PDA

View Full Version : Power Gaming Question



BranWheatKillah
15-07-2010, 16:08
I've only been on Warseer for a short time now but there is always a discussion or comment about someone's army list being "cheesy" and they must be a power gamer. Many people have gone so far as to say that people should not play against these lists.

I have a very simple question - Why? Why are these lists "cheesy" and why should you not play against someone with these armies?

I have about 4 or 5 games under my belt in Warhammer Fantasy. Of these games only two of them have been over 1000pts. When I started the game near the end of 7th Edition I had decided to play Dark Elves because the store owner and one other regular customer were already fielding my first choice, Skaven. I had bought the army books for these two factions nearly 15 years ago as a teenager and liked their stories so much that they were what I wanted to play when I did finally get into the game.

After becoming familiar with the rules and reading through my Army Book for DE, I immediately put in two hydras. Right away I was told I was being cheesy and that it was overkill. Hydras are "overpowered" and playing two of them is power gaming. At this point I only owned one hydra and the first time it hit the table it was destroyed immediately by a lance formation from a Bretonnian player. I didn't even get to use it.

Now that 8th is out and I've gotten somewhat familiar with the rules of it I wrote a new 2000pt army list and showed it to my roommate. His immediate response was "This list is ridiculous and I never want to play you. That wouldn't even be fun." I know he's over reacting, it's a magic light army with two hydras, a dread lord, and Shadowblade.

Getting to my point about power gaming though, my roommates concern here is that I am fielding the maximum number of hydras and that if possible I would field more bolt throwers as well. He compared my list to a 40k playing friend of ours that likes to build the most "over powered" lists he can.

My simple response was this - When creating an army why would I not want to play the most powerful options at my disposal?

I see so many people complaining about people that "power game" and their response is that they should learn tactics and field something different. Well, I can tell you that I did learn tactics. The tactics involve playing to the strengths of my army by using my best units and using them effectively. I don't see the need to customize my army and buy units that I don't want just to appease other players.

Drek
15-07-2010, 16:13
Your friend's response baffles me as well. Its like he wants to play an army that will not challenge him tactically. I usually mention some weaknesses to my army to friends to give them ideas on how to counter it while still maintaining a balanced list.

Malorian
15-07-2010, 16:15
When in doubt of power gaming... trade army lists...

kiron
15-07-2010, 16:16
Don't bother listening to anyone else since most of them are just in denial and don't understand basic economics of point efficiency and need an excuse to cover their ignorance :P

The other side of the argument is that GW is a ****** company that doesn't understand how to make balance rules and always have so much loopholes that can be exploited so it's up to players to take up the responsibility to 'tone down' their lists. However, that is BS because you cannot control what ur opponent does. So the best way is to take the best of everything and at least when u face ur opponent regardless of his list choice u know you brought the best economic army point for point and the only thing to improve from there is tactics.

Orcboy_Phil
15-07-2010, 16:17
There are really two main ways at comming at an army list. The first way is to squeeze every last point possible from your army book to make the most effective army possible. This seems to be where your comming from.

The other way is to read the army book cover to cover absorbing the fluff and then come up with as historically accurate army as possible. To this kind of player two hydras is a no no as there exceptional rare creatures and a Dark Elf lord would be lucky to have one let alone two.

Of course theres a third way, the way I mostly play. Which is to throw the units that appeal to me at the time (normally cause they look pretty :P) on the table and add or subtract units until I have the required point limits.

Ultimate Life Form
15-07-2010, 16:20
Many people have gone so far as to say that people should not play against these lists.


Many people are also very immature and childish.

We had an interesting thread about tournament gaming a while back where the same question was asked and it turned out there seems to be an unspoken law among warhammer players that you should do everything in your powers to please your opponent, restrain yourself, and, if you feel your opponent is no match for you, lose on purpose if possible. That is considered sportsmanship, and everyone will look up to you. In a tournament, mind you.

Apparently true mastery of the game discerns itself by showing up with the worst possible list and displaying a Joker Gas smile while your army is ripped apart, and should you by some strange turn of luck win, then everyone will praise you and declare you the greatest gamer ever.

theunwantedbeing
15-07-2010, 16:30
My simple response was this - When creating an army why would I not want to play the most powerful options at my disposal?

Because its boring to win with a list that could have won had a 5 year old been using it in your place.

No challenge in the game
No sense of acheivement in winning
No fun had by the other guy so that's the last game you'll get vs them

Warhammer is a game of 2 players.
The other guy needs to have fun as well.

kiron
15-07-2010, 16:35
Because its boring to win with a list that could have won had a 5 year old been using it in your place.

No challenge in the game
No sense of acheivement in winning
No fun had by the other guy so that's the last game you'll get vs them

Warhammer is a game of 2 players.
The other guy needs to have fun as well.

Is it ur fault ur opponent brought a crappy list? Maybe they are doing u an insult by not bringing their best list. I know i my meta, if u show up with a sub-par list, no one would bother playing u since it would be a waste of time unless u are extremely skilled.

TMATK
15-07-2010, 16:40
There's not right or wrong answer to questions like this. Some people like playing lists that are min-maxed to the math-hammered max. Some people play fluffy lists with only there favorite models that have the best paint jobs possible. Many other people fall somewhere in between.

You either need to find like minded individuals to play against, or try and work out a compromise that both sides can live with.

snowywlf
15-07-2010, 16:43
When in doubt of power gaming... trade army lists...

This is exactly what you should do. You play your opponents army and let him play your list. After you experience it a few times, evaluate how much fun you are having.

Emearg
15-07-2010, 16:56
In many books, the difference between your best units and your opponents best units is pretty huge.

If playing from a strong book, as dark elves are, and you proceed to all the strongest options available to you, then differences between army books are further exagerated. In some cases, your opponent may have little to no chance of actually winning. Turning up to play a game where your going to spend a couple hours rolling armour saves and picking your own models back up with nothing in return is just not most peoples idea of fun.

Now it's fine if you want to see the matter of power gaming the way you do, that you should take the strongest units you can to get the maximum performance for the points spent. It's just some people want a game to be as close as it possibly can, so both player's can enjoy the game. As I said, an optimised list can take away from this.

If you were to play a player like that with your optimised list, neither you or your opponent would be getting the most from the game. They might want to enjoy a close, hard fought battle, and you might want to enjoy a game where all units are points efficient and so perhaps seen as being an even match if both players have optimised lists, or even perhaps may enjoy games where you ruthlessly destroy everything your opponent has brought to the table.

