it. Getting a challenge is part of how you have fun in this game, and if you have to play with your arm behind your back to give your opponent a chance(I do this with the newer players but on other people its more patronizing than anything) you're not really playing the game.

mooze
27-06-2010, 13:14
You can play to win (ie; buy the newest uber army, write the most ridiculous list imaginable, rules lawyer throughout the game, etc.) or you can play to have fun. I once came into an enormous VC army in a trade and didn't play it once because the rules for VC seemed absurdly biased to hand me a win. I swapped it for orcs and enjoy them immensely. If you're a "winner" then try winning in the game, not in the "write an uber killy list phase". I'd love to see a tounament done with generic, identical lists. Then you'll see who's a general and who's a crafty list writer. WAAC players, IMO, are generally not good, well balanced, successful people. They have enormous self esteem issues and require an arena where they can be "winners". Man the f up already.

P.S. If I'm forced to read the syllable "meta" one more time I'm going to puke into my laptop.

Skyth
27-06-2010, 13:50
Meta ;)

Here's a story of my own experience...I went to a tourney and took a pretty soft WoC list based off of blocks and wanting to fight. I got a good comp score, but I kept on facing off against progressively more powerful armies that were avoidance-based tourney armies rather than fighting-based block armies. As a result, I didn't have much fun. However, I didn't blame my opponent's (except for one...) or thier lists for my lack of fun. I blamed my OWN list because it just couldn't do anything against the other lists.

That is what ULF is talking about when saying that you are responsible for your own fun. I've played games where I've been severely outmatched...I took pleasure (And had fun) with the small victories that I could get...Killing a unit even if most of my army is falling apart.

1000 Yard Stair
27-06-2010, 14:07
I'm with godless and foxbat. The entire fault of this sad affair is on the GW staff that ran the tournament. If the staff wanted a "friendly" tournament then the rules packet should have explicitly outlined army composition. The most egregious error on their part was giving a cash prize to the winner. If it was a "friendly tournament" then the prize should have been awarded to a random entrant, then all involved can just "have fun" rather than trying to win.

They called it a tournament. The winner showed up with a legally constructed army, whats the problem? The true embarrassment is the fact that after he won, the staff whined and tried to renege on his prize. Nice sportsmanship. Just give him his prize and shake his hand.

The staff utterly failed here on so many levels.

WarmbloodedLizard
27-06-2010, 14:13
if you organize a tournament, you are responsible to give the players rules to follow. It's so easy. If there is no "real" prize, even a simple "This is a friendly tournament, so please bring friendly lists" would probably be enough. now, if the prize is 100$, this doesn't work anymore and you need some restrictions. he could let the "hardness" of a list influence tournament score. he could distribute the 100$ among the top 4 players. anything, really. But if the organizer can't even come up with basic slot restrictions (no double rares, etc.) or take a comp system from the net, he just shouldn't bitch about it when a hard list wins.



I might suggest here that the average WFB player has more invested, both time and potentially money-wise, in his army than a MtG player does in his deck composition.

Warhammer is quite a bit cheaper than MTG, believe me. MTG is ever-changing and you need constant investment of time and money. That's one of the reasons I stopped playing magic, it was just too money and time comsuming.

(If by average player you mean casual player, it's a little different. of course you can say that a a casual player doesn't always play the newest editions, but the same can be said for warhammer... the casual player maybe doesn't paint his army and proxies a lot.)

twistinthunder
27-06-2010, 14:19
OP:
How did the winner get good sports scores. I would have dog-balled him out the door for a list like that.

Sportsmanship starts when you make your list.

you realise that being a good sportsman not only requires one the be a 'good winner' (not bragging, which afaik from the OP the winner didn't) but also for
one to be a 'good loser' (not moan about overpowered lists,claim the winner was a bad sportsman etc). were you to give him a bad score, he likely would've given you a bad sportsmanship score.

Sportsmanship doesn't start when you write your list, sportsmanship starts when the tournament rules a announced, if you don't want people using 'unfair' lists make a rule about it, the objective of a tournament is to win, you wouldn't boo a football team for wanting to win a tournament so why boo a wargamer for using a competitive list in a tournament especially if said tournament allows for any list to be used in it.

rtunian
27-06-2010, 14:25
guys, the very first sentence of the most important rule on page 3 should really settle this question. "oh but this is a tournament we're talking about, not casual night" doesn't amount to squat. the most important rule is not called the most important rule because it is an irrelevant suggestion. rather, it's the most important rule of the game...



remember, you're playing to enjoy a challenging battle with friends, where having fun and keeping to the spirit of the game is more important than winning at any cost.

so the question "what is wrong with waac mentality?" should be answered by "it's strictly against the rules. fun & spirit of game > waac. see page 3".

sure, a tournament organiser can override this rule. a to can say "guys, for my event, we are not going to worry about fluff. bring the cheese. let's make it ott super slugfest no holds barred". if there is no such disclaimer, then you should default to following the rules in the book, including the most important rule! *exasperated*

i mean seriously... how can they make it any clearer that the priority of the game is fun for all involved? what would you have it called, ulf, since the most important rule doesn't seem to catch your attention? should it be called no really guys, this rule is important, follow it!, or maybe obey this rule or die? what would make it so that people say "hey, maybe we should follow this rule?" sheesh.

Ultimate Life Form
27-06-2010, 14:29
Actually the meaning of every single part in the phrase is reversed in tournaments, hence one could argue that tournaments themselves are illegal.

If WAAC is the way for me to have fun then we've really run into a classic GW rules conundrum.

Skyth
27-06-2010, 14:31
The thing is, WAAC was not brought up by the OP and the person he was describing wasn't playing in a WAAC way.

The most important rule cuts BOTH ways. You could say (And I would) that the people whining about the list that was brought were breaking the rule you quoted. People have fun in different ways, and all are valid (Except when you are intentionally trying to hurt someone or if you are hypocritical about it).

twistinthunder
27-06-2010, 14:33
also note that gw encourages people to make up or remove some rules to play games/tournaments.

the waac mentality is not only a good mentality to have in tournaments but it's also an evolutionary mentality. it's hard-wired into humans, it always has been if it wasn't there would be no human race.

Korraz
27-06-2010, 14:39
>>2 Steam Tanks & War Altar
Case Closed. Next time, look who you will playing with. If it is unrestricted and you are going to play rabid tournament players, go ahead. If not, stick your Doubletank and Horrorspam where the sun never shines. Unrestricted does not always mean "Be as nasty as you can."

brendel
27-06-2010, 14:40
Im in the mind of if who im playing is not trying there best to beat me, then I would not enjoy the game myself.
I do believe as said above the organiser should have placed resrictions on the armys if he implied that someone who had won's list need to be tonned down.

Skyth
27-06-2010, 14:42
>>2 Steam Tanks & War Altar
Case Closed. Next time, look who you will playing with. If it is unrestricted and you are going to play rabid tournament players, go ahead. If not, stick your Doubletank and Horrorspam where the sun never shines. Unrestricted does not always mean "Be as nasty as you can."

Yes, the old tired 'If you play differently than I want to, you are a bad person' argument.

Bac5665
27-06-2010, 14:52
Yeah, this was entirely the TO's fault. Tournaments in warhammer don't work unless the TOmakes it very clear that the most broken lists are welcome (ugh) or he or she instills a good comp system. This TO should have been ready to take lists before hand and make you tone yours down if it was offensive to him. If he's not willing to do that, then either don't run a tournament or be prepared for ridiculous lists.

slayerofmen
27-06-2010, 15:02
I would have to say the thing that keeps getting skipped over about this is that IT WAS HELD IN A GW, GW stores aren't known for their hardcore tournament scene are they?

one would then have to assume 80% of the people in the store aren't likely to be tournament players, thus bringing a " competitive" list may have been a poor idea.

i for one know that if i was to show up to a GW to play in a series of games, i wouldn't bring the hardest list i could, because you know little Timmy across the table, who was let out to play for the day by his mum, more then likely isn't coming with the bottle of wine to go with the cheese.

The fact it was held in a GW in itself dictates that its not going to be a WAAC environment, they aren't by their nature places for gaming of that sort, you can't sell WAAC lists to kids and young adults as easily as you can sell fluff and "cool things that happen"

In saying that though i believe it was a poor idea of the GW to give out a monetary prize of any kind, i box kit of some kind maybe, or a couple of blisters but not money

as an aside i can't really blame the TO for the reasons i state above, the tournament would have been more of a get people in get 'em keen thing, any other frame of mind for it is frankly ridiculous (given GWs stance on all thing rules)

it wasn't your two day event held in a function room with a comp system to give people more restrictions to work around to create the most horrid thing they can. If you come into a GW for games with that type of game in mind, you really only have yourself to blame when winning ends up meaning nothing

Skyth
27-06-2010, 15:04
Actually, the GT's run by GW are known to be the places with no comp/bring your hardest armies to play in events.

vinush
27-06-2010, 15:32
I always build an army for the fluff, not to WAAC. For me, it's the creating of the fluff, the painting of the models I like and trying out oddball stuff that really helps me enjoy the game.

The notion that all magic users play as WAAC (as theorised by the OP) is ridiculous. I used to play magic, and never felt the need to WAAC.

THE \/ince

theunwantedbeing
27-06-2010, 16:00
I dont think the OP understands how to play for fun, to make the game fun for their opponent.
I dont think the guy who won the tournament that was mentioned does either.

Also I dont think he understands the difference between a WAAC list and a decent player.
But nevermind, he does play magic afterall so he's bound to have a warped view of things :P

shakedown47
27-06-2010, 16:24
For me WFB tournaments are a celebration of the hobby, not about who can exploit their book better than someone else. To this end, all of the tourneys in my area have stopped giving out "Best General" prizes, i.e. a prize to the person with the most battle points.

A tourney winner, or at least the winner receiving the best prize, should have the highest combined score between comp, painting, sportsmanship, and battle points. This solves a lot of problems from the outset.

I also don't think tournaments contradict "The Most Important Rule" by their very nature; if anything, it should be held up as a guideline to be followed. Too many people have skipped that part of the book, I would say.

kyuzo
27-06-2010, 16:27
I dont think the OP understands how to play for fun, to make the game fun for their opponent.
I dont think the guy who won the tournament that was mentioned does either.

Also I dont think he understands the difference between a WAAC list and a decent player.
But nevermind, he does play magic afterall so he's bound to have a warped view of things :

Why do fun and competitive have to be mutually exclusive? I have fun while being competitive. While the two that played you can take an accurate guess that neither of them had fun... but who is to blame here? Sure you can easily look at the guy with the cheese list and throw out names, but there is no reason you cant also look at the guy who brought a bad list and blame him as well.

Coldblood666
27-06-2010, 16:32
At local tournaments where I live there is simply a raffle drawing at the end of the day for various store credit amounts. Raffle tickets are awarded based on sportsmanship, painting, and how much money you spent on your "buy in" to enter the tournament. The person who wins the tournament and gets best general usually only gets free admission to the next tournament.

chamelion 6
27-06-2010, 16:54
can't you say the same for magic, the objective is to win, but the goal is to also have fun? I know a lot of tournament WAAC players love playing magic (creating and experimenting new decks) and still have loads of fun despite being slaughtered or massacring someone else. Why are warhammer players so much different? You lose/win a game, learn and adjust your list to prepare for the future (albeit easier since u don't have to spend hours painting, since price is about the same nowadays with expensive magic cards $20-80 range).

All depends on what the game represents to you... There is nothing wrong with the competition side of gaming. For some that's the point, but that's not what the game is about for everyone.

For me it's about the fluff, the scenario, the fantasy part of it. It's about the challenges and the ability to react to the unique and unpredictable and the temporary immersion in the fantasy world that's important. Winning and loosing is important only if it falls within that context.

To me, people that compare WFB to chess miss the point completely. If I want chess, I'll play chess. It's about taking a less that optimal army and finding a way to play it to the best of my ability. It's about the heroic struggle of mere humans against the monstrous horrors that lurk in the shadows. Not my St 3 swordsmen against your toughness 4 whatever.... In a fluffy army in the context of the background you arent always gonna be commanding the best your army has to offer. Most often you're trying to deal with what's in front of you with what you've got to work with.

Pete_x
27-06-2010, 16:54
You people are funny. Complaining someone brought a strong list to a tournament is like whining about the pittsburg penguins because Crosby is "broken"!!! I<ll also let you on a little secret: casual gamer bringing bad list in tourny are ruining a so-called WAAC players fun. Pretty much every argument you made can be turned on it's head to prove the point that you fluffy players are ruining the game. I don't think it's the case, but think about it.

Also what if i like putting models on the table and sending them in battle against my opponent but couldn't care about fluff? Am I a bad person? I don't deserve to enjoy the game? Obviously not.

@ OP, sadly your question as been answered in the multitude of replies badmouthing the competitive style of play.

Spider-pope
27-06-2010, 16:57
In this instance the fault is clearly with the tournament organiser. To me a tournament means being extra competitive and doing your darnedest to win without being a tit about it. So i'm not surprised someone turned up with a beardy list to the tourney. It also paints a rather negative impression of the other players if they gave the winner grief over using such a list.
Any restrictions on army composition should have been made crystal clear to everyone entering the tourney, which would have avoided the entire situation.

Now i personally don't really like playing WAAC games, it's not something i find fun so i do the sensible thing and don't enter tourneys. I would hope WAAC-ers do similar and avoid fluffy campaign events and the like rather than ruining them with an internet list of doom.



but it's also an evolutionary mentality. it's hard-wired into humans, it always has been if it wasn't there would be no human race.

I think you'll find the majority of anthropologists disagree with you there.

chamelion 6
27-06-2010, 16:59
You people are funny. Complaining someone brought a strong list to a tournament is like whining about the pittsburg penguins because Crosby is "broken"!!! I<ll also let you on a little secret: casual gamer bringing bad list in tourny are ruining a so-called WAAC players fun. Pretty much every argument you made can be turned on it's head to prove the point that you fluffy players are ruining the game. I don't think it's the case, but think about it.

Also what if i like putting models on the table and sending them in battle against my opponent but couldn't care about fluff? Am I a bad person? I don't deserve to enjoy the game? Obviously not.

@ OP, sadly your question as been answered in the multitude of replies badmouthing the competitive style of play.

Bad no... But that was never the kind of game I wanted to play and not what attracted me to the game. For what it's worth I've held my own agains some of the best power gamers out there. But to do it I had to abandon all the things I enjoyed about the game. In the end I quit playing and sold my stuff... Not whining, just saying that kind of gaming has no appeal to me.

lanrak
27-06-2010, 17:00
Hi all.
Just to say the WHFB rules are NOT developed for balanced compatative play, but to promote a range of products using 'inspiring ' rules.;)

The basic unsuitability for competative play of WHFB/40k is know by everyone isnt it?Hence the need for aditional composition restrictions in the competative torunaments. .

Without an optimised list it is VERY difficult to beat an oponent with an optimised list.

So if the event was held at a GW store , they MAY have hoped no 'nasty WAAC players,' turned up.(But a cash prize is going to appeal to the most competative gamers isnt it?)

This would explain thier objection to having a WAAC player prove how unballance the WHFB game is.
He might have been very pleasant and freindly , but his list was showing up how poor/limited the playtesting is at GW towers.
But as said before the staff of the GW shop should be aware of the limitations of using a rule set like WHFB for a tournament, with a cash prize.

Why dont GW just admit WHFB and 40k are not the best rule set to use for competative play?
TTFN
Lanrak.

chilledenuff
27-06-2010, 17:05
Because GW won't sell loads of tickets for tournys?

Pete_x
27-06-2010, 17:22
Bad no... But that was never the kind of game I wanted to play and not what attracted me to the game. For what it's worth I've held my own agains some of the best power gamers out there. But to do it I had to abandon all the things I enjoyed about the game. In the end I quit playing and sold my stuff... Not whining, just saying that kind of gaming has no appeal to me.

That is your right and I respect that. The key point in your post is "Not whining". The game as two sides and mixing them carelessly obviously results in a session of whine and cheese tasting.

chamelion 6
27-06-2010, 17:38
That is your right and I respect that. The key point in your post is "Not whining". The game as two sides and mixing them carelessly obviously results in a session of whine and cheese tasting.

I agree with that... from 5th to 6th edition the pendulum swung in the direction of competition overthe lighter aspects of the game. That appealed to certain kinds of people. Rather that bitch and moan I walked away from it and left it to those that enjoyed that sort of thing.

Going from 7th to 8th edition the pendulum is swinging back the other direction and I suspect that many people are going to be faced with the same decision I had to make back then.

Warhammer 8 is, for me, a welcome change, but I understand why some people are starting to feel alienated by the changes.

Pootleflump
27-06-2010, 17:40
What lists did you and your mate run Kiron?

yabbadabba
27-06-2010, 18:03
There is some right guff in places on here. Anyway ...

First, Kiron sorry to say that parts of your original post have come across to me as very patronising. That probably isn't the case, but thats just how it seems.

Second, Lanrak is right. WFB and 40K are not optimised for competitive gaming unlike, as I gather, MtG. So any comparison between the two is really superfluous.

Third, the GW staff were at fault here (although I have never heard of an official GW store offering a cash prize). There is enough experience in the business to know how to run a good tournament, this was poor planning and execution. This isn't anything to do about playing styles, being competitive in gaming or anything else; its about how to run a good business.

Fourth - I can't stand tournaments. I find there are too many of the people and army lists who I don't enjoy playing against attending. I also blame the tournament scene and mentality for messing up the culture of the games I enjoy. However, any competitive gaming situation is going to have a mix of those who want to compete in the spirit of the written game, and those who want to be competitive within the definitions of the winning game. I wouldn't stop that for anything, although I choose not to be a part of it. I think Gw's latest edition of WFB battle is a nod towards recognsing this imbalance.

Finally, this hobby is about what people personally want to get out of it. While you might disagree with what people do, your only right is to walk away from playing with them. Remember what is right and wrong is a matter or perspective, not truth.

kramplarv
27-06-2010, 18:09
I can play WAAC without using 2*Steam tanks+war altar, or horrorspam etc. WAAC has, imo, nothing to do with your armylist. My warrior only-list is played WAAC. :)

competetive has nothing to do with your army either. :) Any army composition can be competative and WAAC.

Aluinn
27-06-2010, 18:22
I think it's a little absurd to denounce a WAAC approach on the grounds that it has nothing to do with having fun. Obviously people who want to play that way have fun doing it, and probably most of them have more fun with it when their opponents are doing the same. It is just a different way to have fun.

I 100% agree though that you need to match your opponent's mindset in this or meet them somewhere in the middle if you can't do so completely. In a tournament the job of matching approaches is the organizer's and this one just fell down on the job. To me every tournament should be billed as either "casual" or "competitive" from the beginning, and if it is casual should have some restrictions designed to limit power lists, such as allowing only one Rare choice (or none at all), banning special characters, etc.

Also, for goodness' sake don't offer an enormous prize for a casual event. It really makes it hard to keep the environment relaxed. I think $25 is about the most you can realistically have on the line without encouraging a WAAC attitude even amongst the gamers who brought casual army lists. It doesn't mean that everyone will succumb, but there will be someone out there thinking of a kit they'd really like but weren't able to afford otherwise.

Phaedrus
27-06-2010, 18:38
Is most of the warhammer community all like this? Playing fluffy list that have no hope in winning against a competent player?

You have mistakenly conflated a competent list with a competent player.

Competent players can play fluffy lists against one another. Those games are oftentimes fun (perhaps because there is less ego on the line), interesting, and filled with spontaneous, skillful strategy.

Conversely, incompetent players can field "competent" lists (which they have simply found online, or seen played) and stand a fair chance of winning because of the pure strength of the list.

And yes, of course, competent players can field competent lists. Obviously, issues occur when this option and option 1 meet on the field.

The question you seem to be asking is this: "Why do people want to play fluff lists over powerful lists." The answer you seem to have come to is that the person making the list must be incompetent or stupid: not realizing that their fluffy list is less powerful than its cheesy counterpart.

I would submit to you that a far more likely answer (as making a cookie cutter tourney list is not in any way difficult) is that the power lists offer relatively little variation, and so once you have played with and against them a number of times doing so again is, very simply, boring. The game becomes less like the modular and adaptive wargame it is intended to be and more like chess (where there may be several possible moves each turn, but only one is really any good).

kiron
27-06-2010, 18:42
What lists did you and your mate run Kiron?

We were not playing a list, we just dropped by. My empire army at home contains of mostly knights, artillery, steam tank, mages, and one block of infantry (usually for giving myself a safe area to retreat back to) with detachments. I dislike infantry since their movement makes them unflexible to the way of the battlefield and too static (aka mostly useless since movement is the most important part of the game).

None of my battles with my friends have any of this footslog in the middle because any decent commander would not send in his troops to fight without 2:1 odds of winning unless desperate (I know lots of people like footslogging, but you might as well play yatzee if you just like throwing dices and see what happens). Most of our battles end up in draws with small skirmishes because no one will committ their army unless desperate or they completely outmaneuvred their opponents (min. 2 on 1 or overwhelming stronger unit against a weaker unit or for strategic purpose like suicide assassin on enemy mage) since that is how actual battles are fought and we enjoy the feeling of tactical victories over our opponents. If we do make a breakthrough (we get 1-2 chances each game), it usually ends up in whole scale slaughters where the losing player obviously learns his mistake to not make the same error the next game (usually the mistake happens 2-3 turns earlier in an error in their movement unless some godsent luck in the magic/shooting phase).

