PDA

View Full Version : FOTM players at your local..



Reflex
28-08-2010, 13:17
Something has bugged me lately. And omg surprise surprise its blood angels.

Not in the typical sense of OMG they are so OP rabble rabble omg its over 9000.

but rather, ive noticed that there are a few players at my local who have taken up these armies simply because blood angels are quite powerful at the moment (lets face it they are) and after speaking to two players (one who said straight forward that he just wanted to win and the other said he wanted to do a marine army that would win) it really ticked me off.

I can understand this perspective from a tournament point of view, idealy you go there to win, but both of these players could be considered to have either bad luck or bad tactics, but since playing BA they have been winning alot. After talking to them several weeks later both dont enjoy they army from a fun/fluff view (one used to play dark angels and has for several years, while the other played eldar) but they just want to win.

so it bring me to my question and point of the thread, do others get annoyed when people play an army just to win (from a non tourny perspective, disregarding enjoyment from the hobby (fun of playing a certain army for fluff, painting, modelling own fluff stories etc etc)?

now i understand people want to win a game, but i wouldnt consider deathwing/ravenwing lists weak and i would say eldar have some very powerful builds, so neither could be considers weak armies.

these two players are just examples, and they are the 11th and 12th blood angel army ive seen pop up at my local (out of about 35 40k players)

then there is this other person as an example. He played orks when they were released and had the strongest builds at the time. then when vulkan came along he made another new army, then guard came so he played mech vets, and now blood angels. He plays to win and lots of peole dislike playing him because of pretty much the reason above.

as such, im also interested to know if there are other people out there on teh innerwebz, who feel the same about players who skip from army to army to win in a non tournament scene? to me it seems crazy and ridiculous... maybe its just me...

Garven Dreis
28-08-2010, 13:29
I don't really mind what other people do, or the 'powerful' army at the moment, as long as I have games for my Iron Warriors.

Actually thats a good point. I have an Iron Warriors force. I started my Iron Warriors after 4th Ed. Does that make a cheese lover because Iron Warriors was broken in the past?

The Ape
28-08-2010, 14:00
I used to run a mechanised grenadier force in 4th ed - now as if by magic it is a much more powerful force...I will still be playing it in 6th ed when it is undoubtedly nerfed again. Personally, I play the force that appeals to me - and dont really care what others take as long as they play fair.

If someone has the money to buy whatever flavour of the month is in, then great-let them. If they are bad opponents then just dont play them again.

Born Again
28-08-2010, 14:10
so it bring me to my question and point of the thread, do others get annoyed when people play an army just to win (from a non tourny perspective, disregarding enjoyment from the hobby (fun of playing a certain army for fluff, painting, modelling own fluff stories etc etc)?


Absolutely, because not only do I look at them and feel bad that they have a misguided view of the game that is leading them to miss out on elements they enjoy, and leaves them playing an army they dislike, but it interferes with my game. As much as I dislike the tournament scene, apparently some people really enjoy them. Well, I'm not gonna stop you. But don't bring your tournament play out of the tourney. That's the problem I feel. There are organised gaming community events for people to have competitive, serious play-to-win games, but very rarely (if ever!) do you see an organised event for fluffy, narrative based games. So keep the tourney playing and all that entails in the tourneys, and let all other games be a more relaxed, fun style.

AndrewGPaul
28-08-2010, 14:49
Absolutely, because not only do I look at them and feel bad that they have a misguided view of the game that is leading them to miss out on elements they enjoy, and leaves them playing an army they dislike...

You got any actual evidence for that rather unusual claim? Do you face a lot of opponents who complain that "this army is rubbish, but it's the only way I can win"?

(OK, the OP has a couple).

I was wondering when the "tournament vs fluff" argument was going to reappear; it's been longer than usual this month. :)

LonelyPath
28-08-2010, 15:06
It does annoy me some when you get players that jump from one bandwagon to the next, just to get that edge in the power builds, but it's not anything new to the game either. My Orks can (and sometimes does) have my bringing a power build to the table, my Guard are slightly powerful, but I diluted a few formats into my army to fit the fluff I'd created. On the flip side, just looking at my signature reflects that I play weaker lists also (Daemons, Daemonhunters, DA) and for me, the look and feel of a army is vitally important and how well they perform comes a low second.

If a army comes out that I like the look of and I want to collect it, I'll likely get a few things for it to create a small list and go from there, using it as a extension to a larger list in Apocalypse.

But, yes, I see some powergaming/bandwagoning where I live and play. thankfully there's alot less of it than there could be though. If people want to play games with me I'm happy to oblige, even against powerful builds doctored and tested to beat down everything out there. I love the challenge and my DH often go up against such lists and if I get a draw I'm very happy :)

Grand Master Raziel
28-08-2010, 15:11
This is a phenomenon that's going to happen. There are players who can't abide the thought they might be playing less than the most optimal force. Unfortunately, I think it's going to be especially prevalent with SM players because SM players can go from playing Dark Angels to vanilla Marines to (counts as) Blood Angels or (counts as) Space Wolves with one set of models. I suppose the mentality is that if a player is getting what is perceived to be a raw deal with Codex X, there's no reason not to switch to Codex Y if he can use the same minis with it. I understand this point of view and to a certain extent share it when I find myself obliged to pay 10-40pts more than a vanilla SM player would pay for the same unit.

