sick and tired

[Pyriel]

*sigh* just wanted to say this outloud. i dont want to "crush" threads of non-competitive players, because frankly, as i've stated lots of times, i realy DO believe there is no right and wrong way to play a game. there is room for both fluffy/scenario/narrative games AND tournament/practice games, and the players that respectively "usualy" prefer one of the two(i dont think there are many players that play only fluffy or only competitive, i think most ppl have their "fun lists" and their "serious lists".)

two things have bothered me:
1. fluff nazis saying that competitive gaming is wrong.
this is ridiculous. it would be like me saying fluffy gaming is wrong. its a GAME. everyone plays the way they seem to have fun. some by a narrative game, others by the thrill of the competition for a prize/title.

2. non-competitive players assuming how the competitive scene looks like.
DONT. JUST DONT. unless you play hardcore competitively, this is a world you cannot hope to understand. this is a world where Paladins were never truly feared because everyone put out ridiculous ammounts of str 8 ap 1/2 shots/fists, a world where Space Wolves actualy had a BETTER win percentage than the Grey Knights that all fluff players THINK had been too overpowered. a world where Land Raiders were never competitive to begin with (due to tons of melta being fielded), that the Vanilla marines have the best practical-use psyker(the "naked" dirt-cheap librarian that was merely using Null Zone to shut down the potential rock unit). a world where the internal balance of a codex is IRRELEVANT, because nobody chooses the bad choices anyway, everyone is expected to just spam the best ones. vanilla players' vanguards SUCK-but they have attack bikes, bikers, and landspeeders; they dont care. (similar stuff applies to other dexes, especialy nids).


i'd feel incredibly better if competitive players stick to writing about competitive environment and fluffy players kept writing about the narrative/friendly games, and NOT making super-wild, mostly inaccurate assumptions about the tournament scene.
/end rant.

*sigh* wrote this down cause i just HAD to say it somewhere and not end up almost hijacking threads.

[Denny]

*sigh* just wanted to say this outloud.

I'm not sure you've entirely grasped the concept of 'aloud' (writing something down doesn’t really count).

With that said I hope you feel better by venting. I would suggest you try to let this stuff bother you less. People will always say things you (sometimes vehemently) disagree with. You cannot change this, you cannot control it. All you can control is how you react to it. And, if these people are so delusional, why are you allowing them to annoy you?


This isn’t to say you shouldn’t argue with them or point out their mistakes, but I’d suggest you try and aim for ‘Wry Amusement’ rather than ‘Righteous Fury’; it’s both more fun and less wearing on one’s pulmonary artery.

[IAMNOTHERE]

I play both fluffy and competitve games but you can't really mix the 2. I've made comments in all kinds of threads about my opinion on different matters but never tried to force people to come to my point of view.

A few months ago I fell out with a poster because of a comment along the lines of this:

"I only play against the top 200 people in the country; you can't be one of them because I'm great so you must be crap and so are all your friends, etc"

This really wound me up as it went on like that for half a page and I just thought what a cock.

Now I have an ignore list and that guy/girl is top of it.

[Xandros]

I have a restraining order from visiting this forum, but I want to say I agree. But it's only half the picture. At one end of the spectrum there's those who lord over definitions of fluff and fluffiness, at the other end; those who know something to be effective in their own experience, thus this experience is valid for all others. And if you disagree you're obviously not playing in a competitive environment. If you are, it's not competitive enough!

My point is that there's a judgementality of what's right and what's wrong. Not simply voicing an opinion, but laying down the law: This is fluffy, that is not; This is strong, that is weak. Red is blue, right is wrong.

Only on the internet.

[IcedCrow]

I have a restraining order from visiting this forum, but I want to say I agree. But it's only half the picture. At one end of the spectrum there's those who lord over definitions of fluff and fluffiness, at the other end; those who know something to be effective in their own experience, thus this experience is valid for all others. And if you disagree you're obviously not playing in a competitive environment. If you are, it's not competitive enough!

My point is that there's a judgementality of what's right and what's wrong. Not simply voicing an opinion, but laying down the law: This is fluffy, that is not; This is strong, that is weak. Red is blue, right is wrong.

Only on the internet.

*like* +1, whatever phrase you want to use.