Also in my games, with my friends, we have an agreement to not deviate from the average dices rolls too much (say if we rolling 3 dice to wound on 5+, we don't even roll the dice and just save 1 wound, we only roll dice for the odd extra dice, like if rolling 4 dices, then we would just roll 1 dice cause no one really likes winning/losing a game due to luck as it does not improve our skills). Of course alone with our tactical strategy, our list have to be very efficient and synergistic our else we will be disadvantaged against our opponent. Even if I take a weak list against anyone at that tournament (based on the skill I saw, it would've been a massacre, so the result is the same, but why handicap myself in case I meet a cheese list?) There is really no min limit of weak army, heck you don't even have to use up all 2000 points, you could show up with a 1500 army list with the min. requirements (I could probably win too), at least there is an upper limit of max efficiency for most army, then it comes down to how the general piloting the list. The same is same in magic the gathering, the top decks are pretty much the same shell with a few minor changes, but it then goes down to the skill of the pilot and sideboarding.

Furthermore, my right to enjoy the game is as a wargame testing the limits of my army and generalship. Of course, given the resources I have (2000 points), I would like to bring the most efficient army I am comfortable in using and the one I know that can handle as many situations as possible to give me the greatest chance of victory. I expect my opponent to respect my rights and offer me a CHALLENGING game, not a game where it's pretty much thrown to me. If they are complaining about me bringing a strong army list, can I not complain that they offended me by bringing a weak list? A battle has 2 parts, part 1 is the army list, I seriously annoyed when people show up to fight part 2 when already lost part 1 because it insults my generalship. In the same perspective, it would be no fun for me showing up with a weak list and then suddenly having to face a super strong list, but you usually solve that problem in part I (make a strong army list!). So wouldn't the logical safe thing to do is bring a strong list since there is a max boundary but no min. lower boundary on army list?

The prize was $100 gift certificate for the store (not really cash money). Yeah the incentive is there and well a tournament usually means take whatever you got to me.

And all honesty, even if i took a 'balanced' list, i can be confident of getting massacres since every move i usually do in my favor (barring terrible luck), so if the end result is the same. i will be doing area denial and combat denial, i'm not stupid enough to committ my 2 ranks of knights against goblins despite I know i can win reliably by 2 CR from average kills, i usually wait until i can flank as well, usually through bait flees or sacrificial detachments in front forcing them to charge bad angle (cause if they don't, they will be showered with artillery), that's how much calculation i put into my games, many players will dislike playing my list whether balanced or not based on my strategy and tactical maneuvring since it takes lots of experience to perfect (usually take 3-4 turns in advance to set up where most players will not see coming) why not take the better list in case someone does bring a WAAC list? No point handicapping myself since the results will be the same either way because most people will be annoyed whether facing a balanced list in guerilla tactics or bret royal air force (though one takes less skills) since the end result is the same.

P.S. combat phase is the least significant phase in all my battles (who engages unfavorable battles?), it's usually the missile and magic phase that help dictates the movement phase to set up favourable combats. By the time combat starts the results is pretty obvious even to a kid (which is what a good general should strive for whether with balanced or cheesy lists). That's what fun is to me, may not be the same for everyone else, but what right do they get to judge if my way is wrong especially if it works.

HeroFox
27-06-2010, 18:50
I never understood why people use the phrase WAAC.

Is this a Tabletop only thing? This is not a fake question, or a comment to poke fun at people, I'm dead serious. Win At All Costs - is this something that only tabletop users use?

In all my years of playing competitive RTS and FPS, I've never heard the term used. I have only heard the terms and phrase: Playing to Win and "Playing "competitive".

I can't help but feel that "WAAC" has a certain negative and whiny feel to it.

Pete_x
27-06-2010, 19:02
I never understood why people use the phrase WAAC.

Is this a Tabletop only thing? This is not a fake question, or a comment to poke fun at people, I'm dead serious. Win At All Costs - is this something that only tabletop users use?

In all my years of playing competitive RTS and FPS, I've never heard the term used. I have only heard the terms and phrase: Playing to Win and "Playing "competitive".

I can't help but feel that "WAAC" has a certain negative and whiny feel to it.

I'm guessing it's because warhammer has developped a group of hardcore fluff players where "winning" isn't the goal, role-playing is. Unfortunatly such people (well some of them) could not stand others who's goal is to win (as in almost any other game). So they went and labeled them WAAC. It's a typical, different = bad, reaction.

At least it's my guess on the matter.

twistinthunder
27-06-2010, 19:06
WAAC can be used in any environment,though i have only seen it used in tabletop forums.

it's also mis-understood, a WAAC player doesn't necessarily take the 'top-tier' army(-ies), he tries to win with whatever army he uses, no matter what(even resorting to cheating).

e.g. Player 1 is NOT a waac player however he does take a 'top tier' army, whilst playing he doesn't make it so that he wins all the time, he plays the game normally and would (if asked to) change his list if someone finds it too overpowered.

player 2 IS a waac player he however he doesn't take a 'top tier', whilst playing he cheats, if asked he would not change his army list because it's overpowered.

a different example: a player in a football game is playing a match against a 'nemesis' team in order to win he dives,injures other players,handballs etc. he is waac football player.

is the winner in the original post a WAAC player? NO

vinush
27-06-2010, 19:25
In addition to that, WAAC players will argue over millimeters when measuring, will change where they measure from on a model/unit to suit their dirty, cheating needs, will quite often roll quickly and pick up the dice before you see what was rolled and declare they passed whatever test or caused a ridiculous amount of wounds, etc.

Basically, the All Costs they intend to Win At is the enjoyment of their opponent (and one can't help but think their own enjoyment too). They are usually bad winners, and are certainly bad losers.

I despise the WAAC attitude, despite my abilities to counter it due to good generalship, because I play to have fun. If I happen to win a game, then that's a good bonus, but if my opponent isn't enjoying themselves, and I'm not enjoying myself, it's a waste of a couple of hours IMO. Pretty much all of my opponents can and will say that they had a good game and enjoyed themselves regardless of the outcome of the actual battle.

I went to a Doubles Tourney at Warhammer World a while back, and my partner and I chose the armies we did for fluff, not for WAAC or any other reason. The "Goal" of the weekend was to have fun, play with toy soldiers and experience the Doubles tournament. We placed 69 out of 100. By conventional standards this placed us in the bottom tier of competitors, but in my eyes, and those of my partner, we had a great time. Our first match was against a team who placed 5th overall, and they certainly didn't have an easy victory from us, but they certainly said afterwards that our game was the most enjoyable they had of the whole weekend. That to me was worth more than winning a little game of toy soldiers.

THE \/ince

GodlessM
27-06-2010, 19:41
In addition to that, WAAC players will argue over millimeters when measuring, will change where they measure from on a model/unit to suit their dirty, cheating needs, will quite often roll quickly and pick up the dice before you see what was rolled and declare they passed whatever test or caused a ridiculous amount of wounds, etc.

You sorely mistake WAAC player with cheaters, and I'm sure plenty of people of this forum would be highly offended that you implied they are the same.

chamelion 6
27-06-2010, 19:42
We were not playing a list, we just dropped by. My empire army at home contains of mostly knights, artillery, steam tank, mages, and one block of infantry (usually for giving myself a safe area to retreat back to) with detachments. I dislike infantry since their movement makes them unflexible to the way of the battlefield and too static (aka mostly useless since movement is the most important part of the game).

None of my battles with my friends have any of this footslog in the middle because any decent commander would not send in his troops to fight without 2:1 odds of winning unless desperate (I know lots of people like footslogging, but you might as well play yatzee if you just like throwing dices and see what happens). Most of our battles end up in draws with small skirmishes because no one will committ their army unless desperate or they completely outmaneuvred their opponents (min. 2 on 1 or overwhelming stronger unit against a weaker unit or for strategic purpose like suicide assassin on enemy mage) since that is how actual battles are fought and we enjoy the feeling of tactical victories over our opponents. If we do make a breakthrough (we get 1-2 chances each game), it usually ends up in whole scale slaughters where the losing player obviously learns his mistake to not make the same error the next game (usually the mistake happens 2-3 turns earlier in an error in their movement unless some godsent luck in the magic/shooting phase).

Also in my games, with my friends, we have an agreement to not deviate from the average dices rolls too much (say if we rolling 3 dice to wound on 5+, we don't even roll the dice and just save 1 wound, we only roll dice for the odd extra dice, like if rolling 4 dices, then we would just roll 1 dice cause no one really likes winning/losing a game due to luck as it does not improve our skills). Of course alone with our tactical strategy, our list have to be very efficient and synergistic our else we will be disadvantaged against our opponent. Even if I take a weak list against anyone at that tournament (based on the skill I saw, it would've been a massacre, so the result is the same, but why handicap myself in case I meet a cheese list?) There is really no min limit of weak army, heck you don't even have to use up all 2000 points, you could show up with a 1500 army list with the min. requirements (I could probably win too), at least there is an upper limit of max efficiency for most army, then it comes down to how the general piloting the list. The same is same in magic the gathering, the top decks are pretty much the same shell with a few minor changes, but it then goes down to the skill of the pilot and sideboarding.

Furthermore, my right to enjoy the game is as a wargame testing the limits of my army and generalship. Of course, given the resources I have (2000 points), I would like to bring the most efficient army I am comfortable in using and the one I know that can handle as many situations as possible to give me the greatest chance of victory. I expect my opponent to respect my rights and offer me a CHALLENGING game, not a game where it's pretty much thrown to me. If they are complaining about me bringing a strong army list, can I not complain that they offended me by bringing a weak list? A battle has 2 parts, part 1 is the army list, I seriously annoyed when people show up to fight part 2 when already lost part 1 because it insults my generalship. In the same perspective, it would be no fun for me showing up with a weak list and then suddenly having to face a super strong list, but you usually solve that problem in part I (make a strong army list!). So wouldn't the logical safe thing to do is bring a strong list since there is a max boundary but no min. lower boundary on army list?

The prize was $100 gift certificate for the store (not really cash money). Yeah the incentive is there and well a tournament usually means take whatever you got to me.

And all honesty, even if i took a 'balanced' list, i can be confident of getting massacres since every move i usually do in my favor (barring terrible luck), so if the end result is the same. i will be doing area denial and combat denial, i'm not stupid enough to committ my 2 ranks of knights against goblins despite I know i can win reliably by 2 CR from average kills, i usually wait until i can flank as well, usually through bait flees or sacrificial detachments in front forcing them to charge bad angle (cause if they don't, they will be showered with artillery), that's how much calculation i put into my games, many players will dislike playing my list whether balanced or not based on my strategy and tactical maneuvring since it takes lots of experience to perfect (usually take 3-4 turns in advance to set up where most players will not see coming) why not take the better list in case someone does bring a WAAC list? No point handicapping myself since the results will be the same either way because most people will be annoyed whether facing a balanced list in guerilla tactics or bret royal air force (though one takes less skills) since the end result is the same.

P.S. combat phase is the least significant phase in all my battles (who engages unfavorable battles?), it's usually the missile and magic phase that help dictates the movement phase to set up favourable combats. By the time combat starts the results is pretty obvious even to a kid (which is what a good general should strive for whether with balanced or cheesy lists). That's what fun is to me, may not be the same for everyone else, but what right do they get to judge if my way is wrong especially if it works.

This simply isn't correct, historically speaking. In fact the opposite is true. Battles are not fought for the sport of it. They're fought for other political, and territorial reasons the game isn't concerned with. Commanders in the field are usually forced to be resouceful and make due and don't have the luxury of picking the best their nation has to offer. You fight with what ya have, not what you'd like to have. If you're defending your homeland from an invader you don't have the option of not commiting your troops. If The Emperor says thake these dregs of the militia and take out those orks you get to command the scum, not the cream and not commiting yourself is likely to see your head and shoulders part company.

Of course this is a game, not reality, so you have the option to take only the best and most powerful army you can muster and the Emperor isn't likely to call you in for sitting on your bum while thos orks continue to squat and mass outside your city's gates...

And the only reason I mention this is because this is exactly the difference between a game based on fluff armies in a scenario and a WAAC tournament.

vinush
27-06-2010, 19:47
You sorely mistake WAAC player with cheaters, and I'm sure plenty of people of this forum would be highly offended that you implied they are the same.

Sorry, obviously my humour is lost on you. That was a very tongue in cheek comment from me, and all but the first one are exaggerated. It has been my experience however, that WAAC players will always agrue over millimeters when I try to charge or shoot them, but expect me to be forgiving during their turns over the same distances.

THE \/ince

WarmbloodedLizard
27-06-2010, 19:51
so in your eyes, WAACs are cheaters...

for me WAACs are just players that take the game serious (at times too much so) and use every LEGAL means to win, usually/often including a top tier army. it's the extreme form of a competitive gamer.

I also agree with Pete_x's interpretation of it.

edit: yes, I'm slow ^^

twistinthunder
27-06-2010, 19:57
You sorely mistake WAAC player with cheaters, and I'm sure plenty of people of this forum would be highly offended that you implied they are the same.

I believe that he was actually making some form of joke about what i said, mainly the fact that i said some WAAC players may resort to cheating.

vinush
27-06-2010, 19:58
Was that in response to my post?

No, not all WAAC players are cheaters, They suck the fun out of the game for me, and therefore makes me think of them as just as bad as someone who cheats, as the net result is the same for me.

THE \/ince

vinush
27-06-2010, 19:59
I believe that he was actually maing some form of joke about what i said, mainly the fact that i said some WAAC players may resort to cheating.

Exactly.

THE \/ince

twistinthunder
27-06-2010, 20:04
vinush, edit buttons, use them! lols. but yes(see attachment)

The Devourer
27-06-2010, 20:06
Well I haven't ever played magic but I can see the difference from what you have said. WHFB isn't really meant to be a competitive game. GW don't make the rules very tight and the codex / army books are far from balanced.

If people did play WHFB competitively it would be boring as many armies could never be used. How am I supposed to play my ogres when we play optimised lists as I can't ever win. There would be 3 or 4 armies played and 1 or 2 lists per army. This would make it very boring.

Also, there may be fluff for magic but I don't think you can get into the roleplaying aspect in the same way.

vinush
27-06-2010, 20:06
I know how to use edit buttons, thank you very much... I choose not to use them.

THE \/ince

Loki73
27-06-2010, 20:14
Wow are we supposed to feel bad for the WAAC army that won $100. No wonder WHFB is loosing popularity.

VoodooJanus
27-06-2010, 20:15
While I personally will avoid fantasy tournaments just to escape the nasty, exploitative, rules-lawyery type players that tend to populate that community of gaming, it should be expected. If you show up to a tournament with an underpowered list, you can't expect to have an equal chance of winning as everyone else. Particularly ones with money prizes. If you do win, great! But you're going to have a rough, unpleasant time along the way.

However, in the case of the OP, I probably would have scouted the place before I came in guns blazing (no pun intended.) I've moved enough times, and gone to enough new gaming clubs to learn this from both ends of the spectrum (I've brought OTT and underwhelming lists to new clubs for much disastrous consequences.) New gaming clubs are always different, and the community has no reason to adapt to the player. You can either fit in with the relevant community, or find a different one. They have absolutely NO need to appreciate or accept you, just like you have no need to build lists to their standards. There's nothing wrong with what he's doing, it just might not mesh with the LGS he is going to. I'm sure there's a more competitive group around town.

It's my opinion that the OP shouldn't be acting in a patronizing way towards the other LGS members for making poor list construction choices. That's downright rude. It's THEIR club, and he is the new person. It's your job to adapt to them. I'm sure they'll be understanding though if he comes in at another time, everybody has a rocky start at their LGS.

HeroFox
27-06-2010, 20:17
So WAAC is just someone with bad sportsmanship that tries too hard to win?

Maybe people shouldn't confuse "competitive" players with WAAC then.

The entire point of going to a tournament is to either experience the competitive setting or to win. In either case, you're there to compete with your peers. If you bring a crappy list, a fluff list, or didn't prepare to play against players who are there to win, then you shouldn't be playing in a tournament.

The biggest shame of it all is that players mock, despise or shame the winner when they know (or if they don't, they need to look up the definition of a tournament, competitive, or the word: compete). Now THAT is unsportsmanlike.

Agnar the Howler
27-06-2010, 20:22
It's a tournament with a rather nice prize up for grabs; i'd say it's tough crap. The guy brought the best list he could field in order to win a substantial prize and naturally, you'd expect other people to do the same. If it was a race across the Atlantic where you could use any method of transport avaliable to you and you die if you lose, then you wouldn't exactly head down there with soome goggles, a pair of speedos and some inflatable water-wings would you? You'd spend all your time and savings on getting the best and fastest transport there is.

It was a competative environment with $100 at stake, and I applaud the guy who brings his best game with him, as I would certainly bring mine.

Loki73
27-06-2010, 20:23
Ok sorry competitive. WAAC... Win at all cost...includes cheating at some level. maybe that phrase IS thrown about a bit too liberally.

Seriously though if yer gonna go to a tourney you should expect this. The Competative armies not cheating lol.

Pete_x
27-06-2010, 20:23
HeroFox, I'd refer you to my original answer to your question.

And also this :


Was that in response to my post?

No, not all WAAC players are cheaters, They suck the fun out of the game for me, and therefore makes me think of them as just as bad as someone who cheats, as the net result is the same for me.

THE \/ince

Because it proves my point.

chilledenuff
27-06-2010, 20:27
At the op...

I'm glad the winner of the tournament appeared to play in a friendly, well natured style. It's a shame that you saw his opponents afterwards saying his army was overpowered. (I hasten to say at this point I wasn't there) I'd like to have seen the tourny/discussion myself but i'll have to take your word on what happened, so i have some questions..

1. What was the attitude of the players without the cheese list when they played each other?

2. You say you knew the tourny was on, were there composition rules?

3. The conversation afterwards when people were saying the empire list should be toned down, did they say it was because the army was too powerful or against the fluff?

4. Was the GW manager thinking about 8th edition when he gave his advice? it sounds like he may have been from the advice he gave

I'd like to know the above before i give my twopenneth

Lathaon
27-06-2010, 20:44
I expect my opponent to respect my rights and offer me a CHALLENGING game, not a game where it's pretty much thrown to me.

If you want a challenge, why not take a weak list and win with that?


given the resources I have (2000 points), I would like to bring the most efficient army I am comfortable in using and the one I know that can handle as many situations as possible to give me the greatest chance of victory.

Surely a list that has good synergy but is not going to make the other player groan during deployment would be more fun for both sides? You can't just play it your way and expect everyone else to conform; you need to find a compromise. Or a group of like-minded people. Most people who build a "fluffy" list will put some consideration into making it a list that can win. Whether they succeed or not is another matter, of course.

chamelion 6
27-06-2010, 20:51
I'm guessing it's because warhammer has developped a group of hardcore fluff players where "winning" isn't the goal, role-playing is. Unfortunatly such people (well some of them) could not stand others who's goal is to win (as in almost any other game). So they went and labeled them WAAC. It's a typical, different = bad, reaction.

At least it's my guess on the matter.

No... It that's not it at all. Winning is the goal just as much as the tournament. It's the context that's different.

In a tournament and a WAAC game there is no context. It's like a sporting event and great measures, if it is to be done properly, are made to maintain balance in the game to the extent that it's possible.

A scenario challenges your generalship and tactics in a more "historical" context than just playing a sporting event. What happens, as in real life, when all things aren't equal??? What happens when you're out numbered 3 to one and you have to hold the line at all costs. Can you do it? How well? What happens when your nicely planned invasion goes completely awry and are force to attack with just your rank and file troops cause the best just weren't availablke or maybe they were needed to hold the line somewhere else.

These are the situations real generals are face with all the time. The test isn't what you can do all things being equal, the test is how good are you when your opponent has all the advantages.

In these situations most of the power gamers simply fold up and go home. They really can't compete. I find the whole tournament thing sterile and not much of a real challenge because after a point all the possibilities are understood by both players and the victory generally comes down to die rolls and who made the fewest mistakes... Like a sporting event, not at all like a real battle.

And chess makes a much better vehicle for those kinds of games...

kramplarv
27-06-2010, 20:57
A real battle REALLY is all about making less mistakes than your opponent... :)

Pete_x
27-06-2010, 20:59
No... It that's not it at all. Winning is the goal just as much as the tournament. It's the context that's different.

In a tournament and a WAAC game there is no context. It's like a sporting event and great measures, if it is to be done properly, are made to maintain balance in the game to the extent that it's possible.

A scenario challenges your generalship and tactics in a more "historical" context than just playing a sporting event. What happens, as in real life, when all things aren't equal??? What happens when you're out numbered 3 to one and you have to hold the line at all costs. Can you do it? How well? What happens when your nicely planned invasion goes completely awry and are force to attack with just your rank and file troops cause the best just weren't availablke or maybe they were needed to hold the line somewhere else.

These are the situations real generals are face with all the time. The test isn't what you can do all things being equal, the test is how good are you when your opponent has all the advantages.

In these situations most of the power gamers simply fold up and go home. They really can't compete. I find the whole tournament thing sterile and not much of a real challenge because after a point all the possibilities are understood by both players and the victory generally comes down to die rolls and who made the fewest mistakes... Like a sporting event, not at all like a real battle.

And chess makes a much better vehicle for those kinds of games...

I apologize but I didn't get your point one bit... what does have to do with my post? maybe my english isn't all I thought it was but I just don't understand.

vinush
27-06-2010, 21:07
None of my battles with my friends have any of this footslog in the middle because any decent commander would not send in his troops to fight without 2:1 odds of winning unless desperate

<snip>

P.S. combat phase is the least significant phase in all my battles (who engages unfavorable battles?), it's usually the missile and magic phase that help dictates the movement phase to set up favourable combats. By the time combat starts the results is pretty obvious even to a kid (which is what a good general should strive for whether with balanced or cheesy lists). That's what fun is to me, may not be the same for everyone else, but what right do they get to judge if my way is wrong especially if it works.

What, in my opionion, a sad way to look at the game. If you were to play monopoly would you move 7 spaces each turn, as this is the average roll on two D6?

Quite often those combats you don't expect to go well perform much better than expected.