That said, people who hop from dex to dex to dex based on perceived power level are doing themselves a disservice by never allowing themselves to truly master the army they play. I use Codex: Dark Angels, and have continued using it despite it being sub-optimal in many ways, almost entirely because the conversion I did for my counts-as-jetbike Sammael gives me a massive investment in continuing to use that book. However, because I've stuck with it, I've gotten rather good at using it. My (counts as) Ravenwing-heavy strike force has gone through several permutations and is pretty effective. More to the point, I've got a lot of experience using it. I'd be willing to bet money that I could take my 1500pt list that I've been playing and tweaking for years and beat almost any opponent who's just started using a Codex: Space Wolves or Codex: Blood Angels power list, because by now I know how to use my list almost intuitavely, whereas my hypothetical opponent won't know all the ins and outs of his list.

Reflex
28-08-2010, 15:28
I should state I have no problem with players who have been playing (as an example) mech guard and that's now a top tiered army. Infact sticking with the army should prove that one enjoys that race/army and not the power level.

the1stpip
28-08-2010, 18:25
Indeed, I occasionally go to tournaments (one or two a year), and when one comes up, I make the point of organising games with experienced players, and they know I shall be bringing my tournament list.

Otherwise I just bring a good list. My orks have three Meganobz, using the wound allocation trick, and Lootas, but also I have a Boomwagon and Big Gunz, which are apparently not nearly so powerful.

I like the models, so I use them.

Souleater
28-08-2010, 19:18
I don't mind if people do this.

Zweischneid
28-08-2010, 19:47
That said, people who hop from dex to dex to dex based on perceived power level are doing themselves a disservice by never allowing themselves to truly master the army they play. I use Codex: Dark Angels, and have continued using it despite it being sub-optimal in many ways, almost entirely because the conversion I did for my counts-as-jetbike Sammael gives me a massive investment in continuing to use that book. However, because I've stuck with it, I've gotten rather good at using it. My (counts as) Ravenwing-heavy strike force has gone through several permutations and is pretty effective. More to the point, I've got a lot of experience using it. I'd be willing to bet money that I could take my 1500pt list that I've been playing and tweaking for years and beat almost any opponent who's just started using a Codex: Space Wolves or Codex: Blood Angels power list, because by now I know how to use my list almost intuitavely, whereas my hypothetical opponent won't know all the ins and outs of his list.

That sounds like the definition of boredom.

Hell.. I'd rather have players at the club that bring something new every once so often than a guy who just spams the same-old same-old list year-in and year-out because he's stuck to a particular army like a fetish.

Seriously... do your community a favour and get some Blood Angels or something.

Oguleth
28-08-2010, 23:18
I don't really see it as much of a problem... But then again, I don't really believe in the codex creep all that much. So if someone wants to go for the grass is greener every few months, it's their money. It also prevents stagnation, instead of having everyone just play the same thing over and over and over..

dreadhead
28-08-2010, 23:59
While I can't comment on the local scene, I think Games Workshop in general and Jervis Johnson in particular are trying to curb this by allowing players to award points for an army's character.

That said it's understandable that some players might feel they have to go for the 'best' army currently avaliable. Look around the internet and you'll find plenty of players convinced that armies have to be used in a certain way to be successful.

I can't guess how many times I've been told Ardboy Orks are a waste of time, or that I need vehicles for my boyz, or that I should drop a Deff Dredd or two for some grotzooka-toting Killa Kans. Since I'm experienced I don't worry about it, but new players might feel that's what they need to do.

All I can say is that if your worried about encourage them to get more into the spirit of the game and stop worrying about winning.

StormWulfen
29-08-2010, 00:09
I have played Imperial guard since I started 40k (just before they released 4th ed), Space Wolves since early 4th ed and Iron warriors since mid 4th ed.

I chose Guard because I liked the tanks and space wolves and Iron Warriors because I liked the fluff, now I had chosen Iron warriors before I had even read their special rules in the old book and was still accused of powergaming the first time I played them (although that promptly stopped when they realized I had no idea why I was being called a powergamer). Then when my Guard and Wolves got new books I was accused several times of being a bandwagon gamer before I explained that I had been playing these armies for several years before they got new books.

So basically I have been on the other side of these accusations and know that sometimes its just people being idiots and bad losers, but (as shown in the OP's examples there are some out there who do just jump from army to army to get the most powerful lists.

Noack
29-08-2010, 00:49
I play guard and necrons. I played necrons in tournaments up till recently because i like the challange. point being there is one player at my local who insists on buying the newest best armies just so he can win. I dont enjoy playing him and will avoid playing him at all costs.

