sick and tired

[Lord Inquisitor]

Who were the first ones to state how good taking a lash DP was, it wasn't something the makers of the game advertised or stated anywhere. It was found by those looking for the strongest combination who spread the word.

I don't think it took hours of poring through the game looking for abusive combos to see how good the Lash would be. I know I opened the book, read the rules and went "holy cow this is going to be super good".

Funny thing is, the design team don't go out to build the most extreme lists, as it is not part of the philosophy the company has regarding the gaming aspect. If I remember right, when the issues around dual Lash DPs first came up it was something that the design team didn't think anyone would take or words to that extent. How is it the designs teams fault if the game is played in a way they have stated that it is not intended for.

What are they making? It's a game, designed to be played antagonistically. The two players are in direct competition with each other, whatever the playstyle we choose to label them with. This game has points values for units, down to upgrades worth just a point or a handful of points. There is an implicit and explicit design principle that units are worth a value proportional to their points cost and that two armies of equal points should be roughly equal in ability.

If the game is designed to be played antagonistically - and when I say that I mean head-to-head, not that the players are being antagonistic to each other - then the job of the designers is indeed to make it balanced as possible. This may or may not be intended for tournaments, but unless you throw points values out the window yes I expect the game to be balanced. Not every game has points values, Inquisitor for example does not. It is close to impossible to play Inquisitor "competitively" and if you do the campaign will likely implode immediately unless the GM is rather creative. I love Inquisitor, I think it's a fantastic game and it's a very good example of an antagonistic game that is not competitive.

If the designers do not "stress test" their games then, simply, they produce a crummy product. We would expect computer games and other programs to be stress-tested and not just given a buggy product and told "yeah, you're not using it as intended" if you find issues with the program being used without user modification. And software companies have lots of people who do exactly that.

The game places constraints on the players. Sometimes loopholes get through and in all fairness it's hard to see how the designers could possible have predicted that. The "chosenstar" tactic in WFB for example takes a bunch of very reasonable units and turns them into a horrific combination. I didn't see it the first time I read the warriors book indeed it didn't become popular until many years after the book's release.

But... Lash? They didn't see the possibility that people might want to take two HQ units? It's not like it's some loophole like the Chosenstar, it's basic FOC!

Ultimately you can play a narrative game using units that are correctly pointed. It is hard to play a competitive game with units that are incorrectly pointed. If the game is balanced then everybody wins.

[Aluinn]

Gw should do the same thing as Warmachine imho. If you run a fluff list you get bonuses.
Example: on warmachine you have your "general" and that general has affinities with a number a troops/dreadnoughts, if you take only from the list presented, you gain some bonuses depending on each general. For example if you take the Pirate Queen along side 2 dreadnoughts (warjacks) you can place some water terrain on the table, if your warjacks also have the rule amphibious (they can cross water), you can deploy them farther, if you have also pirates they gain the ability to not being slowed by area terrain and so on.

In this way a themed army can play by its strenghts, fluff is preserved and you still have a competitive army. Elegant and simple.

I never saw that as a solution to anything: It just makes for each Warmahordes army having a handful of viable army builds (the ones that get bonuses) and most else being bad. In other words, you're just deferring the question: Competitive players play what is strong, and if you make "fluffy" lists strong, competitive players will just play those lists. However, it really doesn't benefit creative people who want themed armies all that much, unless their desire is limited to an "out-of-the-box" army that has basically been pre-designed for them by PP: "Here's the list for X character; here's the list for Y character", etc. It's similar to calling a Vulkan list the epitome of fluff and theme, when in truth most people just played it (in early 5th) for its power and couldn't give a rat's bum about Salamanders fluff, and meanwhile anyone wanting to create a fluffy themed list for a chapter of their own invention was not helped much by it at all.

[Commissar Davis]

Gw should do the same thing as Warmachine imho. If you run a fluff list you get bonuses.
Example: on warmachine you have your "general" and that general has affinities with a number a troops/dreadnoughts, if you take only from the list presented, you gain some bonuses depending on each general. For example if you take the Pirate Queen along side 2 dreadnoughts (warjacks) you can place some water terrain on the table, if your warjacks also have the rule amphibious (they can cross water), you can deploy them farther, if you have also pirates they gain the ability to not being slowed by area terrain and so on.