I've seen a unit of 10 Crossbowmen in my empire army draw combat for four rounds against a chaos knight. I've seen warmachine crew defend successfully against the eagle sent to snipe them, and what's more they drove it off. All of this was because of rolling dice.

THE \/ince

Korraz
27-06-2010, 21:08
A real battle REALLY is all about making less mistakes than your opponent... :)

No. No. Just no.

Skyth
27-06-2010, 21:12
Was that in response to my post?

No, not all WAAC players are cheaters, They suck the fun out of the game for me, and therefore makes me think of them as just as bad as someone who cheats, as the net result is the same for me.

THE \/ince

And I'm sure they can say the same about you...Sucking the fun out of the game for them by being sullen and making it a hostile environment for them.

vinush
27-06-2010, 21:15
Ah, that would be a fair comment were I to play that way. I still play as if I am having fun, despite the fact I'm slowly dying inside.

THE \/ince

Miredorf
27-06-2010, 21:19
The concept of synergy is just so cool and l33t that i have to laugh at it when we are talking about the most common lists which win tournaments.

Theres nothing smart in using 2 tanks and a pope mobile, theres nothing smart in using kolek or kairos.

What makes the difference is how the player uses them (actually in-battle decissions instead prebattle) given a rival of similar entity.

What im trying to say is that you can only measure your skill when you confront your hardass list to another hardass list of the same level, and it's gotten to a point where more likely you can only play agaisnt a mirror list to actually see whos the best player (that if luck doesnt get in the way of course).

Thats the magic of using balanced lists. They allow a lot more for tactical tought and dont actually need to face a mirror list to see whos the best (and minimize the dice influence way more than the min-max type).

yabbadabba
27-06-2010, 21:27
I apologize but I didn't get your point one bit... what does have to do with my post? maybe my english isn't all I thought it was but I just don't understand.
I think that what Chamelion is also pointing out that there is a group of people who will play to win, but that isn't the only objective. Many years ago I spent some time discussing with Jervis and others about how you could play games of WFB but without using points. Obviously without some trust and an understanding of the game this could result in a terribly one sided battle. In addition house rules often need to be made up on the spot. But with that trust and understanding it turns into a wonderful challenge with the joy just being in the playing, the cherry on the cake being the winning. And there are other ways in which you can play the game outside of the standard "line-em-up-and-knock-em-down" tournament style.
I think Chamelion maybe questioning whether tournament minded players could enjoy playing that way, or even understand why playig that way can be fun.

chamelion 6
27-06-2010, 21:30
I apologize but I didn't get your point one bit... what does have to do with my post? maybe my english isn't all I thought it was but I just don't understand.

Perhaps then I read too much into your post, and I apologize if that's the case.

My point was that over the years, as I grew less interested in WFB the implication was always that players that insisted on fluff and didn't like the whole power game side of it were really just bad players, poor generals, just wanted to play a roll playing game and were just frustrated cause we couldn't win. If we wanted to play our "historical" lists, or fluff as most people call them, that was fine as long as it was understood my purpose was to just sit there and take it.

That was how I read that post... Like I said, I apologize if I took it wrong.

I adapted and started playing "to win" but it just got old. Once you sort out an army there are usually only one or two viable options. The real challenge to the game was lost and it just got repetative.

I miss the days when you army was tasked to do things other than just kill bad guys. When the you had to think outside the box to win a game. When all the variables were know and all the numbers crunched so many times you pretty much knew the outcome before hand. I miss games when you had to think on your feet. When you had to take calculated risks to win...

In a fantasy game randomness and the unexpected should rule the battle field. Facing overwhelming odds... That's what a fantasy game is all about. It's about Heros facing big nasty things and finding a way to win in spite of the odds. It's still about winning, but winning in spite of what what you had to do to acomplish it. It's about how you would measure up to the generals in the fantasy worlds the game represents.

I see 8th edition as a return to that fantasy world.

Xcross
27-06-2010, 22:10
There have been some really good points made in this thread, and I agree with that, sometimes you just have to look out if you don't put down to good of a list because you know your playing against a not so good opponent.

As example: I played against skaven the other friday, with my dark elves, I know everybody looks at dark elves as an OP army, but that is not always the case, especially if you're going against a skaven list which is in my opinion, a bit to cheesy :p (which he just created, and he knew what kind of list I had, since he helped with creating it)

His list was:

2x around 25 Slaves
2x 25 Clanrats
10 Plague censor bearers
Doomwheel
2 Skaven mages (I don't know how you call them)

And most important, all this in 1000 points.

When I saw this list, and looked at my own, I already knew I didn't have a chance to win, not at all, it was quite obvious, the player standing next to him saw the table when we were ready to deploy, and said: "You don't stand a chance." I still had quite some fun, but it wasn't as I hoped how it would of been :(. He even said at the end that I played very good(and he didn't have such a good game, had several miscasts etc) but because his list was so "good" I never stood a chance.

HeroFox
27-06-2010, 22:16
If I was in your shoes and looked across a table and saw a mean list, I would ask him if it would be OK for me to make things more challenging for him.

If he agrees, I would take a harder list by switching some things around. Not tailoring to his army of course.

Pete_x
27-06-2010, 22:33
Perhaps then I read too much into your post, and I apologize if that's the case.

My point was that over the years, as I grew less interested in WFB the implication was always that players that insisted on fluff and didn't like the whole power game side of it were really just bad players, poor generals, just wanted to play a roll playing game and were just frustrated cause we couldn't win. If we wanted to play our "historical" lists, or fluff as most people call them, that was fine as long as it was understood my purpose was to just sit there and take it.

That was how I read that post... Like I said, I apologize if I took it wrong.

I adapted and started playing "to win" but it just got old. Once you sort out an army there are usually only one or two viable options. The real challenge to the game was lost and it just got repetative.

I miss the days when you army was tasked to do things other than just kill bad guys. When the you had to think outside the box to win a game. When all the variables were know and all the numbers crunched so many times you pretty much knew the outcome before hand. I miss games when you had to think on your feet. When you had to take calculated risks to win...

In a fantasy game randomness and the unexpected should rule the battle field. Facing overwhelming odds... That's what a fantasy game is all about. It's about Heros facing big nasty things and finding a way to win in spite of the odds. It's still about winning, but winning in spite of what what you had to do to acomplish it. It's about how you would measure up to the generals in the fantasy worlds the game represents.

I see 8th edition as a return to that fantasy world.

apologies accepted ;)

You did read a little bit too much into it. I simply meant that some players, such as yourself, enjoy something else from the game then right up playing for the win. And that is alright. However some of those players look down upon others that do not share their point of view and come with an army to win.

Gotta say I really enjoy the exchange here. Without the flaming and all, good stuff :D

kramplarv
27-06-2010, 22:37
No. No. Just no.

Yes. Yes. Just Yes.

kiron
27-06-2010, 22:56
This simply isn't correct, historically speaking. In fact the opposite is true. Battles are not fought for the sport of it. They're fought for other political, and territorial reasons the game isn't concerned with. Commanders in the field are usually forced to be resouceful and make due and don't have the luxury of picking the best their nation has to offer. You fight with what ya have, not what you'd like to have. If you're defending your homeland from an invader you don't have the option of not commiting your troops. If The Emperor says thake these dregs of the militia and take out those orks you get to command the scum, not the cream and not commiting yourself is likely to see your head and shoulders part company.

Of course this is a game, not reality, so you have the option to take only the best and most powerful army you can muster and the Emperor isn't likely to call you in for sitting on your bum while thos orks continue to squat and mass outside your city's gates...

And the only reason I mention this is because this is exactly the difference between a game based on fluff armies in a scenario and a WAAC tournament.


Well, the context is more like, the emperor says "here is 2000 crowns, now go and hire a mercenary force to fight your battle." Empire knights cost x crowns, halberdiers y crowns, x is greater than y because knights are more expensive. The army book tells me what I can hire and the limits of each. My opponent if playing empire has the same restrictions (it's not like he takes all the knights and artillery and i'm stuck with poor infantry), as the general I can choose. Other armies have whatever their way of justifying their army point limits. Of course, not reality, heck, a good general would never even accept battle against an army in same equivalent of strength (assuming GW balanced each army properly), but you try to make the most of it and I would expect the best from my opponent too.



At the op...

I'm glad the winner of the tournament appeared to play in a friendly, well natured style. It's a shame that you saw his opponents afterwards saying his army was overpowered. (I hasten to say at this point I wasn't there) I'd like to have seen the tourny/discussion myself but i'll have to take your word on what happened, so i have some questions..

1. What was the attitude of the players without the cheese list when they played each other?

2. You say you knew the tourny was on, were there composition rules?

3. The conversation afterwards when people were saying the empire list should be toned down, did they say it was because the army was too powerful or against the fluff?

4. Was the GW manager thinking about 8th edition when he gave his advice? it sounds like he may have been from the advice he gave

I'd like to know the above before i give my twopenneth

answer:

1. it was not bad, there was some anger from a kid who failed a ld. 4 panic check (from 2 doom and darkness stacked on his general unit by two mages) who fled off the field because he didn't originally think the spell warrented a scroll to be used on and thought it unfun after a terror check on his uber unit and didn't think having his best unit (HE lord in large unit of swordmasters) off the field was fun and called the play 'cheap'. Obviously there were some competent player and some really incompetent players. It seems if the players cream of the crop unit wasn't fighting, it was unfun...so...even if I brought a balanced list, the game would have been unfun since I would just have ignored that swordmaster unit or shoot the heck out of it, at the archlector player gave the swordmaster a chance to fight letting the kid charge a tank with them (dealing 7 hull damage before crashing another tank and lector into it :D).

2. no comp rules, just no special chars since it was GW and they had to allow what their book says is legal to be played. There army comp, sportsmanship, generalship, and painting each worth 25%. the winner got max on painting (i swear, i almost thought he hired a pro to paint it), generalship, almost zero on army comp, and decent on sportsmanship.

3. I can't remember, just some criticisms. Remember one player said that the player had 1/6 total amount of steam tanks (only 12 in existence) in the whole empire in the army which was **********.

4. Don't think so, he didn't even know the knew rules when I asked for his opinion.


If you want a challenge, why not take a weak list and win with that?

Surely a list that has good synergy but is not going to make the other player groan during deployment would be more fun for both sides? You can't just play it your way and expect everyone else to conform; you need to find a compromise. Or a group of like-minded people. Most people who build a "fluffy" list will put some consideration into making it a list that can win. Whether they succeed or not is another matter, of course.

Well if the victors way lets him win...why should he compromise that (definitely not in a tournament, probably casual)? How is someone suppose to know what are in other people's list since army lists are suppose to be secrets...you have no idea how bad or good your opponent's lists are. well you have an idea of how good they can get (look at netlists), but no idea how bad they are...(one person showed up with a unpainted list of about 1500 points), would anyone be expected to show up with 1500 points in a 2k battle just to be on even playing field? might as well be safe than sorry (what if the victor brought a balanced list and someone else brought HE seer council? At least with 2 tanks and altar he has a chance in case someone does bring it, though someone did bring a 14 powerdice vampire army and the victor eventually grinded the zombies to the dust and thanks to his magic defence pulled a win, had he brought a balanced list, he may not have won. The vamps player didn't get much notice because in two games his miscasts killed his general (boy was he pissed), that and probably list was fluffy gave him less slack about his list :D)


A real battle REALLY is all about making less mistakes than your opponent... :)

And you start with your list construction...if you are ahead of your opponent in army efficiency that means less mistakes than your opponent...(also there was 25% empire players there...a ton of infantry from most lists...they all had the same choices...)

Though from my experience in magic tournaments, the fluff/new players get knocked out first 2 rounds and end up playing each other while the more competitive players play for the prizes. Sure the fluff players play usually 1 game against a WAAC player, then afterwards end up playing mostly fluff players anyways and the WAAC players end up playing other WAAC players, so everyone is happy. Really no need to criticize any players unless the player is looking for it (i.e. how to improve his win %).

chamelion 6
27-06-2010, 23:24
apologies accepted ;)

You did read a little bit too much into it. I simply meant that some players, such as yourself, enjoy something else from the game then right up playing for the win. And that is alright. However some of those players look down upon others that do not share their point of view and come with an army to win.

Gotta say I really enjoy the exchange here. Without the flaming and all, good stuff :D

I agree, this has been a very interesting discussion...

I don't see the Tourney crowd as bad... Most of my friends have evolved that way. But, as I said, I think they see the game as more like a sport between to more or less evenly matched opponents.

I think we "fluff" guys see the game more as trying to recreate battles and skirmises from various fantasy books and novels or even actual history. Even match ups aren't important and winning, which is still important, is measured more by how well you performed the task. For instance taking on an opponent that out guns and out numbers you and holding them at bay for six turns. Or simply managing a breakthrough in a massive line with few or poor quality troops.

It's a different kind of generalship...

As for 8th edition, there isn't any reason to abandon 7th edition amongst other like minded people.

WindsorSpitfire
27-06-2010, 23:27
I love it when peoplen I've never seen drop in, quote three words from my posts, jump to conclusions and then shout abuse. Are you perchance one of these whiny persons we're talking about?
.




i love it when forum elitest post things like the above trying to put down another persons very valid point on the basis that because they have posted 4,000 more times in the last 18 months they are somehow superior.

i have like 8 posts total on this forum, ive played 40k for 15 years and fantasy for 4, stick to the issues at hand if you want some credability, dont put people down because of some ridiculous notion that posts mean anything.

and lastly, if your not concerned with the fun of your opponent in the least, your a dick, straight up, and im curious why anybody would play you more than once.

dodicula
27-06-2010, 23:41
Basically people who take stank+alter, double abomination, stardragon+dragon mage, shade stars, doggy death stars... are playing the metagame not the game. They generally have no shame or decency, and are somewhere between lawyers and loan sharks on the morality scale.

chamelion 6
27-06-2010, 23:41
Well, the context is more like, the emperor says "here is 2000 crowns, now go and hire a mercenary force to fight your battle." Empire knights cost x crowns, halberdiers y crowns, x is greater than y because knights are more expensive. The army book tells me what I can hire and the limits of each. My opponent if playing empire has the same restrictions (it's not like he takes all the knights and artillery and i'm stuck with poor infantry), as the general I can choose. Other armies have whatever their way of justifying their army point limits. Of course, not reality, heck, a good general would never even accept battle against an army in same equivalent of strength (assuming GW balanced each army properly), but you try to make the most of it and I would expect the best from my opponent too.



Well, that's one way to imagine it, but it's not really historic. Even feudal armies didn't work that way and armies are never really evenly matched or fight on even terms, or even for the same reason. Draws on a battle field are a rare, rare, rare thing. Generals are often called on to commit to a campaign or battle they don't feel is in their best interests. And in Pike and Sword armies the untrained dregs were the main fighting forces. Knights and other special elite troops were just too expensive to maintain except in very small numbers and you didn't train something like that over night.

Worse yet was when your 10000 man fighting force all deserted you the week of the big battle because it was time to harvest the crop back home... Mercenaries were problematic cause they often turned on the guy leading them or just walked away from the battle if they weren't happy.

But the game isn't history. The point is, if you enjoy that kind of competition then there's nothing wrong with that. You certaintly not the only one.

I was a history student for many years and history was what drew me to wargaming in the first place. The desire to test myself against histories great generals... To the extent a wargame allows. Fantasy wargaming is the same for me just testing my self against fictional comanders...

Rhamag
28-06-2010, 00:00
What made me really annoyed was a kid asked the store manager how much magic should he take in 2k (WE) to improve his list and the manager replied 1 mage and only 1 scroll and told to take waywatchers because they have killing blow. I almost lost it there, seriously WE one mage and 1 scroll (where magic missiles are their biggest weakness) and take very point inefficient waywatchers (with minimal magic defence) that I had to step in and ask the manager why only 1 scroll when magic missiles were WE greatest weakness due to low T and AS. The manager replied because waywatchers got killing blow and can kill enemy generals with one shot (there I knew he was not a even competent player who understands probability or his opponents were all idiots leaving their generals out in the open).

Leave the guy alone. It's his job to run the shop, not yours. He should have just told you to mind your own business. It is not a requirement that any GW staff are the best players or painters, that's not their job. Their job is to advise customers on what their army needs, and to sell them what they want. If the local community don't use many wizards (and the manager would know better than you if that was the case), then the kid didn't need more magic defence than he already had. If the local community leave their generals out in the open, then Waywatchers are a good choice. And the models are cool, and generate more income for the shop than another mage would. From what you described, he did his job well.

As for the tournament, he seemed to fall short, but GW don't train their staff in running tournaments, as that is not usually their job. We live in an imperfect world.

Feefait
28-06-2010, 00:23
Something the competitive of us have to remember, is that if you whollop someone in a way so they don't have fun, they might not come back. And then you've got 1 less person to play with.

Also, sometimes GW puts out really rottenly balanced codexes. Who wants to win just because their army book can be abused more easily.

It's a fine line to walk between staying fun, and staying competitive.

Its not a problem to make suggestions (in a really friendly way) to help people improve their army. And sometimes it doesn't hurt to go easy on newbies.

And one less person coming back to play is one less person coming back to buy models. My 'interesting experience' was kind of the opposite. I went into a tournament/event of sorts with a very fluffy, fun beastman list. I ended up rinning into HE swordmaster spams and rbx, demons with maxed out heralds and a greater demon and a dwarf gunline. It was 2250 and I played without a lord and only 1 rare monster. Needless to say i got stomped. If I had just bee starting that would have been it for me. i took a list i thoguht would be fun and cool and ti wasn't competitive, though I did my best and a couple rolls could have maybe swung it my way but I would have to have been extremely lucky. I;m a good player, I'll be honest but this was disheartening. Had it been my first time it would have been my last. If I just wanted to play with the biggest, nastiest "most effective" units I'd go back to confrontation - a game I dropped because of it's WAAC attitude with our local players and minmaxing.

Now had I known this was how this event was going to be played I could have kept up. it sounds like the player who won your tournament maybe just didn't know the prevailing playstyle. And for that he shouldn't be killed - however if he did and this is just how he plays then I am with the store crew. We had one guy who would do this when I used ot play at the store and he ended up losing any potential opponents as his play style never adated and people just stopped playing him, eventually he dropped out of the circle.

I would say if you like how he plays, but not everyone else then play him, and tournaments, etc. You';ll only make in the hobby a slong as you have a circle of friends to lay with, i believe and if you don;t want to play them or don't play the same way then it'll be short lived.

GodlessM
28-06-2010, 00:31
i love it when forum elitest post things like the above trying to put down another persons very valid point on the basis that because they have posted 4,000 more times in the last 18 months they are somehow superior.


ULF is far from a forum elitest and is one of the better members here dude. The fact that you only just arrived here and are already acting like you know what someone is like just makes it seem you are proving his point.

kramplarv
28-06-2010, 00:57
Or, he could have done the same as I did. I read the posts for over 2 years before i registred. Or he maybe had another nickname once upon a time. Posts and time registred means exactly zero, nada, nothing.. Because no one knows anything about each other in real life. I personally have a pretty clear idea which of the members I would like to play against and not play against. based on a few of their posts.

And on a sidenote. Someone could still be a bad guy despite not being the baddest... :)

Btw: I have nothing against ULF or WindsorSpitfire... But I do have a beef against using time registred and post count as arguments for either side. :) I mean, who has more credits. Me, who registred 2007 and have posted ca 700 posts, or godlessM registred 2008 but has around "2200posts? :)


Now, on thread: Since the game is very large and have almost infinite variables it's very hard to balance it Starcraft-wise But GW does a really really good job. Anyway; because of some of the balance issues I am a supporter of composition scores. Anything that levels the field. Also, a TO MUST be clear about what their vision of the tournament is. A softer playing field or a harder playing field. And that information should be provided beforehand to all players.

I mean; If I expect som heavy duty hardcore action (man, sounds like porno :() I bring my heavy duty toy boys. If I expect a more softer approach I bring a pillow list. But nor will I or my opponent find it enjoyable to play several hours when someone brings a knife to a gun fight. Waste of time.



(WAAC is NOT army lists. it's an in game attitude. I play WAAC with all my lists. even 100% warrior models and 1 exalted on foot to a horrorspam list. )

honorandglory
28-06-2010, 01:32
the archlector player gave the swordmaster a chance to fight letting the kid charge a tank with them (dealing 7 hull damage before crashing another tank and lector into it ).

Wow how very sporting of him.:rolleyes::rolleyes:.

Walls
28-06-2010, 01:39
Leave the guy alone. It's his job to run the shop, not yours. He should have just told you to mind your own business. It is not a requirement that any GW staff are the best players or painters, that's not their job. Their job is to advise customers on what their army needs, and to sell them what they want...

...As for the tournament, he seemed to fall short, but GW don't train their staff in running tournaments, as that is not usually their job. We live in an imperfect world.

Their job entails a lot more then just the above. and definitely does not entail advising "customers on what their army needs". They are to introduce new players to the hobby and keep current ones in. Being the complete douchenozzle elitists they are (for the most part) they definitely do not fill those requirements.

Walls
28-06-2010, 01:49
Ok sorry competitive. WAAC... Win at all cost...includes cheating at some level. maybe that phrase IS thrown about a bit too liberally.

Seriously though if yer gonna go to a tourney you should expect this. The Competative armies not cheating lol.

Best post in the thread.

WAAC is a term used FAR too often. Just because you are competitive, like going to tournaments, like the GAME part of the game, doesn't mean you are a WAAC player. WAAC players will cheat, not bring lists, bully opponents and literally do whatever it takes to win, beyond the realm of the rules and laws of sportsmanship.

I am not a super competitive player and I am not a super fluff player. I fall somewhere in between where the hobby is just interesting. I like painting. I like playing. I like the social aspect. I don't even mind good competition. I've done tournies. I am not gonna go hobble my list to fit some criteria about storyline and fluff but at the same time refuse to overpower it or cheese it up and over ride underlying fluff.