Although, when i bring my smack down guard list to beat him he cracks it when i win, and this, is what annoys me about these players more then anything. the WAAC players hate loosing and i think thats a bad aspect of their character.

Born Again
29-08-2010, 02:30
You got any actual evidence for that rather unusual claim? Do you face a lot of opponents who complain that "this army is rubbish, but it's the only way I can win"?

(OK, the OP has a couple).

I was wondering when the "tournament vs fluff" argument was going to reappear; it's been longer than usual this month. :)

What evidence can I give you? The OP had a few, apart from that all I can say is I know a few people down my local store who've done the same, and you've got to take that at my word. You only have to visit these forums regularly to see this sort of thing cropping up though.

If you mean the suggestion that their view of the game is 'misguided', I would only have the evidence that the people who wrote the game (and therefore, we must assume, "get it" correctly) don't play like this and hop their SM list to be BA just because they're new, nor do they treat every game as if it were the grand final of a major tournament, so I think that says enough.

I may cop some negativity for this, but I think it's fairly simple. I don't take my fluff and narratives to tournaments, so don't bring tournaments to my friendly games!


That sounds like the definition of boredom.

Hell.. I'd rather have players at the club that bring something new every once so often than a guy who just spams the same-old same-old list year-in and year-out because he's stuck to a particular army like a fetish.

Seriously... do your community a favour and get some Blood Angels or something.

I'm just gonna go ahead and assume that's sarcasm, because surely no-one could say that and be serious.

haroon
29-08-2010, 03:27
i would love to play against someone who brought a new army every 2 months.

Gutted
29-08-2010, 09:48
As with all game it is important to play with people who are on a similar wave length to you. Others are not wrong for having different tastes and approaches but it is a game you play for fun (presumably) so it is in your interests to make sure you have fun by playing with the people that compliment it (with in reason of not being a jerk).

rodmillard
29-08-2010, 10:30
Now, I'm not going to claim its deliberate on GW's part - that would imply a very bizarre marketting strategy and/or a conspiracy theory of epic proportions! but the current release schedule encourages bandwagonning, and they seem to be doing pretty well off the back of it.

Think of it this way: in January, Codex: Whatever comes out; it has some cool new units, and encourages a different playstyle that is at first difficult for other armies to counter. Lots of players buy it, and the internet is up in arms about how broken/cheesey/power creepy it is. After a few months, people start to work out tactics to deal with it (or better still buy new units because they have to change their all-comers lists to take Codex: Whatever into account). Playing Codex: Whatever is no longer an instant I WIN button, but maybe 25% will stick with it because they like the models/playstyle. For the other 75%, it's OK because Codex: Something Else is just around the corner...

Even if people are just Marine hopping, we are getting a marine codex every other release, and each one has a different playstyle that favours a different big kit (SW=multiple pods, BA=multiple Dreads, GK=Stormraven, probably); so even if people are just marine hopping GW is going to make approximately £100 per marine hopper every six-eight months once they have bought the book, a couple of the big kits, and hopefully an infantry box to add a few customised models to each of the units they already own. And when they have a huge force with loads of models that cannot legally be used with one codex? Well that will be another £30 for 40K apocalypse, and if you're going to be playing Apoc you really need one of the £60 super heavy tanks over there...

Zweischneid
29-08-2010, 12:34
Think of it this way: in January, Codex: Whatever comes out; it has some cool new units, and encourages a different playstyle that is at first difficult for other armies to counter. Lots of players buy it, and the internet is up in arms about how broken/cheesey/power creepy it is. After a few months, people start to work out tactics to deal with it (or better still buy new units because they have to change their all-comers lists to take Codex: Whatever into account). Playing Codex: Whatever is no longer an instant I WIN button, but maybe 25% will stick with it because they like the models/playstyle. For the other 75%, it's OK because Codex: Something Else is just around the corner...

Even if people are just Marine hopping, we are getting a marine codex every other release, and each one has a different playstyle that favours a different big kit (SW=multiple pods, BA=multiple Dreads, GK=Stormraven, probably); so even if people are just marine hopping GW is going to make approximately £100 per marine hopper every six-eight months once they have bought the book, a couple of the big kits, and hopefully an infantry box to add a few customised models to each of the units they already own. And when they have a huge force with loads of models that cannot legally be used with one codex? Well that will be another £30 for 40K apocalypse, and if you're going to be playing Apoc you really need one of the £60 super heavy tanks over there...

You actually make it sound like a bad thing that a company is keeping its products fresh, fun and interesting; continously releasing new variants and options that each and everytime provide a fascinating new spin on the larger game and shake up a product that is constantly under the threat of stagnation.

What is the ALTERNATIVE of how you would want GW to market/develop its product????

Erwos
29-08-2010, 15:11
Well, much as I like to complain about my FLGS having players who like to field some nasty lists, they do seem to avoid flavor of the month syndrome. They're fairly equal opportunity when it comes to kicking ass.