In tournaments, where everyone is after a highly technical and tactical game then lists such as yours are acceptable as you will be playing predominately like-minded people. It's just when playing against the more relaxed gamers that lists considered "cheesy" should be avoided, on the principle that the goal is for both players to enjoy the game as much as possible.

Note: Would like to add, there seems to be the idea that in order for the game to be tactical and such, that both players need to be using effective lists in terms of value for points. A game can be just as tactical when both players are fighting using choices that are less than optimal. The only situation where tactics are perhaps taken away from the game is a list where even the weakest unit in your army can steamroll the enemys best unit.

kiron
15-07-2010, 17:03
In many books, the difference between your best units and your opponents best units is pretty huge.

If playing from a strong book, as dark elves are, and you proceed to all the strongest options available to you, then differences between army books are further exagerated. In some cases, your opponent may have little to no chance of actually winning. Turning up to play a game where your going to spend a couple hours rolling armour saves and picking your own models back up with nothing in return is just not most peoples idea of fun.

Now it's fine if you want to see the matter of power gaming the way you do, that you should take the strongest units you can to get the maximum performance for the points spent. It's just some people want a game to be as close as it possibly can, so both player's can enjoy the game. As I said, an optimised list can take away from this.

If you were to play a player like that with your optimised list, neither you or your opponent would be getting the most from the game. They might want to enjoy a close, hard fought battle, and you might want to enjoy a game where all units are points efficient and so perhaps seen as being an even match if both players have optimised lists, or even perhaps may enjoy games where you ruthlessly destroy everything your opponent has brought to the table.

In tournaments, where everyone is after a highly technical and tactical game then lists such as yours are acceptable as you will be playing predominately like-minded people. It's just when playing against the more relaxed gamers that lists considered "cheesy" should be avoided, on the principle that the goal is for both players to enjoy the game as much as possible.

Well, if u are wanting for close lists, then just set certain house rules before the match starts and work within the limits. Aka, no more than 300 points on magic, no more than 2 cavalry, shooting, warmachines, etc...when playing casual, pretty much all the rules are out the window, but for tournament, yes, u will power game and will be scorned if u don't because u present no challenge to ur opponents.

Malorian
15-07-2010, 17:07
...but for tournament, yes, u will power game and will be scorned if u don't because u present no challenge to ur opponents.

I no longer powergame in tournaments and contrary to what you say I have people gathering around my army (horde orcs in 7th) telling me what a cool army it is, and then in the games everyone has a blast against me win or lose.

BranWheatKillah
15-07-2010, 17:13
Note: Would like to add, there seems to be the idea that in order for the game to be tactical and such, that both players need to be using effective lists in terms of value for points. A game can be just as tactical when both players are fighting using choices that are less than optimal. The only situation where tactics are perhaps taken away from the game is a list where even the weakest unit in your army can steamroll the enemys best unit.

I have issues with an idea like this, that using less than optimal pieces so that other players have a better chance or a better time is a way to have a more strategic and worthwhile game.

Using myself as an example, I can't afford to go out and buy sub-optimal units just for the sake of my opponents. Surprising to no one, Warhammer is expensive. I write up an army list that I feel is going to be effective, I buy the units, and I play it. If I need to make some tweaks after playing and switch around a few units, so be it, but I don't see the appeal to spending hundreds of dollars on units I don't want to play with as a decent option.

Emearg
15-07-2010, 17:14
I don't think most people are against efficient lists for tournament gaming.

Your mention of playing custom restrictions is fine, but be aware that the same mentality will come across with these restrictions, power gamers will still strive for as much value for point as they can get. A non-result driven gamer would still not really want to play the result driven one and vice versa.

There are just different types of people when it comes to list writing, and you should try to be playing with people that have the same mentality as yourself. This means the less result driven gamers should try to play similar people and tournament or competitive gamers should try to play similar people to themselves. As you say, competitive gamers want as competitive a game as possible, they would not particularly enjoy smashing apart a softer army. The competitive gamer would want the less so one to chaner thier list to push to get more worth from thier allowed points, and the less competitive one would want to competitive player to change thier list to one more enjoyable to play against in a relaxed manner. Neither side are in the wrong, they are just different types of gamer.

Edit: Missed above post when typing this. I did not mean to imply that less optimal is more strategic, just that it is not less so. Sorry for unclear wording.
Also as said, you do not see the appeal in buying units that you see as being sub-optimal. That is the way you look at things, and its perfectly understandable. Just be aware that in 7th ed if a Dwarf player turned up with a large ironbreaker unit for example, that they are clearly not of the same thinking as you. Neither party is in the wrong. They just want different things from their game.

Malorian
15-07-2010, 17:16
I have issues with an idea like this, that using less than optimal pieces so that other players have a better chance or a better time is a way to have a more strategic and worthwhile game.

Using myself as an example, I can't afford to go out and buy sub-optimal units just for the sake of my opponents. Surprising to no one, Warhammer is expensive. I write up an army list that I feel is going to be effective, I buy the units, and I play it. If I need to make some tweaks after playing and switch around a few units, so be it, but I don't see the appeal to spending hundreds of dollars on units I don't want to play with as a decent option.

Give it time ;)

Some of my armies started the same way, but then as their rules, the main game rules, or other army rules changed I was forced to get more models to make my next 'perfect list'.

Eventually you have a good amount of models to pick from, good and bad :p

Angelust
15-07-2010, 17:18
Miniature wargaming is never going to be perfectly balanced for both players.

Most games are balanced, and allow both/all players to play their best game. Monopoly, chess, checkers, mancalla, etc. The pieces, resources, movements, etc, are all the same. The only advantage one has is the first turn, and even that can be randomized if so desired.

Wargames like WHFB have two opponents bringing gaming pieces with vastly different rules. The resources available to both players is balanced subjectively by developers based upon their perceived notion of value across the army as a whole.

This is done fairly well, many think, in games like Warmachine. This is done rather poorly, as many would attest, in WHFB. The biggest reason for this is because different army books are written by different primary authors at different phases of a rulebook's life-span, and are even coping with edition lag for some unfortunate rulebooks.

When all this comes together, the players need to have an agreement, usually unspoken, that extra care will be taken not to exploit army disparity.

