sick and tired

[Lord Inquisitor]

Competitive and fluff gamers aren't mutually exclusive.

There are a large range of people that are "competitive", just as there are many types of player more interested in other aspects. They blend and there's no reason you can't be more than one type. Or indeed different play styles for different games. I'm very competitive about WFB but not at all about Inquisitor. Here are some common competitive/tournament "types":

"The two-fisted coward" - player with an optimised list that likes to style himself as the biggest fish in his pond. Likes to play against obviously inferior players/lists repeatedly, just to win, but doesn't want to play someone good and will often decry a powerful list as "cheese". Frequents the game stores but not so much tournaments (might face someone better there...).

"The serious tournament gamer" - plays with a max optimised list, practices the crap out of it and plays to win, but plays to beat the best. Travels to tournaments to play the best in the hope of being the best. Doesn't have a lot of interest in playing new players or suboptimal lists, no interest in crushing newbies but wants to find the best opponent he can. Any newly-discovered "cheese" is a challenge to be fought repeatedly until beaten.

"The WAACer" - literally, doing anything they can to win. Often likes tournaments but rarely scores well for sportsmanship. Typically will bend the rules, harangue their opponent or outright cheat. Yuck. Fortunately relatively rare.

"The underdog" - competitive, but insists on taking a suboptimal army/list. Accustomed to losing and often a great sport, but he'll play his hardest so don't underestimate him because he knows what he's doing. A win with a cheesy list isn't much of a win for the underdog, but a win with a bottom-dwelling army is all that much more sweet. The underdog often has a themed army.

"The artist" - he's at competitive tournaments but he's aiming for that best painted prize. He may be competitive or not about the game, often fairly happy to just chill and play (just don't knock his models!), but the paint scoring will have him on tenterhooks.

"The nice guy" - he's there for a good time. Typically great to play against (as long as he doesn't get too distracted telling funny stories to finish the game!). Why does he go to tournaments? Just to have a bunch of good games, meet up at the bar afterwards, etc.

[IcedCrow]

I've been "the underdog" now for several years

[IcedCrow]

Yes judge those lists so.

I'd judge the GK list you are talking about as a solid "B" list. It has a good mix of things, some good, some not so good which is the definition of a "B" list. It seems like a fun list to play against. An optimized list would blow it off the table more times than not.

[Ereshkigal]

And my list?

[Scammel]

I aim to be Lord Inquisitor's 'underdog'. Though competitive value influences some of my buying decisions, just as often I'll buy a unit because the model(s) is/are cool, or I've got a conversion idea, or it fits a particular theme. Once it hits the table though, I'll use it as best I can to defeat my opponent - no silly tactics or 'cinematic' decisions unless the game absolutely calls for it.

[unknown_lifeform]

I think we are confusing "power gamer" with WAAC gamer...

If that's addressed to me then no, to me WAAC invokes something different than power gamer which is again different to a competitive gamer. To me a WAAC gamer is a competitive gamer without any sense of honour or fair play - they'll resort to all advantages including gamesmanship, dodgy rules interpretations, creative measurement, selective memory and application of the rules and, if they think they can get away with it, cheating.

I think we all probably understand different things by these phrases even whilst we all recognise these types of people exist, whatever we call them. The point I was trying to make (and I think Lord Inquisitor since made) is that it can be easy for fluff gamers to lump all these types in together because they can look the same on the surface (they all take super optimised lists) which results in competitive gamers getting undeserved hate.

[TheDungen]

i'm easily the underdog with a portion of the nice guy and a smaller portion of the artist.

If i play i want to win with my army, and while i might be a bit rusty i could probably be a good player again after a few months of defeats.

[IcedCrow]

And my list?

I don't know enough about dark eldar to make a judgement on what kind of list that is. They aren't seen very often here, I would need to research before I could give an informed opinion on its power scale.

[Commissar Davis]

That's not what most people consider spam. If I field five squads of tactical marine that's not what most people have an issue with. Spam is repetitive overpowered choices to most people.

We can nitpick the definition if you want but most armies have an element you'd think that would compose most of its elements.

Marines -> tactical squads
IG -> platoons of guys
Necrons -> warriors

Those things you expect to see multiples of. When people say spam, rarely are they saying they hate seeing a lot of platoons or tactical marines out there, if that's what the army's core choices seem to be made of that indicates that that is what the army would consist of a lot of.

Then we can nitpick further and say spam is spam no matter what, but then we're just nitpicking the word down.

If I faced the same marine list all the time and it was a "C" list I'd be bored too. Thing is you can make any number of variants of an army build and change it up each time, but how many variants of an "optimal build" can you really make? Not many. Usually a pair or so at most.

Well this is part of the problem, is it not. People hear/read of a definition of a particular build and that then spreads Chinese whisper style. The same thing applies to people breaking codices, that army is then tainted no matter what.

As for balance, I think if you look at what each codex has and rate it by each unit, there is a lot more balance among codices of the same edition then is being talked about.

A quick example, for the sake of an example could be:

IG

Ranked by what all options bring to the table, WS/BS, weapon options and survivability, ranked and codex takes average of the score.

Far more useful than what codex can provide the most broken lists in someones opinion.

[Ereshkigal]

I don't know enough about dark eldar to make a judgement on what kind of list that is. They aren't seen very often here, I would need to research before I could give an informed opinion on its power scale.