Stealin' Genes
29-08-2010, 18:33
The marine hoppers are the only ones I wish would calm down. You know, the guys with their distinctive looking DIY chapter that mysteriously became huge Space Wolves fans just after their new 'dex came out.

Or rather, "dude, if you really just love Space Wolves, you'd have been playing them before their most recent book took them from middle of the road powered army to arguably the best army book in the game. Just admit you wanna be top dog and let's play. You don't need to explain yourself, I won't think any less of you. I'm more annoyed by your rationalization."

MrGiggles
29-08-2010, 20:29
I love flavour of the month players, especially if the flavour in question is an army I play.

The reason is dirt simple: those players are often a great source of cheap models once the flavour changes.

Angelust
29-08-2010, 21:53
Seems like a case of army ADD more than power-mongering.

Even in Fantasy, you see people who jump to a new army book every month, more so because they get quickly bored with the rules set for their army than for the fact that they're losing a lot of games.

I see a lot of Daemon players who start the army to finally win fantasy games, and then they hung up their spurs after their list was unbeatable for like 10 games. What's sad is that they then go on to put together a Beast-Men army or a OK army to prove that they're really a hobbyist, and not a "gamer". But they'll still keep that uber-army on the shelf when they need to school someone with a medium-tier army that trounced their "hobby" army.

At least guard takes a lot of money to purchase, which means you don't see quite as much of it as you would if Necrons were the top dog right now. Blood angels competitively are still lower than SW at this point, at least until the codex has more time to marinate and list-evolution brings out more optimized lists.

Culsandar
30-08-2010, 00:15
Something has bugged me lately. And omg surprise surprise its blood angels.

Not in the typical sense of OMG they are so OP rabble rabble omg its over 9000.

but rather, ive noticed that there are a few players at my local who have taken up these armies simply because blood angels are quite powerful at the moment (lets face it they are) and after speaking to two players (one who said straight forward that he just wanted to win and the other said he wanted to do a marine army that would win) it really ticked me off.

...

Welcome to Warpower 40kreep.

Thud
30-08-2010, 01:59
So, if someone keeps beating you in Monopoly because they only buy the good spots, while you prefer keeping a social profile by throwing money into useless streets, do you also whine? Are those guys playing Monopoly wrong?

Is it really so surprising to you that when some people play a game, they play to win?

And when you say that they miss out on the best parts of 40k, don't you really mean "everyone has to play the way I do, or they can't be having any fun?" Have you considered that some people might find enjoyment in a competitive game that isn't decided as soon as the Footdar player deploys as far back as possible against the Mech IG player?

Or, could it be with these new armies, that you haven't figured out a way to beat them yet and are simply looking for excuses as to why you're not good at 40k? Surely it can't be you, can it? It's always the other guy.

How about, in a casual gaming setting, you play against the guys who share your philosophy on how the game should be played, and the competitive guys play other competitive guys? And instead of displaying your indignation of not being good at something, you acknowledge differences in approach to the game as different, not better or worse.

For the record, by "you" I mean anyone who fits the description. Do you fit the description? Be honest with yourself now.

Grand Master Raziel
30-08-2010, 02:39
That sounds like the definition of boredom.

Hell.. I'd rather have players at the club that bring something new every once so often than a guy who just spams the same-old same-old list year-in and year-out because he's stuck to a particular army like a fetish.

Seriously... do your community a favour and get some Blood Angels or something.

You, I think, missed my point. I have multiple armies, and I don't always play the same list in my primary army. However, when I switch things up with my primary army, it's to use other units in my codex that I haven't been using for a while. Consequently, I wind up with a fuller understanding of the codex I've chosen than would someone who hops from dex to dex to dex based on perceived power level, and tend to do better with my "underpowered" army (counts-as Dark Angels) than the internet community would lead one to expect.

Then again, maybe I just have a longer attention span than the average 40K player. ;)

Scorpius_78
30-08-2010, 02:53
I donít mind people buying/playing new armies or power builds. Itís their army and they should be allowed to do with it as they please. Do I find it annoying that some people donít put the time or energy into an army that I or someone else does? Sure a little, but at the same time I guess it really doesnít matter, as itís their army and (more importantly) their hobby. If people want to play to win thatís their business. I have a friend in my group who every week heís got some new list thatís ďunstoppable and we have no charge to beat him with itĒ, I personally love the look on his face when he loses.

But thatís the differents between people who play to win and people who play to have fun. Some of my most memorable games have been games that I lost. But it didnít matter because they were fun, and really what the game is (or at least should be) all about, having fun.

Granted though Iím someone who never makes a list before I go to a game, pick the army Iím going to use that day base on a dice roll, and build the list based on how Iím feeling at the time.

chromedog
30-08-2010, 09:40
We had a couple of brothers who were like this in my club.
Their parents have since decided that this hobby is too expensive for them and they no longer play.