I know that many would argue that the general is more important than the list, that no army is completely useless, etc, but I think it's clear that once the list is drafted and both opponents are decided, one side will clearly start with an advantage.

So basically, ultimate game balance is decided on an army-wide purchasing level, not at the gaming level. Everyone has the ability to bring the same models to the table if they play the same army. It would be very boring, however, to see two identical army lists playing a battle against each other. So that means you'll see some armies with more cost-efficient units and useful abilities facing off against a weaker list, i.e. DoC vs. O&G in 7th.

So please, exercise at least some restraint in casual games. It's likely that there are some models and fluff that appeal to you aesthetically that aren't exactly the best buy for their points, and it can be a good balance to include these models instead of cramming in that second Stank or the 6th cannon.

Zurubbu
15-07-2010, 17:25
My simple response was this - When creating an army why would I not want to play the most powerful options at my disposal?

There are many armies, and some of them are not as strong as others.

Tends to lead to bad games.

Blitz001
15-07-2010, 18:07
Is it ur fault ur opponent brought a crappy list? Maybe they are doing u an insult by not bringing their best list. I know i my meta, if u show up with a sub-par list, no one would bother playing u since it would be a waste of time unless u are extremely skilled.


.....dude....this is just sad.....you do know your playing with plastic/metal toys right?

halgruman
15-07-2010, 18:40
I agree with the original post. I play to win, to me this is fun.

After a game we chat about tactics and how we can beat each other next time.

Souppilgrim
15-07-2010, 18:51
This issue has layers. It's not fun for a vet to bring a hardcore list and beat the snot out of a newbie with a fluffy list. It's not fun for either of them.

It was worse in 7th, because I guarantee that there were daemon lists that would be auto win against even hardcore lists from other armies.

Having said that, when two players, both of whom have experience, play, why should you write a sub par list and not try to win? I encourage my opponents to write the toughest list they can and I'll try to beat it. Challenge is good.

If you are tromping your regular opponent too often, trade lists! Show him how to beat it.

Malorian
15-07-2010, 18:52
Having said that, when two players, both of whom have experience, play, why should you write a sub par list and not try to win? I encourage my opponents to write the toughest list they can and I'll try to beat it. Challenge is good.

The more experience you get the more tired you get of seeing the same build over and over. Change is good.

chamelion 6
15-07-2010, 18:56
I want a game that reflect's some level of historic balance, or fluff if you prefer. That is the character of the army and the the people of that culture. Every general wants the best of what his country has to offer. I imagine an army of navy SEALs in M1A2's with an endless supply of tactical nukes would be pretty impressive... But that's not the way it works. You get what they give you and if you want better you gotta make this stuff work first. So I see an army list as a "realistic" balance between the good and the bad with a lot of the stuff in between.

That's me. I don't play tourneys or many pickup games because I simple don't enjoy them.

That said though... If wander into a game store and find a bunch of hard core competative gamers and want to play with 'em then the obligation is on me to conform. I don't think I have much room screaming cheese if I was on their turf. On the other hand of they decide to sit in with me and my crowd they gotta understand their usual lists won't fly.

Just be respectful of the groups you're playing with. In a pickup game try to find people that share your enthusiam for a particual part of the game. But don't go in questioning why the people around you are idiots for not liking what you do. That's just short sighted.

Dyrnwyn
15-07-2010, 18:57
If you come in with a higher tier army, and take nothing but your best units, that's an awesome tournament list, and you should go there to face like minded people who only bring their absolute A-game. Or find a circle of friends who feel likewise.

For informal games among friends though - your friends may not own all of thier armies most optimal units. Your friends may have themed armies which focus on a single aspect of an army book and leave out several of it's stronger units. Your friends may not have the money to buy the strongest units, having bought what they could afford, and thus are behind the curve in power. As has been pointed out, in a game with a long cycle between army books like WHFB, some army books are going to be flat out weaker than other ones, so just because they liked the idea of Army X and started that army, they may be automatically less powerful than you with Army Y.

I don't think you should necessarily concede a game to make someone feel better, but if you have the best army list in the club, then great. We've already established it can beat everyone here, why play it again? Unless I'm feeling like making a Death Star Trench Run with my less powerful list, it's already a pretty much done deal.

skullkandy
19-07-2010, 15:09
When in doubt of power gaming... trade army lists...

I agree with the above.

Also, the reason cheese exists is because army's are badly tested and not balenced well by the rule writers. Yes if they had some overall direction and quality assurance for the army books everyone could make the most powerful army they could and all would be well in the world. But as it stands things are not balanced, or even close to it. There are things that are completely overpowered and undercosted which is where cheese comes in.

Because the designers of the game can't be arsed to even attempt any sort of balance the mature gamers who want a challenge instead of a steamroll they had no chance of losing, censor themselves in order to make sure the game is fun for both players.

3Xhume
19-07-2010, 16:00
For me, there are two types of power gamer. The first one is a very competitive player where he built and play really hard to win in a hard fought battles. They expect good games with a lot of thinking, tactics, counters, etc. Their hope is to win because he is the better general. So he will pick the best of their army book provide and expect their opponent to do the same. They will enjoy games with the same type of opponent as him.

While the second one is a jerk. They built up their army list with bricks of cheese from the most powerful army books. Why? Simply because they wanted to win and crush their opponent without mercy. They dont want to lose, even a single unit. If they won with very minimal damage while tabling their opponent, the happier they become. They dont care the opponent's fun as long as they had some fun. Their biggest fun is looking at their opponent's defeat face, bragging over him, and telling them that they are crap.

Please dont be the second type. For the first type, it would be better to find someone who felt the same about the game as you do. Believe me, generals of the same caliber wont be having the same chances if one taking Daemons and the other taking say Ogres or Tomb Kings.

Cartoon
19-07-2010, 16:33
The other advantage to not bringing the most overpowered, min maxed list you possibly can is that more people will be able to actually play a game against you. If it's set up before hand that you're going to bring the hardest of the hard that's fine because everyone knows what to expect. Doing so without any kind of heads up means the only people that can play you and have a decent game are other people with maxed lists.

I'm not saying to take the weakest list possible, mine is far from it. But a wider range of opponents will be able to have a competative game against me because my list, while strong, isn't totally maxed out for the idea of crushing all that's in front of me. It's easy to just pick up a game and go without fear that one side is going to have a severe advantage from the start and one side is dead in the water. Having a reasonably strong, but not overpowered list allows you to play fluffy armies, stronger armies, shooting armies, ect, and still have a close game that will probably come down to tactics more than the units we bring.

