Warhammer 40k Forum and Wargaming Forums banner

Power Gaming

3K views 42 replies 25 participants last post by  NerdyOgre254 
#1 ·
Do any of you do it. Do you think it is wrong to use armour in 500pt games
do think that using a termie army is cheesy or what ever else seems to
say cheese. I will be the first to admit I am a cheese player I try to pack as much power as I can. Is the point of the game not to win?
Even though I lose more then I win I just like to make it a hard fought battle.
 
#2 · (Edited)
I am not a power gamer, as I think that the point of the game is to have fun, and fight hard. However, if you are a power gamer and you lose, it should not be a big deal at all. Just learn from your mistakes and try again! Winning is not everything! But I think fielding a 500pt armoured force is fine!
 
#3 ·
It's not a bad thing and quite frankly I wish there were more players that like to bring their A game all the time. It would elevate my game as well. I have two opponents that I love to play cause they make their best possible lists and have tactics to match.

There was times when I play that before the game I thought I would just throw the match and lose cause this guy I play on occasion doesnt seem to thrilled about the game anymore. My competative side didnt let me do that though. He, as most of the people I play have a dislike for "power gamers" and their lists and tactics reflect that. I feel bad when I win now. I guess thats why I haven't played in a while.
 
#4 ·
I love making lists for armies (and posting them) and I admit that I try to engineer them to cause the most trouble for an opponent. That being said any epicly powerful list can be turned into a cluster by bad play. Having fun is the most important thing to me but I love trying to take down an opponent that is better than me. So if competition and especially tournament play is your thing power-game to your heart's content but if it's a friendly beer and pretzels game bring your a-game but don't flip out if you screw up.
 
#5 ·
Define "power gaming."

Bringing an Armored Company to a 1000 points or less game? I think so.

Relying upon proven and effective troops types that your army WOULD use? Nope.

Using ONE trick over and over again because unless someone builds specifically to beat it, it always works? Again, I think so.

Personally, I find that if you have an all-comers list that works well, go for it.

This last Friday, I got handed a table-clearing loss. My Orks went up against a well-built, well-played Tau list. But, as the army I lost to revolved around Fire Warriors in Devil-Fish, a perfectly legitimate Troop choice? I don;t think my foe was power-gaming. He simply had the cure for the common Ork.
 
#6 ·
This last Friday, I got handed a table-clearing loss. My Orks went up against a well-built, well-played Tau list. But, as the army I lost to revolved around Fire Warriors in Devil-Fish, a perfectly legitimate Troop choice? I don;t think my foe was power-gaming. He simply had the cure for the common Ork.
Agreed. Round 3 of the 'ardboyz qualifier here (which we did entirely for shits and giggles...with maybe one exception, nobody here's competitive like that) lasted all of about twenty minutes. My opponent, who was playing Tyranids, siezed the initiative, and his genestealers jumped on top of me without a moment to pull the trigger. Am I crying cheese for him bringing thirty-six genestealers to the table? Nah. I fought them off, but it cost me all of my Troops choices, and the scenario's victory conditions were based upon holding objectives. Moreover, I had no way to eliminate his Troops from the game, because he was using a squad of Termagants with Without Number to hold the objective in his back field. So I was done when my Tactical Squads were finished. Again, cheese? Nah. Good dice, and my bad luck, and that's all there was to it.

Power gaming is when you have no discourse to tactics, despite what you may say. It's when you go browsing online for the latest gimmick. The combination of units that may or may not be fluffy (admittedly, sometimes, they are) that takes advantage of game mechanics rather than any actual thought on the player's part. Lash of Submission comes to mind-- it actually is kind of fluffy to have a slaanesh daemon be able to have a siren song type effect, but it's used to pull squads into charge range of Khorne Berserkers, and that's where I throw the red flag. It's a gimmick, not any actual tactics. Tactics are manevuering your models, taking advantage of cover, timing your charges and coordinating shooting to its maximum effect, all by outwitting your opponent rather than relying on something you had to bring to the table. There's no strategy in using the Lash, for example... it takes advantage of the turn sequence mechanics to do what it does.