In this way a themed army can play by its strenghts, fluff is preserved and you still have a competitive army. Elegant and simple.

Or one could just go and play Warmahordes. One can already do something similar with the special character unlocks, like the Vulcan lists et al. However I can just create my own leader if I want to, something I hear is not doable in Warmahordes.

[Ultraloth]

Does anyone get the feeling that we've slipped into the territory of Star Trek and Star Wars nerds giving each other a hard time?

I don't much care if my regular opponents are competitive or not. The one thing that will make me dislike playing against them is if they take themselves and the game too seriously. Winning a game of toy soldiers makes you feel like a real tough guy? That's just sad. Your dollies suffering defeat makes you mad and have a tantrum? Equally as sad. You want force other people to play with their toys in the same way you do? Shouldn't you have grown out of this? You want to belittle someone else for the way he enjoys playing with his miniature soldiers? You're a Star Trek geek laughing at a Star Wars fan without realizing that the rest of the world thinks you're both extremely sad.

[Caitsidhe]

Does anyone get the feeling that we've slipped into the territory of Star Trek and Star Wars nerds giving each other a hard time?

I don't much care if my regular opponents are competitive or not. The one thing that will make me dislike playing against them is if they take themselves and the game too seriously. Winning a game of toy soldiers makes you feel like a real tough guy? That's just sad. Your dollies suffering defeat makes you mad and have a tantrum? Equally as sad. You want force other people to play with their toys in the same way you do? Shouldn't you have grown out of this? You want to belittle someone else for the way he enjoys playing with his miniature soldiers? You're a Star Trek geek laughing at a Star Wars fan without realizing that the rest of the world thinks you're both extremely sad.

Bingo. I say we just worry about our own lists, stop bothering to try and "tag" people with silly titles, and play the game. Win or lose I'm not going to hold it against the other person or make any excuses.

[Commissar Davis]

I don't think it took hours of poring through the game looking for abusive combos to see how good the Lash would be. I know I opened the book, read the rules and went "holy cow this is going to be super good".

Sure, but did you automatically think of how to abuse it in terms of what else was in the book. From what you say, you did not, the issue is those that do.

Just how did it feel to get called for playing a cheese list that was themed? Now think why, and from where that opinion was formed, an where ,or by whom, having the cheesiest list is normal.

What are they making? It's a game, designed to be played antagonistically. The two players are in direct competition with each other, whatever the playstyle we choose to label them with. This game has points values for units, down to upgrades worth just a point or a handful of points. There is an implicit and explicit design principle that units are worth a value proportional to their points cost and that two armies of equal points should be roughly equal in ability.

If the game is designed to be played antagonistically - and when I say that I mean head-to-head, not that the players are being antagonistic to each other - then the job of the designers is indeed to make it balanced as possible. This may or may not be intended for tournaments, but unless you throw points values out the window yes I expect the game to be balanced. Not every game has points values, Inquisitor for example does not. It is close to impossible to play Inquisitor "competitively" and if you do the campaign will likely implode immediately unless the GM is rather creative. I love Inquisitor, I think it's a fantastic game and it's a very good example of an antagonistic game that is not competitive.

If the designers do not "stress test" their games then, simply, they produce a crummy product. We would expect computer games and other programs to be stress-tested and not just given a buggy product and told "yeah, you're not using it as intended" if you find issues with the program being used without user modification. And software companies have lots of people who do exactly that.

The game places constraints on the players. Sometimes loopholes get through and in all fairness it's hard to see how the designers could possible have predicted that. The "chosenstar" tactic in WFB for example takes a bunch of very reasonable units and turns them into a horrific combination. I didn't see it the first time I read the warriors book indeed it didn't become popular until many years after the book's release.

But... Lash? They didn't see the possibility that people might want to take two HQ units? It's not like it's some loophole like the Chosenstar, it's basic FOC!