I think they were also peeved by the constant "omg! I must have this army and I absolutely want this army!" off them too (and the paltry returns on the badly painted 2nd hand minis from ebay). They also only wanted them until they lost their first game or the new army of the month to replace it came out (whichever was first).
- I don't think they cottoned onto the idea that stuff can also be BOUGHT from ebay the same way.

Me: I'm a 'find an army and stick with it' until it works for you kinda guy. I WON'T play most of the armies as a choice (nothing about them appeals to me).

Zweischneid
30-08-2010, 10:02
You, I think, missed my point. I have multiple armies, and I don't always play the same list in my primary army. However, when I switch things up with my primary army, it's to use other units in my codex that I haven't been using for a while. Consequently, I wind up with a fuller understanding of the codex I've chosen than would someone who hops from dex to dex to dex based on perceived power level, and tend to do better with my "underpowered" army (counts-as Dark Angels) than the internet community would lead one to expect.

Then again, maybe I just have a longer attention span than the average 40K player. ;)

Maybe you just like the smug feeling of being "superiour" in the way you spend your money and spare time in the hobby. A feeling you might receive from going against the grain of GW's marketing and release schedule and a supposed "identification" with more obscure/outdated parts of the background.

Well, I am sorry to tell you, but there is no "better" or "worse" way to spend X amount of £$€ and Y amount of time in a "hobby" as long as its fun.

Whether you're building a "fluffy" Ravenwing army complete with a fan-fic novel to go with it, practice NMM techniques on 300 Minis to enter in the next Golden Demon or scrounge together an unpainted Mephiston-Rocks!-Army to compete in a local 'Ard Boyz knock-off, it doesn't matter. People are free to spend their time and money in any way they see fit.

The only sin in 40K is the vain hubris of deluding yourself that you're doing it "better" or "more properly" than the next guy and thus fancy yourself to be in a position to pass judgement on how other people spend their time and money.

Born Again
30-08-2010, 12:58
So, if someone keeps beating you in Monopoly because they only buy the good spots, while you prefer keeping a social profile by throwing money into useless streets, do you also whine? Are those guys playing Monopoly wrong?

Is it really so surprising to you that when some people play a game, they play to win?

And when you say that they miss out on the best parts of 40k, don't you really mean "everyone has to play the way I do, or they can't be having any fun?" Have you considered that some people might find enjoyment in a competitive game that isn't decided as soon as the Footdar player deploys as far back as possible against the Mech IG player?

Or, could it be with these new armies, that you haven't figured out a way to beat them yet and are simply looking for excuses as to why you're not good at 40k? Surely it can't be you, can it? It's always the other guy.

How about, in a casual gaming setting, you play against the guys who share your philosophy on how the game should be played, and the competitive guys play other competitive guys? And instead of displaying your indignation of not being good at something, you acknowledge differences in approach to the game as different, not better or worse.

For the record, by "you" I mean anyone who fits the description. Do you fit the description? Be honest with yourself now.

I rather think you may have been thinking of me as you typed away, but in actual truth I don't fit the description, and I've have never said or believed the bit that I highlighted/ underlined. I felt I should say something because, while you say "we" should just seek out gamers on the same wavelength, enjoy the game with them and stop forcing our views on those who play differently, I actually encounter the exact opposite. I do seek out other people on the same wavelength to play, but it's the hardcore tourney players that keep coming over and telling me "if you give me a couple of games I can give you some tips on how to play better. Yeah, they insinuate that because I'm not intentionally going for the most brutal approach possible, I suck. Kind of how you insinuated the same thing. I think that's a poor attitude to have. For the record, I've been at this game for some 15 years and am a perfectly good player. Don't jump to conclusions just because someone doesn't have a shelf full of trophies.

pringles978
30-08-2010, 13:22
I don't really mind what other people do, or the 'powerful' army at the moment, as long as I have games for my Iron Warriors.

Actually thats a good point. I have an Iron Warriors force. I started my Iron Warriors after 4th Ed. Does that make a cheese lover because Iron Warriors was broken in the past?

yes. you lot are still not forgiven for that extra heavy suppourt/oblit army of doom we had to put up with. you should all be rounded up and pelted with brie untill the rest of us feel feel vidicated... look at that coverted basilisk sat unused on your shelf and feel shame!! :p

antin3
30-08-2010, 14:01
I don't care what anyone does, if they have the time and the money so be it. I am not a tournament player, I actually could care less about tournaments and rankings and whatever else may go along with it.
But I can agree a bit with the OP, let me say this, there is a guy at my LGS who has a vet IG army with everything in chimeras, valkyries etc. A very cheesy, WAAC list. BUT before he plays someone who he hasn't played before he lets them know, very politely that his list is a tournament list. That is fine with me, I don't usually play him often because I am still learning my army and he will just wipe me out in a couple of turns.
What bugs me are the competitive players who will sucker some poor noob into a game and obliterate him then walk around the store bragging about how they tabled said noobs army. Or someone who starts a new flavor of the month because it is "powerful" but uses every excuse in the book about how they have always loved this army, and I played them back in 2dn edition, blah, blah. When they should just admit what they are doing.
Finally I dislike the competitive player that has the attitude that non-competitive players are worse or incompetent because the don't get into the tournament scene.
I just liek to go to my LGS, hang out, soak up the atmosphere, play a few games and enjoy myself. I really don't need to validate myself by wiping up the board with my opponents army in 2 turns.
Again, not all competitive players are like this, but in my experience, many are.

