sick and tired

[Lord Inquisitor]

I don't find it laughable to rank lists either. It's regularly done in WFB (although far less commonly than "hard comp") and typically you'll have several judges who between them play or are intimately familiar with every army and you rate the lists, or a scoring system is devised by which each player can determine their score. While players will inevitably niggle over a point here or there, overall you can get real differentiation between a typical hard tournament list, a more balanced list with less-seen options, an unoptimised list and a total fluffbunny list. You can achieve real variation in competitive players' lists by scoring them. In many regards it's cool, because you effectively get rewarded by taking a poor unit, there's often some unit or model you love but just can't justify in a competitive list normally.

It stands to be noted that players aren't any less competitive in a comp environment, just less extreme lists.

[Glen_Savet]

Pretty awesome 1st world problem to have!

This was my first thought. "Dangit! My grandpa won't let me hook up a wireless router to his internet connection!" Boohoo?

[IcedCrow]

Well... this is a warhammer forum. Wherein we discuss warhammer and related things to warhammer.

There is no disclaimer that we should all remember that there are places in the world that are poor and downtrodden and that we should remember that we have it so good while they suffer.

It's kind of pointless to come into a warhammer forum and deride a conversation or argument based on the fact that 3rd world countries exist.

[Lord Inquisitor]

Indeed you could level that criticism against any complaint or disagreement on warseer.

[Glen_Savet]

You sure could, but this particular argument seems, to me, to be more fatuous than most. I think that's probably because of the...well tribalism that occurs with this "debate" every time it's brought up. No one ever seems to convince anyone of anything, and it's always the same arguments. On both sides.

[Loki Prime]

I think some of the comments in this thread are quite short sighted and don't seem to understand why competitive gamer's make the lists they do.

As a competitive gamer I don't "want to win the game before its started". My favorite opponent is a guy who generally soundly trounces my army to dust. Id rather win a hard fought close match than slaughter someone with a list not geared to the same level as mine. And anyone assuming Id enjoy the latter simply because I win is a bit deluded and you clearly don't understand the majority of competitive gamer's no matter how much you think you do. What I want from my games is a challenge, a game I have to really think about everything I do and a game where my mistakes will be punished and make the difference between winning an losing.

The fact is I spend a long time buying then painting models. I then spend an evening packing them in my case travelling playing a game travelling back etc. All told probably 4-5 hours.

The last thing I want after all that effort is to find my opponent brought a sub-optimal list and clearly is going to need outrageous luck to stand any chance of not been tabled. Complete waste of both our time. I would much rather turn up and find my opponent has a "cheesy" power list and have a game we both think we can win and then end up losing.

Close games are always more fun than one sided ones no matter the outcome.

The reason competitive gamer's try to squeeze every inch out of their codex is the fact is it is much easier to get close games when both players tried to bring the best list they absolutely could and a list that is designed to play against any possible codex. When you can turn up and play one of a number of people and have a close game its much more fun for everyone.

I used to play fluffy list and they were rarely fun.

What generally happened was people brought themed lists that often meant the game was weighted heavily to one side or the other before the game started.
Trying to get a close game where both players use sub optimal units is actually much harder than when both people bring the cheese. Trying to judge the comparable power level when gaming like this generates much more one sided and ultimately un-fun games and in my VAST experience leads to much fewer memorable close games than competitive gaming.

I have played since rogue trader and only started competitive gaming around 5th. Since then I am much less frustrated by the hobby and enjoy it 10 fold. And out of my top 10 ten most memorable games 8 (And my top three) are losses. So stop accusing competitive gamer's of only caring about winning, 99% of the time its just not true.

I do agree its a shame that due to bad codex balance it generally means a lot of armies seem very similar and certain units never get used. This is much preferable to seeing the "rubbish" units on the table in a horrible one sided game though.

Fluffy games between two friends who know each others armies works fine. Turning up to a decent sized club with a fluffy list is completely different, even if everyone else brings the fluff even matches are much less common.

[IcedCrow]

My latest competitive league results disagree with your assertation. While we aren't fielding fluff bunny lists, we also are not fielding ard boyz level lists either. And most of the games have been very close and very even. There are 14 players in that league as well.

I'll take a 9 season format against 9 opponents fielding 9 different armies compared to 9 opponents all fielding basically the same one min/maxed list anyday of the week. The last 40k event that I saw that was uncomped was over 50% silver grey knight armies and another 30% space wolf grey... and there's a reason for that. And I understand that... but that is sooo dull to me.