Ultimately you can play a narrative game using units that are correctly pointed. It is hard to play a competitive game with units that are incorrectly pointed. If the game is balanced then everybody wins.

If they designers do not have the intention of the game being played using all the best stuff nor does the company blurb support it. If they do not themselves play in a way where either of them expect a certain build to be used, but aim at allowing others to be able to replicate their favourite armies from the background, or building from there own. If the whole idea for the 'game' is to be a playable part of the collecting, painting and background, not the other way round. Why would they need to test it to such extremes? Nothing is generally tested beyond intended use.

The way you argue it, those that make air rifle pellets should know to make them out of something like rubber as there is bound to be someone who knows how to make them quite lethal.

[SideshowLucifer]

The easter egg hunters are the ones that get me. They play Lawyerhammer, which to me just irritates the crap out of me. Don't look for loopholes and think your clever or good for finding them and then sticking to your opinion like it is proven fact, especially if you know damn well it's harmful to the game as a whole.

[Lord Inquisitor]

Sure, but did you automatically think of how to abuse it in terms of what else was in the book. From what you say, you did not, the issue is those that do.

You give me too much credit. Abuse lash? I've done unspeakable things with lash...

Just how did it feel to get called for playing a cheese list that was themed? Now think why, and from where that opinion was formed, an where ,or by whom, having the cheesiest list is normal.

See, the funny thing is that when having a cheesy list is "normal" there is no cheese. No complaints about cheese. I enjoyed Ard Boyz immensely and it was heaps of fun because the cheesiest list was indeed normal. And oddly enough if you can divorce yourself from the idea that bad sportsmanship and "cheesy lists" are linked, you'll find as I did that you can play against people who are just as friendly, fair and fun to play against at these kinds of events.

If they designers do not have the intention of the game being played using all the best stuff nor does the company blurb support it. If they do not themselves play in a way where either of them expect a certain build to be used, but aim at allowing others to be able to replicate their favourite armies from the background, or building from there own. If the whole idea for the 'game' is to be a playable part of the collecting, painting and background, not the other way round. Why would they need to test it to such extremes? Nothing is generally tested beyond intended use.

The way you argue it, those that make air rifle pellets should know to make them out of something like rubber as there is bound to be someone who knows how to make them quite lethal.

Then why bother with points values at all? Or at least why make them so fine scale? Why give the impression of balance? In many ways poor balance hurts "casual" gaming more than competitive gaming. While you can still make up a hard core narrative game and throw points values out the window, few people actually do that. The primary setup for any game is a pre-arranged points value.

The competitive scene can deal with imbalance. WFB Daemons in 7th flat out broke Fantasy. Any suggestion that a match-up between say Orcs and Daemons was even remotely fair was a joke. The competitive scene compensated and soon almost no tournaments ran with the rules "out of the box", and the few that did were mostly GW tournaments and inevitably the top tables were populated with a high proportion of daemon players. Various methods of comping Warhammer appeared and most did the job of bringing balance back to tolerable limits.

The real people who suffered in 7th were people who played relatively casual games and many were simply driven away from the game because the balance was simply at the point of ludicrousness. GW, despite their "not designed for tournaments" stance, has recognised this and 8th saw changes obviously designed to address the balance and indeed the 8th ed books are dramatically better in terms of balance.

[Grimbad]

I'm still baffled by the assertion that fluff gamers 'take underpowered lists on purpose'. It's not like they (we (I)) write a 'normal' army list and then cut out the good parts to add more ogryns. Being underpowered doesn't make something fluffy. They (we (I)) write an army list that they want to play and then play it.

Then why bother with points values at all? Or at least why make them so fine scale? Why give the impression of balance? In many ways poor balance hurts "casual" gaming more than competitive gaming. While you can still make up a hard core narrative game and throw points values out the window, few people actually do that. The primary setup for any game is a pre-arranged points value.