[Konovalev]

I agree, I see competitive players being bashed all the time in horn tooting threads where amateurs are on the rise. I think everyone just needs to keep it in their pants and stop taking shots at eachother.

[Commissar Davis]

Given the number of times we see people come to forums like this one for help with their lists or whatever, only to be told that their list sucks and needs spam, beard and cheese to be any good (which is probably not what they are after) only goes to show how bad the competitive players are for the hobby.

What kind of players is it that purposely looks at how to break the newest rules/codex? The tournament toutters can hardly claim any innocence when they are the ones constantly trying to turn the game in to something it isn't, that the makers of the game claim that it isn't, a game to play seriously.

[Chapters Unwritten]

*sigh* just wanted to say this outloud. i dont want to "crush" threads of non-competitive players, because frankly, as i've stated lots of times, i realy DO believe there is no right and wrong way to play a game. there is room for both fluffy/scenario/narrative games AND tournament/practice games, and the players that respectively "usualy" prefer one of the two(i dont think there are many players that play only fluffy or only competitive, i think most ppl have their "fun lists" and their "serious lists".)

two things have bothered me:
1. fluff nazis saying that competitive gaming is wrong.
this is ridiculous. it would be like me saying fluffy gaming is wrong. its a GAME. everyone plays the way they seem to have fun. some by a narrative game, others by the thrill of the competition for a prize/title.

2. non-competitive players assuming how the competitive scene looks like.
DONT. JUST DONT. unless you play hardcore competitively, this is a world you cannot hope to understand. this is a world where Paladins were never truly feared because everyone put out ridiculous ammounts of str 8 ap 1/2 shots/fists, a world where Space Wolves actualy had a BETTER win percentage than the Grey Knights that all fluff players THINK had been too overpowered. a world where Land Raiders were never competitive to begin with (due to tons of melta being fielded), that the Vanilla marines have the best practical-use psyker(the "naked" dirt-cheap librarian that was merely using Null Zone to shut down the potential rock unit). a world where the internal balance of a codex is IRRELEVANT, because nobody chooses the bad choices anyway, everyone is expected to just spam the best ones. vanilla players' vanguards SUCK-but they have attack bikes, bikers, and landspeeders; they dont care. (similar stuff applies to other dexes, especialy nids).


i'd feel incredibly better if competitive players stick to writing about competitive environment and fluffy players kept writing about the narrative/friendly games, and NOT making super-wild, mostly inaccurate assumptions about the tournament scene.
/end rant.

*sigh* wrote this down cause i just HAD to say it somewhere and not end up almost hijacking threads.

We have this problem at my group, which is a very good group mind you. We walk a line between fluff and competitive all he time without issue, it's only when outsiders with established prejudices show up that our people even notice a real difference.

We have one guy who is a great guy, good friend, good gamer, and very much games according to the idea that fluff adherence = weak/weird army list, and that all people who play competitively are gigantic jerks. He constantly brings up the cash prizes at tournaments as a reason why "so many" tournament players play "like cheesy jerks with power lists". The idea is ridiculous, TBH.

I have found in my club's existence that it is typically the fluff people derogatorily commenting against competitive players consistently. Guys who make tough lists have also consistently been some of our nicest players, which flies in the face of the whole idea. The fluff guys throw tantrums, call things broken without knowing the whole game, and often take poor lists and then accuse the guys they play of being ********. It's just not right.

It's a big problem, because in the same breath this player admits he rarely plays in tournaments, he quickly surmises the majority of tournament players as synonymous with the worst of them. We have many new players who have not played in tourneys and now, because of accusations like this, they never will.

The above post is a perfect example: my people don't consider themselves a part of either camp, and thanks to their ignorance of the online community by and large they consider a fluff list defined by something that matches the stories; there is no stigma that you are somehow a nicer/cooler guy by intentionally taking a crappy list. The game works fine for us competitively; the problem, as always, are the players and their bizarre social constructs, not the game.

[Pyriel]

@comissar davis: so i am GUILTY for trying to play with my ... toy soldiers in a way different to you or the way GW plays?

and regarding lists, yeah. if someone posts an army list and asks on how to improve it, should i lie to him? improve=be more powerful, and armylist power=spam. should i be a liar? if he doesnt want this kind of advice... he shouldnt have posted the armylist, OR he should post it stating that he doesnt want advice and just showcases (which is also a corrct way to do that).