That is of course my own desire and opinion.

I ran one time a "B" level event where everyone was restricted on half hard units, half not so hard units. It had 30 players in it and each list was submitted before the event. Almost every game at that tournament was close and everyone had a blast. Did not receive a single complaint.

In a competitive optimized bring your hardest list event, those "B" lists would have been totally decimated. So yeah that would have been no fun for most involved (barring the guys that enjoy curb stomping the opposition, and those guys do exist)

[Loki Prime]

I don't disagree that lists with a bit of fluff thrown in can work. If all parties sit down before hand for something like a league etc and discuss lists before hand its likely to make for a great campaign/league/whatever. I have abosolutly no delusion, I don't beleive that my way of gaming is correct and anyone disagreeing is wrong and is killing the hobby. Which seems to be the sentiment towards competitive gamer's.

However turning up for regular club nights when you can be playing anyone of 20-30 people , depending on the time of year, works out a bit different in my experience.

I rarely play against similar lists, as you are rarely matched against the same opponent with any regularity. All codex's are represented, including some forgeworld ones.
My experiences have been the many times I take a fluff list and play another fluff list then games are rarely close. If I take fluff against cheese they are never close. More often than not when I take the cheese I end up playing against cheese and having a close game, a good laugh and going home happy whether I won or lost. More often than not when I used to take the fluff I used to go home thinking, was it really worth it ?

[Loki Prime]

Double post

[ForceM1782]

See dear OP...

You whine about the whiners if i got it right! Which makes you exactly their kind.

I played quite a lot of competitive in 5th and 6th (and was one of the first all-mech players first with Eldar then with SW)

But there is cheese even I would consider too cheesy. Plus i usually won against such lists because i played rather balanced lists on tournaments. I remember picking apart a Chaos Demon list which was essentially only Bloodletters on their gaylord mounts maxed out (it was before Gray night codex and nobody could handle that list). I fought and won but i firmly believe an ape could have played that army as well... There are just "current meta" armies that are so boring i wouldn't play them if someone gave them to me...

[IcedCrow]

I don't disagree that lists with a bit of fluff thrown in can work. If all parties sit down before hand for something like a league etc and discuss lists before hand its likely to make for a great campaign/league/whatever. I have abosolutly no delusion, I don't beleive that my way of gaming is correct and anyone disagreeing is wrong and is killing the hobby. Which seems to be the sentiment towards competitive gamer's.

However turning up for regular club nights when you can be playing anyone of 20-30 people , depending on the time of year, works out a bit different in my experience.

I rarely play against similar lists, as you are rarely matched against the same opponent with any regularity. All codex's are represented, including some forgeworld ones.
My experiences have been the many times I take a fluff list and play another fluff list then games are rarely close. If I take fluff against cheese they are never close. More often than not when I take the cheese I end up playing against cheese and having a close game, a good laugh and going home happy whether I won or lost. More often than not when I used to take the fluff I used to go home thinking, was it really worth it ?

That's because you took an A+ list against an A+ list. That's the point ... having two armies at the same power level will give you a great game. The point of the anti debate is that not everyone WANTS to have to field A+ power level lists to have a good game, because A+ power level lists tend to be the same one or two builds from the same handful of codices that can field them.

If the local club only consists of players that field A+ lists, you either A) bring A+ lists yourself or B) find a new group that fits your playstyle better.

[Lord Inquisitor]

Iced and Loki, this is essentially the pro/anti comp debate that is common in WFB.

Loki, Iced's point is that when you restrict the hardest lists or penalize them in some fashion then the less optimal units become viable and desirable even in a truly competitive environment.

[belgarath97]

The problem, Sir, is what an army is rated is entirely subjective. I've had long weekends wherein I played the same list in friendly pick up games. One of my opponents told me I was jerk, a WAAC guy who was ruining the hobby. Another guy and I played a game that took four hours and we were laughing and having a good old time. He lost and thought I was a hell of a nice guy. Most people I played thought I was just fine and my list average. One guy even started giving me advice because he thought my list was terrible. My point is that all this nonsense about A+, A, B, C, D, and so on lists is just damn funny. The list I was playing was not a tournament list. It was just about average, i.e. I would never take it to a tournament. The very fact that I could go from being a great guy to an evil bastard all with the same list in the same day demonstrates how idiotic trying to rate and hold your opponent accountable for the outcome. I don't assume anything about WHY or HOW the other guy/gal does anything. I'm sure they have their reasons. I have enough to worry about with my own motivations and intent. The point of my army is to destroy your army. The objective in my playing the game with you is for us to be friends and have as good a time as we can playing a head-to-head game. I'm not going to let you win, nor would I want you to do that for me. I want you to give me the best you got with whatever you put on the table (for whatever reason). I'm not going to critique you at the end or offer you any advice (unless you ask for it). If what you have isn't working, I think the outcome will have already said what needs to be said far more eloquently than I can put it.