In tournaments it makes sense to bring the strongest list possible I suppose, although I would imagine it depends a lot on the people in your area. With some of the stronger lists out there though, some armies don't have a chance to win. And while you certainly don't have to throw the game to please your opponent, it is a two (or more) player game and a little forethought can go a long way.

That's my take on it anyway.

enyoss
19-07-2010, 16:37
There's not right or wrong answer to questions like this. Some people like playing lists that are min-maxed to the math-hammered max. Some people play fluffy lists with only there favorite models that have the best paint jobs possible. Many other people fall somewhere in between.

You either need to find like minded individuals to play against, or try and work out a compromise that both sides can live with.

Spot on really.

On a side note, I'd say that how you play a list has some impact as well. For example, I've played a mate's twin hydra list (kyussinchains here on Warseer :)) and, although I had my doubts, each game was still fun because he's a nice guy to play against. On the flip side, I've played games against lists which might be considered less abusive, but had no fun at all due to my opponent (in one instance he demanded we restrict rare units to no duplicates, but then took his 2-for-1 Dark Elf bolt throwers when I was stuck with one due to the High Elf rare slot system :rolleyes:).

TMATK's advice is sound though.

H33D
19-07-2010, 19:01
I had a friend once in a campaign who was a really nice guy.

He brought a double stegadon list, I brought a balanced Dwarf list (a few solid combat blocks, a lord, some war machines).

Needless to say he stomped me into the ground as I had no mean of destroying his anti-shooting shielded stampede of death.

Next game he brought the same list. I brought Thorek, 2 cannons with master engineers, 2 bolt throwers, a grudge thrower, 2 organ guns, and 5 units of 10 thunderers (with shields).

By turn 2 he had a couple skinks left. Nothing else.

Needless to say game 3 (we had 3 battles that week) we both fielded balanced fun lists with units we hadn't fielded often and we played what I still consider to be one of the most fun games of Warhammer I have played. (Bugman performed amazingly)

The point is that you do sort of have to mold your list around your opponent. It is just a form of etiquette. Common questions I ask myself before I play someone are:

-is this guy only playing to win or is he playing for fun?
-is the gaming aspect of this game this guy's strong suit or does he just want to see his fully painted models on the table?
-is this guy known for crying like a baby when he loses or will he give me a 'good game' handshake as is custom amongst gentlemen in my area?

And if I know the guys is probably playing a fun list, I bring one as well as that is MUCH more fun for me.

If I know the guy is bringing a power list (High Elf, Vampire Count, and Daemon Player in my area) meant to win, I do the same. We end up having a lot of fun testing each other's mettle and tactical abilities (also very fun for me).

If I don't know the guy and end up bringing a fun list as opposed to an overpowered one, I still try to win to the best of my tactical ability (has happened a few times vs. power lists) and still have a good time as long as the guy isn't a total douche about how he is creaming me with a list a 3 year old could win with. Thus I have to pull Thorek out in a rematch, settle the grudge, and make him cry like a little girl.

The point is there is no one solution. If you want to just cream everyone take your double hydra list. I personally think it would be fun to play against! If you feel the need to playtest some units or just want a friendly game, take max 1 hydra but don't limit yourself in order to MAKE yourself lose... in other words dont be a scrub... this is just the way people in my area play.

If you don't know what type of army list to expect just ask your opponent to describe his list generally.

Sand
19-07-2010, 19:16
I want a game that reflect's some level of historic balance, or fluff if you prefer. That is the character of the army and the the people of that culture. Every general wants the best of what his country has to offer. I imagine an army of navy SEALs in M1A2's with an endless supply of tactical nukes would be pretty impressive... But that's not the way it works. You get what they give you and if you want better you gotta make this stuff work first. So I see an army list as a "realistic" balance between the good and the bad with a lot of the stuff in between.

That's me. I don't play tourneys or many pickup games because I simple don't enjoy them.

That said though... If wander into a game store and find a bunch of hard core competative gamers and want to play with 'em then the obligation is on me to conform. I don't think I have much room screaming cheese if I was on their turf. On the other hand of they decide to sit in with me and my crowd they gotta understand their usual lists won't fly.

Just be respectful of the groups you're playing with. In a pickup game try to find people that share your enthusiam for a particual part of the game. But don't go in questioning why the people around you are idiots for not liking what you do. That's just short sighted.
Well said :)

Another issue is, I think, that there's a bit of a tendency to evaluate units on a very limited scale where
1=max value for points and something you should take
and
2=not max value for points and hence total crap that only a carebear/fluff bunny/whatever would ever take in their army.

Not only is this what I like to call "a bit silly", but it's also quite counterproductive as many units have strengths that aren't obvious.

Lord of Divine Slaughter
19-07-2010, 19:44
My simple response was this - When creating an army why would I not want to play the most powerful options at my disposal?

A fair question with 5 games behind you.

When start out playing warhammer, you aim to win, as you want to prove yourself - or at least just feel the thrill of victory. You look for the most powerful choices to create the best army to achieve your goal.

Later you realize that the game are more subtle. Where once it was enough to see your dragonlord crash into the opposing ranks and tear him apart, you now see the beauty of movement, tactics and combined arms and seek 'greater challenges'.

You also realize that the game isn't really as balanced as you'd wish. Point costs can seem arbitrary, and certain army builds is not only troublesome, but downright impossible to beat for others. 7th ed. DoC was a good example of the proverbial *auto-win-button*. And then you ask yourself: "How can I be a good general, when my list does all the work?"

So don't feel bad being the power hungry n00b, we've all been there :)

Lordsaradain
19-07-2010, 20:08
If your roommate refuses to play with you, just find someone else who will. ;)

Rajhald
19-07-2010, 20:10
Personally I always have 2 lists with me (lizardmen) one that I field against anyone who wants a game, and one that I'll field if someone wants a challenge, or to face a tournament list.

With that being said, I also don't field the nastiest tournament list legal, I run a cheap slann, and 1 steg. I could take 2 but why, I could also field 2 engines and a lord on a carno, hide him behind skinks (in 7th) and run right over the top of any hydras/monsters/multiple wound models I want but then I'd rather play a more "balanced" list and enjoy myself.