I just hate that competitive players get grouped with WAAC players by the really big fluff monkeys. I am Green Feevah's best friend and we never agree on anything. He knows I don't agree with his post on here that there shouldn't be tournaments. Why shouldn't there be? Why shouldn't the game be competitive? If it's not, why roll dice or use a rulebook?

But regardless, WAAC players are in a different realm then strictly competitive players. Competitive players that don't cross the realm into WAAC play by the rules, come prepared with dice and lists and templates but still try and win. Nothing wrong with that... hence nothing wrong with a tournament. If you don't like it, don't go in it. No one is forced to enter tournies so saying they shouldn't exist is silly. It's like saying there shouldn't be poker tournaments or chess tournaments or whatever... all these games were originally designed for entertainment, but can be played quite competitively. There is no reason a community, such as warhammer, can't have sub genres.

GodlessM
28-06-2010, 02:02
Me, who registred 2007 and have posted ca 700 posts, or godlessM registred 2008 but has around "2200posts? :)

Exactly why are you bringing me into this? I just told the new guy not to assume he knows anythng about people for that very reason. If anything my post should have showed that I don't believe in time bearing significance to things since ULF is new enough to this forum also.

kramplarv
28-06-2010, 04:28
because you were the poster above me. quickest way to find two different members of different register date and amount of posts. :)

as another sidenote: I interpreted your post as time of register and posts DO have more significance to members. But alas, I'm not native english speaker/reader so I can be wrong. :) And if that's the case...Well then we do agree on time and posts have no value whatsoever. (which I thought was made quite clear from my own post?? :()

chilledenuff
28-06-2010, 05:47
1. it was not bad, there was some anger from a kid who failed a ld. 4 panic check (from 2 doom and darkness stacked on his general unit by two mages) who fled off the field because he didn't originally think the spell warrented a scroll to be used on and thought it unfun after a terror check on his uber unit and didn't think having his best unit (HE lord in large unit of swordmasters) off the field was fun and called the play 'cheap'. Obviously there were some competent player and some really incompetent players. It seems if the players cream of the crop unit wasn't fighting, it was unfun...so...even if I brought a balanced list, the game would have been unfun since I would just have ignored that swordmaster unit or shoot the heck out of it, at the archlector player gave the swordmaster a chance to fight letting the kid charge a tank with them (dealing 7 hull damage before crashing another tank and lector into it :D).
The angry kid probably had his eye on the prize, realised that such an expensive unit going down the pan meant he was unlikely to win, and let his feelings shown, he failed to deal with it, his fault. I didn't really mean how competent were the players, i was asking after thier general attitude. I was just wondering if there was a lot of whining in general, from your comment on the elf player it looks like it may have been poor overall.




2. no comp rules, just no special chars since it was GW and they had to allow what their book says is legal to be played. There army comp, sportsmanship, generalship, and painting each worth 25%. the winner got max on painting (i swear, i almost thought he hired a pro to paint it), generalship, almost zero on army comp, and decent on sportsmanship.

I'm glad it was a nicely painted army (such a small army should be stunning!). Clearly he can play warhammer, and has experience, such a metalist shows this, only almost 0 on comp? I'd have given him 0 unless he'd written some awesome fluff to explain it. Decent sportmanship and yet people whined, perhaps with a more balanced list he would not have been on the receiving end.



3. I can't remember, just some criticisms. Remember one player said that the player had 1/6 total amount of steam tanks (only 12 in existence) in the whole empire in the army which was **********.

You're right that is **********, there's only 8, so for 1/4 of them to be in such a small battle is a touch unfluffy



4. Don't think so, he didn't even know the knew rules when I asked for his opinion.


What the heck? When I worked for the evil empire (10 years ago now, but this shouldn't be different) all store staff were expected to have at least one army for each games sytem, and to be competent with them. I'd guess he was looking at the local gaming community then.

Ok, my take on this (and this is only my opinion) is that the tourny was poorly run, but this i'm afraid is a problem in a shop environment as staff tend to get distracted by other customers. The empire player should have seen what else was there, thought about his list AND THEN the most important rule, asked if he could have revised his list to make it more fun for all, if what you say is true about the level of the other players, then he would have still won, and everyone could have had fun.
As to the bit that really got your goat (ie the staff's attitude) you listened in, but perhaps you missed some of the conversation (i'm hoping this is the case) perhaps it was little Timmy's first army and he was expanding to 750 or 1000 points, so 1 mage would easily be enough.

Oh and for the record I'm a fluff player. I go to the odd tourny, I try to enter balanced lists with plenty of fluff and if I do well then great, if I lose then often it's my own fault and not my opponent. If i face metalists I still try to have fun, but yeah, it is less fun but hey ho

Dokushin
28-06-2010, 07:10
It's amazing to me that a guy can make an army that is 100% no-question explicitly legal by the most current rules direct from GW, take that army to a tournament, beat everyone there, and then get his score penalized because his army was too good. I'm all for tourney-wide comp rules when certain strategies become dominant, but "comp scores" have always seemed a little dodgy to me.

Yeah, yeah, I know, fluff, etc. I'm not a 100% competitive player -- I do like some fluffy armies and the whole background of my Lizards -- but the primary draw of Warhammer has always been to me the way the mechanics work, the variety of armies and units and rules, crafting an army and trying it against another army.

People here are saying, basically, that my kind isn't wanted. They're saying that the people who want to win shouldn't play at their club, because games there are friendly and clearly anyone who enjoys a challenge isn't friendly. Ok, fair enough -- but where should they go, if they want a competitive game? Tournaments? :p

chilledenuff
28-06-2010, 07:19
Don't get me wrong, I've not said there isn't a place for the ultra competative army lists, there is. I just think that perhaps, in context that empire army was used in the wrong place. A £60 prize will cause people to do that but I can't help but think that there are other circumstances here that we aren't aware of. 2nd hand info will cause that.

As I said in my previous post, I'll play against uber armies and I'll do my damdest to enjoy it, and make it fun for my opponent also but there comes to a stage (normally as you remove your 6th core choice to that 1 special choice) where it isn't fun. OK I could take a deathstar army too, but I wouldn't enjoy that and from my personal experience, my opponent might not either.

yabbadabba
28-06-2010, 07:42
Their job entails a lot more then just the above. and definitely does not entail advising "customers on what their army needs". They are to introduce new players to the hobby and keep current ones in. Being the complete douchenozzle elitists they are (for the most part) they definitely do not fill those requirements. If that's honestly your opinion then you either need to get out more, or you have had the worst local GW staff ever.

As a whole GW shop staff are genuine people who often lack consistent and clear leadership from the top, however any business has its idiots. While I believe firmly in the idea that a team is only as strong as its weakest member, to classify and entire workforce on some unknown personal checklist is wrong.

Back on topic, this is getting now where to be honest. The poster is clearly an all out competitor - all credit to him - and is not buying into other points of view. He has his reasons for his and his friends style of play and due to the nature of 7th Ed and its army books there is nothing wrong with that. But clearly we are not going anywhere fast. I can see this turn into the regular slug fest between tournament and non-tournament minded players.

Rhamag
28-06-2010, 08:21
Their job entails a lot more then just the above. and definitely does not entail advising "customers on what their army needs". They are to introduce new players to the hobby and keep current ones in. Being the complete douchenozzle elitists they are (for the most part) they definitely do not fill those requirements.

That is simply not true. Go into your local GW and ask them about the 10 Commandments. It's right in there, although I forget which number it is.

Ultimate Life Form
28-06-2010, 09:31
i love it when forum elitest post things like the above trying to put down another persons very valid point on the basis that because they have posted 4,000 more times in the last 18 months they are somehow superior.

i have like 8 posts total on this forum, ive played 40k for 15 years and fantasy for 4, stick to the issues at hand if you want some credability, dont put people down because of some ridiculous notion that posts mean anything.


Point proven again...

I am not relating this in any way to posts (never said I did) and in case you didn't notice he signed up way earlier than me, but that doesn't change the fact that I don't like it when people who have literally never interacted with me drop in and seem to think they knowhat type of person I am (oh look, the same is true for you, no?)

There are lots of people around here with post counts in the thousands who I've never seen simply because I don't visit 40K, and I regard them as strangers, period. I wouldn't feel any different about such an unfounded attack from them.

Basically you're doing exactly the same, ignoring context, reading things into my posts I've never said and attacking me out of the blue without any justification. Maybe you've been in the hobby longer than me, but I doubt that gives you god-like allsight to judge my character through the screen.


and lastly, if your not concerned with the fun of your opponent in the least, your a dick, straight up, and im curious why anybody would play you more than once.

Again only quoted half my statement, and on top of that garnished with a rude insult... tsk, tsk... very professional. I can hardly do anything to discredit you any more than you just did yourself... Thanks I guess. That's just how the type works...


and im curious why anybody would play you more than once.

Dunno. Ask my friends. Can't be so bad after all I guess.

CauCaSus
28-06-2010, 09:50
Both me and my friend are competitive. We are both veteran magic (the card game) players

Here is your problem. Warhammer isn't M:TG

Rhaivaen
28-06-2010, 10:10
I think you'll find the majority of anthropologists disagree with you there.

:rolleyes:Doesn't mean that said Antropologists are right, now does it? lol.

WarmbloodedLizard
28-06-2010, 11:46
You're right that is **********, there's only 8, so for 1/4 of them to be in such a small battle is a touch unfluffy



so people that don't care that much about fluff or make up their own fluff ("oh, those tanks? We stole the plans and built some. for personal use only, of course.") shouldn't be allowed to play their way?

willowdark
28-06-2010, 12:10
Strangely enough, I consider myself to be under a certain obligation to be challenging to my opponent.

There is a strange kind of banality at work in the idea that Warhammer is fun simply by putting models on the board and pushing them around, regardless of the outcome.

Challenge is the essence of a game. Even pinball, which is not competative, still challenges you to play better the next time than you did the last. Would anyone display their average score? No, they display their high score.

Would you find the song nearly as interesting if it were about a deaf, dumb and blind kid who "sure plays average pinball?"

For me, I feel like I owe it to my opponent to challenge him to beat me. A victory is much more rewarding when earned, and a loss is much easier to accept when it's to a good player who played a good game.

WarmbloodedLizard
28-06-2010, 12:22
Challenge is the essence of a game.

I agree. That's why I hate "games" such as Snakes & Ladders or UNO which are completely or almost completely random and mainly played just to pass time. they are kids games (and not even good ones, I already hated them when I was a kid, never understood what exactly makes them fun).

Kaptajn_Congoboy
28-06-2010, 12:24
This is a somewhat depressing thread to read. Some - not all, luckily - people actually think that a player who, in a open tourney with a fairly large cash prize, and with absolutely no comp system or even "this is a fluffy tournament" rules/disclaimer is a total bastard because he brings a tuned list? They defend the seeming incompetence of the TO, and his (and his other players) subsequent hazing of the winner because he should have known, through osmosis from the players he played, seemingly, that in this store, playing the game is secondary to the fluff fun?

Give me a break. I know most WHFB players are not like this - because, after all, they run their tourneys with comp systems since 7th ed (still to early to say much about 8th ed) is badly balanced and allows for some rather drastic army build exploits. But it is solely the responsibility of the TO. If that is not made clear by him, before the game, it is the TO that should get the flak. All of it. "The most important rule" is all fine and fun, but it is only applicable for friendly, non competitive games. If GW was doing their job perfectly (which is an impossibility for any game system, but they could at least have tried a bit harder) they could have put out a balanced functional game where the rules actually encourage you to bring fluffy things. Is it unreasonable in the fluff that an Arch Lector and two Steam Tanks should be at the same battle of this size? Then produce rules that limit the number of stanks that can be at the field at that battle size, at the very least....

Spider-pope
28-06-2010, 14:21
:rolleyes:Doesn't mean that said Antropologists are right, now does it? lol.


:rolleyes:Well you'll forgive me if i take the word of professionals who have spent their academic careers studying the development of homo sapiens and its various cultures over that of a random internet poster. lol.

HeroFox
28-06-2010, 14:42
Here is your problem. Warhammer isn't M:TG

How is that a problem?

He's relating one past experience to another. Every coherent human being does this.

logan054
28-06-2010, 14:52
I always love it when people use sport as an analogy to winning a game of warhammer, i mean please is a game with toy soldiers you paint, why are you taking it that seriously anyways?

I know why i have been to tournaments in the past, it wasnt to take the most cheesed out list but to play against different people that i would have not normally played.

Now the thing with OP is i get this impression, basically him and his mate are pretty "hardcore" players, they found this tournament, not really been in the store before, took their normal lists, won the money which was arranged a treat to the people who pretty much game in the place every week and wonder why the people where not to impressed?

Like i said nothing wrong with being competitive and all however i know i personally try and adjust my list to the people im playing, if i go into GW and play someone who played like two games of warhammer im hardly going to pull out a all mounted Khorne army with fire mages. Personally i think it makes you better general if you can use a weaker list and still win games.

Gekiganger
28-06-2010, 14:54
Regardless of what others say, you enter tourns to win, and if that means playing a powerful list, then so be it, if others dont bring power list to tourns its there own fault

That's my gripe. The battles all seem decided before they take place based on the list composed, I'm not going to argue that tourney players are not skilled, as that would be a lie. But likewise, some can get by on limited skill due to a good army composition that can be found via the internet.



I myself dont pay money to enter and then take a weak and worthless list that cant fight its way out of a paper bag.... people who do so are just wasting my time

Indeed, god forbid anyone join a tourney for fun, the one in the original post sounded like a local tourney considering the person running it was suggesting waywatchers, you really expect the store regulars to not want to take part just because they don't have competitive lists? They may be using the only models they have.

HeroFox
28-06-2010, 15:41
I don't see fun being described anywhere in the definition of Tournament.

sliganian
28-06-2010, 15:49
Easy solution for the OP (Not being sarcastic): Look at Warmachine/Hordes. I think you might find it more aligned to your approach than WFB.

I am just starting WM with Khador, had a few games. The change from GW is refreshing (but I am not abandoning playing GW games).

chilledenuff
28-06-2010, 15:49
"The most important rule" is all fine and fun, but it is only applicable for friendly, non competitive games.

WTF? How can you justify that statement, unless of course you are breaking this rule and thereby cheating

Sebavin
28-06-2010, 16:07
People looked down on him cause there was no reason to wreak someone like that... honestly sometimes it isn't cool to see someone who put allot of though into his army then just get smashed by a metaplayer who just copied and pasted his list from the internet...

HeroFox
28-06-2010, 16:09
People looked down on him cause there was no reason to wreak someone like that... honestly sometimes it isn't cool to see someone who put allot of though into his army then just get smashed by a metaplayer who just copied and pasted his list from the internet...

And who are you to say he copy and pasted his list from the internet?

He played to win the tournament, and he did. That should be enough for any of you.

Skyth
28-06-2010, 16:25
It basically comes down to people thinking they have the One 'True' way to play the game, and that anyone who plays the game differently is a bad person.

Thus the bad sportsmanship and the breaking of The Most Important Rule by the people that were whining about the result of the tournament.

Kaptajn_Congoboy
28-06-2010, 16:32
WTF? How can you justify that statement, unless of course you are breaking this rule and thereby cheating

Because "the rule" (in brackets as it is more a big text box than a rule) is entirely subjective (except for the d6 part, which is entirely random instead) and thus unsuitable to any competitive environment. "having fun for and keeping to the spirit of the game" are such a subjective statement it beggars belief that it is actually in the rules section itself, rather than in the foreword where it belongs and can be regarded as a guiding spirit. What Player A thinks is fun and/or fluffy might be totally incompatible with what Player B thinks is fun and/or fluffy (the fluff is, after all, extremely open to interpretation and the game itself does not play as the stories do), and if the TO thinks Player B is right, that still doesn't make the TO and Player B right. This is why the majority of tourneys, and decidedly the better tourneys, have large tomes of FAQs and/or errata and/or predecided rule interpretations and/or comp.

"Interpreting a rule or coming up with a suitable house rule yourself" is not something that really works in a competitive environment either, neither is improvisation, nor is "evolving" the game beyond the published rules.

If GW store managers cannot recognize that then they deserve all the business they lose for being unreasonable ******s to the people who come to their open events. I think that most GW store managers recognize this, at least the ones I've met and enjoyed talking to.

chilledenuff
28-06-2010, 16:41
It is a subjective rule, but you can tell if you are having fun, and often you can see if your opponent is enjoying the game. This means it is easy not to break this rule.
Fluff is fluff, it shouldn't affect a game too much. Personally I like fluff, especially canon fluff; some people don't care for it too much. That's their choice, but even if they don't like it it does affect them, this is why you have 'special/rare' choices, not just because a unit is uber hard of doom.

yabbadabba
28-06-2010, 16:47
Because "the rule" (in brackets as it is more a big text box than a rule) is entirely subjective (except for the d6 part, which is entirely random instead) and thus unsuitable to any competitive environment. "having fun for and keeping to the spirit of the game" are such a subjective statement it beggars belief that it is actually in the rules section itself, rather than in the foreword where it belongs and can be regarded as a guiding spirit. What Player A thinks is fun and/or fluffy might be totally incompatible with what Player B thinks is fun and/or fluffy (the fluff is, after all, extremely open to interpretation and the game itself does not play as the stories do), and if the TO thinks Player B is right, that still doesn't make the TO and Player B right. This is why the majority of tourneys, and decidedly the better tourneys, have large tomes of FAQs and/or errata and/or predecided rule interpretations and/or comp.

"Interpreting a rule or coming up with a suitable house rule yourself" is not something that really works in a competitive environment either, neither is improvisation, nor is "evolving" the game beyond the published rules.

If GW store managers cannot recognize that then they deserve all the business they lose for being unreasonable ******s to the people who come to their open events. I think that most GW store managers recognize this, at least the ones I've met and enjoyed talking to.
I think you have answered you own question there fella. Any event organiser needs to envisage how they want their event to run. They then need to communicate that clearly and concisely. Hence it becomes easier to interpret the "most important rule" as it is built into the event. This is then what defines the "spirit" of the event. As such, and has been proven, the "most important" rule can have numerous definitions across many events and the only people to lose out will be the event organisers if it is not appealing enough.


I don't see fun being described anywhere in the definition of Tournament. The only ones which don't have to be fun are strictly one offs. As it doesn't really make any sense to have a one off tournament, I would argue that tournaments need to have fun as a core component to ensure good retention and recruitment of participants. How that fun is enacted is another matter.

Kaptajn_Congoboy
28-06-2010, 16:54
I was not the one asking a question, yabbdadabba. I was reinforcing the same point as you (which was what I was writing in the post chilledenuff was responding to :) ) the TO is responsible for producing in a tourney what GW in its rules has not.


It is a subjective rule, but you can tell if you are having fun, and often you can see if your opponent is enjoying the game. This means it is easy not to break this rule.
Fluff is fluff, it shouldn't affect a game too much. Personally I like fluff, especially canon fluff; some people don't care for it too much. That's their choice, but even if they don't like it it does affect them, this is why you have 'special/rare' choices, not just because a unit is uber hard of doom.

I know a whole lot of people who would find precious little fun in playing a fluff-driven "nice" game as the TO in the example wanted. Their subjective desire conflicts directly with his subjective desire, and within the "most important rule" they are incompatible. These people are not bad, naughty, or evil. They just enjoy a competitive environment. Reading more on the example, perhaps the TO was not as much a fan of the fluff as he was lazy.

Sebavin
28-06-2010, 16:59
And who are you to say he copy and pasted his list from the internet?

He played to win the tournament, and he did. That should be enough for any of you.

I personally really don't care at all... I say he copy and pasted in on the internet because EVERYone uses that list... it is the competitive Empire list. So he ether heard it from somewhere, talked to people about, read it on the internet and used it or he was one of the first people to use it...

That is all I don't care.

rtunian
28-06-2010, 17:01
People here are saying, basically, that my kind isn't wanted. They're saying that the people who want to win shouldn't play at their club, because games there are friendly and clearly anyone who enjoys a challenge isn't friendly. Ok, fair enough -- but where should they go, if they want a competitive game? Tournaments? :p

if you can't tell the difference between wanting to win (ie, being a competitive person) and wanting to win at any cost (ie, disregarding sportsmanship and possibly rules as well), then i don't know what to tell you... they are vastly different concepts. apples and oranges. yes they are both round. yes they are both fruits. no, they are not the same thing.

taking it to the extreme and defending yourself by accusing others of saying "anyone who enjoys a challenge isn't friendly" is balogna. it's a misconstruement of what is actually being said: "abusive lists aren't friendly". again, not even close to the same thing. a competitive player can be competitive with a friendly list or an abusive list. a friendly player therefore can be competitive. i'm living proof!

theunwantedbeing
28-06-2010, 17:02
Also in my games, with my friends, we have an agreement to not deviate from the average dices rolls too much (say if we rolling 3 dice to wound on 5+, we don't even roll the dice and just save 1 wound, we only roll dice for the odd extra dice, like if rolling 4 dices, then we would just roll 1 dice cause no one really likes winning/losing a game due to luck as it does not improve our skills). Of course alone with our tactical strategy, our list have to be very efficient and synergistic our else we will be disadvantaged against our opponent.

Wait, what? You don't actually roll dice, you just use averages?
How very strange.....
It removes the luck element for sure but what about things that require extreme results?

I wonder where you round off at.

Would be nice to hear from Kiron about these points :)

chilledenuff
28-06-2010, 17:04
i agree the tourny seems to have been badly organised. I also agree that it looks like the winner of the tourny wasn't in the wrong with regards to how he played. I only take exception to the fact that people out there think that his list was right. As he scored badly in comp it wasn't. If any one is/was writing a list like that then they must have a passing thought that it might just upset people to play against.
I've said previously that there is a place for ultra competative armies, that tourny wasn't one. The TO especially as GW staff should have sorted the problem in the bud, he didn't so we have that situation. End result? People on the internet having a 'discussion'

Pete_x
28-06-2010, 17:10
So as a TO you'd verify my opponents are having fun and if you catch one with a frown you'd give me a warning followed with a disqualification? Surely you realize how absurd this is? Tournament have comp. and sportmanship score for that. The guy's list "gave" him a near 100% in general (or whatever winning gives you) but it also gave him 0 comp.