Just so you know, of the last 4 or 5 posts you put up, this is the first time I wanted to actually play you. What I mean by that, is up until this post I thought your stance harsh and kind of unpleasant. This post I think I finally understand what you've been trying to say. And now I would have no problem playing you, because I don't think you are that different from me.

But something I think you are missing is: it is your responsibility to try to make sure your opponent has fun. Or to put it another way, it is your responsibility to not ruin your opponents fun. The reason you can go from being an evil bastard to great guy with the same list is because you have no care for what your opponent's motivations are. Had you taken a moment to learn them, perhaps "evil bastard" guy and you would have realized the game wasn't going to be much fun and moved on, or perhaps with a clearer understanding of each other he decides to up his list, etc. But your and his failure to "care" why the other guy plays lead to an unpleasant game.

[Spell_of_Destruction]

This brings up the same false dichotomy that has been aired time and time again:-

You're either (a) a battle hardened competitive gamer, willing to sell his mother into slavery to obtain any kind of competitive advantage or (b) a laid back beer and pretzels gamer, who plays games while drinking a six pack and watching the football, barely paying any attention to the game, laughing heartily as your opponent's and your own troops are slaughtered alike.

I do accept that high level competitive gaming deserves to be in a category of its own. Below that, there are any number of categories of gamer.

High level competitive gaming is essentially a no holds barred environment where fluff is irrelevant. Taken to the extreme, even the models are irrelevant - all you really need are counters because the main interest is pushing the game system to its limits at the expense of other aspects of the game.

Below that I think you have high level concept gaming. High level concept gamers want a competitive challenge without completely sacrificing all semblance of narrative. These gamers will start off with a design concept for an army and then try and build the best army they can within that concept. That the gamers do not stretch the game to its absolute limits does not indicate that they are not interested in winning. It's simply that they want to set a boundary to ensure that the game is both competitively and narratively rewarding.

Below that, you're getting into the realm of fluff battles where the story is the most important thing. Lists may be restricted to conform to a particular narrative. That's not to say that players don't try to win the game, but the overall experience is leaning closer to role play and playing a 'characterful' army. I have encountered quite a few players who have collected fluff armies (armies in which units have been chosen for fluff rather than performance reasons) and they will end up mixing with the 'high level concept gamers'. Actual fluff games (i.e. battles with an actual backstory) are rare in my experience as they require a bit of advance planning.

I think most people fall somewhere in a spectrum between these two outlooks.

[Grentain]

Personally, I would consider myself a fairly competitively-minded gamer. I enjoy winning, though I prefer the game to be a hard-fought victory. I usually have several lists written up at any one time, having pored at least a few hours of thought into each one. However, I've got this strange hipster aversion to "The Meta". I have a tendency to avoid Meta lists simply because they're Meta lists.

The most joy I glean from list-building isn't from fluff, or sheer ability to crush my opponent, it's from being able to put something totally unexpected on the table and still make it competitive (if only for the fact that my opponent has no idea how to counter it) For example, when I play WHFB I play Dwarfs, so most people envision thunderers, cannons, rock-throwers, Ironbreakers and so forth, and I have a tendency to get kind of giddy when I place a cannon and an Anvil on the table and tell my opponent that I'm done deploying in 2000 points. Regardless of if I get crushed, or if I win, I relish having a new experience, and being able to harrow my opponent with something they absolutely didn't see coming.

