Gamism vs. Hobbism (Stuff about armybuilding and AS) - Page 4 - Wargaming Forum and Wargamer Forums
General 40k This is the place to talk about everything related to Warhammer 40k.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #31 of 51 (permalink) Old 07-07-10, 01:40 AM
Grand Lord Munchkin
 
gen.ahab's Avatar
gen.ahab's Flag is: USA
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Ivins, Utah, USA
Posts: 7,044
Reputation: 17
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaizer View Post
No, there is nothing wrong with wanting to win, but there are always prices to pay. Don't you think its better to have a fun and exciting battle and win, than simply leafblow the shit out of your oppenent?

Katie you can preach all you want. But I will you please answer this. Doesn't playing without restrictions or guidelines for power level make people leave some units on the shelf, and doesn't it heard if your army simply gets worse everytime a new codex comes out?

And just to say it, I'm not the biggest fan of restrictions and stuff like that. Im a great fan of playing the game GW created as it is. I simply trying to get all the views on this issue.

And this is my post #200
1. Its fun as hell till the "he must feel like shit" though down on you.

2. Bull. There is nothing wrong with the new dexes.... in fact I would go far as to say that these newest batch of codices are even more balanced than the 4th. Sure, some older codices have been made obsolete but they were the moment the marine dex came out. TBH they are no worse off then when 5th hit the scene. And another thing, do you think it is fare that I have to crap up my lists simply to make other players not feel like crap when I beat table them if they suck? I am not going to baby people.

Last edited by gen.ahab; 07-07-10 at 02:32 AM.
gen.ahab is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #32 of 51 (permalink) Old 07-07-10, 11:49 AM
Tzeentch laughs at likely
 
Dave T Hobbit's Avatar
Dave T Hobbit's Flag is: Europe
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Inside my Head, Bristol, UK
Posts: 8,553
Reputation: 44
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AngryCanadian View Post
is There something wrong with wanting to win every game?
Not at all; if you are winning by playing the sum of a more competitive list list and better tactics than your opponent.

If you want to win every game so badly that you challenge every single possible rule anomaly and refuse to abandon the discussion until it is agreed in your favour, to remove the need for good lists and tactics then that might be a little wrong.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AngryCanadian View Post
I build lists based on fluff but that are still competitive(its easy with orks)
thought i have actually tried to build a losing(ie- not a good) list few times
Some armies it is easy; some not so much.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AngryCanadian View Post
i still play to win, i just cant help it,
I think everyone plays to win; otherwise there would be tournaments for fluffy list building where you submitted a list for each round that was compared to your opponent with the list closest to the fluff in the judges opinion winning.

Some of us just use different definitions when it comes to fluff; for instance taking a list that fits the fluff to make the win more meaningful if and when we win, or to make the game about tactics because we do not want it to be about the list.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AngryCanadian View Post
I think that "fun games" should at least be somewhat competitive or how could it be fun to play anyway,

You owe your opponent a good fight and he in return owes it to you
I disagree.

You arguably should be trying to play your list as well as you can; however that is different from offering a good fight.

If you are playing a friendly because he is going to a tournament and wants to play as many games as possible before hand then, yes, you owe him competition; potentially you even owe him as brutal and un-fluffy a list as you can field.

The fun can come from playing your own list as well as you can and the social aspects - otherwise why would anyone ever play a game against a new player as it could not be fun.
Dave T Hobbit is offline  
post #33 of 51 (permalink) Old 07-07-10, 04:52 PM
Senior Member
DonFer's Flag is: Bolivia
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Santiago, Chile
Posts: 454
Reputation: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gen.ahab View Post
1. Its fun as hell till the "he must feel like shit" though down on you.

2. Bull. There is nothing wrong with the new dexes.... in fact I would go far as to say that these newest batch of codices are even more balanced than the 4th. Sure, some older codices have been made obsolete but they were the moment the marine dex came out. TBH they are no worse off then when 5th hit the scene. And another thing, do you think it is fare that I have to crap up my lists simply to make other players not feel like crap when I beat table them if they suck? I am not going to baby people.
I'm sure everyone has been beaten to a pulp (in a game that is ) at least once in their lives so the thought should be "I know he feels like shit right now".

I guess no one is saying here " hey, don't play to win, play ONLY or fun". The thing went something like "I'm tired of playing to win with nothing else in mind, since I have lost the ability to have fun while I do" (or at least I understood it that way).

About the restrictions in gaming, I consider that some restrictions should apply to tournaments only, in order to level the odds of all the players. After all everyone wants to be part of a fair tournament. These are the rules, and within those rules you can do whatever makes you happy to win the game. I mean, picture a special character that's unbeatable by most of the other armies. There are a couple of things that can (and will happen):

a) Everyone will be designing armies to beat the crap out of the guy that plays with it (which turns the game to garbage, playing and army designed to beat one guy) and/or

b) You'll have a tournament where every player has the same character in his/her army because "this guy is awesome!" (which is completely boring, since you cannot expect to have fun plaing a mirror match more than once).

So yeah restrictions at tournament level should (and are) there to give everyone a fighting chance. Even though sometimes they make you "shelve" some units, which is really disappointing. Now if this happens very often and to the most part of the "power units" then, the game really has some issues (or should I say, the system is really crappy).
DonFer is offline  
 
post #34 of 51 (permalink) Old 07-07-10, 05:25 PM
Ask me about Pins
 
CLT40k's Avatar
CLT40k's Flag is: USA
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,408
Reputation: 5
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaizer View Post
No, there is nothing wrong with wanting to win, but there are always prices to pay. Don't you think its better to have a fun and exciting battle and win, than simply leafblow the shit out of your oppenent?
I don't think anyone who is truly a competative player wants 'leafblow' their opponent off the board. IMO that is the mark of a generally unfun game....