I'm guilty of bringing things to stop these little "killer combos"-- don't get me wrong. But I make them the minority of points spent in the army, and not the singular focus. Nobody can say anything to me when they look at my 2000 point army and see that half the points are in Tactical Squads, and I don't bring Elites generally, but still win through coordinated interaction between units.

I dislike power gaming. I really, truly do. When you act like you have to win at a game with little plastic spacemen at all costs, it reeks of tiny penis syndrome. Seriously, if you need to prove to people you're a real man, go get a degree, or become a noteworthy athlete amongst the local crowd, or something to that effect. Play with plastic spacemen because you can laugh about it, and at the end of the day, you like taking a stroll through the 41st millenium.
 
#7 ·
Power gaming should be thought of as a sliding scale. You should build lists on par or only marginally more powerful than you expect to face. Otherwise it's kind of power gaming.

The part about power gaming I dislike is that I can build a Tau list and give it to an 18 year old who is just starting, and he can win at least half his games at a tournament. I would prefer if the tournament rankings reflected the skill of the players at both building lists and playing the game. Personally I would participate in a tournament that is just a list building exercise, however I would hope it to be labeled as such.
 
#8 ·
Personally I would participate in a tournament that is just a list building exercise, however I would hope it to be labeled as such.
That's sort of what 'ard boyz is. No painting, composition, or sportsmanship scores like a regular tournament... just bring whatever wins at any cost.
 
#9 ·
And I have noticed after reading 5 reports on 'ard boyz that the quality of the lists is a very good way to determine how well they did. Sometimes I don't understand how people who post on forums can build such bad lists, obviously not everyone is inclined to listen to advice. This is good otherwise 'ard boyz would be very boring.
 
#10 ·
Again, I agree. Internet lists tend to be very gimmick-focused, and not things that work well if you're actually sitting around thinking about how the army interacts with itself. A balanced army that's able to hit hard where it matters and take all comers equally without relying on a single combination of wargear on a given model or squad always will do better. That's not even just a tournament thing, that's just in general. I don't have seperate lists for tournaments and for pickup games... partially because if I go to a tournament it's because it's a day of gaming and I don't give a damn if I win, but also partially because I bring the same proportion of units either way.
 
#11 ·
I think this games were made to have fun (and to give money to GW), not to win at all cost. Like Son of Horus said, a good list isn't one who rellies on a special unit or power( 2 slaanesh DP, 3 Obliterators, 3 or 4 squads of Plague Marines and a squad of Berserkers, a squad of havocs with plasma guns in rhino), it's an army list where every unit has a different role, and an army who as to combine his efforts to win. The chaos list i exposed just before is nothing without the DP.

My personal list is based around 4 squads of normal marines, a vindicator, an 4 man squad of termis with my lord in termi armor, 3 oblits and a havoc squad. It is pretty powerfull, and when my opponents look at it, they say "This is an Iron Warrior army.".
For me fluff and fun are more important than victory.

DIes Irae
 
#12 ·
I must say I am not a gimmil gamer I do not ever use online lists or even look for them. I was the same way with magic I do not believe in using something that someone else made. I agree the main thing is to have fun. Like I said I lose more then I win but I like to make as hard on my enemy to win so at least that way I know I tried. I kind like losing sometimes it give me a reason to go and rack my brain with a list to try to win with. I do find it a challange to try to pack as much bang for you points though. I also play many armies. I love my guard but lately I ve been playing space marines. I did field a deathwing army kind of I had 3 squads of termies ,a Tactical squad, Belail, a dreadknought a vincator a rhino and vet marines with close combat weapons. That was one of my favorite games Ive ever played and I only tied. It was fun though
 
#13 ·
Power gaming? Well, that really depends on how games are played in your area. If everyone is doing it, then no it is not a problem. If you are the only one doing it, then maybe there is a problem.

We have a local nid player who is a nice guy. He brings his nid zilla army every game. He rarely loses. Is he that good of a general or is his army list that good?

Sure we all like to win but I like to have fun. I have won campaigns, leagues, and tourneys. I now play for fun. Because as mentioned above these are just little toy soldiers.
 