So any player with good sportmanship, well painted army, and a an army with good comp could have stolen the win with some skill

*assuming it was 25% for paint, comp, sport, general which I believe the op stated at some point.

chilledenuff
28-06-2010, 17:21
So as a TO you'd verify my opponents are having fun and if you catch one with a frown you'd give me a warning followed with a disqualification? Surely you realize how absurd this is? Tournament have comp. and sportmanship score for that. The guy's list "gave" him a near 100% in general (or whatever winning gives you) but it also gave him 0 comp.

So any player with good sportmanship, well painted army, and a an army with good comp could have stolen the win with some skill

*assuming it was 25% for paint, comp, sport, general which I believe the op stated at some point.

How big a frown? ;) Of course not, sportmanship and comp should deal with that, most tournament's they don't. This is because if it was balanced the other way too far then all of the power gamers (there i said it!) wouldn't take part. i'd never be a TO! I'd be awful and kudos to people who try.

Personally I thinks comp and sportsmanship are the most important and i'd weight it that way. Perhaps the TO for the tourny in question should have done that.

Cambion Daystar
28-06-2010, 17:29
Composition scores are utterly useless unless there is a fixed system to base the score on.

Skyros
28-06-2010, 17:45
Kiron, you should check out Stelek's blog "yes the truth hurts". What you are saying is music to his ears - he also regrets the almost complete lack of a 'competitive' warhammer environment and people who try to extract the last ounce of performance form their lists are almost looked down on.

HeroFox
28-06-2010, 17:57
For example, after beating your mates on Street fighter for the 1000th time with Ken, you beat him with Dhalsim or Balrog. That victory is SO much sweeter because your showing you have more skill and a better understanding of the game.

I see this type of handicapping in video games all the time, one personal challenge I never succeeded was the "Resident evil Knife only Challenge" but damn it was fun.

WAAC players should grow some balls and a spine and stop relying on their Netcrutch lists.

/stir

But Balrog is top tier and so is Dhalsim. But yes, I understand what you mean.

Winning with Teclis doesn't feel as satisfying as winning with a Lv.4.

rtunian
28-06-2010, 18:03
For example, after beating your mates on Street fighter for the 1000th time with Ken, you beat him with Dhalsim or Balrog. That victory is SO much sweeter because your showing you have more skill and a better understanding of the game.

i think a better street fighter example would be playing w/o using the glitch (described in the "playing to win" article). the glitch is encoded into the rules of the game, just as an overpowered army list is a part of the rules of the game. it is also very hard to prove that someone is using it against you. regardless, it is up to the players to stick to the spirit of the game and refrain from using the glitch, just as it is up to the players to stick to the spirit of the game and refrain from making the most abusive lists they can.

Bassik
28-06-2010, 18:09
My Skaven army consists of as many clanrats and ratogres as I can cram into it, and I obviously fail a lot at tournaments. But I would never hold that against those that bring superpowered lists, it's a tournament, what do you expect? Especially since you get a hundred big boys for winning! Seriously, what do you expect?


EDIT: I Always win with Dhalsim.

honorandglory
28-06-2010, 18:24
Basically you're doing exactly the same, ignoring context, reading things into my posts I've never said and attacking me out of the blue without any justification.

I am curious as to how I am ignoring the context of what you wrote, as with the written word, all I get of the context are your exact words. Which is exactly the following


Well there are 3 problems here: a) I am not obliged to make the game fun for you in any way, that's your job

And while that may not be your true attitude, it is exactly what you wrote. You then compounded it with this little gem.


Please show me a single rule that says 'you must make the game as enjoyable as possible for your opponent'. Doesn't exist? Well then I'm not obliged to do so.

So ,you tell me what am I to infer from these remarks other than what I did?

Skyth
28-06-2010, 18:30
a competitive player can be competitive with a friendly list or an abusive list.


What is "abusive" and what is standard is a very subjective concept.

The whole notion of lists being 'abusive' is just the Casual Gamer Mafia way of calling people who play differently bad people...


I only take exception to the fact that people out there think that his list was right. As he scored badly in comp it wasn't.

The only moral use of a Comp score is as a rating of how powerful a list is. How 'right' his list is has absolutely nothing to do with what the Comp score was. Someone who gets a 0 comp (out of 20) is just as 'right' as someone who gets a 20 (out of 20).

Vaiuri
28-06-2010, 19:08
I went to a Doubles Tourney at Warhammer World a while back, and my partner and I chose the armies we did for fluff, not for WAAC or any other reason. The "Goal" of the weekend was to have fun, play with toy soldiers and experience the Doubles tournament. We placed 69 out of 100. By conventional standards this placed us in the bottom tier of competitors, but in my eyes, and those of my partner, we had a great time. Our first match was against a team who placed 5th overall, and they certainly didn't have an easy victory from us, but they certainly said afterwards that our game was the most enjoyable they had of the whole weekend. That to me was worth more than winning a little game of toy soldiers.

THE \/ince

This years doubles? I probably saw you there :)

This year was going to be the last for me at the Warhammer Doubles simply because I couldnt stomach the cheesy lists and unpleasant WAAC attitudes of some of the gamers any more. A good number of our gaming group used to go, it halved this year mainly because of the poor tournamenty crowd.

I use these terms losely you understand. I've been horribly thrashed by excellent tournament players with standard lists because I was outclassed at every turn. This doesnt bother me in the slightest. What upsets me is the cheese lists.

Now, I understand the temptation to take cheese if its on offer. I'll admit to taking a Hydra in my Dark Elf army, but I wouldnt dream of taking 2, it just doesnt seem sporting. As for the 2 Steg Engine combos popping up at the Doubles (and elsewhere I have no doubt), I actually cant understand why people would want to do this. I've had people look me in the eye and apologise for fielding a cheesy list against me, then proceed to trash me all over the table with unabashed glee anyway...

Clearly the community is divided on this. We should really just agree to disagree and all wear different coloured hats when we go to a tournament. Beards and skilled players can have red hats, fuffy army fans and 'casuals' can have blue. Then we can split the room into two colours and everyone can have a good weekend :cool:

As it happens we only had one cheesy game this year, I'm happy to say that we shall return to the Doubles. Hope to see you there Vince!

chilledenuff
28-06-2010, 20:26
The only moral use of a Comp score is as a rating of how powerful a list is. How 'right' his list is has absolutely nothing to do with what the Comp score was. Someone who gets a 0 comp (out of 20) is just as 'right' as someone who gets a 20 (out of 20).

No, a comp score is generally a measure of how balanced aen army is, and therefore not how powerful it is. Most comp scores in my experience (6th & 7th ed) have been based on unit duplication and number of heroes/ core/ special/ rare. Scoring is higher for armies that are across the board without huge point sinks to special/rare/characters. Certainly in 7th most of the powerful lists wouldn't score highly in this. So unless you turn this on its head, more often than not powerful lists are bottom of that scoring method.
'Right' is different, a very subjective thing, The 2 different empire lists in the OP are a fantastic example, both are right to the letter of the law, but are they right to the spirit of the game? I think if we asked eveyone on this forum then opinions would be split. So be it, if we were all the same, we'd all turn up with the same list:)

kiron
28-06-2010, 21:43
Wait, what? You don't actually roll dice, you just use averages?
How very strange.....
It removes the luck element for sure but what about things that require extreme results?

I wonder where you round off at.

Would be nice to hear from Kiron about these points :)

Well, we try to make things average. Like if I was to roll 12 dice for to hits (on 6+), my opponent and I would agree that 2 would hit since that is the expected value (I could get lower OR higher), but 2 would be the expected number and I have no problem with 2 hits. It allows us to get better control of our army (being able to calculate the % of certain actions and expected outcome). I would not be too happy wiffing all 12 dice nor my opponent be happy if i scored 5-6 hits (even worse if i get 10-12 hits), sure it happens, but very rarely. I know if I refight the same scenario 9 more times, most of it would be in my favor (this philosophy is the same in poker/magic) and the best way to learn better tactics is make the right play (it helps if luck was less of a factor), it's no fun winning a game due to extreme luck or making a terrible tactical decision and be rewarded because of dumb luck (which will reinforce the terrible play because of the positive outcome). Now if there say odd dices which doesn't even out like 15 dice instead of 12 needing to hit on 6+, we would roll those extra 3 dice and see the results (however, the impact of all 3 extra hitting/missing is much less than all 15 hitting/missing), there is less variance which is more acceptable (we try to limit the factor of luck to minor things). Even if rolling one dice and needing a 6+ we would roll those (since there is a 17% of it happening which is still significant enough), but usually neither my friend nor I would want to bank on that 6+ roll. The main point is we try our best to limit the factor of luck. For things we can't control for like spells, we would roll and make due as there is no way we can control for these and have to accept that part is luck.

I would rather make the right play and lose to luck than the opposite. Because I know when I play at a tournament, playing warhammer or magic (mainly magic) with the amount of rounds (over many tournaments), luck should eventually even out so what happens is making the right plays and having reinforcement to make the right plays is what makes one a better player in any game (I play chess as well, VERY useful in chess, trying to transfer the philosophy to magic and warhammer). Obviously in a tournament, i may get screwed to my opponent rolling yahtzee (my right plays should lighten my losses) or I may get super lucky (this means my results should be even better and have greater chance of massacres).

Please remember the context of my OP, it was a tournament with $100 gift certificate prize, not your casual warhammer night.

Both lists were legal, just one is perceived (and probably is) less cheesy, but both have the "okay" stamp by GW, perhaps GW should have tested better.
Though even in the new 8th ed. I still feel infantry will not have much of a role. I know for empire, I will probably be maxing out spec choices, i.e. 3 units of pistoliers, outriders, speedbump greatswords of 6-8 models (4+ AS stubborn re-roll ld. 9 with BSB and general, yes please!), with just one unit of infantry 5-6 ranks deep just to negate opponent infantries stubborn and getting an area to fall back to. I still personally think movement dictated by shooting and magic is still going to be the most significant phase (big horde stubborn units can be as big as they want, but they can only at one place and move so far).

Is it people just generally like infantry clashing in the middle and having a grindfest of 2-3 rounds? That just seems like very poor judgement from a generalship point of view, but I guess that is their right, HOWEVER these players should NOT expect everyone of their opponent to have that view and SHOULD respect that which is the ISSUE I have with the fluff players. I know warhammer paints a big picture of army clashing (it's easier to sell than guerilla warfare), but that should not be generalized to every battle (definitely not DE or WE as they cannot afford the casualties). People are also not FORCED to play their army fluff presents them. If GW wants to limit the way an army be played to fit their fluff, then they have all the opportunity to change it (via erratas or army book limits).

As for the point about army composition, that is completely different point of view what counts as army comp. View #1 could be an army that take lots of core and few spec,elites, rare, heroes, etc. View #2 may be taking a diversity of units. View #3 could be an army maximising strengths in all the phases (where most competitve players tend to view). For example, the 2 empire lists in the OP, the fluff list was more take diversity of units while the victor list was maximising his strengths in all the phases (archlector and mages for strong magic, artillery and tanks for shooting, knights, tanks, chariot for good movement speed, knights, tanks and waltar for combat). It just so happens that his army list didn't look balance to views # 1 and 2, but it is balanced in view #3. The same can be said a balanced list from view #2 does not fit the criteria of balance for view #3 (as in the OP list as it did not maximising his strengths, too much focused on combat and not enough magic/shooting/movement or enough to compensate for lack in the other areas) There may be more views, but the views are pretty subjective, but one view appears to win more consistently than the other (guess which one). No one should argue that their view is right, because it;s subjective unless you set certain criterias (win %, then view 3 is correct), closest to warhammer world (view 1 is more correct), closest to what GW wants people to buy (view 2 is correct :D). Since the context WAS a tournament, where winning obviously mattered, I feel view #3 would have been more appropriate and ironically the victor's list would have been 'balanced' in that sense.

Skyth
28-06-2010, 22:09
No, a comp score is generally a measure of how balanced aen army is, and therefore not how powerful it is. Most comp scores in my experience (6th & 7th ed) have been based on unit duplication and number of heroes/ core/ special/ rare.

Whether it's a popular way of doing it does not make it right. Like I said, the only 'Moral' way of grading comp is a non-judemental based on the power of the list. If you are including stuff that basically boils down to 'playing wrong' then you have a morally flawed system.



'Right' is different, a very subjective thing ... I think if we asked eveyone on this forum then opinions would be split. So be it, if we were all the same, we'd all turn up with the same list:)

And that proves my point.

DDogwood
28-06-2010, 22:27
Please remember the context of my OP, it was a tournament with $100 gift certificate prize, not your casual warhammer night.

The fact that it was a tournament with a moderately attractive prize (seriously, $100 isn't THAT much money) doesn't mean that it's a win-at-all-costs, no-holds-barred competition. If that store doesn't regularly have players with a power list-building attitude, there wasn't much reason for them to expect someone to turn up with one.


Both lists were legal, just one is perceived (and probably is) less cheesy, but both have the "okay" stamp by GW, perhaps GW should have tested better.

You're assuming that GW's main priority is (or should be) game balance. But really, a quick flip through any army book or codex should make it clear that this isn't the case - GW games are designed to be fun, beer-and-pretzels games with cool minis and fun stories. It's like hiring a bunch of pro athletes to play in a community football league; even though you're pretty much guaranteed victory, there's no triumph in it.

If you want a minis game that works in a similar competitive environment to MtG, you should probably check out Warmachine/Hordes. Warhammer isn't, and has never been, a game of serious competition.


HOWEVER these players should NOT expect everyone of their opponent to have that view and SHOULD respect that which is the ISSUE I have with the fluff players.

Now who's telling whom how to play? Nobody HAS to respect ANYONE's way of playing, but you'll certainly find it a lot less frustrating if you either find a group that agrees with your perspective, or accept the perspective of the majority wherever you play.

I want to echo the views of others in this thread, though - there's no challenge in winning with a rock-hard army list in Warhammer, especially when you're playing against "just for fun" lists. Even playing against other "competitive" lists, the game is more likely to be determined by a bad matchup than by any special skill on the part of the player, especially in an era of net-lists. That's not to say that the game doesn't require skill to play, but it's simply not balanced or designed for a highly competitive environment.

Seriously, check out Warmachine if you haven't already. It's a much better balanced, competitive game. Because that's a major design goal, and the designers say it up front, you get a community where there's a lot less whining and moaning, and most people welcome a tough opponent. The major drawbacks are that you lose a lot of the hobby focus that Warhammer has, and it's not as popular as Warhammer in many places.

theunwantedbeing
28-06-2010, 22:33
Now if there say odd dices which doesn't even out like 15 dice instead of 12 needing to hit on 6+, we would roll those extra 3 dice and see the results (

What about 8,9,10 or 11 dice?
Needing the same 6+ to hit of course, do you roll the extra beyond the round number so 2,3,4 & 5 dice respectiovely for the above examples or perhaps something else?

I can understand wishing to play "right" but I take the standpoint of simply working out the average result anyway and seeing what the game result is with the dice, this way I can accurately judge a persons luck (or lack therof) while still playing the game and getting those freak results.

Also, you haven't explained how things that require extremes work.
eg. Irresistable force
Is it possible to get a double 6 with your method, or not?

As this has really quite huge consequences on your way of gaming.

yabbadabba
28-06-2010, 22:38
?As this has really quite huge consequences on your way of gaming. Also not forgetting its a houseruled WFB variation and not the full rules.

kiron
28-06-2010, 22:53
What about 8,9,10 or 11 dice?
Needing the same 6+ to hit of course, do you roll the extra beyond the round number so 2,3,4 & 5 dice respectiovely for the above examples or perhaps something else?

I can understand wishing to play "right" but I take the standpoint of simply working out the average result anyway and seeing what the game result is with the dice, this way I can accurately judge a persons luck (or lack therof) while still playing the game and getting those freak results.

Also, you haven't explained how things that require extremes work.
eg. Irresistable force
Is it possible to get a double 6 with your method, or not?

As this has really quite huge consequences on your way of gaming.

You are correct, we would roll those 2,3,4, and 5 dice respectively (since those are not divisible by 6) for above example. For hitting on 3+ then only roll 1 and 2 dice over, because if have 3 dice then we would just say 2 hits and one miss.

As for magic, I already mentioned, some things cannot be controlled like getting spells, same with the magic phase, in casting it cannot be controlled, so we let that be. (one difference is we play is IF can be dispelled with a scroll if using 3 dice or less because with 4 or more dice the probability of IF is significant enough to happen in a real tournament and ignore miscasts on 2 dice for same reason). Also for rolling for magic casting value of spells, we have certain thresholds as well, (min result you can get with 2 dice is 3 (odds of rolling 2 is less than 5%) and max is 11 (odds of 12 is less than 5%), min with 3 dice is 5 (odds of lower is less than 5%) and max is 14 (odds of higher is less than 5%), we try to have max/min at the 95th percentile to reduce luck). However for like magic missiles like 2d6, we say 7 hits to be fair (cause it could be lower or higher, we rather nor risk it and it gives us a good enough picture of how much hits we would expect) and str 4 against toughness 3 we say 4 wounds and roll the last die. Our goal is to reduce luck, but not to the point where the gameplay is significantly different from a tournament as we want to mimic much of the affects of a tournament without too much luck in our practice games.

Cause afterall, when we show up at a tournament, these luck factor will take part, but not to a high significant amount and the ones with significant amount, we include in our practice games (i.e. rolling for spells, getting IF or miscast on 3 or more dice [20% chance of either happening]).

chamelion 6
28-06-2010, 23:39
You are correct, we would roll those 2,3,4, and 5 dice respectively (since those are not divisible by 6) for above example. For hitting on 3+ then only roll 1 and 2 dice over, because if have 3 dice then we would just say 2 hits and one miss.

As for magic, I already mentioned, some things cannot be controlled like getting spells, same with the magic phase, in casting it cannot be controlled, so we let that be. (one difference is we play is IF can be dispelled with a scroll if using 3 dice or less because with 4 or more dice the probability of IF is significant enough to happen in a real tournament and ignore miscasts on 2 dice for same reason). Also for rolling for magic casting value of spells, we have certain thresholds as well, (min result you can get with 2 dice is 3 (odds of rolling 2 is less than 5%) and max is 11 (odds of 12 is less than 5%), min with 3 dice is 5 (odds of lower is less than 5%) and max is 14 (odds of higher is less than 5%), we try to have max/min at the 95th percentile to reduce luck). However for like magic missiles like 2d6, we say 7 hits to be fair (cause it could be lower or higher, we rather nor risk it and it gives us a good enough picture of how much hits we would expect) and str 4 against toughness 3 we say 4 wounds and roll the last die. Our goal is to reduce luck, but not to the point where the gameplay is significantly different from a tournament as we want to mimic much of the affects of a tournament without too much luck in our practice games.

Cause afterall, when we show up at a tournament, these luck factor will take part, but not to a high significant amount and the ones with significant amount, we include in our practice games (i.e. rolling for spells, getting IF or miscast on 3 or more dice [20% chance of either happening]).

Essentially your trying to completely remove the randomness from the game wherever you can.

Interesting... Not at all my cup of tea, but interesting.

I don't like math well enough to go that way.

Shamutanti
29-06-2010, 02:35
You are correct, we would roll those 2,3,4, and 5 dice respectively (since those are not divisible by 6) for above example. For hitting on 3+ then only roll 1 and 2 dice over, because if have 3 dice then we would just say 2 hits and one miss.

As for magic, I already mentioned, some things cannot be controlled like getting spells, same with the magic phase, in casting it cannot be controlled, so we let that be. (one difference is we play is IF can be dispelled with a scroll if using 3 dice or less because with 4 or more dice the probability of IF is significant enough to happen in a real tournament and ignore miscasts on 2 dice for same reason). Also for rolling for magic casting value of spells, we have certain thresholds as well, (min result you can get with 2 dice is 3 (odds of rolling 2 is less than 5%) and max is 11 (odds of 12 is less than 5%), min with 3 dice is 5 (odds of lower is less than 5%) and max is 14 (odds of higher is less than 5%), we try to have max/min at the 95th percentile to reduce luck). However for like magic missiles like 2d6, we say 7 hits to be fair (cause it could be lower or higher, we rather nor risk it and it gives us a good enough picture of how much hits we would expect) and str 4 against toughness 3 we say 4 wounds and roll the last die. Our goal is to reduce luck, but not to the point where the gameplay is significantly different from a tournament as we want to mimic much of the affects of a tournament without too much luck in our practice games.



I personally can think of nothing more bland. I wouldn't even know where to begin with having fun in a situation like that.

Walls
29-06-2010, 03:29
No kidding. What's the point of even having models on the table?

chamelion 6
29-06-2010, 04:27
pocket protectors and slide rules... Never trust someone who's best friend is a graphing calculator.

:p

theunwantedbeing
29-06-2010, 06:42
Our goal is to reduce luck, but not to the point where the gameplay is significantly different from a tournament as we want to mimic much of the affects of a tournament without too much luck in our practice games.

Luck management is the real skill though.
If you can't deal with the freak elements of the game then you will lose to anyone who gets a bit lucky.

I daresay your group may well find the game difficult to play against a lot of my local lot and would struggle, although the opposite would be true as my local lot would presumably have difficulty playing your way.

Ultimate Life Form
29-06-2010, 06:57
So ,you tell me what am I to infer from these remarks other than what I did?