If I play 2 hydras in a friendly environment, thats fine I won't make the mistake of playing my friendly list twice. If I play it at tournaments, I still think it is a bit OTT, but i'll deal with it.

xxRavenxx
19-07-2010, 20:36
To repeat the comments above in a more impartial way:

There are two distinct attitudes in Warhammer (As is true of nearly all games):

1. Take the most effective units you can. Because winning is the important part. Winning is fun.

2. Take the most interesting units you can. Because having an experience is the most important part. Playing is fun.


Neither group is wrong. People play games for both reasons. Noone should ever tell someone else not to do their own way.

BUT... (theres allways a but, isnt there?)

Your local area is likely to strongly favour one of these two mentalitys. If you are the other mentality, you will struggle to get along with the group if you don't adapt.

Is your flatmate the only "casual" player in a "competitive" group? Or are you the only "competitive" player in a "casual" group? (I use those words tentitively, as they are a little polarising.)

If you're the odd one out, consider relaxing a little, and seeing how it goes. If he's the odd one out... its Ring of Hotek and double hydra time! :P

DaemonReign
19-07-2010, 20:39
This issue has layers. It's not fun for a vet to bring a hardcore list and beat the snot out of a newbie with a fluffy list. It's not fun for either of them.

It was worse in 7th, because I guarantee that there were daemon lists that would be auto win against even hardcore lists from other armies.

Having said that, when two players, both of whom have experience, play, why should you write a sub par list and not try to win? I encourage my opponents to write the toughest list they can and I'll try to beat it. Challenge is good.

If you are tromping your regular opponent too often, trade lists! Show him how to beat it.

There was no safe-mode win against Dark Elves in 7th Ed, I'll tell you that right now. I have lots of every unit in the book to choose from, I tried everything from magic heavy to cc-heavy, I stacked all the "boring" over powered broken "damn you Matt Ward"-items on top of each other, and still Dark Elves rolled over me 9 out of 10 times.

We never switched lists though. Two reasons: A, he wants to play Dark Elves and I want to play Daemons, and B, we are both clearsighted enough to admit that this game is alot more about Cunning and Luck than whether or not a certain list is "good" or "bad".

Usually that's also pretty evident during the game: "Oh crap, you just rolled an IF on that critical spell.. this is gonna go down the drain for me now.." - it's only afterwards, when people believe they are "putting two and two together" that these generalized (childish) notions of gross imbalances occur.

That being said: I concider myself a Fluff player, rather than the Tournament-type. I'd lie down in traffic for the Friends that I play with (losing or winning in a darn game..) and I really don't enjoy meeting new people so those Tournaments are just out for me.

But this Power Gaming question is a good one. I think there are things to be sensitive about here for those of you who are REALLY skilled players - but then that's a pointless assumption - because people like You really, really, wants to WIN (and there's NOTHING wrong with that) - but that inate drive to score a victory is why you put so much more effort into cramming the most out of your list, and that's.. voila! - naturally why You win.

Like my Dark Elf playing friend: I could whine and tell him to make a "nice" list once in a while, but I accept that he's just not wired like that. I mean to say: He's incapable of it. It's not his thing.

And thank god for that. 'Cause this game ain't fun without a Good Challange!

HeroFox
19-07-2010, 20:43
So don't feel bad being the power hungry n00b, we've all been there

So being power hungry for victory makes you a n00b?

That's probably the most backwards statement I've ever seen.

Lord Inquisitor
19-07-2010, 20:59
There are, as people have said, no wrong ways to play. It's just a matter of bringing the right attitude to the table, and that also involves playing the way your opponent wants to too.

It isn't even a case of being one type of player or another. In my gaming group, we played for a while gearing up for a tournament with all the hardest units at our disposal. Anything less than maximum cheese with optimum beard would be insulting. Then afterwards we put together a map campaign and broke out some "fluffy" but fun lists to throw at each other, using those dusty units that we love but just aren't worth the points. As long as everyone is playing the same way, fun is to be had. I had a very nasty tournament "Ld bomb" daemon army that many people found frustrating in 7th. It came with me to tournaments but in "friendly" games, I'd play something else. That said, I have one friend who kept asking me to bring my "cheesy" list so that he could test his mettle against it.

There's nothing wrong with taking the best army you can do, just be aware that certain builds are boring or frustrating to play against and that your opponent may not enjoy playing a no-holds-barred optimised list every time.

enyoss
19-07-2010, 21:01
So being power hungry for victory makes you a n00b?

That's probably the most backwards statement I've ever seen.

No, but only having 4 or 5 games of Warhammer Fantasy under you belt does. Go back and read the original post. ;)

EDIT: said in the nicest way of course :)

DaemonReign
19-07-2010, 21:02
Yepp that sums it Lord Inquisitor.

And Enyoss that was kinda mean. But actually made me laugh. Thanks for that.

Lord of Divine Slaughter
19-07-2010, 21:09
Yepp that sums it Lord Inquisitor.

And Enyoss that was kinda mean. But actually made me laugh. Thanks for that.

Well, HeroFox had it coming. So thanks to Enyoss for pointing out that online forums is for more than just flaming, but also for reading ;)

Olyphant
19-07-2010, 21:14
playing against power gamers isn't fun but does present a challenge, I find de other than de to be the most challenging, but facing off against 2 repeater bolt throwers a highly mobile sorc lord (pegasus), 2 other sorcs, a hydra and no banners in any units to do point denial to be utmost frustrating. They dominate the magic phase being able to cast power of darkness have a pod bound item and there hydra has regen. Once I even took out the sorc lord with a lucky wlc shot turn 1 and i still only managed to scrap a draw because I could not damage the hydra which just went around flaming my blocks and panicing them off the table. When 1 unit manages gets 5 times it's cost in the book and you have no way to recoup that elsewhere on the board how can that be considered fun for the other player.

Ofc next game I proxied 1 hpa and they complained about it being op compared to the hydra because it caused so much damage.

donaldtroll
19-07-2010, 21:26
I've only been on Warseer for a short time now but there is always a discussion or comment about someone's army list being "cheesy" and they must be a power gamer. Many people have gone so far as to say that people should not play against these lists.

I have a very simple question - Why? Why are these lists "cheesy" and why should you not play against someone with these armies?

I have about 4 or 5 games under my belt in Warhammer Fantasy. Of these games only two of them have been over 1000pts. When I started the game near the end of 7th Edition I had decided to play Dark Elves because the store owner and one other regular customer were already fielding my first choice, Skaven. I had bought the army books for these two factions nearly 15 years ago as a teenager and liked their stories so much that they were what I wanted to play when I did finally get into the game.