#14 ·
Just remember though, every army has a weakness. The sign of a good general is being able to recognize that weakness and use it to your advantage. For example a Nidzilla army I played recently. Sure I found it extremely difficult to take out the lumbering behemoths, but I realised all I had to do was kill his feeble troops and due to the game type, take and hold, it was impossible for him to pick up the win. My sisters just kept falling back, taking gradual casualties, but by the end my last sister unit was on the objective uncontested.

Every army has a weakness. Finding it can be difficult, but keep looking.
 
#16 ·
Isn't the whole point in playing a game to enjoy it? Enjoyment comes from winning a battle as well as fielding an army you're immensely proud of because of painting it or fluffing it up.

At the end of the day it's a game to play how you like it. If you don't like playing a power gamer because they're out to win and using the game mechanics to their advantage then don't play them again. Alternatively you could take quiet note of what they did and make up your own list to combat it hehe.
 
#19 ·
I agree that the point is to enjoy it. Personally, I can enjoy losing as long as I'm playing against someone who's fun; and I don't like winning (or losing, or drawing, just don't like playing at all) if my opponent is not fun.

But I don't like the idea that you "beat" a powergamer by becoming a powergamer. I'd rather not play them, or play them in such a way that they get really annoyed, by being ultra-fluffy. By naming every troop I have on the field, by praying every time my tank fires, by insisting on giving orders in character, by calling "WAAAAAGH!" every time my Orks advance, by speaking in a ridiculous cod-cokernee accent, by addressing him as "Mon-Keigh scum" throughout, boasting that his puny intellect will never defeat the glorious Eldar and his death has been forseen, etc, even if I'm losing.

Then, if he ever wants to play me again, more power to him, he's obviously got more of a sense of humour than I originally gave him credit for.

:in it for the fun cyclops:
 
#17 ·
I think it's a player's lack of tactics that decided their win that annoys most people about power gaming.

When you're defeated by list building, do you change your list? Another powergamer would of course, but changing lists is a big thing, maybe it's better to just cry powergamer and not play them.
 
#18 ·
when i played my orks against a mates Tau in a 500pt battle, i just tried to put together the most powerful army, as well as the funniest - 20 Boyz, 10 Ard Boyz, 1 Trukk, 2 Kannons and a Big Mek with shokk attack gun. is somehing like this a power army in a 500pt game? i dont think so, especially as they had about 20 Tau fire Warriors. my entirte army gt wiped out in the 3rd turn apart from my Big Mek and Kannons. then in the nest turn of shooting i got 3 perfect shots with all three blast templates, taking out about 3/4 of his army in one turn of shooting. so its not just about power armies - luck playes a huge part in any game. you might have an army made almost entirely out of Termies, and still lose to a basic Gaunt Hoard army.
 
#21 ·
I have never really worried that much about my opponents lists and i don't really consider myself a power gamer. I usually build my armies figures first then list so my lists are not always the strongest they can be but I still win most of my games and am willing to share my experience( if asked as I find when you start telling people what they are doing wrong unasked its annoying) 1 of my favourite armies that I have used was a speed freak list I never lost a single game drew a few but won most. The army list stayed the same as I couldn't be arsed to tweak it but it was made from what models I had so I don't think power gaming is a problem unless you act like a tool and when I meet those type of players beating them once is usually enough then play someone normal.
 
#22 · (Edited)
I don't think I am a power gamer but at the same time I will not deliberately build a weak list to avoid being labeled as such. I make a single list for my armies and play that same list against all opponents. My favourite games have always been draws in point of fact as they tend to be the best fought games, going back and forth with no clear winner, requiring more of your effort than if you are just winning from the start, etc.

No offense to anyone in this thread is meant by this but all too often I find that those who whine about 'cheese' and 'powergaming' and such are those who have a hard time figuring out how to beat a certain list and don't want to challenge themselves to try or are those who deliberately shaft themselves by playing 'fluffy' lists even though they know the fluff and the actual game mechanics have very little to do with each other. Again, I mean no offense here with this statement as it is a fact that I have personally witnessed more than a few times.

