sick and tired

[samiens]

Fair enough, I should have prefaced it with what I see in the UK. As ever it just shows we really don't have any idea what the real demographics of gw gamers are and so shouldn't try to lend strength to an argument by stating an unknowable

[Caitsidhe]

I suppose this might explain their demographic choices, if they believe the American market mirrors the United Kingdom. It doesn't. It isn't remotely like that. The market here is primarily 18+ with most in their mid-20s to 60s. Children are seen only rarely when a parent brings them in to watch or play a learning game. All my opponents are adults and hence why I don't feel particularly obligated to take it easy on them. It would be insulting to do so. One might treat a child like that but doing so to another adult is to show contempt.

[ForgottenLore]

and "fun" is defined as them winning or at the very least always keeping the games extremely close,

But winning ISN'T necessarily how someone defines "fun", and all people are saying is that you have a responsibility to understand what your opponent wants out of the game so that your not actively sabotaging their enjoyment. You don't have to be working toward their having fun, just not working against it.

Just a point, while we have no data, the majority of gamers at any one time are probably 10-13 year olds who,

Not even close. In 25 years of gaming I think the only kids under 15 I have ever seen in a miniatures gaming store have been the toddler children of the 30 something warhammer players.

I suppose this might explain their demographic choices, if they believe the American market mirrors the United Kingdom. It doesn't.

Very true. I have long wished that GW would do (and that I could see) some market research on their demographics. Not just age and region, but other stuff as well. i would love to know if certain armies are more or less popular in certain countries. How the Space Marine sales ACTUALLY break down, based on age and region, are Tau more popular in japan than elsewhere, is chaos more or less popular in the US, what ages play in clubs vs stores in various regions? That sort of thing would be fascinating data.

[samiens]

Forgottenlore- while as above I can see there is a major shift between the US and UK markets. I can assure you I run into a majority of kids here- occassionally I have to play them at tournaments (which is frustrating tbh). Heck, I started playing at 12 or so and knew plenty who did (im 28 now for the record)

[GodlessM]

Forgottenlore- while as above I can see there is a major shift between the US and UK markets. I can assure you I run into a majority of kids here- occassionally I have to play them at tournaments (which is frustrating tbh). Heck, I started playing at 12 or so and knew plenty who did (im 28 now for the record)

The plethora of English tournament results says otherwise. If you only play in GW stores, that would explian it, but these days that's a minority of players no matter where you are.

[Caitsidhe]

But winning ISN'T necessarily how someone defines "fun", and all people are saying is that you have a responsibility to understand what your opponent wants out of the game so that your not actively sabotaging their enjoyment. You don't have to be working toward their having fun, just not working against it.

The problem I have encountered is that it is indeed about "winning." Most of the people I play that actually complain (there aren't many) seem to be the kind that like to tell everyone that they don't care about winning. The game then proceeds and they get very irate if they do not win or get crushed. We aren't just talking about optimized lists here. I've beaten the pants off people with what would be considered fluffy, soft lists too. The end result was the same. The other person had a tantrum. As long as rating another player's list or even their play style remains utterly subjective, the problem will remain. Subjective equals biased. The only thing we, as players, share that is exactly the same is the rules, values, and force organization. We, as the players, didn't rate it or come up with it. Games Workshop provided it. It isn't subjective. If we agree to play by those rules, we must accept those rules and values, period. If we don't accept them and feel they are unbalanced, unfair, and cause issues then we should lay the blame where it belongs (at Games Workshop's doorstep). I was regularly trounced by a Fatecrusher List that showed up just for tournaments to take away all the prize support. There wave very little I could do about it. I didn't blame the other player for wanting to play his perfectly legal, brtually effective list which he has painstakingly (at great cost) put together. What I resented was the shortsightedness and stupidity of Games Workshop for having that thing out there. The new Edition has somewhat balanced this obscenity.

[samiens]

The plethora of English tournament results says otherwise. If you only play in GW stores, that would explian it, but these days that's a minority of players no matter where you are.

Im not sure that's the case. For what its worth im a fully signed up competitive player and while I do play at my local gw as its really convenient I always book games against adults.