After becoming familiar with the rules and reading through my Army Book for DE, I immediately put in two hydras. Right away I was told I was being cheesy and that it was overkill. Hydras are "overpowered" and playing two of them is power gaming. At this point I only owned one hydra and the first time it hit the table it was destroyed immediately by a lance formation from a Bretonnian player. I didn't even get to use it.

Now that 8th is out and I've gotten somewhat familiar with the rules of it I wrote a new 2000pt army list and showed it to my roommate. His immediate response was "This list is ridiculous and I never want to play you. That wouldn't even be fun." I know he's over reacting, it's a magic light army with two hydras, a dread lord, and Shadowblade.

Getting to my point about power gaming though, my roommates concern here is that I am fielding the maximum number of hydras and that if possible I would field more bolt throwers as well. He compared my list to a 40k playing friend of ours that likes to build the most "over powered" lists he can.

My simple response was this - When creating an army why would I not want to play the most powerful options at my disposal?

I see so many people complaining about people that "power game" and their response is that they should learn tactics and field something different. Well, I can tell you that I did learn tactics. The tactics involve playing to the strengths of my army by using my best units and using them effectively. I don't see the need to customize my army and buy units that I don't want just to appease other players.


Well Warhammer is one of the most crappily balanced gaming franchises ever.

You dont exactly see people cry cheese when someone uses their rooks in chess, or when they set their "settlers of catan" starting house on stone, yelling stone is overpowered. But if every rule in warhammer is to be followed to the letter then some truly rediculous things are possible - hence the need to separate "fun" from "good".

They could learn a thing or two about game balance from Magic: the gathering - that is the most rediculously well balanced game ever. It even puts blizzard to shame...

Gambles
19-07-2010, 21:33
One time at the race track this guy got mad because I beat him with nitrous on my bike that I ran regularly. He said, " I coulda done that too if I had nitrous". As if I was cheating. I replied "Yep that's exactly why I installed it."

In this game and any other game and any other game I don't believe in "overpowered". Because both players can take the time, money, and effort to make the exact same army if they choose. Games like these are always cyclical as well. GW will rotate power to keep all the models selling, and make sure everyone has fun.

Nubl0
19-07-2010, 21:39
Eh over here I get called a power gamer for playing daemons... I dont know why though, I mean none of them can come up with a reason they are op. It just seems that they have been on warseer too much nad think they are invincible and hell when I try to explain that my bloodletters are still 12pt t3 5+ infantry they just say "yeah but, they are daemons!".

Sygerrik
19-07-2010, 21:40
It absolutely depends on environment for me. In a casual environment, I usually play with either a very light list or a list I'm experimenting with before a tournament. In most tournaments, we have comp (not anymore! 8th is really shaking things up) and so I try for a powerful list that doesn't leverage broken hideously undercosted units. When I got to GTs or Ardboyz all bets are off.

For example, I play Skaven. In friendly games I take a Screaming Bell in Stormvermin, some Plague Monks (no furnace), a Plagueclaw Catapult, some Rat Ogres, some Clanrats with Poisoned Wind Mortars and Doom Flayers.

In tournament games I go with two towers (Bell and Furnace) and an HPA, some mixed weapon teams, a Doomrocket caddy, etc.

In 'Ardboyz I am going to go with three HPAs, two (or three) towers, a Doomrocket, Storm Banner, four Warpfire Throwers, a Skweel Gnawtooth Rat Ogre unit with a Bonebreaker Warlord...

Lord of Divine Slaughter
19-07-2010, 21:41
In this game and any other game and any other game I don't believe in "overpowered". Because both players can take the time, money, and effort to make the exact same army if they choose. Games like these are always cyclical as well. GW will rotate power to keep all the models selling, and make sure everyone has fun.

So what you're saying is that people should just suck it up and get a new army every 3 months? :p

You could also accept that GW makes a poorly balanced game, and refrain from the min-max lists. You might actually challenge yourself and get a better game out of it :)

You can easily reduce WFB to a game of penal comparison (or compensation), but those have a tendency to be over, when you whip out your minis ;)

HeroFox
19-07-2010, 21:42
No, but only having 4 or 5 games of Warhammer Fantasy under you belt does. Go back and read the original post. ;)

EDIT: said in the nicest way of course :)

I read the original post.

I'm just disagreeing that being power hungry aka wanting to win has nothing to do with being a "noob".

chamelion 6
19-07-2010, 21:56
Well Warhammer is one of the most crappily balanced gaming franchises ever.

You dont exactly see people cry cheese when someone uses their rooks in chess, or when they set their "settlers of catan" starting house on stone, yelling stone is overpowered. But if every rule in warhammer is to be followed to the letter then some truly rediculous things are possible - hence the need to separate "fun" from "good".

They could learn a thing or two about game balance from Magic: the gathering - that is the most rediculously well balanced game ever. It even puts blizzard to shame...

But there is a certain assumption that the game is intended be that balanced. I personally don't care much if it's balanced or not. What I enjoy about the game is the "heroic" context. The feeling and imagry of a battle in a fantasy realm. I appreciate chess for being all the things that WFB isn't. On the other hand, I've watched Magic: The Gathering a few times and it seems tedious and pointless. Much like gin rummy with pretty pictures.

Again, these are just my opinions and I don't pretend they are anything but that. Just sayin' what some people see as a failure in a set of rules is often what others like abut them.

Eta
19-07-2010, 21:59
I read the original post.

I'm just disagreeing that being power hungry aka wanting to win has nothing to do with being a "noob".

So you say that wanting to win has something to do with being a noob? I guess that is what Lord of Divine Slaughter wanted to say, too.

OT: As others have already said, the armybooks vary in power. When you take all strong units from the Dark Elf book and play against, lets say Tomb Kings or Ogres, you will win more often than not even if the latter two armies bring their cheese, too. That is neither a sign of better tactics nor strategy but shows the unbalance in Warhammer.
When playing pickup games, I'd always bring two lists. A stronger and a weaker one. This way you can adjust your army a bit towards what your opponent brings and both of you can have a more enjoyable gaming experience. When you do not want to buy "weaker" models, you could just proxy them with other models you normally use in your more powerful list.