SPYDER68
30-08-2010, 15:38
Just wait until Dark Eldar come out, and there will be alot less Blood angels players..

And there will be a ton of Dark Eldar players..

Then wait again and Daemonhunters come out.. and a ton will switch to them...

Then wait until... so and so comes out...

yea...


Thats why local shops should have a requirement of fully painted or give a good amount of points for just being fully painted :P

It works out rather well that way.. At least makes people paint their FOTM army.

Wishing
30-08-2010, 15:45
as such, im also interested to know if there are other people out there on teh innerwebz, who feel the same about players who skip from army to army to win in a non tournament scene? to me it seems crazy and ridiculous... maybe its just me...

People game for different reasons and with different priorities. Some pick armies for the aesthetics and background because that's what they're interested in. Some pick armies best on which is the most winningest, because that's what they're interested in (competing and winning). Background-focused players often get frustrated with win-focused players for lots of complex psychological reasons, where the frustration rarely goes the other way... the best solution in my opinion is to figure out which players you are most compatible with and just stick to playing them.

R0ot
30-08-2010, 15:49
I know a few FOTM players and they always switch to the most "powerful" army out at the time then cry when they lose to something old crying "cheese" and "outdated" at the codex and rules.

Anyway I've played Black Templars since they had a codex (around end of 3rd ed I believe) I'll play them when all the armies this year and next year come out. I may start a force of GK when they come out but that's purely because I love the models but I'll still be playing Black Templars competitively.

Gorbad Ironclaw
30-08-2010, 15:56
Couldn't care less. Playing an army because you like what it does on the table is no more or less "right" than playing an army because you like the background or you randomly saw a cool picture with models from that army or whatever other reason people have for playing any given army.
If people are having more fun playing 40k with X army because they feel they have a better chance of winning than they would have if they played army Y why shouldn't they play army X? They can't play an army they have fun with because they don't fulfil some random arbitrary criteria for why they should pick said army?

The only thing that concerns me is that I have a good time playing them. And that got very little to do with what army they are playing or why the picked it. I've not meet many players I didn't liked playing but the few I have meet have all been very different and you certainly couldn't just label them "competitive players" and be done with it.

Stealin' Genes
30-08-2010, 16:30
So, if someone keeps beating you in Monopoly because they only buy the good spots, while you prefer keeping a social profile by throwing money into useless streets, do you also whine? Are those guys playing Monopoly wrong?

Is it really so surprising to you that when some people play a game, they play to win?

And when you say that they miss out on the best parts of 40k, don't you really mean "everyone has to play the way I do, or they can't be having any fun?" Have you considered that some people might find enjoyment in a competitive game that isn't decided as soon as the Footdar player deploys as far back as possible against the Mech IG player?

Or, could it be with these new armies, that you haven't figured out a way to beat them yet and are simply looking for excuses as to why you're not good at 40k? Surely it can't be you, can it? It's always the other guy.

How about, in a casual gaming setting, you play against the guys who share your philosophy on how the game should be played, and the competitive guys play other competitive guys? And instead of displaying your indignation of not being good at something, you acknowledge differences in approach to the game as different, not better or worse.

For the record, by "you" I mean anyone who fits the description. Do you fit the description? Be honest with yourself now.

On the flipside, my wish is that the guys who ran their own lovingly crafted DIY chapter in 4th, who suddenly discovered that "Space Wolf rules fit my chapter's fluff so much better!" would be honest about their reasons for switching. You're jumping to the current top army, using your existing collection as "counts-as" SW, and feeding me this story about how you just discovered that the (arguably) most powerful army in the game is a perfect fit for your force, and that you only realized this when the army book that made them top dog came out.

Just admit that you're switching because you hope it'll help you win, and let's play. I'll snicker at you less.


You, I think, missed my point. I have multiple armies, and I don't always play the same list in my primary army. However, when I switch things up with my primary army, it's to use other units in my codex that I haven't been using for a while. Consequently, I wind up with a fuller understanding of the codex I've chosen than would someone who hops from dex to dex to dex based on perceived power level, and tend to do better with my "underpowered" army (counts-as Dark Angels) than the internet community would lead one to expect.

Then again, maybe I just have a longer attention span than the average 40K player. ;)

You sound kinda like me, except I've been playing Tyranids for a billion years. They've been powerful in that span, and they've been less than exciting, and the current book is widely looked down on, at least on the internet.

But I love my Tyranids. I don't really want to play any other army. And I don't think there's anything wrong with taking some pride in winning with an army that is widely considered weak. It's extra satisfying to take some SW or BA to school with Tyranids, specifically because most people would say the space puppies or space vamps have an advantage going into that fight. I can say with a fair amount of certainty that I earned that win.