Plus with the large number of school clubs, school league, young blood Throne of Skulls and the number of kids in GW stores if I were to guess, I would say there are more kids playing gw games in the UK than adults but I don't think any data exists to settle this somewhat tangential point

[Scammel]

@ Caitsidhe

Unfortunately, I think a lot of what you just said can be surmised as 'dicks are dicks' and that the game's lack of balance gives such dicks ammunition to be dicks. On the other hand, at the same time there are many occasions where perfectly decent players have turned up with lists that are neither here nor there competitively in an environment where that might be the norm and then gotten trounced by someone who had no appareciation of the expected norms of that player or environment (or worse, was indeed aware and purposely took advantage of it) and the player in question ends up disappointed as a result. It's important to differentiate between the dicks and the players in the given situation - it strikes me that you've had so many encounters with the former that you've perhaps become less able or willing to identify the latter, as it were.

[GodlessM]

You are talking about specifically designed for kids. Just take a glance at the year in passing on RHQ or any other site that holds mass tournament results and you will see the predominantly adult player base step forward.

[Caitsidhe]

Unfortunately, I think a lot of what you just said can be surmised as 'dicks are dicks' and that the game's lack of balance gives such dicks ammunition to be dicks. On the other hand, at the same time there are many occasions where perfectly decent players have turned up with lists that are neither here nor there competitively in an environment where that might be the norm and then gotten trounced by someone who had no appareciation of the expected norms of that player or environment (or worse, was indeed aware and purposely took advantage of it) and the player in question ends up disappointed as a result. It's important to differentiate between the dicks and the players in the given situation - it strikes me that you've had so many encounters with the former that you've perhaps become less able or willing to identify the latter, as it were.

I don't think that is an unfair observation. There may indeed be merit to it. I've listened to so many people whine and use the "excuse" of claiming the person who beat them is a WAAC jerk that doesn't get the game, or I just lost because you spam units, or any of the countless variations of scapegoating the opponent, that I don't really believe in the legitimate version anymore. I think that the "legitimate" gripe is about as rare as the actual WAAC cheating jerk. The amount of complaining and endless burbling whining about "competitive" would give someone coming to the Forum the impression that they are a massive army, an endless horde destroying game stores and overwhelming the brave, few non-competitive (but clearly very vocal) players who remain.

The fact that so-called competitive types don't take the the internet airwaves to endlessly demonize their counterparts is very telling don't you think?

The fact is that I live and play in the United States. As such, all of my opponents are adults (and mostly in their 30s). This means they should be mature enough to know how the game is played and be able to suffers the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune at least as well as I do. If they don't have the temperament for playing head to head games (where someone is going to win and someone is going to lose) they should do the rest of us a favor and find another hobby. Nobody likes losing, but as adults we deal with the losses as the price we pay to take part in a fun hobby. To throw a fun Roadhouse set of quotes in here:

Morgan: What am I supposed to do?
Dalton: There's always barber college.

[samiens]

You are talking about specifically designed for kids. Just take a glance at the year in passing on RHQ or any other site that holds mass tournament results and you will see the predominantly adult player base step forward.

Not sure if this is in response to me, my kids comments have only been made to counter the comment that proclaimed what the majority of gamers want x, my point being that we can't accurately identify who make up the majority and therefore cannot claim to know their opinions.

Im not on RHQ, for reasons irrelevant here, but im a tourney goer so spend my time playing the adult gw scene, im just saying im aware there is a large kid scene in the UK too (I avoid it as much as possible as I don't believe we would enjoy playing each other much!)

[Omniassiah]

Most "Competative" players want the game to be balanced so that units are actually worth what they are pointed at or at least close enough that by solid generalship they can be either be useful or beaten depending on what side you are on. For some reason, and I don't get this point at all, is that some of the vocal so-called "fluffy/beer and pretzel" gamers can't stand this idea as it will break the ability to have narrative games. But if it was this way, then it wouldn't matter what 2000 point army you came up against you would have a solid game with both players have a good chance of victory at the onset. You could bring your rough-rider list or what ever else you want to think up and have a good shot at having fun. You could run a themed Crimson Fist versus orks game and it would be fine. Sadly the lack of this makes me really hate to play narrative style games in 40k because a lot of the times one of the armies is just putting models on the table for others to roll dice at and I could be on either side of that coin.