They're hardly fine scale these days, as clearly unequal options often get lumped into the same 5 or 10 point bracket. Presumably to make lists quicker to write.
Whereas second edition points were about twice as fine a scale. And further, Necromunda credits/xp at ten to a 2e point. Not that those are/were any more balanced, just they had more little options. The points have always been pretty approximate.

[ewar]

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.

There are definitely gamers out there who don't give a crap if they win or lose - I have two friends in our gaming group who don't get to play often and just enjoy the social beer and pretzels side of things. They don't really know the rules, they collect the miniatures, paint and read the fluff. When it comes to a game, they will have scraped together an army list of almost entirely random units which they just like the look, feel or idea of. They push forward, roll dice, have a laugh. Honestly, winning or losing is completely irrelevant to them - to the point that when they do rarely win it becomes a big joke in our group that someone lost to them.

This happened to me recently - my cheeks still burn with shame!

[althathir]

Sure, but did you automatically think of how to abuse it in terms of what else was in the book. From what you say, you did not, the issue is those that do.

Just how did it feel to get called for playing a cheese list that was themed? Now think why, and from where that opinion was formed, an where ,or by whom, having the cheesiest list is normal.



If they designers do not have the intention of the game being played using all the best stuff nor does the company blurb support it. If they do not themselves play in a way where either of them expect a certain build to be used, but aim at allowing others to be able to replicate their favourite armies from the background, or building from there own. If the whole idea for the 'game' is to be a playable part of the collecting, painting and background, not the other way round. Why would they need to test it to such extremes? Nothing is generally tested beyond intended use.

The way you argue it, those that make air rifle pellets should know to make them out of something like rubber as there is bound to be someone who knows how to make them quite lethal.

The company blurb is basically just to have fun, for a lot of people "breaking the armies" and playing againist other "broken" armies is a lot of fun and GW doesn't say don't do this. I understand that guys on the other extreme don't enjoy that style of game, and basically the OP of this thread was basically just saying we don't agree on whats fun lets leave each other alone. I can understand the tone of some the comments being seen as condescending, but I think to a degree its a valid message (w/o the condescension). At least in some part because both tend to have a meta (though the fluffly guys really run a much wider gamut, cause some of the beardy lists... are fluffy) and some lists that are really good in one aren't as great in other.

There are definitely gamers out there who don't give a crap if they win or lose - I have two friends in our gaming group who don't get to play often and just enjoy the social beer and pretzels side of things. They don't really know the rules, they collect the miniatures, paint and read the fluff. When it comes to a game, they will have scraped together an army list of almost entirely random units which they just like the look, feel or idea of. They push forward, roll dice, have a laugh. Honestly, winning or losing is completely irrelevant to them - to the point that when they do rarely win it becomes a big joke in our group that someone lost to them.

This happened to me recently - my cheeks still burn with shame!

Yeah I know a few guys like that, I think they've become rarer though due to the high cost of the hobby. Plus its seems to be a byproduct of being married, and they always have the desperate "this is my man time most make the most of it look" that mainly you just see at bachelor parties.

[Lord Inquisitor]

I'm still baffled by the assertion that fluff gamers 'take underpowered lists on purpose'. It's not like they (we (I)) write a 'normal' army list and then cut out the good parts to add more ogryns. Being underpowered doesn't make something fluffy. They (we (I)) write an army list that they want to play and then play it.

No, a weak army list doesn't necessarily make you noncompetitive or fluffy. However, assuming you select your units on some basis other than optimised list formation ... it probably isn't going to be optimised.

They're hardly fine scale these days, as clearly unequal options often get lumped into the same 5 or 10 point bracket. Presumably to make lists quicker to write.
Whereas second edition points were about twice as fine a scale. And further, Necromunda credits/xp at ten to a 2e point. Not that those are/were any more balanced, just they had more little options. The points have always been pretty approximate.

Most upgrades are multiples of five but all unit points values are not. You can still end up 1 point over. But even at 5 point increments we're looking at 5 points being 1/400 of an army. That's pretty fine scale.

Sure, having fine point scale doesn't make things balanced. But it certainly gives the impression that it is.