The context was that the other poster intended to give me a bad sportsmanship score simply for taking a list that does not befit his personal tastes while there is effectively no requirement for me to do so written anywhere, penalizing me for breaking a self invented 'rule' that does not exist. That must be the lowliest form of discrimination and covert cheating under the guise of 'sportsmanship' that I have ever heard of. I merely pointed out that I have no obligation whatsoever towards my opponent other than faithfully following the rules.

What you wrongly inferred is that I would take any given chance to actively ruin the game for you, which is simply not true.

Frankly
29-06-2010, 07:35
Okay so a friend and i popped into my local GW store ...

Even the store manager wanted to give the prize to someone else but couldn't (the guy also had the best painted army too and was a good sport)...



I play in tournaments, I run tournaments, my gaming group is 95% tournament goers, most of us played magic, but where involved more of legends of the five rings a VERY competitive environment. But in saying all that, I spend most of my warhammer time playing lighter list constructions just for the enjoyment of the games and/or playing non-competitive players.

Theres alot of scope in warhammer and even in tournaments for cheese/top tournament lists and fluff lists, lots and lots of room and lots and lots of environments and arenas for both types of play.

In tournaments its up to the people running the tournment MORE THAN the players going to it, to set up what kind of environment they want players to game in. To be honest GW store DO NOT run good tournaments in general, they're there to sell product, to do this everyone MUST have fun.

I went to a doubles 40k tournament for GW, not good. We took dirty dirty lists and there some horrible brutal armies amongist alot of fluffy armies. It was all so badly run. We got to choose our own opponents in phase 1 and 2, ofc we picked soft lists. which set us up for winning the tournament. This is an example of a tournament that just wants to get as many people paying for a ticket and not caring for the environment they're creating for all the players involved.

I personally think if $100 is up for grabs and no restrictions are placed upon the tournament. Then Crongratz to the Lector list for winning the prize and playing to win it.

Atrum Angelus
29-06-2010, 07:40
This is why I only go to tournaments with the final scores tallied from four categories: Army Composition, Sportsmanship, Appearance, and Generalship (win/lose).
The best players is the one with the best but fluffy list, was a cool player, had an awesomely painted army, and played well.

Best Tournament I've ever played in: Astronomi-con.
www.astronomi-con.com
Mostly Canadian, but they just branched out into Texas and all the Canadian tournaments have quite a few players from the US. The guys in charge (whom I am know friends with) are trying to get annual Nottingham tournament set up.

Toshiro
29-06-2010, 08:07
I am personally a complete fluff player, and i want to be able to justify my army based on fluff. I don't require my opponents to be able to do this though if they don't want to, but I can say that it's pretty boring to meet a cheese fest list with a fluffy list, not because I'll lose, because I honestly don't care much about winning or losing, but because the game will be too one-sided.

For example the list that was used in the OP, how would my night goblins be able to take down two steamtanks and a waraltar backed up by artillery? I simple don't have anything in the list that has the capacity to handle something like that. I could bring a couple giants, but they'd be gunned down, same for a wyvern. Sure a bunch of spearchukkas maybe, but even if i brought like eight of them I would hit with 4 of them, wound with 2, cause four wounds, great, not even half a steamtank down and then the cannons would take care of them or magic would blast them into oblivion. yeah, fun times.

That's the problem with no holds barred competitive play, it simple excludes certain armies because of their limited capabilities. The hardcore competitive player can say all he wants about bringing better lists or more skill to the table, but for certain armies it just isn't possible, isn't it then better for the competitive player to tone down a bit so it actually becomes a game instead of a slaughterfest?

I'm not saying that hardcore competitive players are bad, i'm just saying that the argument "bring your own cheese to counter my cheese" doesn't always hold up, because not all armies can bring the cheese. Because the game simply isn't balanced. It doesn't take skill to beat up an army that is innately much weaker.

I don't choose my army based on tier level and i don't choose my list based on win chances, I choose based on what I like and what I think is fluffy to bring to the table. I can try to adjust to my opponent if he wants to play more competitive, but I might just not be able to come with much strength anyway due to the army itself. So when a competitive player says that a fluff player sucks the fun out of it because he is unhappy about his innate weaker list (I know, not necessarily the same thing, a fluff player can play a strong army, however i don't too many hardcore competitive players play the low-tier armies) being slaughtered without a fight it kinda feels like a bully saying to a beaten kid "damn, your face hurts my fist" and expect him to apologize for it. And no, I'm not calling all hardcore competitive players bullies, that was just a metaphor. ;)

honorandglory
29-06-2010, 08:45
What you wrongly inferred is that I would take any given chance to actively ruin the game for you, which is simply not true.

Actually, what I inferred was that you only cared about you having a fun and fulfilling game, and your opponent be damned.

Walgis
29-06-2010, 09:02
i dont get the argument. if you bring fluffy/weak army how is it oponents foult? its not. its just whining that you are to lazy to make a good list and others shood make weak list aswell. no they dont need to. afcourse there is armys that cant fight other specific armys but thats GW foult for not testing everything right.
what canserns me in club i play mixed list to test how things work in a certain way. but when it takes tournys i always but the best list i can to suit my playing style.
and i will totaly do everything to win that 100$ prise

yabbadabba
29-06-2010, 09:26
i dont get the argument. Thats cos you are missing the point, which should really move on from how people play. That would end the thread though.

The key here in this circumstance is that the organiser did not makes his event intentions clear and certainly did not handle the situation in a professional manner.

I do have concerns abour how the OP views and plays his game, but that his choice.

kramplarv
29-06-2010, 09:55
I personally can think of nothing more bland. I wouldn't even know where to begin with having fun in a situation like that.

manouvering. That kind of game transform warhammer into something more comparable to chess. :)

chilledenuff
29-06-2010, 10:08
nothing to see here

Baindread
29-06-2010, 10:41
I agree with the OP but I question his decision to post it here, where a lot of the aforementioned hobbyists gather and looks down on anyone who even dares to view Warhammer like a game or a competition and also the gamers who for the life of them can't understand why anyone would ever choose a mortar. The entire thread is a badly derailed kindergarten sandbox discussion over who has the right to decide what is fun or not.
Sure, the fluff department is really important. But there are also rules which allows for a competitive nature.
The best thing I've seen in this thread is the post that stated that everything has a time and a place.
Tuesday lunch in the summer, the sun is shining, your friends house. Of course you don't go with the popemobile and Steam tonk combo.
Saturday afternoon, lightning cross the sky, GW tournament, you can cut the atmosphere with a knife. Of course you don't handicap yourself with a crap list which would hinder you from getting 1st prize.

The biggest problem with the GW crowd is that everyone expects the opponent to cater to what they consider to be fun and never to accept that their opponent has a different view.

Do what we do. Play with tourney comp rules combined with well weighed house rules. Do your damndest (spl?) to win but with balanced rules written by someone competent.

Frankly
29-06-2010, 11:34
This is why I only go to tournaments with the final scores tallied from four categories: Army Composition, Sportsmanship, Appearance, and Generalship (win/lose).
The best players is the one with the best but fluffy list, was a cool player, had an awesomely painted army, and played well.

Best Tournament I've ever played in: Astronomi-con.
www.astronomi-con.com
Mostly Canadian, but they just branched out into Texas and all the Canadian tournaments have quite a few players from the US. The guys in charge (whom I am know friends with) are trying to get annual Nottingham tournament set up.


I agree.

And theres alot of scope for change within the range of markings for give to all categories.

@Braindread. I hear what your saying and see your point. But its the OP does bring up good points about the nature of some players and how they're veiwed by new comers to the game.

@Yabbadabba. I agree 100%

GodlessM
29-06-2010, 11:42
Will you though? Do you bribe the organiser? Will you leap across the board and mortally wound your opponent so you win games by default?


Exaggeration is not a valid form of argument, especially when your own exaggeration conflicts your argument in that punching the guy in the face would get you banned from the store not win you the prize.

chilledenuff
29-06-2010, 11:47
Sorry, my bad I'm going to delete that post as it was tantamount to flaming. I still think that possibly an instore tourny isn't the place for an uber cheese list though.

freddieyu
29-06-2010, 11:53
MTG is not just a game anymore..it's a sport, and several people are pros and play for money....that's a big difference...

WHFB and 40K will always remain a hobby, not a sport. So yes both should not be taken too seriously, yet there will always be people who will.

Pootleflump
29-06-2010, 12:13
We were not playing a list, we just dropped by. My empire army at home contains of mostly knights, artillery, steam tank, mages, and one block of infantry (usually for giving myself a safe area to retreat back to) with detachments. I dislike infantry since their movement makes them unflexible to the way of the battlefield and too static (aka mostly useless since movement is the most important part of the game).

Ok, sorry couldnít help wondering if this was a "I have a friend who has this embarrassing rash" type situation.

I have to say that in general, if your playing a tournament, you have to be ready to face optimised lists. To go along and act surprised when you face one is a little naive.
You can still take a fluffy list and meet new players/face new armies and have a great time but be prepared to come up against a WAAC list at some stage. E.g In the first game or after a big win. It's par for the course.

I think with the tournament in question the organiser has to take the responsibility for not setting out the rules and parameters of the tournament properly and to suggest that the winner should not receive his prize is pretty lame. He made a mistake and should have sucked it up and thought about how to do it better next time.

However, from my experience of GW store games/events the majority of the players are youngsters. (Though you do find the occasional "powergamer" in there with them.)
To suggest that a tournament is a tournament and this one is therefore no different from say a GT or an ĎArd Boyz sounds like a cop out to me.

We must still all take responsibility for our actions and this guy walked into a GW store with that list, played, won and walked out with $100s worth of vouchers.

If I had played that kind of tournament with that list I would feel totally ashamed of myself.
I can, more or less, buy any miniatures I want/need and the vouchers would be a nice treat but nothing more to me.
For a kid or young teenager that prize could have been amazing!
Personally I could not deny a special opportunity such as that from a youngster in my hobby and still sleep at night.

I donít know all the facts however. Were there other similar lists being played? What was the age of the guy with the ST/Lector list? Does he have a job? etcÖ So this is just my initial and personal feelings.

chilledenuff
29-06-2010, 12:39
To suggest that a tournament is a tournament and this one is therefore no different from say a GT or an ĎArd Boyz sounds like a cop out to me.

We must still all take responsibility for our actions and this guy walked into a GW store with that list, played, won and walked out with $100s worth of vouchers.

If I had played that kind of tournament with that list I would feel totally ashamed of myself.
For a kid or young teenager that prize could have been amazing!
Personally I could not deny a special opportunity such as that from a youngster in my hobby and still sleep at night.

Quoted for truth

sliganian
29-06-2010, 12:55
This is why I only go to tournaments with the final scores tallied from four categories: Army Composition, Sportsmanship, Appearance, and Generalship (win/lose).
The best players is the one with the best but fluffy list, was a cool player, had an awesomely painted army, and played well.

Best Tournament I've ever played in: Astronomi-con.
www.astronomi-con.com
Mostly Canadian, but they just branched out into Texas and all the Canadian tournaments have quite a few players from the US. The guys in charge (whom I am know friends with) are trying to get annual Nottingham tournament set up.

For me, the ONLY tournament I play in. :)

I would be interesting to see how the 'Astro' model could port over to Warhammer Fantasy. Maybe 8th has the flexibility to allow it?

rtunian
29-06-2010, 13:20
The whole notion of lists being 'abusive' is just the Casual Gamer Mafia way of calling people who play differently bad people...

your post is based on the fundamental mistake that you think the army books are incapable of being abused (and are therefore balanced). if the army books were balanced to each other, then it wouldn't matter what list you take, because there wouldn't be any way to qualify something as "abusive"... armies would always be on the same level, and there wouldn't be the common instnace where one side has a preposterously disparate advantage over the other side, purely because of the line items on the army list.

don't confuse what i'm saying with rock-paper-scissors... it's more like bomb-fist-foot, but it should be rock-rock-rock.

kiron
29-06-2010, 13:55
I am personally a complete fluff player, and i want to be able to justify my army based on fluff. I don't require my opponents to be able to do this though if they don't want to, but I can say that it's pretty boring to meet a cheese fest list with a fluffy list, not because I'll lose, because I honestly don't care much about winning or losing, but because the game will be too one-sided.

For example the list that was used in the OP, how would my night goblins be able to take down two steamtanks and a waraltar backed up by artillery? I simple don't have anything in the list that has the capacity to handle something like that. I could bring a couple giants, but they'd be gunned down, same for a wyvern. Sure a bunch of spearchukkas maybe, but even if i brought like eight of them I would hit with 4 of them, wound with 2, cause four wounds, great, not even half a steamtank down and then the cannons would take care of them or magic would blast them into oblivion. yeah, fun times.

That's the problem with no holds barred competitive play, it simple excludes certain armies because of their limited capabilities. The hardcore competitive player can say all he wants about bringing better lists or more skill to the table, but for certain armies it just isn't possible, isn't it then better for the competitive player to tone down a bit so it actually becomes a game instead of a slaughterfest?

I'm not saying that hardcore competitive players are bad, i'm just saying that the argument "bring your own cheese to counter my cheese" doesn't always hold up, because not all armies can bring the cheese. Because the game simply isn't balanced. It doesn't take skill to beat up an army that is innately much weaker.

I don't choose my army based on tier level and i don't choose my list based on win chances, I choose based on what I like and what I think is fluffy to bring to the table. I can try to adjust to my opponent if he wants to play more competitive, but I might just not be able to come with much strength anyway due to the army itself. So when a competitive player says that a fluff player sucks the fun out of it because he is unhappy about his innate weaker list (I know, not necessarily the same thing, a fluff player can play a strong army, however i don't too many hardcore competitive players play the low-tier armies) being slaughtered without a fight it kinda feels like a bully saying to a beaten kid "damn, your face hurts my fist" and expect him to apologize for it. And no, I'm not calling all hardcore competitive players bullies, that was just a metaphor. ;)

Yes toning down has been suggested...but IF i EVER go to a tournament blindly (no idea what the meta was like nor do I have the responsibility to either, my friend and I were about to participate, but something better came along so we just dropped by near the end to check it out), how much toning down should I go? You could ALWAYS go lower, how low do I go? At least on the higher end, you hit a point where there efficiency is quite optimal, but on the lower end...where is that? To some if could be take a super efficient army, but use only 1500 points, to others it could be taking the worse units ever. Toning down is too subjective to objectify, and what in the odd case I face a powerlist? Am I to expect my opponents to show mercy to me, I know they won't on the battlefield, so why expect so in army list construction? Why would I shoot myself in the foot?

Now as for orcs, there are powerlist that can go toe to toe against that empire list. You would take 8 spear chukas, 2 doomdivers, and a lot of fast cavalry and night goblins for the fanatics (deals with knights). Also take one big unit of big'uns for the dispel dice banner (unit is cheap and effectice in combat/magic defence). Would also take a big warboss and 3 lvl 2 mages. That is a good example of a orc power list. Which is balanced from view #3 (from earlier post), which maximises it's movement (through fast cavs), shooting (through 10 artillery), magic (3 lvl 2 mages plus +3 dispel dice and other goodies), and decent combat (with several solid infantry and black orc warboss). The army may look a little smaller than the average orc army, but it will be more efficient. However, orcs are not the best example, since their army is harder to control due to anmosity (which can screw over your plans no matter how careful they are).

I guess a competitive player is more interested in an army they one can control better as well as the army's level of mastery. Army have different levels of mastery in my opinion. Yes, we did a whole project on army tiers and levels of mastery :shifty: (very nerdy). Orcs probably have a lower level to achieve to gain max efficiency (there is only so much u can control and the army is very forgiving), empire and HE in the middle (list could be forgiving, but still requires some refinement), while WE probably has the highest levels to achieve max efficiency (very complex movement, but also lightly armored, so VERY fragile glass cannon unless go all dryad list, best point efficient model in entire army book).

On top of army levels of mastery, the army list has several models of efficiency which we are also currently researching as well (lot of improving at warhammer involves theory and knowing your enemy well). Maybe I do take warhammer a little serious than most players, but is it wrong? :(

To the earlier comment of me trying to reduce luck, yes, I'm turning warhammer into more of a chess type of game (but with more variety and some unexpected turns) in my practice games, but it works for tournaments. None of my play group (4 other people) didn't ever make top 16 (min 100 contestants) in any warhammer tournament be it GT or GW tournaments. To me personally, I don't really care much about modelling or painting, heck the models may as well be paper (though I did win 3 best painting awards).

Skyth
29-06-2010, 14:16
your post is based on the fundamental mistake that you think the army books are incapable of being abused (and are therefore balanced). if the army books were balanced to each other, then it wouldn't matter what list you take, because there wouldn't be any way to qualify something as "abusive"...

Strawman.

I mentioned nothing about some armies being more powerful than others. I take offense to using the term 'abusive'.

Abusive carries the connotation that someone doing it is a bad person. 'Abusive' and 'Powerful' mean the same thing, but they carry different connotations...It is pretty much a personal attack.

Odin
29-06-2010, 14:19
....

This is the problem with WHFB tournaments for me - they make it about the winning, not the game. I think both sides are at fault to be honest. The winner clearly picked an army for one purpose only - to win. That is not what WHFB should be about. But the organisers arranged a tournament with a prize for the winner, so what the hell do they expect?

I'd much rather see more themed campaigns organised - focus of the story and the setting. Not saying people shouldn't organise tournaments - if that's what they want, but that should not be what the game is built around, as it has been for the last few years.

VoodooJanus
29-06-2010, 14:58
My point wasn't that ALL WAAC players act like that at tournaments, nor that WAAC players have no place in the hobby. I just don't like those behavior trends, so I tend to avoid tournaments where I personally have had very bad experiences with annoying, unsporting players. I've heard others have had better times, but personally I never have fun. Saying that WAAC players don't have a place is just as ridiculous as saying that fluff players have no place in the hobby, and should learn how to play, and I'd never argue that way, as it's inflammatory and certainly not helpful.

The point is, there are many different kinds of hobby participants. From fluff enthusiasts and painting geniuses/lovers, to tournament goers. There are also mixed groups of people who equally enjoy many aspects of the game (which is one of the reasons it holds such long lasting appeal to me over a considerably cheaper board game, such as settlers of catan, or chess.) Problems only arise if one person doesn't respect another person's way of enjoying the hobby and I think this is one of the reasons why WAAC players, above anyone else, get so much flak from the gaming community. Being a fluff player, I know how frustrating it is to get my list stomped on by someone who brings a min/maxed list. It takes an awful lot for me to maintain composure and remain civil while the 7 horror blocks with heroes in them decimate my leadbelcher-based Ogre Kingdoms army. To a smattering of beer and pretzels players, the way that some WAAC players can't compartmentalize when playing weaker lists removes THEIR ability to have fun while playing, and thus is looked upon as being annoying at best, and at worst, disruptive.

Anyways, back on topic. If we could only learn to get along...

perhaps we need a kumbaya. Anyone with me?

rtunian
29-06-2010, 15:05
Strawman.

I mentioned nothing about some armies being more powerful than others. I take offense to using the term 'abusive'.

Abusive carries the connotation that someone doing it is a bad person. 'Abusive' and 'Powerful' mean the same thing, but they carry different connotations...It is pretty much a personal attack.

stating that an army list abuses the army composition rules is not stating that the person who created the list is a bad person. i like how you challenge the integrity of my post with what boils down to, "your argument is a strawman, and i know strawmen. allow me to demonstrate"

sure, "abuse" has a specific negative connotation when taken out of context (people default to thinking of spousal, physical, or verbal abuse), but therein lies the importance of context! :rolleyes: what you're saying is that my claim that your list abuses army comp rules is a personal attack on your character. i believe that is pure bs, as if i said your garage wasn't up to code and you replied that i'm just a racist. instead, your list could be abusive of army comp rules for any number of reasons. in fact...

here's an incomplete list of possible reasons:
- you read or were told that abusive lists are acceptable/encouraged
- you assumed the environment was accepting of abusive lists
- you dont realize that your list is abusive
- you don't care that your list is abusive

so are all of these examples indicative of moral failing? are they all evidence that the person "you" is a bad person?

yabbadabba
29-06-2010, 15:07
Hey rtunian, have you used that Black Orc Chariot character yet?

rtunian
29-06-2010, 15:15
Hey rtunian, have you used that Black Orc Chariot character yet?

ah, i don't have a suitably awesome black orc model yet, although i've started putting together his rig. truth be told i'm not even sure what model i even want to use for the actual blorc! i can't decide between borgut facebeater, grimgor, or one of the plastic blorcs

yabbadabba
29-06-2010, 15:21
ah, i don't have a suitably awesome black orc model yet, although i've started putting together his rig. truth be told i'm not even sure what model i even want to use for the actual blorc! i can't decide between borgut facebeater, grimgor, or one of the plastic blorcs Convert mate, then it is uniquely yours.

I once did a Black Orc Warlord with a 40K Ork Warboss body, with the pointing hand, a minotaur arm holding a big axe (I think it was a lord), and the Black Orc Command banner pole head, the one that looked like a helmet. Scratch Built a rough wooden shield.

rtunian
29-06-2010, 15:36
Convert mate, then it is uniquely yours.

I once did a Black Orc Warlord with a 40K Ork Warboss body, with the pointing hand, a minotaur arm holding a big axe (I think it was a lord), and the Black Orc Command banner pole head, the one that looked like a helmet. Scratch Built a rough wooden shield.

yes, i should convert one up. i've been meaning to do something beyond head swap or weapon swap. guess it's time i learn how to use the green stuff, eh?

Skyth
29-06-2010, 16:13
stating that an army list abuses the army composition rules is not stating that the person who created the list is a bad person.

Actualy it is. Anytime someone is accused of 'abusing' something, they are assumed to be in the wrong. Abuse has a negative connotation.


sure, "abuse" has a specific negative connotation when taken out of context (people default to thinking of spousal, physical, or verbal abuse), but therein lies the importance of context!