[Spell_of_Destruction]

Um I haven't met many 'beer and pretzel' gamers who think that balance is an inherently bad thing. I you got the reasoning the wrong way round. Most gamers simply acknowledge the lack of balance and feel that some restraint is required in order for the game to be enjoyable. The objection is to those who push an unbalanced system to it limits. If the game could be better balanced that would be great.

[Woodsman]

Really we make lots of assumptions about other people and care too much about what they're doing. I suppose this is an isssue if you play in a store because you never know who/what you're playing which can lead to clashes in interest style.

I like to think of myself as a chilled gamer - I do it to relax, meet a few friends, much as some people play darts to socialise. I haven't been to a tournament in a decade. However, (perhaps sadly) I find the highly competitive/optimising players easier to deal with if I have to play them. Such players draw a clear line in the sand, sure you might get raised eyebrows or people sak why you use Swooping Hawks but there's no judgment beyond the fact is a 'stupid' decision. They always (in my experience) understand what I'm doing even if its not for them. "Fluff gamers" are often much less approachable.

Partly because fluff can be used to justify almost anything - in my mind a purely airborn force is the natural response to a chaos incursion yet many will deride it as spam and cheese. This is not too much of an issue if fluffy lists are always considered fine, but when a fluffy list e.g. all bike army goes from being rubbish to good people start looking down on it. The fact that someone might have always had such an army is all too often ignored.

Then there is a slavish love of fluff - Eldrad should only show up in Ulthwe themed list and can't possibly be used to represent a powerful ancients seer from anywhere else etc...

Finally people outside 'competitive' games seem to delight in judging you for taking certain choices e.g. a level four in fantasy of melta spam. The term crutch is much loved for whatever reason. Why do you care?? Let them bring it, maybe (almost certainly) I'm not such a good general and need that 'crutch' thanks for rubbing that in my face Or perhaps I've always used X even when it was utter **** and its a part of the in depth back story for my army.


So basically to echo what a few people have already said - do what you enjoy and try to find a few like minded peple, but most of all I like the way you mov... erm, most of all just let everyone else get on with it.

[HRM]

"Winning isn't everything; it's the only thing."

- Henry "Red" Sanders (no, NOT Vince Lombardi, though he DID famously use it).

[Omniassiah]

Um I haven't met many 'beer and pretzel' gamers who think that balance is an inherently bad thing. I you got the reasoning the wrong way round. Most gamers simply acknowledge the lack of balance and feel that some restraint is required in order for the game to be enjoyable. The objection is to those who push an unbalanced system to it limits. If the game could be better balanced that would be great.

Like I said it was some of the vocal ones and heard almost word for word that statement in several threads on this forums discussing rule balancing. The argument continued that it wasn't the job of the devs but us as the gamers to make sure we balance the game through our lists. Like I said I didn't get it then and don't get it now. Blame the Devs like you should and make them start fixing the stuff, don't blame another player for what they bring.

Finally people outside 'competitive' games seem to delight in judging you for taking certain choices e.g. a level four in fantasy of melta spam. The term crutch is much loved for whatever reason. Why do you care?? Let them bring it, maybe (almost certainly) I'm not such a good general and need that 'crutch' thanks for rubbing that in my face Or perhaps I've always used X even when it was utter **** and its a part of the in depth back story for my army.

Now this is the part that bugs me. I have had a mechanized IG army from the time the Armageddon codex came out. Bought the Army box set of steel legion and rolled with because at the time I was part of 1st Armored Division in Germany. After I came back from Iraq I started building the army up to the massive IG force I have. I continued it based off the 4th infantry division (Mech.) which was the unit deployed with. I have the roster of the force with every trooper and vehicle crew man named after a soldier that was killed up to 2006 in that deployment. Fast forward to the current 'dex release and I start getting hit with the power gamer/WAAC player/bandwagoneer term left and right and that I have to reign my list in or else I am a dick? And people wonder where people like Lord Inquisitor gets the idea that "Fluffy/casual" players tend to be a bit more hostile then Tourney players.