[ewar]

Yeah I know a few guys like that, I think they've become rarer though due to the high cost of the hobby. Plus its seems to be a byproduct of being married, and they always have the desperate "this is my man time most make the most of it look" that mainly you just see at bachelor parties.

Haha, very true. I am in the same boat really, but I'm much more into the gaming side than them. When we play as a group we generally try and structure it so that there is one person on each table who knows the rules! One mate has been playing for 10-15 years and still, every single game we have the same conversation:

"Your guys are WS4, mine are WS3"
"Sooo... 4s?"
"Ummm... no, just like last round, it's 3s"
"Right, right, of course"
"So that's 10 hits, you're S4, I'm T4"
"Cool, so 3s"
/smack myself in the face with BRB

[Commissar Davis]

No, a weak army list doesn't necessarily make you noncompetitive or fluffy. However, assuming you select your units on some basis other than optimised list formation ... it probably isn't going to be optimised.

Optimised for what? What are you optimising for? To build a list that is optimised to represent say Imperial Fists, or are your referring ones just to beat face with?

Then why bother with points values at all? Or at least why make them so fine scale? Why give the impression of balance? In many ways poor balance hurts "casual" gaming more than competitive gaming. While you can still make up a hard core narrative game and throw points values out the window, few people actually do that. The primary setup for any game is a pre-arranged points value.

There is some balance, it is not finely tuned, but it is there unless people are just taking builds to wreak others armies.

[FlashGordon]

Wow. Competetive players are soo whiney.

[Chivs]

I'm going to put this whole argument in the perspective that "I" hear it. Let's cast back our senses many, many decades to WWII. The Desert Fox has just recently appeared in Africa and made one heck of a big splash. The British find themselves driven back and demoralized. I'm sure the excuses of some of the earlier Generals went something like this:

British General:
"Bloody coward! That is what this Rommel chap is. Desert Fox indeed. The ONLY reason he beat us is his lack of honor. He won't bring his tanks out to meet ours. He just swings them around to butcher our infantry or counter attack those Tommys that can't defend themselves against armor."

Churchill:
"Coward or not it seems to be working you damn fool. Don't we have one General in this army that can win a battle?"

General:
"You don't understand Prime Minister. He just uses artillery to kill our tanks without us being able to engage them. It is more murder than battle. He doesn't deserve his reputation. A real General is measured by his winning victories against terrible odds."

Churchill:
"A real general is measured by his success. You are fired."

FADE SCENE

Ok, before a bunch of you start buzzing at me that comparing real war to this game is silly, I would remind you this is a war game. Tactics, strategy, and logistical support are all well represented in the rules. Choosing to ignore one or more of these aspects of the game is certainly your right, but you have no one to blame but yourself.

It’s a very odd analogy to describe the meta game of optimising your list (by only choosing the most powerful/broken units depending on your viewpoint). The whole point of a 40k game is that it is two roughly equal sides coming into battle. In real warfare, rarely will the two battle lines be even.
And if we’re going for historical analogies, let’s remember that the war in the Pacific was ended with the dropping of 2 atomic bombs. We can certainly win our 40k battles if we set fire to our opponents carry cases before the battle begins!
Yes, that is hyperbole, and your point should be valid in the context of the game itself. It would be poor sportsmanship to decry your opponent using his army in a way that you disagree with for background reasons, for example using Wyches to fight more vehicles than infantry because they have Haywire grenades. This is the general using his troops in a way he sees fit, and if he does it well it may bring him success. It may even cover list optimisation the way it should be, when you take a slightly unusual choice that your opponent is unprepared for, or you find new ways to use units that you’ve never taken. It shouldn’t cover the kind of optimisation this thread is talking about, which is just taking a badly priced unit again and again.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As to which group ‘whines’ the most, well it probably is going to be the non-optimised group, but is it hard to see why? A lot of this thread has been about how the different groups are balanced against themselves, but not against each other. And people do prefer to win rather than lose (as no-one goes into their game trying to score a lose. “Yay I got wiped out! ”) How badly they feel about winning or losing depends on the person. There are people, myself amongst them, that say that a closely fought loss or draw is better than a curb stomp win, but what we don’t say is that a closely fought win is better still.