You keep on saying that. Doesn't make it true. I can't think of any time 'abusing' something doesn't have a negative connotation.


:rolleyes: what you're saying is that my claim that your list abuses army comp rules is a personal attack on your character. i believe that is pure bs, as if i said your garage wasn't up to code and you replied that i'm just a racist.

'up to code' is a value-neutral description based on factual empirical evidence.



here's an incomplete list of possible reasons:
- you read or were told that abusive lists are acceptable/encouraged
- you assumed the environment was accepting of abusive lists
- you dont realize that your list is abusive
- you don't care that your list is abusive

so are all of these examples indicative of moral failing? are they all evidence that the person "you" is a bad person?

Actually, yes they are. If you replaced every example of 'abusive' with 'powerful' then they wouldn't be.

GodlessM
29-06-2010, 16:18
Actualy it is. Anytime someone is accused of 'abusing' something, they are assumed to be in the wrong.


Oh boo hoo stop being so pedantic, you know what the guy means and it isn't helping you win any arguments, in fact by bringing up such a pathetic point you are just showing that you have no valid arguments against rtunian's point.

Skyth
29-06-2010, 16:28
Oh boo hoo stop being so pedantic, you know what the guy means and it isn't helping you win any arguments, in fact by bringing up such a pathetic point you are just showing that you have no valid arguments against rtunian's point.

Actually, I have a very good point. The fact is people (as exhibited by this thread) try to put how they don't play as being bad. This a major problem with the hobby and creates a divide and hostility. All Rtunian did was say 'No I'm not' when accused of using biased language.

If you seriously think there's no difference in connotation between 'abusive' and 'powerful' then you either have major issues or you are just lying to yourself.

chilledenuff
29-06-2010, 16:34
yes, i should convert one up. i've been meaning to do something beyond head swap or weapon swap. guess it's time i learn how to use the green stuff, eh?

I realise this is off topic but i wanted to say what I did, chaos troll body, shave of the chaos mark on the arm, convert his halberd into a choppa & a 40k ork head.. looks sweet

GodlessM
29-06-2010, 16:40
Actually, I have a very good point. The fact is people (as exhibited by this thread) try to put how they don't play as being bad. This a major problem with the hobby and creates a divide and hostility. All Rtunian did was say 'No I'm not' when accused of using biased language.

If you seriously think there's no difference in connotation between 'abusive' and 'powerful' then you either have major issues or you are just lying to yourself.

You are telling me there is something wrong with me yet you are the guy crying to himself that people here are saying he is a bad person because he maxes out a list. If you genuinely believe people here are saying you are a bad person because of how you play a game of toy soldiers, and if you are gettngt worked up about it, I would advise you to avoid the internet from now on lest you do something stupid because people hurt your fragile psych by actually saying something bad about you.

And if you must be so pedantic, to abuse something can be the misuse, it does not always entail a sinister action. So stop being a whine-bag child and if you want to argue with people, actually argue with them instead of crying flame prematurely.

rtunian
29-06-2010, 17:24
'up to code' is a value-neutral description based on factual empirical evidence.

hah! if you believe there is no subjective element to the actual implementation of city inspectors, well, i don't know what to tell you. if the inspector does not like you, they will usually be much more likely to make your approval process difficult, whereas if they do like you, they will be more likely to be lenient.

theory is nice, but reality is what matters.

also, "you don't realize that your list is abusive" indicates what moral failing? lol~

edit: chilledenuff, that sounds pretty sweet

chamelion 6
29-06-2010, 17:28
?!

This threasd is indanger of be coming an evil mutant of it's former self... RUN!!!! ;)

Frankly
29-06-2010, 18:03
This is the problem with WHFB tournaments for me - they make it about the winning, not the game.

I'd much rather see more themed campaigns organised - focus of the story and the setting.


I disagree with the first comment, but other because I'm in an area that has a strong focus on social play, that has alot to do with veteran pushing for that outside and inside of tournaments.

Get together with people and organize events focusing on what people like in your area. Even if the event starts with a 6 man campaign and builds into a mini-tourney of 10 people, its a start.


@Rtunian. What are you going on about?



At the end of the day the player went to a badly run tournament that set no agenda or focus or goals on armylist selection. Some guy won it, congratz to him. If the tournament was supposed to be friendly and fluffy more of an effort from the GW staff should have been put into making sure players new that.

f2k
29-06-2010, 18:19
Why do fun and competitive have to be mutually exclusive? I have fun while being competitive. While the two that played you can take an accurate guess that neither of them had fun... but who is to blame here? Sure you can easily look at the guy with the cheese list and throw out names, but there is no reason you cant also look at the guy who brought a bad list and blame him as well.

Now, keep in mind that these are just my, probably overly generalized and stereotyped, observations from playing both friendly and tournament games...

The problem is that the casual gamer and the tournament player have very different definitions of fun. A tournament player plays to win, using the hardest, most cost effective list available within the rules (and on the very edge of the rules for some of the more unscrupulous players). His fun comes from winning a hard-fought game against the hardest opponent he can find. A casual gamer plays to have fun with a fluffy army and a good narrative and, hopefully, win. His fun comes from seeing two fluffy armies battling it out, adding yet another glorious chapter to the narrative that is the Warhammer setting.

When these two types meet, neither have fun. The tournament player might win (in fact, he most likely will) but he does so against an inferior, non-optimized list. And the casual gamer will be trounced by a non-fluffy, hard as nails (and probably both cheesy and beardy) list.

chamelion 6
29-06-2010, 18:30
Now, keep in mind that these are just my, probably overly generalized and stereotyped, observations from playing both friendly and tournament games...

The problem is that the casual gamer and the tournament player have very different definitions of fun. A tournament player plays to win, using the hardest, most cost effective list available within the rules (and on the very edge of the rules for some of the more unscrupulous players). His fun comes from winning a hard-fought game against the hardest opponent he can find. A casual gamer plays to have fun with a fluffy army and a good narrative and, hopefully, win. His fun comes from seeing two fluffy armies battling it out, adding yet another glorious chapter to the narrative that is the Warhammer setting.

When these two types meet, neither have fun. The tournament player might win (in fact, he most likely will) but he does so against an inferior, non-optimized list. And the casual gamer will be trounced by a non-fluffy, hard as nails (and probably both cheesy and beardy) list.

nail hit squarely on the head....

Only thing you left out for us casual gamers is the beer drinkin' and rehashing of old war stories and comparing our battle scars....:cool:

Korraz
29-06-2010, 18:38
You should add that there are also Casual-Tournaments. Like I said, you should check who you are playing, before you bring a Leafblower along.

Cragspyder
29-06-2010, 18:38
Well, Magic: The Gathering and Warhammer are different in the way they work, just because they cater to the same demographic (young white males with a lot of money to burn) and exist in the same genre (fantasy tabletop game) doesn't make them similar.

In fact, the major similarity between Magic and Warhammer is that both companies work hard at obsoleting old material very quickly, so that you must purchase new material to remain competitive. This is why I quit Magic a long time ago, as older expansion cards are no longer even legal to play once the new expansion cards come out! Anyways....

First of all, Magic tournaments have the advantage of being able to be played in Booster Draft format, where even the most skilled players can end up with crappy cards and they have to build a deck and do well with that. An excellent way to run a tournament, in my opinion, and provides a good measurement of skill, but this simply does not work with Warhammer for obvious reasons.

ALL Warhammer tournaments work the same way as the bad format of Magic tournament, ie. everyone brings their own deck. So, as the bottom line, he/she who spent the most money on the best stuff in the current most powerful metagame format will win the tournament. The introduction of soft scores merely encourages tournament winners to purchase armies from excellent painters, or to hire them to paint for them. Sportsmanship is something that can be faked or discarded really, as prizes are still won for Best General, after all.

Warhammer has additional wrenches to throw in that machine, in that non-WAAC people will often buy what they want to paint, which may not be the best option tactically, and that some "decks", by which I mean armies, are sometimes two editions out of date, and cannot be expected to compete against more recent books.

In contrast to what I was saying above, though, I wouldn't have called out the 'hardcore' Empire player simply because he was playing Empire! If he really wanted to win at all costs, he would have brought Daemons of Chaos. Instead he brought a tough Empire list, with the best the army book has to offer, and was lucky that no one brought Daemons/Dark Elves/Vampire Counts, so he won. Good for him.

The bottom line is that Warhammer is not made for tournament play, especially not with prizes that are of actual value (money/boxed sets). Warhammer is (supposed to) be a hobby that can also be utilized as a fun contest among friends. As long as the two main factors in winning Warhammer tournaments are A) money and a very distant B) luck, people who go all out to win these tournaments should have no expectation to be lauded for their "skill".

pointyteeth
29-06-2010, 19:07
Now, keep in mind that these are just my, probably overly generalized and stereotyped, observations from playing both friendly and tournament games...

The problem is that the casual gamer and the tournament player have very different definitions of fun. A tournament player plays to win, using the hardest, most cost effective list available within the rules (and on the very edge of the rules for some of the more unscrupulous players). His fun comes from winning a hard-fought game against the hardest opponent he can find. A casual gamer plays to have fun with a fluffy army and a good narrative and, hopefully, win. His fun comes from seeing two fluffy armies battling it out, adding yet another glorious chapter to the narrative that is the Warhammer setting.

When these two types meet, neither have fun. The tournament player might win (in fact, he most likely will) but he does so against an inferior, non-optimized list. And the casual gamer will be trounced by a non-fluffy, hard as nails (and probably both cheesy and beardy) list.


Agree with this completely.

My gaming group and I are regular tournament players, but also beer and pretzel hammer players. We enjoy the competition (my buddies are extremely competitive people, both in Warhammer and in real life; myself to a lesser degree). We attend tournaments because we want to play against the best that others have to offer. We love the challenge. We'd rather play and lose to a power list than play and stomp anyone else; in fact, a massacre is no fun for us as it doesn't challenge us at all.

We all take optimal lists, but at the same time will sacrifice optimisation to take something we want (one buddy always takes squig hoppers no matter what) or because we don't want to hear complaints about how we only won because of our list. And we do play in comp'd tournaments quite often.

To the OP, it sounds like the organizers should have been more specific on army composition. I've seen at tournaments that many people who complain about power lists are quite unsportsmanlike players. There's been a few occassions where someone who has lost to one of us (usually because they didn't bring the tools to deal with a certain situation - aka a balanced list) will score 0 for army comp (fair enough) 0 for sportsmanship (despite the fact that we reigned ourselves in, let a couple rule misinterpretations on their part slide, etc.) 0 or 1 for painting (despite the fact that we are all above average painters and all models are painted, based, and often converted).

I can understand that not everyone coming to a tournament may have our mindframe. They might just be playing because they want to play a few different people which is great! Its one of the reasons we play tournaments as well. But getting miffed because you brought your usual "warring at John's place tonight" army to an environment based on challenge (as most tournaments are) is just uncalled for. Now that said, if the tournament is supposed to be a friendly afternoon three round match up then by all means, get up in arms; I'll be right there with you (me and my marauder horde :D).

TeddyC
29-06-2010, 20:55
To OP:

Im perfectly capable of disregarding any background and building a tourney list. Ive been playing long enough.... but I chose not to. Why? because I prefer a game that is believable under a 'normal' warhammer scenario.

You gotta take it in context. We had a toubles campaign at our store, it wasnt written but the vets group that was there knew that a powergaming list would be frowned upon, so didnt take one. It sounds like that was the intention for that tourney, to have a light hearted game.

Compare it to roleplay. You COULD just become some stupidly powerful, kill all comers combat monster, but you dont because then the GM just has to keep throwing harder and harder stuff at you to keep it interesting, but you still end up taking down bloodthirsters in next to no time.

Yea there are situations where powergaming is acceptable and I wouldnt moan if I faced such lists.

Even in our group, MTG is much more about having a cool themed deck rather than looking online and saying 'thats the best list everyone agrees on, so lets all take it and leave it purely down to how my cards are shuffled'. Ive got white levellers, one guys got merfolk, another is pure colourless eldrazi (not as uber hard as it sounds as its really vunerable to a quick deck, and fliers)

I dont play cometitively, but I play for a sports team, we are mid level it is fair to say, some guys played semi pro, other guys never played before. We organise our own games (no league). Why dont we just play our top team every game? numbers isnt a problem, everyones up for it. We dont because, unless youve got a personal vendetta, going down to wherever on a saturday/sunday evening and tanning someone 10-1 is not fun for anyone. So we self regulate, otherwise we dont get invited back.

You said that these people in life are generally laughing stocks? hardly

I compeltely agree with the manager, hes well within his rights to try and tailor an atmosphere he wants for the gaming group.

TeddyC
29-06-2010, 21:03
Now, keep in mind that these are just my, probably overly generalized and stereotyped, observations from playing both friendly and tournament games...

The problem is that the casual gamer and the tournament player have very different definitions of fun. A tournament player plays to win, using the hardest, most cost effective list available within the rules (and on the very edge of the rules for some of the more unscrupulous players). His fun comes from winning a hard-fought game against the hardest opponent he can find. A casual gamer plays to have fun with a fluffy army and a good narrative and, hopefully, win. His fun comes from seeing two fluffy armies battling it out, adding yet another glorious chapter to the narrative that is the Warhammer setting.

When these two types meet, neither have fun. The tournament player might win (in fact, he most likely will) but he does so against an inferior, non-optimized list. And the casual gamer will be trounced by a non-fluffy, hard as nails (and probably both cheesy and beardy) list.

also..... what he said

Frankly
29-06-2010, 21:25
Now, keep in mind that these are just my, probably overly generalized and stereotyped, observations from playing both friendly and tournament games...

The problem is that the casual gamer and the tournament player have very different definitions of fun. A tournament player plays to win, using the hardest, most cost effective list available within the rules (and on the very edge of the rules for some of the more unscrupulous players). His fun comes from winning a hard-fought game against the hardest opponent he can find. A casual gamer plays to have fun with a fluffy army and a good narrative and, hopefully, win. His fun comes from seeing two fluffy armies battling it out, adding yet another glorious chapter to the narrative that is the Warhammer setting.

When these two types meet, neither have fun. The tournament player might win (in fact, he most likely will) but he does so against an inferior, non-optimized list. And the casual gamer will be trounced by a non-fluffy, hard as nails (and probably both cheesy and beardy) list.


LOL. Yes that is to generalized, sorry, but it is.

98% of the time people are having fun playing the game, period, pretending that chalk and cheese players just won't get along is just silly.

I dread playing some social players because some can bore the hell out of me, because they fudge rules, cause they have B.O., cause they're rules lawyers, cause they don't bother to paint their armies, etc, etc. Competely the same reasons why I don't like some tournament players, its personalities not play types and ruin games for me.

People should stop acting like if people go to tournament they're automatic powergamers, I know alot of people that go to tournaments JUST to have fun playing, to catch up with friends, show off their modelling skills, their painting skills, just to have fun, just to play games, to meet new geeks, to drink beer and have a smoke and roll dice. For alot of people tournaments are the socail part of the game.

There seems to be the thing on warseer where actual real life gaming is subjected to some kind of moral blood letting and lots of people suddenly want to be the new 'casual player' opressed tournament goers. Whats going on? This just is not real life, the game, clubs, gaming groups and players in general have enough scope and lee-way to play against most other players. Down at the club or at the store everyone plays everybody, there is NO DIVIDE between casual and tournament players, they're both geeks.

Korraz
29-06-2010, 21:37
In fact, the major similarity between Magic and Warhammer is that both companies work hard at obsoleting old material very quickly, so that you must purchase new material to remain competitive. This is why I quit Magic a long time ago, as older expansion cards are no longer even legal to play once the new expansion cards come out! Anyways....


Wait, wait, wait, wait. That's wrong on so many levels. The only formats where this is true is Standard, rotating with every new expansion, and Extended. In Legacy you can play every card, in Vintage even those, that are so stupidly powerful you really shouldn't use them. In fact, M:TG is one of the few TCGs, where Powercreep is virtually non existant. New expansions have one or two relevant cards for Legacy, at most. If GW would be a bit more like WOTC, most boards would be a happier place.

f2k
30-06-2010, 07:14
LOL. Yes that is to generalized, sorry, but it is.

98% of the time people are having fun playing the game, period, pretending that chalk and cheese players just won't get along is just silly.

And yet, in thread after thread, we have this discussion...

Itís clear to me that some players just canít accept hardcore tournament play. And that some just canít accept anything less than that.


I dread playing some social players because some can bore the hell out of me, because they fudge rules, cause they have B.O., cause they're rules lawyers, cause they don't bother to paint their armies, etc, etc. Competely the same reasons why I don't like some tournament players, its personalities not play types and ruin games for me.

Iím not going to argue against the personality thing here. Youíre absolutely right... I will, however, point out that peopleís personality is often reflected in how they play.


People should stop acting like if people go to tournament they're automatic powergamers, I know alot of people that go to tournaments JUST to have fun playing, to catch up with friends, show off their modelling skills, their painting skills, just to have fun, just to play games, to meet new geeks, to drink beer and have a smoke and roll dice. For alot of people tournaments are the socail part of the game.

I think it depends very much on the tournament and the area. The tournaments that Iíve attended were so marred by WAAC players and rule-lawyers that, in the end, I simply gave up and stopped going. It just wasnít fun anymore. As I said above, peopleís personality is reflected in how they play. And Iíve found that tournament players are often the most hardcore...


There seems to be the thing on warseer where actual real life gaming is subjected to some kind of moral blood letting and lots of people suddenly want to be the new 'casual player' opressed tournament goers. Whats going on? This just is not real life, the game, clubs, gaming groups and players in general have enough scope and lee-way to play against most other players. Down at the club or at the store everyone plays everybody, there is NO DIVIDE between casual and tournament players, they're both geeks.

Not true. The club where I used to play had a lot of different players. And a few of these were so hardcore that I simply stopped playing them. Not that they were unpleasant as persons Ė not at all. But they always insisted on bringing the hardest list they could make and, since I always brought a fluffy list, neither of us enjoyed playing each other. So yes, there is most defiantly a divide between players, even in clubs...

Frankly
30-06-2010, 09:39
And a few of these were so hardcore that I simply stopped playing them. Not that they were unpleasant as persons – not at all. But they always insisted on bringing the hardest list they could make and, since I always brought a fluffy list, neither of us enjoyed playing each other. So yes, there is most defiantly a divide between players, even in clubs...


I think this is important.

Choice.

At the end of the day, as a player you have a choice on who you play and what tournament you play in.

How does this concern the OP? Well in my mind the tournment that he watched set NO boundaries or restrictions on armylists, players had the CHOICE to bring what they want and play in the tournament. By all accounts the winner seemed to be well mannered and to have a lovely army(personally big bonuses for me and statement alot of posters seem to be ignoring). After that, GW staff blundered by imposing moral restrictions on the player AFTER he'd won the tournament = wrong. The player did nothing wrong taking that list to that tournament in my view.

I will disagree with you F2k that some players have an arch-type and its reflected in the way they play, saying that I see your point and think its a reasonable argument, just not one I share. :)

kiron
30-06-2010, 15:38
I think this is important.

Choice.

At the end of the day, as a player you have a choice on who you play and what tournament you play in.

How does this concern the OP? Well in my mind the tournment that he watched set NO boundaries or restrictions on armylists, players had the CHOICE to bring what they want and play in the tournament. By all accounts the winner seemed to be well mannered and to have a lovely army(personally big bonuses for me and statement alot of posters seem to be ignoring). After that, GW staff blundered by imposing moral restrictions on the player AFTER he'd won the tournament = wrong. The player did nothing wrong taking that list to that tournament in my view.

I will disagree with you F2k that some players have an arch-type and its reflected in the way they play, saying that I see your point and think its a reasonable argument, just not one I share. :)

I agree completely.

chamelion 6
30-06-2010, 16:38
Reading this thread just reinforces that I made a wise decision years ago when I made up my mind to stear well clear of the whole tournament thing.

I understand the appeal for some, but I just see a lot of lawyering, arguing ove lists, arguing over balance and personalities. For me WFB was an excape from this kind of drugery. As the Tourny crowd became dominant this kind of stuff became part of the overall culture around the game and just made the whole thing tedious as every game I played felt more and more like a tournament. It just seemed too many peole saw WFB in this contect.

I can see why people like the competition, but I don't see what the thrill is when debates like this thread seem to outnumber the games. Maybe that's just my perception of it, but from 6th edition on this kind of discussion absorbed everything it seemed.

Before 6th edition most of the discussion was about character and magic... It involved the background and history. Now it's just debates over rule mechanics and powerlists.

I point this our because I think it does illustrate there is a difference in the mindset of the people that prefer certain editions over others.

f2k
30-06-2010, 16:52
I think this is important.

Choice.

At the end of the day, as a player you have a choice on who you play and what tournament you play in.

How does this concern the OP? Well in my mind the tournment that he watched set NO boundaries or restrictions on armylists, players had the CHOICE to bring what they want and play in the tournament. By all accounts the winner seemed to be well mannered and to have a lovely army(personally big bonuses for me and statement alot of posters seem to be ignoring). After that, GW staff blundered by imposing moral restrictions on the player AFTER he'd won the tournament = wrong. The player did nothing wrong taking that list to that tournament in my view.

Yes, you do have a choice. And, strictly speaking, that choice encompasses everything in the army list. So you’re right, you can’t really fault the winner for bringing that particular army to the tournament...

But consider this... Every group/club/store/wherever has its own metagame (for lack of better word). This might be that everything legal goes. Or it might be that only fluffy armies are used. For example: for a while I was part of a small group of people who played Blood Bowl. They had a house-rule that fouling was illegal and assists were not used since they felt that these rules made the players to vulnerable and led to too many casualties. In that case my choice was to play using their rules or to not play at all. Why does that matter? Well, the store in the OP might have had a relaxed metagame (it sounds that way to me). So, while the winning army was certainly legal and the player an all-round nice guy, his metagame was not the same as that used by the other players in the store. His choice then, was to adapt to the stores metagame or to not play there.