I love to look at a model (particularly one that most people don't like), find out what it's typically used for, and then ask myself "What makes this unit impractical? What can I do to turn the disadvantage around? What kind of shenanigans can I pull with this thing that will completely throw my opponent for a loop?" Sometimes these turn out to be pretty game-crushing ideas that I'll probably end up making a staple of my lists (Fire Dragon Exarch on a Quad Gun), and some of them I haven't had the chance to try out yet but really, really want to (Karandras infiltrating a D-Cannon Battery, thanks to 6E USR wording). Oh yeah. I'm one of those guys who love to find work-arounds in rules to do things you're probably not intended to be able to do, but I'm not so rules-lawyery to bring it to the table without a pretty damn solid backing. I'm not going to convince my opponent that it "could" work a particular way if you interpreted the rules so-so

I think fluffy lists are neat, but it's just not what makes me enjoy 40k. I've got a friend who wanted desperately to run a traitor Guard squad in with his CSM before 6E hit and allies let you do it anyway, and I'm perfectly fine for bending the rules like that for friendly games. I understand that tournament settings don't typically allow that sort of thing, and I respect that. I like playing in tournaments, and in the few I've played in I've done fairly well, and I attribute that to the fact that I strive to be both innovative and competitive in my gameplay.

[samiens]

Just a point, while we have no data, the majority of gamers at any one time are probably 10-13 year olds who, in my experience, are trying desperately hard to win but don't yet have the experience/knowledge/wherewithall to build super effective lists and use them well.

Their choices are guided by a mix of background, models and what they see as competitive. What's great is they don't have all this categorisation nonsense, they just want to play. Playing involves story and winning to them whether at a store or in a tournament. Frankly, plety of adults are like this too and the concept of cheese and divorce of competition and background doesn't exist for them.

Postulating that the majority of gamers is anything you can't substantiate is adding weight to your argument that you can't justify.

[Caitsidhe]

Just so you know, of the last 4 or 5 posts you put up, this is the first time I wanted to actually play you. What I mean by that, is up until this post I thought your stance harsh and kind of unpleasant. This post I think I finally understand what you've been trying to say. And now I would have no problem playing you, because I don't think you are that different from me.

I'm glad you get what I've been trying to say, although I'm rather annoyed with myself that it took this long to express well. I've always felt my stance was both simple and stark, rather than harsh. To me it never seemed anymore harsh than reality itself.

But something I think you are missing is: it is your responsibility to try to make sure your opponent has fun. Or to put it another way, it is your responsibility to not ruin your opponents fun. The reason you can go from being an evil bastard to great guy with the same list is because you have no care for what your opponent's motivations are. Had you taken a moment to learn them, perhaps "evil bastard" guy and you would have realized the game wasn't going to be much fun and moved on, or perhaps with a clearer understanding of each other he decides to up his list, etc. But your and his failure to "care" why the other guy plays lead to an unpleasant game.

I don't accept this, at least not the way you are expressing it. I don't consider it my opponent's responsibility to make sure I have fun, nor the reverse. We have indicated simply by showing up that gaming is our recreation, i.e. we consider it fun. I consider it our mutual responsibility to know the rules, abide by the rules, and have good manners. Ideally we will be fun to be around even while kicking each other in the painful privates on the battlefield. My opponent and I have come to the table with the motivation of playing the game to the best of our ability. It is unreasonable to expect anything beyond that. I'm not psychic. I'm a gamer who goes to a location to play a game. I am providing a service to my opponent, because he/she needs another person to play the game. They are doing the same for me.

Ultimately, it is a matter of personal responsibility. I can't play the game for my opponent. If making sure they have fun becomes my responsibility (rather than theirs) and "fun" is defined as them winning or at the very least always keeping the games extremely close, then I am WORKING and not playing. It is an unreasonable request.

[Caitsidhe]

Just a point, while we have no data, the majority of gamers at any one time are probably 10-13 year olds who, in my experience, are trying desperately hard to win but don't yet have the experience/knowledge/wherewithall to build super effective lists and use them well.

It suffices to say that is NOT my experience in the United States. Children make up a stunningly SMALL percentage of players.

[IcedCrow]

Most of the players ive encountered are 18-25. The 26-35 year olds make a good chunk and then after that its slim.

Ive only seen a handful of children playing.

[Lord Inquisitor]

My experience from living on both sides of the Atlantic are that in the UK you have a GW in every sizable town and these are populated with 12-16 year olds, with a smaller group of 20-25 year olds, and very few older gamers. The game stores in the US are largely independents and most of the teenagers are card fanatics and miniature gaming tends to be in quite a large part older gamers, 30+. Exceptions of course are commonplace but those seem to be the general trends.

While the gaming demographics in the game stores seem to show these trends, I have no real idea how big the overall gaming demographics actually are. In the UK I suspect there are plenty of older gamers but they stick to garage games, tournaments and clubs rather than the game stores. There's no doubt I think that the uk has a lower average gaming age than US, it seems unlikely there's an unseen majority of teenage gamers that don't play in game stores.