If an optimised list is fighting another optimised list then, in theory at least, the game is an even battle and each player has a chance to win, lose or draw. The outcome of the game will be decided on a mix of skill and luck. Fun can be had.

Likewise two non-optimised lists will likely fit this situation. Even chance of winning or losing; Fun can be had.

It’s when the two ideologies meet that we have problems, and it’s where (in my opinion) the use of the word ‘optimised’ is flawed. Here one player has a vastly greater chance of winning. Is it unsurprising that if the player with the weaker list is entering a game where his chance of winning is minimal before a single dice roll is made, he may be unhappy about it. I think it’s legitimate to complain about the army list chosen if it decides a game before either force has been set up. Attacking the opponent himself, less so.
I laugh at the idea of grading a list from A* to D like it’s an exam paper. It’s even more hilarious when the first of the inevitable “So what’s my list graded then?” gets told that it can’t be done. The idea of some lists being tougher to beat is an inevitable part of a rich and diverse game, but the difference between the two limits has gone to the extreme.
And whilst I am more on ‘the side’ of the non-optimised gamer, I’m not going to excuse GW for a) failing to spot the problematic units before a product is released, but more importantly b) failing to do anything about it.

Finally, Pyriel (who started this thread) has got another one open in 40k general about how Black Templar’s are severely handicapped in 6th Edition. He bemoans that while there was one semi competitive build in 5th (Min maxed shooty) the effectiveness of this has been reduced due to the new rules, especially in a close combat focused army, or the points efficiency of some units doesn't compare across to other Marine codices.
To quote:

however, i feel inclined to say i am so IMPOSSIBLY bored of being forced to play shooty lists despite having chosen a cc chapter. its just, i'd even prefer if i didnt have the shooty options to begin with-at least then, i'd play a "bad cc list". now, if i play a cc list, i feel STUPID, cause the codex works so much better as a gunline. at least worked in 5th, now the shooty optons seem nerfed too. maybe i can finaly get the lesser of two evils and be a "worthless cc codex", yay!

...what other cc choices do i have? i dont even have vanguards. i have bikers,(at least they are durable) but vanilla marines do it better and cheaper. assault squads also suck since they , like normal crusader squads, actualy let their opponents roll saves, and are also made of paper.not to mention BA do it better, but thats not bad cause they're supposed to do it better. normal elites squads (sword brethren) also suck since they can only get one powerfist per squad, not even two.

I don’t think his complaints are invalid. Codex: Black Templars was released in 2005, and the game has heavily changed at least twice since then.

But…

Can this viewpoint not be extended across our whole game? Is it so hard to understand why people may not want to play their army in a certain way? There are a number of reasons why a person may not want to use a particular unit, once or repeatedly. Off the top of my head:
Seen as boring
Don’t like the model
Can’t afford the model
Doesn’t fit with background
Doesn’t fit playstyle
Prefer model/background of another unit
Already have models for competing unt
Don’t want to be labelled cheesy

If the game is balanced, then this choice doesn’t matter. If the game is unbalanced, then the choice is significant, and to label those who don’t make the choice as ‘uncompetative’ or ‘complainers’ is just as bad as calling those who do ‘cheesy’ and ‘WAAC’.

So how do we hold Games Workshop to account for this? What can we actually do?

[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.

[x-esiv-4c]

Pretty awesome 1st world problem to have!

[Caitsidhe]

It’s a very odd analogy to describe the meta game of optimising your list (by only choosing the most powerful/broken units depending on your viewpoint). The whole point of a 40k game is that it is two roughly equal sides coming into battle. In real warfare, rarely will the two battle lines be even.

The whole point of the 40K game is that two opponents (in theory) can build a list of roughly equal points. If Games Workshop has done their job, armies of roughly equal points should be more or less balanced. You have free will, and thus can build the best army for your style possible. I should be building to compliment my style. Since I have no idea what my opponent will field, there is no way for me to build to compliment that list.