[IcedCrow]

Find a group that plays like you want to. If one does not exist, start a group that plays like you want to.

There ya go. Problem solved.

[Pawn of Decay]

Given the number of times we see people come to forums like this one for help with their lists or whatever, only to be told that their list sucks and needs spam, beard and cheese to be any good (which is probably not what they are after) only goes to show how bad the competitive players are for the hobby.

What kind of players is it that purposely looks at how to break the newest rules/codex? The tournament toutters can hardly claim any innocence when they are the ones constantly trying to turn the game in to something it isn't, that the makers of the game claim that it isn't, a game to play seriously.

It's comments list his which are unhelpful.

Now I am a very competitive gamer. I like to break armies and mould them into an army list which is designed to crush the meta in my area and the tournament scene where I play. Sometimes it works and some times it doesn't.

However, I have never once come along and told someone that there list sucks. I actually find it amusing that people try and say that spam type lists are uber competitive. Some can be, but a truly great player with a great army list will tear them apart.

Catagorising all competitive players as bad for the hobby is disrespectful. It is also very short sighted. Some may be bad for the area and can turn people away from the hobby. This is however not the norm or the majority. I have a great gaming group with a mix of people that play very fluffy and fun armies and people who play very competitive armies and get ready for tournaments.

We do however all enjoy our hobby. I understand the fluff and background of the hobby. I also enjoy it. However I see my hobby as a competitive enviroment. A way to test yourself against other people.

You need to realise that sterotyping people is not only wrong, but it makes you sounds like an idiot.

[loveless]

Find a group that plays like you want to. If one does not exist, start a group that plays like you want to.

There ya go. Problem solved.

Can we just sticky this post?

[d6juggernaut]

Find a group that plays like you want to. If one does not exist, start a group that plays like you want to.

There ya go. Problem solved.

Yeah it's almost as if everyone in the world plays warhammer and you can just pick and choose whoever you want to play with, or just make up people you like to play warhammer or something

[Denny]

Yeah it's almost as if everyone in the world plays warhammer and you can just pick and choose whoever you want to play with, or just make up people you like to play warhammer or something

Everyone who plays Warhammer started somewhere; before they were players they were all just regular people.

Some of them even manage to remain people after they start playing.

[Commissar Davis]

@comissar davis: so i am GUILTY for trying to play with my ... toy soldiers in a way different to you or the way GW plays?

and regarding lists, yeah. if someone posts an army list and asks on how to improve it, should i lie to him? improve=be more powerful, and armylist power=spam. should i be a liar? if he doesnt want this kind of advice... he shouldnt have posted the armylist, OR he should post it stating that he doesnt want advice and just showcases (which is also a corrct way to do that).

Or if you were any good at the game, you would be able to see what they have and how it can be used and give them advice on that first and foremost, even stating that it would be an uphill struggle in your opinion. What you have just stated just goes to show those that class themselves as competitive, tourney goers, only know how to win with a crutch and look to stomp face, not actually play a game with any kind of skill for the fun and challenge of it. There is a big difference between helping someone and just badmouthing what they have, you have just said you would do the latter, what kind of help is that to anyone. People shouldn't post asking for help in playing what they got... who made you a moderator, nor is such written anywhere on the sites rules. That is a seriously bad attitude to take with others in the hobby, yet you ask that those that look to break the game are given some slack... who do you think you are? Last I looked, this was a forum for all 40k players, not the minority who play purely to win.

The way I play, the way that GW designed the game to play, the way the majority plays. You complain about how GW designed the game to play, do you ever wonder why GW pulled support for tournaments or GTs that are not its own, it is because they do not play the game as designed which is meant to be fun for the majority.

You can play your toys anyway you want, just don't go claiming you play WH40K.

[IcedCrow]

Yeah it's almost as if everyone in the world plays warhammer and you can just pick and choose whoever you want to play with, or just make up people you like to play warhammer or something

If I had that attitude I'd have given up the game long ago. I don't enjoy playing hyper competitive optimizer people. Not because I think they are bad people but because I don't enjoy breaking the game. However I realize that some people get off on that and to each their own.

So what I had to do was to try to find a group that played like I do. Thing is... I couldn't find a group that existed, but there were people out there willing to play in a way that, while still competitive, did not have to break the game or the codex and enjoyed campaigns and things like I did.

