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.

[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.

[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.

[aim]

*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.

I will state this now, I do not fall into either of these camps as I read the background and paint/model. I have no interest in actually gaming.

I will say this though.

The problem you have is that you are clearly already of an opinion that you are correct and that anyone elses point of view is wrong, which is why 'fluffy players are wrong/the instigators/hellspawn'. As an outsider I can tell you that its six and two threes. The fluffy players get so riled up as to take shots at the competetive players because of the superior attitude the competetive players put across. Both groups are in the wrong (not all members of each group, but some, thats where the tension comes from). Saying "I understand that you like playing fluffy, but stop complaining at me because my way is much better and i know more about the game." is not understanding and in fact will just rile people up more.

This happens in every environment. People here may have seen me comment refering to this subject before but it does apply.

I used to play Counter-Strike competetively. I was quite good (i.e. competeing against the top 10 teams in Europe at LAN/online on a fairly regular basis, my team used to merc for said top teams on a regular basis as we were good and unknown to most, so they could get away with playing one of us if they were a man down).

This exact same thing happened there. The public players hated on the competetive players, for being arrogant douches and the competetive players dismissed them with a 'we are better than you, our way is right'. The thing is, the public players were right, the competetive players were douches (the majority of them), which is a huge part of why I stopped playing, I couldn't stand the community. However, most competetive players were like minded and loved hanging out with each other. The competetive players were also right, they were better than the pub players. But of all the competetive players I knew, not a single one of them enjoyedplaying the game anymore, they found it more of a chore and part time job, they only enjoyed it when they were winning. So again, the pub players were right, they just loved playing, and not taking it as seriously as the 'pro' players (I say 'pro' in brackets because even really bad competetive players, who didn't LAN and were only marginaly better than pub players had the same awful attitude) meant that there was less pressure and emphasis on winning, allowing them to do so.

I guess what I'm saying is although you may think that you are right, the other group is wrong and you are doing nothing wrong. Chances are that you probably are doing something (not on purpose) which is causing the other group to get riled. The reason neither group realises this is that they act the same way as their other like minded folk from that group (again for the most part), who don't see anything wrong with how they are acting/talking.

Basically, theres enough blame to go around, no-one is innocent, and saying you understand the other group then obviously putting them down or attacking them isn't understanding or helpful at all, nor does it make you the bigger man. It really is a case of live and let live, try not to let the other group wind you up too much because you will inevitably be doing something to wind them up too even without realising it.

[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).

[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.

[althathir]

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.

If that isn't the type of information that those players are after they should say so in their thread. I did with my eldar because i like running hawks.... which objectively were horrible for an entire edition so when I asked for advice I'd state the hawks are staying in (along with a few other units I liked). The entire problem with this hobby for most people is communication, people don't tell others what they expect but somehow think they're gonna end up with the game they want. Take the underlined section of your post, what data do you have to support 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.

1) I don't understand the whole crutch thing, some units are better than others, but if your playing againist lists just made of the best choices, the amount of skill required stays the same. Now if your suggesting that clubbing seals doesn't get you better.... I agree but most people don't have fun in that situation, and if they do its more WAAC than being competitive. One sided games suck.

2) Where did you get "the people shouldn't post asking for help in playing what they got" from? I haven't seen anyone suggest that in this thread, that last time I can remember that seeing was back when the old eldar tactica thread was open (which was really just people fighting). Plenty of people will give advice, and yeah some people will say your list sucks.... and other people just say your playing the game wrong. All the OP says is that players on the extremes of the competitive vs. fluffy debate should leave each other alone. Instead of you know suggesting that cause they play the game differently they're not playing 40k.

[murgel2006]

Frankly, I have to agree with Pyriel.
The two communities would be better of If they accepted the difference and the fact that there is no real common approach to the game. One is Sport and one is well something else.
Both ways are fine, non is better they are just incompatible.

Should there be an extra sub-forum or sign or mark to show which approach is taken? I shall hope not. Sportsmen have knowledge that all the other players can use and vice versa.

[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.

[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.

[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.