And if we’re going for historical analogies, let’s remember that the war in the Pacific was ended with the dropping of 2 atomic bombs. We can certainly win our 40k battles if we set fire to our opponents carry cases before the battle begins!

If the game included nukes, I'm sure one side or the other would make use of them IF (and only if) they were a good return on the points. Again, it is the responsibility of Games Workshop to include things which are appropriate to the game. There are, in fact, 40K armies that attempt to win the battle before it even begins. The infamous Leaf Blower designs functioned on mechanic of blowing most of the opponent off the board on the 1st turn or by the time they reached even halfway across. That is how an artillery army functions. If Games Workshop doesn't want people building an artillery army, they shouldn't have put it in there.

Yes, that is hyperbole, and your point should be valid in the context of the game itself. It would be poor sportsmanship to decry your opponent using his army in a way that you disagree with for background reasons, for example using Wyches to fight more vehicles than infantry because they have Haywire grenades. This is the general using his troops in a way he sees fit, and if he does it well it may bring him success. It may even cover list optimisation the way it should be, when you take a slightly unusual choice that your opponent is unprepared for, or you find new ways to use units that you’ve never taken. It shouldn’t cover the kind of optimisation this thread is talking about, which is just taking a badly priced unit again and again.

We play the game as it stands. The problem with "subjective" evaluation of the lists of your fellow players is that it places the blame on them for the mistakes of Games Workshop. Who am I to tell someone else HOW to build their lists when they are remaining within the rules, think their list is cool, and paid for their models? Do I think there are balance issues? Sure. I'm just not going to be a jerk and anoint myself judge, jury, and executioner of other players. That would be rather arrogant. I'm going to hold Games Workshop responsible for a shoddy product, not the people playing it.

[IcedCrow]

I laugh at the idea of grading a list from A* to D like it’s an exam paper. It’s even more hilarious when the first of the inevitable “So what’s my list graded then?” gets told that it can’t be done. The idea of some lists being tougher to beat is an inevitable part of a rich and diverse game, but the difference between the two limits has gone to the extreme.

You can laugh away. As an event organizer, you can either run a no holds barred list where people just build whatever or you can have a power cap. If you're going to have a power cap you need to have an idea of how far you are capping. As I said earlier, it has worked great and the lists being brought to our events have made all of the games close and fun because no one is bringing an Ard Boyz list and taking it against someone else bringing a fun list that lacks in super optimization. If the codexes were all balanced this would not be a problem.

The codices have NEVER been balanced

An ard boyz level super optimized list vs a list that is not as optimized is not a fun game for either player unless the optimized player likes curb stomping people or the not as optimized player enjoys a rough challenge.

And I never said ranking that dark eldar list "couldn't be done". I said at the moment I was asked I did not have the experience to give an on the spot judgement on its power rating. If I'm running a 40k event and I say "please keep your army lists to "A" level" and a dark eldar player approached me with a list, I would go research it and give an informed opinion on it. "A" level is pretty lenient. It's pretty much "is this list busted and something that would be taken to ard boyz?"

If yes then it's not appropriate.
If no then its fine.

I've yet to meet a player that couldn't tell the distinction between a tough list that was not pushed over the top, and an over the top net list. 9 Night scythe necron army? Probably a bit extreme. Most people would recognize that as being as such and know not to bring it to one of our games. Optimized maxed out grey knights? Yeah that's not hard to spot either. Etc.

As an event organizer I care most that everyone involved is having fun. An optimizing power gamer may not want to have to lower his optimization. In this case, he knows in advance that this event would ask him to do that and if he wouldn't have fun he won't engage.

On the flip side it lets the other end of the spectrum know that there will be some hard elements present but nothing over the top ard boyz level, and if they think that's still too much they won't engage.

And nearly everyone has been happy and there have been no complaints, so I view that as a huge success regardless of how "laughable" someone on the internet feels about the subject of ranking lists. Comp tournaments do the same thing only they apply a comp score to your army list.

My end goal has never been to get 100% of the population to participate. It has been to get 100% of the participants to enjoy themselves.