All of this being said, I will certainly agree with you that the staff blundered by not putting the metegame in writing. If the local metagame dictates a fluffy, laid back approach to the game, then the gamers should be made aware of this beforehand. They can then make the choice as to whether or not they want to play.

In effect, the metagame becomes a sort of unspoken, and unpublished, comp-scoring...



I will disagree with you F2k that some players have an arch-type and its reflected in the way they play, saying that I see your point and think its a reasonable argument, just not one I share. :)

Well, I guess we’ll just have to agree to respectfully disagree then... :)

In any case, as with any generalization, it’s possible to find a counterexample. My experience says one thing, yours say another. And neither is the absolute truth...

It’s probably something that varies from place to place...

You know... Sometimes I’m wondering if not my hatred for tournaments is somewhat irrational. My experience with tournaments is that it brings out the worst in people. But reading what others say here on WarSeer, it’s obvious that they are having fun at tournaments. So there are some people out there who enjoy competitive gaming. Perhaps my opinion would be different if I had actually enjoyed those tournaments I’ve played in? In any case, it’s obvious that there’re big differences in the local metagame, depending on where, and who, you play...


Ah, well... This is a difficult topic to talk about since it depends so much on your own experiences and opinions. I’ll just stop ranting now...

Bac5665
30-06-2010, 16:53
I think this is important.

Choice.

At the end of the day, as a player you have a choice on who you play and what tournament you play in.

How does this concern the OP? Well in my mind the tournment that he watched set NO boundaries or restrictions on armylists, players had the CHOICE to bring what they want and play in the tournament. By all accounts the winner seemed to be well mannered and to have a lovely army(personally big bonuses for me and statement alot of posters seem to be ignoring). After that, GW staff blundered by imposing moral restrictions on the player AFTER he'd won the tournament = wrong. The player did nothing wrong taking that list to that tournament in my view.

I will disagree with you F2k that some players have an arch-type and its reflected in the way they play, saying that I see your point and think its a reasonable argument, just not one I share. :)

All agree too. Choice is the best part of the hobby.

Frankly
30-06-2010, 17:01
Ah, well... This is a difficult topic to talk about since it depends so much on your own experiences and opinions. Iíll just stop ranting now...

No, no. You've come up with great counter points. /tips hat.

beaumontbrawler
30-06-2010, 17:02
I have run lots of tournaments, and based on my experience, it sounds like a poorly run tournament to me.

Either the organizer should have made it known that this was a "no holds barred" tournament, or he should have included a sufficient comp scoring/reviewing system to address composition imbalances.

Ultimately, it is the organizer's job to make sure that everyone has a fun time . . . it sounds like the organizer failed a good number of people at this tournament.

kramplarv
30-06-2010, 19:35
I always play to win. Always always always. My army lsit atm consists of lord on juggernaut, hellfiresword, bsb in chariot of khorne, 2*10 khorne marauders/gw, 2*20 marauders slaanesh, 6 knights, Khorne, 15 chosen, khorne, 2*5 chaos hounds.

No matter my list, i always PLAY TO WIN. WAAC. You name it. But just because I always play to win it does not mean I always bring the best army. My personal ideology when i do army lists is "How would I feel if I played against this army?". That's why I don't bring 50 horrors, BT, BSB, 2*lvl2 wizards, 2*6 flamers in an DoC-army... because I would not enjoy that game. Never. ever. ever.

As a side note. I never ever plays against WE unless I meet them at a tournament. Why? because If I wanted to play against a 40k army i'd bring my chaos space marines. Boring game? = I wont play it.

f2k
30-06-2010, 20:01
No, no. You've come up with great counter points. /tips hat.


Why, thank you… * tips hat in return *

Actually, I noticed that chameleon 6 posted while I was writing my reply so...


Reading this thread just reinforces that I made a wise decision years ago when I made up my mind to stear well clear of the whole tournament thing.

I understand the appeal for some, but I just see a lot of lawyering, arguing ove lists, arguing over balance and personalities.

Same here...

As I said above, I’m wondering if this is down to some sort of cultural difference in the metagame. It seems that there are some people who has a great time at a tournament. And then there’re those who will never attend a tournament again...


For me WFB was an excape from this kind of drugery. As the Tourny crowd became dominant this kind of stuff became part of the overall culture around the game and just made the whole thing tedious as every game I played felt more and more like a tournament. It just seemed too many peole saw WFB in this contect.

I can see why people like the competition, but I don't see what the thrill is when debates like this thread seem to outnumber the games. Maybe that's just my perception of it, but from 6th edition on this kind of discussion absorbed everything it seemed.

Before 6th edition most of the discussion was about character and magic... It involved the background and history. Now it's just debates over rule mechanics and powerlists.

I point this our because I think it does illustrate there is a difference in the mindset of the people that prefer certain editions over others.

I’m not entirely up to scratch with my tournament history as I don’t generally pay that much attention to them these days. But was 6th edition not released around the time where Games Workshop started hosting big tournaments? I seem to recall it being something new and incredible in the late nineties... I attended my first tournaments at that time...

Never mind...

My point is that I agree with you. Something happened and now it’s all about Chapter Approved and Tournament Legal. Somewhere along the line we forgot that this is, at heart, a beer and pretzel game, not meant for serious play. Whether this change was driven by Games Workshop or if they simply responded to a growing need...?

chamelion 6
30-06-2010, 20:56
I’m not entirely up to scratch with my tournament history as I don’t generally pay that much attention to them these days. But was 6th edition not released around the time where Games Workshop started hosting big tournaments? I seem to recall it being something new and incredible in the late nineties... I attended my first tournaments at that time...

Never mind...

My point is that I agree with you. Something happened and now it’s all about Chapter Approved and Tournament Legal. Somewhere along the line we forgot that this is, at heart, a beer and pretzel game, not meant for serious play. Whether this change was driven by Games Workshop or if they simply responded to a growing need...?

I could be wrong, I'm pulling from memory, but I could check some of my old White Dwarf issues...

The way I remember it the whole tournament thing really started under 5th edition. The first were more like a convention though and had all kinds of things going on the competition was just one element. As time wore on the competition part of the tournament became more important and dominant and evolved into the center focus of the event. That was when WD first started playing up the whole Grand Champion thing...

Towards the transition between 5th and 6th there were discussions going on about balance and whether certain champions were winning out of skill or just because they'd picked a more powerful army and found certain unbalanced magical combinations.

When 6th came out, the selling point was that it addressed these issues. I don't think it was supposed to be a set of tournament rules, but the sway of the edition was definately a nod in that direction. That was tje period when the tournaments hit in full fury. I think by 7th GW realized the "Casual Gamers" had all but dried up and started trying to attract them back with things like the General's Compendium that came out sometime during 6th... To their credit I think GW was trying to find some middle ground, but there was just too great a cultural divide between most of these groups and the players weren't going along.

I know that playing 6th edition to me, against the vast majority of people I played, it felt less and less like warhammer and more and more like a sporting event. There was an obsession with balance in every aspect of the game. Every unit, every rule, every move, terrain, everything was scrutinized until it just felt sterile to me. There were only a few real jerks, but it was very apparant that nobody was interested in the history, the background, or playing games that much reflected those things, instead every game was more like a mini-tournament, so I moved on to other things.

Edit: If I remember correctly, the Chaper approved editions started under 6th because there was so much confusion at various official and unofficial tournaments about what the latest legal lists were. They tried to compile the legal stuff in one book...

kiron
30-06-2010, 22:16
Reading this thread just reinforces that I made a wise decision years ago when I made up my mind to stear well clear of the whole tournament thing.

I understand the appeal for some, but I just see a lot of lawyering, arguing ove lists, arguing over balance and personalities. For me WFB was an excape from this kind of drugery. As the Tourny crowd became dominant this kind of stuff became part of the overall culture around the game and just made the whole thing tedious as every game I played felt more and more like a tournament. It just seemed too many peole saw WFB in this contect.

I can see why people like the competition, but I don't see what the thrill is when debates like this thread seem to outnumber the games. Maybe that's just my perception of it, but from 6th edition on this kind of discussion absorbed everything it seemed.

Before 6th edition most of the discussion was about character and magic... It involved the background and history. Now it's just debates over rule mechanics and powerlists.

I point this our because I think it does illustrate there is a difference in the mindset of the people that prefer certain editions over others.

I was under the impression that 5th ed. was just the super characters and the army was just background filler? I heard stories how teclis or anyone other lvl 4+ mage just wiped the field and all the fly high obseleted movement and tactics.

kiron
30-06-2010, 22:24
I always play to win. Always always always. My army lsit atm consists of lord on juggernaut, hellfiresword, bsb in chariot of khorne, 2*10 khorne marauders/gw, 2*20 marauders slaanesh, 6 knights, Khorne, 15 chosen, khorne, 2*5 chaos hounds.

No matter my list, i always PLAY TO WIN. WAAC. You name it. But just because I always play to win it does not mean I always bring the best army. My personal ideology when i do army lists is "How would I feel if I played against this army?". That's why I don't bring 50 horrors, BT, BSB, 2*lvl2 wizards, 2*6 flamers in an DoC-army... because I would not enjoy that game. Never. ever. ever.

As a side note. I never ever plays against WE unless I meet them at a tournament. Why? because If I wanted to play against a 40k army i'd bring my chaos space marines. Boring game? = I wont play it.

So you would not play a whole army because of the way they are designed and that they have a innate advantage over urs (good movement and u don't have magic which is their weakness) because they will bait u all day due to ur frenzy? (I just don't think u are up for the challenge :p). In all honesty, WE shooting is waay overated, if u are losing to str 3-4 bows with chaos toughness and AS, then something is wrong.

chamelion 6
30-06-2010, 22:31
I was under the impression that 5th ed. was just the super characters and the army was just background filler? I heard stories how teclis or anyone other lvl 4+ mage just wiped the field and all the fly high obseleted movement and tactics.

You're right. That was very much the nature of 5th. It's detractors called it "Herohammer" and most of those kinds of stories about how poorly bnalanced it was are true. I don't think the armies were that useless, you still needed them to win, but the focus of the game was definately the characters. There were extensive lists of magic items and combinations that could make characters almost indestructable. But in most situations, characters could be overwhelmed by the rank and file. But it wass a bloody affair.

But most people seemed to take it in stride until the convention, later tournament, thing caught on. Like I said, that was the real point of 6th, to make it more tourny friendly and better balanced.

There was lots of talk during the 5th edition tournys that many of the winners were better at picking good combinations of magic items than actually playing the game.

kramplarv
01-07-2010, 00:01
So you would not play a whole army because of the way they are designed and that they have a innate advantage over urs (good movement and u don't have magic which is their weakness) because they will bait u all day due to ur frenzy? (I just don't think u are up for the challenge :p). In all honesty, WE shooting is waay overated, if u are losing to str 3-4 bows with chaos toughness and AS, then something is wrong.

nah, I don't play it with my empire army, with my dwarfs, not my demons, not my vampire counts, not my High elves or my beastmen. Because I do not enjoy the "all skirmisher units with occasional big monster which ignores all terrain, and lot of shooting without modifiers ". If I wanted to play against that I'd play 40k which is a much better skirmishing shoot-fest. :)

And I have a fairly 50/50 W/D ratio the few times I play against WE. Which has been something like 4-5 times the last 4 years or so.

So the answers to your questions in order are:

I won't play against them because of the way they are designed. But as I have a lot of other armies I do not really care about their shooting or movement or baiting since I could make an army that can outshoot, outmagic, outmanouver it. If i'd fancied that kind of boring play. Both my and the WE army would be boring. And I don't want to spend 2-3 hours playing a boring game. :)

kiron
01-07-2010, 03:59
So the answers to your questions in order are:

I won't play against them because of the way they are designed. But as I have a lot of other armies I do not really care about their shooting or movement or baiting since I could make an army that can outshoot, outmagic, outmanouver it. If i'd fancied that kind of boring play. Both my and the WE army would be boring. And I don't want to spend 2-3 hours playing a boring game. :)

Just because a game of movement may seem boring to you doesn't mean it's boring for others. I myself love a game that is won/loss based on movement and I know lots of other players would love that (no cursed luck involved either). Yes I know the movement phase is not what sells the game, but for many veteran competitors that I know, they will say that deployment and movement are the most important phase and once u can master the movement phase, others thing usually fall into place barring ill luck. So to you may be boring, but to others is a tactical challenge to improve their gameplay.



You're right. That was very much the nature of 5th. It's detractors called it "Herohammer" and most of those kinds of stories about how poorly bnalanced it was are true. I don't think the armies were that useless, you still needed them to win, but the focus of the game was definately the characters. There were extensive lists of magic items and combinations that could make characters almost indestructable. But in most situations, characters could be overwhelmed by the rank and file. But it wass a bloody affair.

But most people seemed to take it in stride until the convention, later tournament, thing caught on. Like I said, that was the real point of 6th, to make it more tourny friendly and better balanced.

There was lots of talk during the 5th edition tournys that many of the winners were better at picking good combinations of magic items than actually playing the game.

So isn't 6th and 7th ed. better with more emphasis on the army as a whole? No longer are heroes the centre of everything, but the army working as a whole, which reinforces my post about view #3 as a 'balanced army' being able to maximise the efficiency of the army in all 4 phases of the game or in certain phases to compensate lack in other phases.

But now we are sort of detracting from the OP where it's obvious that the original TO didn't say anything nor is it the players responsibility to scout of the meta of the tournament. Especially with $100 prize, wouldn't the emphasis on winning be most important if the goal was for that prize? I know in Magic TCG, many players have fun playing against strong decks and usually if you lose ur first few rounds, u play the weaker players who also lose their first few rounds (if u both happen to be casual players then perhaps ur decks would be more evenly matched) so the analogy could be the same in warhammer where the competitive players play against the more competitive players as the tournament goes on.

Also I'm not too sure, but competition is what driven me start warhammer in the first place, being able to innovate better army list (everyone in magic tries their best to 'break' the newest card to create the most efficiency) as well as outplaying my opponent and I know that's what everyone in magic is trying to do. Where else better to test this skill better than a tournament, especially with no set rules other than the official rules where the BRB and army lists tells what is and not legal? From what I can tell, the victor didn't do anything illegal. He obviously tried to 'break' the empire army list to create the most unfair list and then outplayed everyone which is the spirit of competiton in my opinion.

Also lets face it, when a new army book comes out, everyone looks for what is 'breakable' in the army list in the same way people do that for magic cards come a new set. Why? Because they want to create the most competitive list to give them the greatest advantage to enhance their performance on the field, GW knows that and so does WOTC (I would rather say they 'encourage' it. Why bother holding a tournament if you are not going to embrace the competitive nature of a tournament (especially with $100 prize) as u can play casual games anytime?

TheSanityAssassin
01-07-2010, 04:34
Ok, so I trudged through the first few pages of this thread, but I'm much too tired to read it all, I won't lie.

I am going to give my thoughts on this though, as a long time tourney organizer:

I do place a ton of the blame for this situation on the TO's. If you want a fluff/composition restriction on a tourney, they're easy to put in. YOU are in charge. If you don't want huge amounts of magic, cap it at 10 pd, if you don't want monsters, cap units at 5 wounds, whatever. It's up to you. What you CAN'T do as a TO is bitch to a player who showed up to play in your event UNLESS he was going out of his way to be a jerk, and by this I mean actually being rude or mean as a person, not as an army list. If no restrictions are put on an event, bring whatever you want. Most established communities build their own level of list building, but unless there is a restriction, don't be surprised to see some nasty lists show up.

I don't like the idea that tournaments are ONLY about winning though, and my events reflect such things. The purpose of our events is often to get together a group of gamers that don't often get to play. We each pay some cash into the pot, and dole out some prizes at the end. The prizes are split between General (killiest) Sportsman, and Painted, with a slightly larger prize for Overall (A combination of General, Sports, Appearance and List Composition). We have a clear composition guideline that people can see, and they know that they CAN bring whatever they want, but they're losing a lot of points towards their Overall score by bringing a maxed list, and NEED to win all their games BIG to have a chance at the top prizes, and be nice while doing it.

This is where I really differentiate. Lists are one thing...some are a lot harder than others, and I agree, its as bad if someone brings 200 Bret peasants to an event as a maxed out daemon list. Don't expect to have fun if your list is so bad you can't win. That said, an "Average" build, that puts a few effective combos together without maxing the function of every piece should still be able to compete. The problem I have is with people being bad sports, and that can come from both sides....I hate people who's idea of winning involves arguing rules (mis)interpretations for 40 minutes until the foe gets so frustated they basically give up. I ALSO hate people who spend the whole time complaining about the opponents army and no time actually trying to game. If you're going to argue that the point of a tourney is for both people to have fun, you have to make an effort at it yourself, and know that you bitching and whining is just going to make you BOTH miserable. If you're opponant REALLY wants to be a jerkwad to you, talk to the TO...a good one will solve the problem pretty quickly. I don't care what kind of lists show up (see my rules above), but I won't tolerate poor sportsmanship. Often the guys with the strong lists are still friendly and fine to play against...I don't mind getting tabled if the guy is talking about the hockey game or music or politics or whatever while the game is happening. I do hate being treated as a "target" and simply ignored during the game...Warhammer is a 2 player game, and there are too many people out there who treat it like a 1 player RTS.

Well, I'm running out of steam

Bassik
01-07-2010, 05:06
I agree 100% with The SanityAssassin!

chilledenuff
01-07-2010, 05:32
Sanity Assassin, great post.. good points well made. I can't see how any one could really disagree with that.

chamelion 6
01-07-2010, 05:40
So isn't 6th and 7th ed. better with more emphasis on the army as a whole? No longer are heroes the centre of everything, but the army working as a whole, which reinforces my post about view #3 as a 'balanced army' being able to maximise the efficiency of the army in all 4 phases of the game or in certain phases to compensate lack in other phases.

But now we are sort of detracting from the OP where it's obvious that the original TO didn't say anything nor is it the players responsibility to scout of the meta of the tournament. Especially with $100 prize, wouldn't the emphasis on winning be most important if the goal was for that prize? I know in Magic TCG, many players have fun playing against strong decks and usually if you lose ur first few rounds, u play the weaker players who also lose their first few rounds (if u both happen to be casual players then perhaps ur decks would be more evenly matched) so the analogy could be the same in warhammer where the competitive players play against the more competitive players as the tournament goes on.

Also I'm not too sure, but competition is what driven me start warhammer in the first place, being able to innovate better army list (everyone in magic tries their best to 'break' the newest card to create the most efficiency) as well as outplaying my opponent and I know that's what everyone in magic is trying to do. Where else better to test this skill better than a tournament, especially with no set rules other than the official rules where the BRB and army lists tells what is and not legal? From what I can tell, the victor didn't do anything illegal. He obviously tried to 'break' the empire army list to create the most unfair list and then outplayed everyone which is the spirit of competiton in my opinion.

Also lets face it, when a new army book comes out, everyone looks for what is 'breakable' in the army list in the same way people do that for magic cards come a new set. Why? Because they want to create the most competitive list to give them the greatest advantage to enhance their performance on the field, GW knows that and so does WOTC (I would rather say they 'encourage' it. Why bother holding a tournament if you are not going to embrace the competitive nature of a tournament (especially with $100 prize) as u can play casual games anytime?

No... At least not for me. 6th and 7th were dry and lifeless. I was never interested in balance or fairness in the game. My interest in the game stemmed from literature and wanting a game to see how well I'd stack up to the likes of Achilies, Ajax and Hector, Conan, Fingolfin... Not about how I face up to you. The game was about myth and legend. You expected the bad guys to be bigger, meaner, tougher, stronger... It's the fact that the odds are against you that make it all the more heroic.

If you don't read the fiction, you really can't understand what drives a game like that.

The difference between a game like that and playing a power list is character and all the pretense to "balance" and "fairness." I didn't mind loosing to the forces of Chaos on a blood soaked battle field, but it was really anti-climatic watching a heroic stand against the undead end without a striking a blow in anger and just fleeing off the board. So much for the heroic ideal. And I played the undead. Winning was usually pretty easy, but the autobreak rule was just an unsatisfying, though predictable, way to win a game.

Balanced, evenly matched games that more closely mimic a sporting event are the antithisis of what I enjoyed about the game. There are other games I play that are more driven by competition, but WFB was different and it was the complete over the top nature of the game that appealed. The move to 6ht and 7th made it just another wargame, and one that just wasn't all that great. There are better rules for that kind of competition.

As for the Tournament. I guess I just feel if your into the tournament thing you gotta accept the idea that some guys are out for blood and nothing else. What ever it takes to win short of outright cheating is fair game. I get that, but I don't enjoy it at all. That's why I quit playing WFB. I was just a nusance in that kind of crowd so I bowed out and left it to them.

I will say this though. Many of those kinds of gamers, in my experience most, are very one dimensional in their thinking and approach. They find an approach, work the bugs out and wreak hacok. Their biggest vulnerability was to someone who learned what they were doing and built and army just to defeat them. When they came up against something that exploited their approach, they screamed "cheese" louder and harder than any fluff gamer. There was total confusion when I used their list against them.

Over and over I heard, "But that's not really how you're supposed to play the game." :wtf:

HeroFox
01-07-2010, 06:17
Warhammer is a 2 player game, and there are too many people out there who treat it like a 1 player RTS.

ROFL. What kind of INSANE statement is this? 1-player RTS?

Last time I checked, MULTIPLAYER suggests more than 1 player. 1v1? 2v2? Ever heard of ladder? What about ELO? Exactly what kind of TO are you if you think RTS is a 1-player game?

This blows my mind. Wow.

honorandglory
01-07-2010, 06:51
RTS stands for Real Time Strategy. Like Age of Empires. Nowhere do I see the word MULTI in the description. Please read/comprehend before responding and insulting people.