Greetings
Eta

peterburstrom
19-07-2010, 22:02
I think that the different armies are like the difficulty setting in video games. You can play Oblivion on the easiest setting, like 7th Daemons, but you won't learn all the intricacies and tactics of the game. Or, you could play on a more difficult setting, like lets say 7th Goblins, and you will die, or lose (respectively), but learn a lot more.

The problem is really that the decision of army really depends on other things than what difficulty setting you want. You choose based on fluff, models, way of playing and maybe other things as well. However, that difficulty setting could be ruining your games forever. People who like Daemons for fluff or model reasons might be angry with always having easy games , just as people liking Goblins for fluff or model reasons might be angry with always having hard games. Hence, Games Workshop needs to balance the board. I am not going to be fully satisfied with this game unless that happens.

Sygerrik
19-07-2010, 22:06
There's also a degree of rock paper scissors. To use the broadest and most general example: the top three armies from 7th were generally considered to be DoC, DE and VC in that order. In my experience, DoC walked all over VC. It is a terrible matchup for the Counts. VC did decently well against DE, though, and DE had the easiest time dealing with DoC.

Gorak
19-07-2010, 22:11
I'm of bolth opinions, I have just recently sold my DoC beacuse in my gammming club there are new polayers to whfb and with my vet skills the poor fellas will not learn anything and think the game sucks because they aren't givin the chance to learn. I also play super competive me and good friend of mine have a long time rivalary of about 7 years and no punch is pulled! Same goes with tournies, I pay an entry fee,spend hours if not days painting an army I expect it to be the best it can be visualy and game play wise. Now for fun games if they aren't tourney prepers I will through down pretty unit,fluffy units but still in a tactical way for I love to see growth in tactics and game play of bolth players. I also play campaigns where it's good vs evil and the like. Where players try out new armies and things are alot more laid back. I recently got a DE army not because of the power but because I play against HE alot and my best friend plays HE and it was about time I got the polar oppsite! Next up do to stream lining ym gaming collection I'm picking up Lizardmen, because two of the players I play against most play skaven and the other DoC, Now if Lizardmen top tier? Maybe not but I will have a great time squeezing the good tings out of them to make a fluffy and competive army! So in short, no I do not belive any army is "auto win button" trust me if a five year old droped a min maxed DoC army on the table I gurantee a vet player will beat them with any "sub par army" it comes down to the players of the army not the book. Oh and if any one wants to know how to teach your HPA,Hydra,ect playing friends a lesson in sinking too many points into monsters, here are a few of my favorite tricks.

A) wizard with lore of shadows, lower I than pit of shades!
B) This is for you DE players, pendant of kadesh, It may take awhile but good luck killing your master or lord
C) Dwarves, flaming cannons,just sick
D) Empire as lore of shadows but cheaper wizards or cannons to the left of me cannons to the right......


There is alot more just look alittle harder at your army book.

Lord of Divine Slaughter
19-07-2010, 22:13
So you say that wanting to win has something to do with being a noob? I guess that is what Lord of Divine Slaughter wanted to say, too.

No, quite the opposite. HeroFox claims that this isn't necessarily 'n00b'-ish behaviour. And he is quite right, there are plenty of vets believing that it provides the best of games, when they minimize their risk of loss.

But I was really talking about player maturity instead of just win-mentality. At one point you grow bored from the predictable min-max lists that makes your games endless repetition of themselves, and the only way to make room for variation, is if you provide for it. You bring dual-hydra, I trump with dual STank, then you trump this with dual doomwheel and GW trumps us all by releasing chaos dwarves.

You won't get better games from this, but you will make GW a bunch of money.

HeroFox
19-07-2010, 22:15
So you say that wanting to win has something to do with being a noob? I guess that is what Lord of Divine Slaughter wanted to say, too.

What? Don't twist my words, that's not what I said.

I said that wanting to win should have nothing to do with whether you're a noob or not. I wanted to win my first game of playing Warhammer. 10 years later and hundreds of games after, I still want to win.

SilasOfTheLambs
19-07-2010, 22:19
I'll try to take a middle ground here. I play the game because I like winning, and list building is a big part of winning. What I don't like is things that take away somebody's ability to participate in a certain phase of the game. These are game mechanics like autobreaking from fear, chaos daemon items not being "magic weapons" although they are magical and are used to chop you up, steam tank's bizarre semi-magic immunity, the un-dispellable anvil of doom, and silliness like that: simply ducking the normal mechanics of the game. These are truly OP things because normal strategies don't just struggle against them: they don't work at all. I believe these ought to be avoided (although I sympathize with DoC who don't have any way to do so), but within those limits, I play to win. People who whine about simply powerful things, but things which operate within the limits of normal gameplay (black guard, etc) I have no sympathy for them.

[EDIT] and also, as shown in my last sentence, I have no sympathy for correct grammar either

xxRavenxx
19-07-2010, 22:34
You could also accept that GW makes a poorly balanced game

While I do feel that GW need to playtest their books more, I do feel they need defending in that their game is more ballanced than many.

I can think of at least one highly popular game which has some rediculously unballanced figures within it.

I can name a good handfull of board games I have played which have terrible issues of unballance.

One of the most tested games in the world, Magic: The gathering, suffers greatly from things slipping through the net, and unballancing entire "editions".

Eta
19-07-2010, 22:48
What? Don't twist my words, that's not what I said.


Sorry for my confusion, I do not want to twist your words but you said that you disagree that wanting to win has nothing to do with being a "noob". Doesn't that mean that you agree that wanting to win has something to do with being a "noob"? Of course, I could get that wrong, I am no native English speaker.

Greetings
Eta

Toddums
19-07-2010, 22:49
Seems to me there is a correlation between unpainted armies and power gaming

Gorak
19-07-2010, 23:53
Seems to me there is a correlation between unpainted armies and power gaming

Too funny! But lets be fair some ppl enjoying playing and hate painting! I personaly love bolth but for years as I progressed my painting skills I enjoyed gaming more. Now as for comparing whfb to say magic? How? One if a fricking card game where you place cards on the table, ie black jack with nicer pictures. Now as for warnmachine and hoards well, poorer sculpts and smaller game sizes means you can "balance" the game more focusing on mechanics more. Now whfb has many different armies a feat to balance but I personaly belive GW has done a great job! Don't like it? Refuse to play against certain armies/builds? Go play magic or try and balance your own game with 7+ races and make each race unique to play! Cheers GW, I've played your games for 14 years and still I'm enthralled.