On the other hand, your typical 'powergamer' won't whine about 'cheeselists' when he gets his ass kicked as, in general, he enjoys to have the uber competitive style game that a couple lists like that will usually bring on. And playing against a fluff list is very boring simply because that list will not be balanced or effective enough to even give him a decent challege. That being said, there are most definitely exceptions to this and I agree wholeheartedly with what has been said here regarding this being a game of plastic spacemen and such. The players that take the game far too seriously, that absolutely MUST WIN AT ALL COSTS!!!!! and get pissed off when they don't are the ones that ruin it for the rest of us. Because of these guys, I get glares from time to time because I include a Lash caster in my Tsons list or others will get the cries of cheese due to army choices that make sense if given a little thought. I would never complain about someones list being cheesy or a powergamer list, in fact bring it on.

As an aside, I do have to take exception to this:

Lash of Submission comes to mind-- it actually is kind of fluffy to have a slaanesh daemon be able to have a siren song type effect, but it's used to pull squads into charge range of Khorne Berserkers, and that's where I throw the red flag. It's a gimmick, not any actual tactics. Tactics are manevuering your models, taking advantage of cover, timing your charges and coordinating shooting to its maximum effect, all by outwitting your opponent rather than relying on something you had to bring to the table. There's no strategy in using the Lash, for example... it takes advantage of the turn sequence mechanics to do what it does.
How in the hell can you say that there is no tactics in using Lash?? After all, I have to move my army into place to use it properly OR still be able to compensate when it doesn't work as hoped. How is it any different from using an other component in your army for that matter? I understand that you don't like Lash but it is NOT the automatic game winner that you seem to think it is, not by a long shot. Tactics are using the abilities of the entire army to the best of your ability, period. Not trying to sound like I am coming down on you SoH as I really am not, but that attitude is one I have heard repeated so often that it makes me sick. Yes Lash is a damn good power, yes most chaos players will have it, yes it can throw your plans out of whack. However, it will NOT win the game for you by itself, it CAN be dealt with fairly easily, and the person who relies on it and it alone will lose, hard and often. Like I said, I can understand why you don't like it but please, cut the crap about how it takes no tactics or forethought to use as it requires both of those things just as much as anything else in the game. That is like me saying that anyone who plays Space Marines is a cheesy, powergaming cock because they can do things my army can't. Again, I don't mean to sound like I am coming down on you in particular Son, it is the argument itself that I am going after as it is far far too prevalent and I for one am getting tired of hearing how cheesy anyone who takes Lash is.
 
#30 ·
No offense to anyone in this thread is meant by this but all too often I find that those who whine about 'cheese' and 'powergaming' and such are those who have a hard time figuring out how to beat a certain list and don't want to challenge themselves to try or are those who deliberately shaft themselves by playing 'fluffy' lists even though they know the fluff and the actual game mechanics have very little to do with each other. Again, I mean no offense here with this statement as it is a fact that I have personally witnessed more than a few times.
The thing is, I've only ever lossed (even in tournaments) against lists that are far more powerful than mine. I could have taken a brutal Tau list and go undefeated, however I would ruin the tournament for 6 other players.

So I cry cheese to get people to take lists at the same power level as the majority. Otherwise they are getting easy wins (but they still don't end up winning the tournament). If I went to a UK tournament the power level would change, so I wouldn't be crying cheese.
 
#23 ·
I guess as a lash user, I should complain how "cheesy" psychic hoods (or ghost helms or when I square off against a daemon player running mostly Khorne who can ignore psychic effects on a die roll) are, eh? After all, they nerf my "I win button" a good amount of the time. :laugh:

Really, if anyone deserves to take the flak, it should be GW. Really, you can't blame people for taking obscene, near game-breaking selections in a competetive game because GW has said it's okay. :biggrin:
 
#24 ·
i change my list every few weeks due to wins/lose and what i want to try. yes i try to win loads but also if the game is fun then i don't care really. i always try to make my list beat everythink. its part of the game i think to a point.
 
#25 ·
I did a 500pt game recently against Eldar (I used Necrons), and was a bit surprised to see loads of jetbikes and some other Eldar Vehicle. I thought it was a bit off really when you consider that there is only a single legal 500pt list for Necrons. Anyway, I did win - but only because I knew my army better than my opponent did.

I think it can be very unfair to make a list that you know right from the start cannot be beated by what your opponent has - why bother playing? Points are only one part of a balanced game - fair play and common sense must play their part.
 