Plus, well, I kinda like rooting for/playing as the underdog. Makes the victory all the sweeter.

superdupermatt
30-08-2010, 17:11
Hi my name is superdupermatt and I have no idea what FOTM is.

I am a casual player so I tend to gravitate others that are the same, but occasionally play the "win at all costs" players just to keep everyone happy. Ideally, everyone would be the same as me :p

Scribe of Khorne
30-08-2010, 19:00
I've got no issues with it, or the motivations behind it. Go nuts.

marv335
30-08-2010, 19:09
Hi my name is superdupermatt and I have no idea what FOTM is.

I am a casual player so I tend to gravitate others that are the same, but occasionally play the "win at all costs" players just to keep everyone happy. Ideally, everyone would be the same as me :p

Flavour
Of
The
Month.

Nezalhualixtlan
30-08-2010, 19:11
so it bring me to my question and point of the thread, do others get annoyed when people play an army just to win (from a non tourny perspective, disregarding enjoyment from the hobby (fun of playing a certain army for fluff, painting, modelling own fluff stories etc etc)?

...

then there is this other person as an example. He played orks when they were released and had the strongest builds at the time. then when vulkan came along he made another new army, then guard came so he played mech vets, and now blood angels. He plays to win and lots of peole dislike playing him because of pretty much the reason above.

As long as they have a friendly attitude, these are usually my favorite types of players to go up against. Whether you are a casual or power gamer theres never a call for being a douche, but playing with power builds and playing to win are not behaviors that automatically qualify for that distinction. I like playing opponents like that, again so long as they are friendly, because for me the most fun in the game comes from knock down drag out fights where both players are doing their best to win within the confines of the rules, pulling out every stop they can think of in order to try and win, or at least tie down to the wire at the end.

I actually don't much like it when an opponent comes to the game expecting a cooperative RP experience. I don't come to a game looking to play make believe with little plastic toy soldiers. I come to games looking for a competitive game. Now, don't get me wrong, I like RP, it's been a bit since I've done D&D, or Star Wars RP, or whatever, I could probably have fun with Inquistor, or Dark Heresy... cause it's fun, and it has it's place. But this is a competitive game. The point for me it to test strategy and tactics, including list building, and in a test of wits, in order to win. That to me is what is fun, not winning necessarily, I get nearly as much enjoyment out of a game where I lose but lose close and it was a hard fought game as I do from winning one of those, but from actually having a competitive game. No one, not on either side has fun when its a total blowout, or if you do, there's something wrong with you in my mind. It's boring for the winner and discouraging for the loser. So the best thing is to talk things over to make sure everyone's expectations are on the same page for the game before you start.

But to sum up my winding explanation, no I don't get annoyed by that type of thing. I enjoy the fluff. I enjoy modeling. I can appreciate a finely crafted fluff list of my opponents, or a finely crafted competitive list. I can even enjoy a purely fluff game even when its totally lopsided against me when the point is the story rather than the competition - occasionally anyway. But the most fun I get out of the game is high level competitive play, including facing the baddest power game lists my opponents can figure out (and I don't care if they proxy), so that we can both try to eek out the win by the last moment. Luckily most of my local shop participants play that way and we all have fun doing it (and I will tone down for the few who don't when I do face them - it's more about the competition than winning).

superdupermatt
30-08-2010, 20:44
Flavour
Of
The
Month.

Marv you are nothing but a gentleman and a scholar. :)

SPYDER68
30-08-2010, 22:21
Google is amazing for finding out what things mean..


http://lmgtfy.com/?q=FOTM

Zweischneid
30-08-2010, 22:30
Google is amazing for finding out what things mean..


http://lmgtfy.com/?q=FOTM

Friends of Traditional Musik?

Fire on the Mountain?

or

Friends of Tottenham Marches?

perhaps

Fellowship of the Martyrs?



Got to love Google :D

Carlos
31-08-2010, 08:56
do others get annoyed when people play an army just to win (from a non tourny perspective, disregarding enjoyment from the hobby (fun of playing a certain army for fluff, painting, modelling own fluff stories etc etc)?

You have just nighlighted the biggest porblem with modern wargaming.

Wishing
31-08-2010, 09:12
You have just nighlighted the biggest porblem with modern wargaming.

One which seems unavoidable when you consider that the hobby is composed of two aspects which fundamentally have nothing to do with each other - aesthetics/flavour and rule-based competition.

When one of these aspects is considered laudable and harmless (few people complain about 'too much aesthetics') and the other is dangerous and potentially destructive when unchecked ('power gamers' ruining the fun for other people), it's a recipe for trouble.

Gorbad Ironclaw
31-08-2010, 09:16
All he have done is highlighted that people play the game for different reasons and enjoy different aspects of it. Something I think most of us knew already. I'm not really that keen on painting but I'll do it cause it looks nice. I like the background (some of it at least), however I don't think it really have very much relevance to what goes on in the actual game.