[Spell_of_Destruction]

Like I said it was some of the vocal ones and heard almost word for word that statement in several threads on this forums discussing rule balancing. The argument continued that it wasn't the job of the devs but us as the gamers to make sure we balance the game through our lists. Like I said I didn't get it then and don't get it now. Blame the Devs like you should and make them start fixing the stuff, don't blame another player for what they bring.

I don't have a fixed opinion on the issue of whether or not GW should do more to make the game balanced. I certainly have the appetite for a tight, well balanced system but if anything GW is moving away from that model (they tried it half heartedly at the end of 4th edition). I have to adapt to the situation as it stands.

It's obvious to me why predominantly competitive players want a more balanced system. A system with a large number of strategic options at the highest level is considerably more rewarding than a system which requires you to take a variation of one of a handful of power lists to give yourself a chance. As 40k currently stands, I don't see the point in playing it competitively so I can see where competitive players are coming from.

At some stage you have to come to the realisation that you're probably not going to get what you want - you either need to enjoy the system for what it is or move on. I think 6th ed may require a bit more restraint than we have become accustomed to in the 3rd to 5th ed phase. I still don't see the game coming close to 2nd ed levels. Force organisiation restrictions were practically non existent. If you wanted to cram your army full of nothing but Wolf Guard termies (as a time when assault cannons were truly terrifying) there was nothing to stop you. Most of us understood the need for restraint. Perhaps we need to re-learn that rather than digging into every new set of rules with the vigour of tax lawyers pouring over a new tax code.

[zippy_tang]

I may not have a huge amount to say about this topic since i would consider myself one of those hardcore fluff bunnies, however I have been in this hobby for almost a decade and the most important thing to remember about tabletop wargaming is that you make the most of it and everyone is entitled to enjoy it in 'their' own way. Whether it is painting, converting, gaming ,campaigning, reading or simply having a blast meeting new people and talking about the games we love, we mustn't lose sight of why we are here in the first place.

Warhammer 40k to me has always been a great storytelling game for myself and my gaming group. What I mean by this is while there has been many an epic moments in games of fantasy, warmachine, rules of engagement, bloodbowl etc. 40k always takes the cake for amazing stories of crazy last stands and astounding accomplishments from even the pluckiest of foot soldiers and for this reason alone it feels more immersive. Once a player begins to bring gamey lists to the table this immersion melts off the table for me and thus hurts my overall experience. I have played against some great people in my time who have brought absolute filth to the table and the experience meets somewhere in the middle.

All i know is my gaming group that I have mostly grown up with has a mixed bag of intentions. There's the clueless guy who builds decent lists and plays them poorly. The guy who unknowingly brings a filthy list to every game and causes much groaning. The guy who brings fluffy lists but plays them with a competitive mindset. the guy who pulls things out of his cases in no particular order and plays whats on the table when he hits the point limit, and of course myself the fluff bunny who brings terrible units to the table because i like the way they 'feel' and play. Once again at the end of the day we mustn't lose sight of why we are here in the first place. Understand that we all enjoy our hobby in different ways and just have a good time!

cheers

[Walls]

Why are these threads allowed and not shut down but when a rumor thread has a couple posts that turn to wishlisting or a thread goes slightly off topic it's modhammered immediately? This thread has participated with zero positivitity to the hobby and forum.

[quantumcollider]

I don't understand why this is a problem.

I consider myself to be a very casual gamer, and my units are often selected based on how they look (and the amount of time I spent painting them) so I doubt my armylist are great, but once I join in a battle with anyone else I only demand that we both play according to the rules we've agreed on (i.e. follow the rules in the rulebook unless we agree on something else beforehand). How he builds his list is his prerogative. It's his army after all.

If I lose often, I may decide that a change in my army is in order. If he brings the same list time and again, I might decline a battle. That is my prerogative. No one can force me to battle him. If he wants to argue why, I will them him honestly that I think his army has become boring to play against and I don't feel like playing against it. No hard feelings. He might make some changes to his army and tactics to humour me, or not. Again his prerogative, no hard feelings.

The point is, battling again one another is not a right, and whether you are a competitive gamer or a casual one, you have no claim on the other persons army or his desire to battle you. Instead, it is a gentlemen's agreement for both to have a good time, and if someone want to make concessions to the other guy to improve his enjoyment, well then that's just great. If not, you should not enter into that battle in the first place.