How did I find them?

I put forth effort to do so. In the internet age, that's not as difficult as it was for me to do in 1998 but I managed to get a good group in the 90s as well by old fashioned means (talking to people at the store, putting up ads at the store etc)

So if you want something sometimes you have to put forth the effort to making it happen. Also I've found a LOT of people interested in breaking into the hobby who got in because of our group of players. It just takes a little bit of effort to get together.

[Caitsidhe]

I've never really seen a difference between so-called competitive and non-competitive play. This is because there really isn't any such animal as the non-competitive gamer, at least none that I've ever met. There are just players who make excuses. Different types of people like different types of excuses. The I only play fluffy, non-cheesy lists is the passive aggressive whine. "I only lost because that guy is a jerk and doesn't get the game. He only won because he built a broken list. Clearly he doesn't have the skill to play the real game, and besides it isn't about winning and losing." Of course, these players clearly do care who wins or loses or they wouldn't whine so much. The rare WAAC player (and this animal is actually rare despite the term being inappropriately applied to nearly every person the passive aggressive crowd loses to) whines about rules lawyers (despite being a consummate one), local rules which demand comp scores, and any thing possible to try and affect the outcome. The real, rare WAAC player sees everything in or outside the game as part of the battle. In short, they are dirty cheats and all manner of cheating is part of their arsenal. If only the passive aggressive crowd were as rare as the WAAC groups.

Then there are the rest of us, i.e. the people who just play the game. We get that it is a hobby. We also understand that it is competitive. We don't like that the game isn't balanced, but what can you do? We do the best we can with the tools we have. All the talk about creating a narrative is silly really, since a story is ALWAYS told. Telling a good story about a battle doesn't have anything to do with the outcome, since all battles have a very narrow list of outcomes. It is about how colorful you get when doing your thing (win or lose). I play to win. That makes me a competitive gamer. I also want to do it with style. I want to be a gentleman outside the game, and have my little toys in character. I say above that I don't believe in the non-competitive gamer. This is true. I've never met the real animal. If it is out there, it spends time with the Jackalope and Unicorns. Everyone I play is competitive and wants to win. In fact, I'd say the people most obsessed with it seem to be the people equally passionate about telling everyone how fluffy and unimportant to them it is. Here are my thoughts. Take them with a grain of salt:

1. Rare, diseased WAAC types. Just die and crawl back under rocks. Cheating is cheating.
2. Passive Aggressive self-proclaimed "non-competitive" players. Shut the hell up. If you lost, YOU lost. Quit trying to scapegoat anything and everything but yourself.
3. Everyone else. Keep fighting the good fight.

[Pyriel]

... commissar Davies, you still dont get it. and you never will. WH40k is a game played with the ruleset that games workshop develops. a game and also a setting.

dont kid yourself that its a vision, or anything sacred/holy that GW decides. the 6th-ed rulset and minis are WH40k. simple.

fluffy 40k is 40k.
competitive 40k is 40k.

the difference between "competitive" and "non-competitive" players ( i prefer the term "non-competitive" because some competitive players are also fluffy players occasionaly)
is the mentality.

non-competitive player: "i play the game because its nice/relaxing to play games and have fun." that is an excellent mentality. nothing wrong.

competitive player: "i love competing and collecting trophies/titles.there are no games when competing, just SPORTS. the fact that this is a mental sport and not a physical one doesnt make it less of a sport. i dont wanna be a good or bad player. i wanna be the CHAMPION and i enjoy the quest of preparing to be the Champion." there is nothing wrong with that either. IMHO, if you dont see it, then you have never attempted a serious go at any nationwide or even just state-level title, not even college-level sports.

[AdaptUK0]

A great general isn't one that succeeds with most accomplished troops. A great general is one that can succeed with any of his troops"

[IcedCrow]

Which is why again you should strive to play in a group of like-minded individuals.

A person who is going to optimize lists and is playing to crush the gonads of his opponents is not going to get along in the game with a guy who is also playing to win but doesn't optimize for whatever reason (his vision of fluff, his dislike of spam, his dislike of repetitive sameness, his dislike of that playstyle, any or all of the above) and vice versa. THey are after two totally different types of games.