Of course the best thing to do is to talk to your opponent beforehand if you are not sure you will be getting what you are looking for out of the game. If you want a couple of hours spent trying to tell a story with the 40k rules then playing someone who doesn't care about the story probably isn't the best choice. Odds are that neither of you will enjoy the game very much. However I have found that most people are quite willing to try out different things as long as they are asked first and it's made clear what the objective of the game is. It's when you go into a game expecting different things that the issue is.

DeeKay
31-08-2010, 16:30
To be honest, I'm kinda like this with Warmachine, but that's another games system...

FOTM players do serve a purpose, and that is to keep things interesting. Let's face it, if we played against the same lists over and over, we would all be real bored, real quick. FOTM players do so in order to win, or because they like the new range, it doesn't really matter because they are geting some enjoyment out of the process and therfore, out of the hobby as well.

The only rule that should not be broken with regard to this hobby is enjoy the hobby, but not at the expense of another person's enjoyment of it. I don't think any rules lawyer could find fault with that.

With regards,
Dan.

Carlos
31-08-2010, 17:11
One which seems unavoidable when you consider that the hobby is composed of two aspects which fundamentally have nothing to do with each other - aesthetics/flavour and rule-based competition.

When one of these aspects is considered laudable and harmless (few people complain about 'too much aesthetics') and the other is dangerous and potentially destructive when unchecked ('power gamers' ruining the fun for other people), it's a recipe for trouble.

The problem is GW do nothing to keep it in check. Apocalypse was a good start but most of the power gamers probably don't frequent a place like this so get most of their news and advice firsthand from stores and white dwarf. If GW actually ran the occasional modelling article or proper scenery building workshop within WD and encouraged this side of the hobby more we might see a change in demographics.

Simo429
31-08-2010, 17:17
I have been accused of playing a powerful build because I play space wolves. Do I care do I ****, I play space wolves because I have collected Thor comics since I was a kid and I have always loved learning about mythology in general.

Raven1
31-08-2010, 17:21
im going to throw in my two cents really quick. I don't mind at all it's their game as much as it is yours and if they want to spend the money then they want to spend the money.

Ravenous
31-08-2010, 18:06
im going to throw in my two cents really quick. I don't mind at all it's their game as much as it is yours and if they want to spend the money then they want to spend the money.

Exactly, they have fun winning and trying new armies. No sense being a hypocrite and telling other people they cant have fun their way.

Personally, I like playing against people that will give me a challenge with fully painted armies on fully painted tables.

Thud
31-08-2010, 18:10
The problem is GW do nothing to keep it in check. Apocalypse was a good start but most of the power gamers probably don't frequent a place like this so get most of their news and advice firsthand from stores and white dwarf. If GW actually ran the occasional modelling article or proper scenery building workshop within WD and encouraged this side of the hobby more we might see a change in demographics.

And why would GW want to do that?

Where do you think they get the main bulk of their revenue? From the guy who has played the same super-fluffy Dark Eldar army with his mates for the last decade, or the guy who just picked up twelve Chimeras for 'Ard Boyz?

GrogDaTyrant
31-08-2010, 18:21
Exactly, they have fun winning and trying new armies. No sense being a hypocrite and telling other people they cant have fun their way.


While there is nothing inherently wrong with that, the argument does go both ways. In my case I actually refuse to play SW or BA simply because I don't find games against them to be at all enjoyable, win or loose. I'm not a jerk about it, but I will politely decline any game that's offered by someone who plays with either of those lists.

marv335
31-08-2010, 18:36
Heh, you guys should try playing with hardcore historicals.
I've seen people refuse games because their opponent had the wrong regimental markings on a tank.

FabricatorGeneralMike
31-08-2010, 20:25
yes. you lot are still not forgiven for that extra heavy suppourt/oblit army of doom we had to put up with. you should all be rounded up and pelted with brie untill the rest of us feel feel vidicated... look at that coverted basilisk sat unused on your shelf and feel shame!! :p


Don't forget that the 'army' was able to be 'painted' in a day thanks to it being drybrushed silver.....no, no forgiveness for the IW EVER!!!! :rolleyes:

Raven1
31-08-2010, 23:40
Personally, I like playing against people that will give me a challenge with fully painted armies on fully painted tables.

To me the most important thing is a painted army, not a well painted army, but i want to see an army that is fully assembled and painted a sort of 3 color minimum.
I used to play a guy that never painted if he fully assembled his units. Once he threw down a base and called it a lictor.
I like to play different armies and would have several if i had the money. My buddies each have two or three armies and try new things some for fun some just to win. In the end for me spending the afternoon with friends is more important then the game itself. That and fully assembled painted models on terrain filled table.

Weaverman
01-09-2010, 08:31
Quite a few people in my gaming group play with unpainted armies, I don't really mind as I still have fun playing them and that's what it's all about right?
I don't mind what list my opponent brings as most armies can builds strong list and becomes a challenge to beat them