#26 ·
I am not really sure what to call my self.

I personally do not use tactics that are all over the place and try to forge my own path. More often then not if i find a list that keeps working over and over again I will change the list because i get bored. For me the most important thing is to keep challenging my self to improve my tactics every game. In my opinion you are only a good player when you can come back form a near crushing lose and win.

So I always want to win, but i do it with my tactics, not my list.
 
#27 ·
"Cheese" is a matter of perspective. What most people class as cheese is just good tactics that also tend to have drawbacks. For instance, I run a squad of chosen with 5 plasma guns and an Icon of nurgle. Sure, they slaughtered marines and terminators wholesale, but they cost a !@#$load of points and I still ran the risk of overheats. Lash is no different. It only effects one unit, can fail, can damage the user, can be ineffective (roll double low for the movement) and is nerfed by psychic hoods, Grey Knigh armor, line of sight, range, and some eldar/dark eldar/daemon stuff that I don't know about. I don't run a lash with my khorne berzerkers but only because so many people whined about it that I got tired of it. I don't need it to win, but it was a valid and effective tactic creating synergy between two halves of my army.
 
#28 ·
Do any of you do it.
NO, I refuse to powergame
Do you think it is wrong to use armour in 500pt games
no, I've seen leman russ tanks die just as easily in 500pts as they do 2000pts
do think that using a termie army is cheesy
no, I call it an easy kill
or what ever else seems to say cheese.
now a whole genestealer army is another thing
Is the point of the game not to win?
one point of the game as quoted from the 5th edition mini rulebook is
"winning at any cost is less important than making sure BOTH players -Not just the victor- have a good time"

if your only powergaming to win with no concern to your opponent, then go play something else like Yu-Gay-Oh
 
#32 · (Edited)
We have tried that in Australia many times darklove (no comp), but the turnouts are poor as most people here don't want an exercise in list building.

With comp, you need to build a list that you know how to use. That is different to being given (or creating) a list that plays itself.

However I wouldn't say the UK lists play themselves. I would say that if you used them against the par lists in Australia, they would play themselves. When you're up against equally powerful lists, tactics come back into the game.

So I think it's the fact Australia has an uncompetitive base for why we drag other players down a level. We are also good at dragging people down levels.

Overall though I still believe the same players would win the tournament if there was comp or not. Using weaker lists against weaker lists is no indication on whether the games are harder or easier.
 
#33 ·
I find it weird that people are saying some lists are more powerful than others. Unless there is a difference in points they will be in majority equal. A nidzilla list is not more powerful than a gaunt horde list, just different. Same goes with every other army..... Ther eis no combo that makes the army more powerful than everything else as there wil be points in the other army that can be used on other things to combat that, have more bodies on the field etc....

I myself like to think of myself as a Competitive fluff player.... I stick to the storyline of the BA codex but that doesn't mean I lower the potential of my army..... Powergaming to me is usually the min/max thing, or argueing rules in their favour(mainly because they don't read the rulebook thoroughly). It's not just the list, it's the owning player's use of that list and the exploitation of certain rules.....
 
#35 ·
Powergaming to me is usually the min/max thing, or argueing rules in their favour(mainly because they don't read the rulebook thoroughly). It's not just the list, it's the owning player's use of that list and the exploitation of certain rules.....
It does make a real good point. Reading the Rule book is important and not only does it give you an understanding of the game it keeps people from making mistakes. I remember the first time I played Marines I had no clue had rapid fire worked.lol and I play guard. I just never really moved them lol. Now I find myself reading the rule book all the time when I ever I read a codex or have a question. It is important to know the rules
 
#34 ·
I do believe it is important to have fun when playing the game. When I started playing I started with an all infantry guard army boy did I sure lose alot. When I did upgrade to armour it was fun I started to enjoy the game more. Now I play many armies and when I do make a list I make it the way I like it so that I will have the most fun playing it. The point system is there to keep it all fair in the end.

I did post this thread to see what everyone thought and after reading it
I glad I posted it as it has been very insightful. I gave me a clearer definition of a powergaming definition. I do beleive I play rather fair. I do give it my all when I make a list and I usually post battle reports weather I win or lose.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top