You see? You said you had ton of experience to judge lists and you couldn't do it. Imagine that between players who don't have a clue... How can you say one is a power gamer and one is not when you can't judge lists? (i'm talking in general, not about you specifically)

[Caitsidhe]

Judging the lists of others is entirely "subjective" and therein lies the entire rub. What I have noticed (purely anecdotal) is that people tend to decry as repetitive, overpowered cheese any list that regularly beats them. I've come to the opinion that all this showy rage is (for the most part) an excuse, i.e. scapegoat so the person doing the complaining (or hating) doesn't have to own the fact that he/she lost. I don't really believe there are different types of players. There are just different excuses.

[IcedCrow]

You see? You said you had ton of experience to judge lists and you couldn't do it. Imagine that between players who don't have a clue... How can you say one is a power gamer and one is not when you can't judge lists? (i'm talking in general, not about you specifically)

I'm not seeing your point. The first couple of years a new player is in the hobby he will inevitably start gravitating toward an area of the hobby that excites him. It is around then that they will know what they enjoy playing with and what they do not.

You can typically judge whether someone is a power gamer by holding a five minute conversation with them about what they want out of the hobby and what it is they talk about most, without even looking at the lists they are fielding.

Simply chatting up someone and making the mention about not wanting to bring a power list, or wanting to bring a power list will evoke a response from the person in one fashion or the other. Its as simple as going "i'm looking for a game, but I'm not wanting to play broken lists, are you game?"

I've found that 9 times out of 10 I can find a good game that way that is enjoyable, even if my opponent typically min/maxes. Because most people aren't dicks and will accomodate you.

I think if you go to a tournament expecting that, then you are barking up the wrong tree, however. If one gets annoyed at min/maxed lists, one has no reason to go to a tournament.

[Scammel]

I don't really believe there are different types of players. There are just different excuses.

This it what rubs up those who don't always bring A-lists. You've made the assumption that everyone wants the same thing as you from the game and constructs armies around the same reasoning. If they take softer lists it's because they're worse players and make bad decisions.

[IcedCrow]

Judging the lists of others is entirely "subjective" and therein lies the entire rub. What I have noticed (purely anecdotal) is that people tend to decry as repetitive, overpowered cheese any list that regularly beats them. I've come to the opinion that all this showy rage is (for the most part) an excuse, i.e. scapegoat so the person doing the complaining (or hating) doesn't have to own the fact that he/she lost. I don't really believe there are different types of players. There are just different excuses.

Yes I hear that a lot. That it only matters if they beat you, then its cheese. An excuse as to why they were beaten.

Except, speaking for myself, I can min/max a list and give a good game to an optimizer too so in my case its not valid, and in many cases is not valid. I'm sure there are indeed people who get mad when someone beats them and pull out excuses and calls them unfair etc... in fact I have met those people, but to say that all people do that is unfair, and disingenuine (and could indeed be viewed as condescending which goes back to my previous post about how condescending comments to many in this hobby are the same as openly cursing them out)

When I see a repetitive powerful army and I call it such, it is not because I am bemoaning that I cannot beat it, I am bemoaning that if I had to play that list I would be forced to field the one uber build in my codex, or want the challenge of fielding a subpar list vs a power list (in chess we'd say I'm starting without a bishop, knight, and rook, which are actual games used to handicap, vs a full list, or a game where one side has more queens starting off which is used for the same reason... as a handicap) otherwise the game would be a frustrating uphill battle. I'm being pigeonholed into one or two viable lists to have a decent game.

In a tournament, that's fine. That's what you go for. I would never say anything about that in an event that is for that kind of listing or attitude.

[Caitsidhe]

This it what rubs up those who don't always bring A-lists. You've made the assumption that everyone wants the same thing as you from the game and constructs armies around the same reasoning. If they take softer lists it's because they're worse players and make bad decisions.

I'm not making any assumptions about what they want. I'm only stating that they lay the blame for their failures on something other than themselves. That is the nature of an excuse, to deflect the blame. I don't care what kind of lists people want to bring. That is none of my business. I just don't like listening to the endless screed of excuses. When I win the game, "I" won. It was because of me. When I lose the game, it was because "I" lost the game. That too, is my fault. The buck stops with me. Painting opponents as jerks simply because they came out on top says more about the person doing the complaining than it does the person against whom they rant.

[IcedCrow]

While that is true, I don't know where the conversation steered towards that particular subject. At least for me, I was just talking about setting up games in general and the root of that came from me saying to find a group that plays like you do and you'll have a lot of fun.

It goes without saying that if you lose a game and blame it on your opponent being a jerk because they won is fairly immature and weak.

[Caitsidhe]

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.

[Scammel]

I'm not making any assumptions about what they want.

You are.

I don't really believe there are different types of players.

Right there. It is absolutely the case that different people want different things from their games.

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.

Your analogy is very, very silly and that's putting it mildly. Regardless of the millions of differences between real war and war games, people play war games for fun, not because they have to, or because they'll get fired if they don't. Warhammer in particular is played because people want to see their cool little models shoot up another guy's cool little models.

[IcedCrow]

If you're saying that if we arne't approaching this hobby like you do, that we are wrong then no I can't agree with that.

[Caitsidhe]

I'm not saying you aren't approaching the hobby right. I don't care how you approach the hobby. I'm only commenting that the outcome of games wherein you play opponents is entirely within your own hands. You win or lose on your own merits, period. WHY you choose to play or HOW you choose to play is your own business. What excuses you choose to make about it, however, is sadly everyone's business if you drone on and on about how unfair everything is.