Blizzinam
20-07-2010, 00:11
But lets be fair some ppl enjoying playing and hate painting! .

One such right here. If it wasnt for that the fact that tournaments require you to do so, i probably never would have finished any army, ever.

squeekenator
20-07-2010, 05:50
If Dark Elves had a magic item that could be taken by any character, cost one point and could be used at the beginning of the first turn to make you automatically win the game, would you use it? I'm guessing you wouldn't. Sure, you may win, but it's not exactly a fun and exciting experience for either player. Obviously taking two Hydras is less extreme than that, but in some peoples' opinions it comes close to guaranteeing that you are going to win, even if you have no skill at the game whatsoever. Sure, your opponent could bring a more optimised list, but very few armies can field anything that compares with a powergaming Dark Elf army. Even if their lists are optimised and as strong as they can possibly be, a simiarly optimised Dark Elf army will wipe them out with little trouble. People complain about powergaming because it creates unbalanced, one sided games, especially in a game like Warhammer where some armies are far stronger than others.

chamelion 6
20-07-2010, 06:24
If Dark Elves had a magic item that could be taken by any character, cost one point and could be used at the beginning of the first turn to make you automatically win the game, would you use it? I'm guessing you wouldn't. Sure, you may win, but it's not exactly a fun and exciting experience for either player. Obviously taking two Hydras is less extreme than that, but in some peoples' opinions it comes close to guaranteeing that you are going to win, even if you have no skill at the game whatsoever. Sure, your opponent could bring a more optimised list, but very few armies can field anything that compares with a powergaming Dark Elf army. Even if their lists are optimised and as strong as they can possibly be, a simiarly optimised Dark Elf army will wipe them out with little trouble. People complain about powergaming because it creates unbalanced, one sided games, especially in a game like Warhammer where some armies are far stronger than others.

That's not my issue at all though. I don't like the powergaming side of things because it creates unrealistic and repetative games. Army composition, tactics, and even the game table rarely vary much and the game is completely alienated from the it's source.

After playing the same thing 3 or 4 time you pretty much get it figured out and then it's just mindless repetition.

DaemonReign
20-07-2010, 08:47
Eh over here I get called a power gamer for playing daemons... I dont know why though, I mean none of them can come up with a reason they are op. It just seems that they have been on warseer too much nad think they are invincible and hell when I try to explain that my bloodletters are still 12pt t3 5+ infantry they just say "yeah but, they are daemons!".

Yes I know. Peer pressure is an ugly thing. Just ignore that stuff. It's about Cunning and Luck (both with dice-rolls and happening to deploy the suiting counters for what your opponent happens to deploy).

Daemons were "straight forward" in 7th (still are to some extent) and that made it look, superificially, as though all the Daemon player had to do was to deploy a line and march forward - anyone who's really played Daemons knows that there is a universe of fine adjustments beneath that seemingly flawless facade.

Daemons were like a brick wall that you could tear down by removing just one stone - sure, failing in doing so meant you were run over, but I played about 50/50 against Dwarves/Empire/DE in 7th Ed and - just like you said - I saw no evidence what-so-ever that these games were inherently unbalanced.

The Masque and The Skulltaker (and probably others of the SpecChar) are undercosted - there is no question. But my group does not play with special characters, and in either case, most other armies have SpecChars that are similarly undercosted (except the Dwarves, maybe).

So just shrugg off childish criticism like that man. And in 8th Edition all armies stand on more solid ground vs Daemons/VC and TK so if you're playing a couple of unlucky games the complaints might shift completely.

Just remember Not to stoop to their level when the trend here on Warseer is to bash Empire or some other army. Just muse...

DaemonReign
20-07-2010, 08:57
There's also a degree of rock paper scissors. To use the broadest and most general example: the top three armies from 7th were generally considered to be DoC, DE and VC in that order. In my experience, DoC walked all over VC. It is a terrible matchup for the Counts. VC did decently well against DE, though, and DE had the easiest time dealing with DoC.

Yepp!!

That's the experience from our group in a nutshell - except our statistics leaned toward DE, VC then Daemons (in that order).

But that's a minor issue really.

Kahadras
20-07-2010, 09:23
That's not my issue at all though. I don't like the powergaming side of things because it creates unrealistic and repetative games. Army composition, tactics, and even the game table rarely vary much and the game is completely alienated from the it's source.

I kind of agree with this but I think the main issue with optimised lists is the fact that there are only a few of them and those can be rather rock, paper, scissors. If everybody played this way many army books would just never get used.

I remember a club that I used to go to which was pretty competitive. OK people there played more Warhammer 40K than Warhammer but the only lists I ever seemed to face were las/plas Space marines, Falcon spam Eldar and Iron Warriors. While I'm cool with people playing what they want to play things quickly got stale and I kinda lost interest.

Kahadras

Lord of Divine Slaughter
20-07-2010, 10:05
I said that wanting to win should have nothing to do with whether you're a noob or not. I wanted to win my first game of playing Warhammer. 10 years later and hundreds of games after, I still want to win.

Sure, me too :)

But I want interesting games first and foremost. Best games are the ones where balance shift every turn, and the outcome is unpredictable. I might play to win, but the most memorable of games have always been those that end in a draw, cause then you had a good fight.

If I bring the finest and most well-tuned list to every game, and my opponent does the same, nothing new will happen - except of course when we get a new army and follow the powercreep.

Instead, if I hold back just a little bit, and allow myself to try out new builds and 'subpar' units, and give my opponent room to do the same, we'll have more variation in our games. We won't be affected by the powercreep, so noone needs to buy a new army every three months to be on top. And games will be more about actual tactics, than just being about bringing the best.

Winning is great, and I play to win, but playing the game itself is the fun and challenging part. And the only prize you get from winning is buying the first round at the pub - at least in my group :)

peterburstrom
20-07-2010, 12:35
While I do feel that GW need to playtest their books more, I do feel they need defending in that their game is more ballanced than many.

I can think of at least one highly popular game which has some rediculously unballanced figures within it.

I can name a good handfull of board games I have played which have terrible issues of unballance.

One of the most tested games in the world, Magic: The gathering, suffers greatly from things slipping through the net, and unballancing entire "editions".

This is very true. We played a board game called Twilight Imperium the other day and it made me yearn for Warhammer's finely honed racial balance.