As a mini rant - why do people seem to think being competative = being a tool? If I want to play the game tooth and nail with my mates, the automatic assumption seems to be that I try to make the game not fun for everyone by being the biggest douche ever... I've met guys who play fluffy armies who cheat on their movement and 'forget' rules... I've also played with comepetative guys who will point out that I forgot to move a unit and will ask me if I want to go back while we're in the shooting phase.... WTF?

About power level... well the game already has that built into the framework when it comes to points. But for you to take a sub competative list against my competative list, then we probably won't have a 'fun' game (unless you're just one hell of a general) I think Katie summed it up pretty well when she decribes the issues that come when we think about how to balance power between lists... Playing a competative list avoids this because we're both taking the best we can field. And thankfully, with the new dexes... you get more than just one viable build per army...
CLT40k is offline  
post #35 of 51 (permalink) Old 07-07-10, 05:28 PM
Senior Member
GrizBe's Flag is: England
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: England
Posts: 3,232
Reputation: 10
Default

Pretty much, I think most people equate being competative to being a tool, is because a huge portion of competative players are tools and powergamers and cheesemongers.
GrizBe is offline  
post #36 of 51 (permalink) Old 07-07-10, 07:22 PM
Ask me about Pins
 
CLT40k's Avatar
CLT40k's Flag is: USA
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,408
Reputation: 5
Default

Cheesemonger is a silly name....

GrizBe, I think there may be a fundamental difference in why we play the game. I get the feeling from your posts that you don't think of 40K as a game where winning is an objective..... Other than implying that people who enjoy the tactical side of the game are cheesmongers (that really is silly) I just don't get a sense of what you expect from your opponent in terms of the list he/she brings... Other than it needs to pass some sort of undefined threshold of power or they're "just in it for the win"

All I'm saying is that you can have a fluffy army and be a complete douche or you can have a competative list and be a cool guy to play against.
CLT40k is offline  
post #37 of 51 (permalink) Old 07-07-10, 07:22 PM
Senior Member
Katie Drake's Flag is: Canada
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Canada
Posts: 5,539
Reputation: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GrizBe View Post
Pretty much, I think most people equate being competative to being a tool, is because a huge portion of competative players are tools and powergamers and cheesemongers.
If this is true in your area, then you have my condolences. Too bad you can't play with my group, I bet you'd enjoy yourself.
Katie Drake is offline  
post #38 of 51 (permalink) Old 07-07-10, 07:36 PM
Senior Member
GrizBe's Flag is: England
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: England
Posts: 3,232
Reputation: 10
Default

Couldn't think of a better name for players who use list exploits to make them overpower

The point of any game for me is to have fun. Having a list thats unbeatable doesn't equate to fun for me. Don't get me wrong, I do play to win, but having fun doing so is more important to me then actually winning. And right now, it really just annoys me you have to have a list thats fully mechanised and you can't take the 'fluffy' units if you want to win.

In my experience, it is the ones with the 'competative' lists that are the douches... so maybe I'm jaded against it... where-as the ones with the fluffy list are more fun and actually, the better players as they have to think outside the box rather then 'X unit kills Y', they think ' I can use A, C or D to tackle X, but better keep B from them'.
GrizBe is offline  
post #39 of 51 (permalink) Old 07-07-10, 07:50 PM
Spored to be Wild
 
morfangdakka's Avatar
morfangdakka's Flag is: USA
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Southern California
Posts: 4,376
Reputation: 30
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GrizBe View Post
a huge portion of competative players are tools and powergamers and cheesemongers.
This is how a lot of competative players in my area are wich is why I avoid compeative players. If they were fun to pplay against that would be fine but their rude behavior and just being dicks about things make the game unenjoyable. I stick more to the hobby part and just play for fun, I don't care if I win or lose as long as I have fun.


Red Orc
"Ahh, isn't Morfang sweet, like a great big 350-pound (that's 25 stone, UK users!) ball of cuddly death...?"


God, gives children to people so that death won't seem so disappointing.
morfangdakka is offline  
post #40 of 51 (permalink) Old 07-07-10, 09:05 PM
Ask me about Pins
 
CLT40k's Avatar
CLT40k's Flag is: USA
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,408
Reputation: 5
Quote:
Originally Posted by GrizBe View Post
Having a list thats unbeatable doesn't equate to fun for me. Don't get me wrong, I do play to win, but having fun doing so is more important to me then actually winning. And right now, it really just annoys me you have to have a list thats fully mechanised and you can't take the 'fluffy' units if you want to win.

In my experience, it is the ones with the 'competative' lists that are the douches... so maybe I'm jaded against it... where-as the ones with the fluffy list are more fun and actually, the better players as they have to think outside the box rather then 'X unit kills Y', they think ' I can use A, C or D to tackle X, but better keep B from them'.
OK, I think we all know the kind of player you're talking about... the jackass who is truly there to win with the best list he can download.... But I don't really think of them as being competative... just douchebags...

In terms of unbeatable... there is certainly hard to beat... but I have a hard time coming up with unbeatable. For example, here's what I'm running at 2K in Space Wolves... More details here
  • 2 Rune Priests
  • 3 Assaulty Squads in Rhinos
  • 1 Squad in a Razorback w/ TL Las
  • 3 full squads of ML Long Fangs in Razorbacks with TL Las
  • Wolf scouts with Melta bombs and a melta gun
  • 2 Land speeder typhoons

In my opinion, I have a VERY competative list for 2K and I'd be willing to play agaisnt any "unbeatable" list and I figure I'd have a good chance.... It's based off of Stelek's maximum overdrive list for Marines but with more of an assault punch. I didn't pick it up off a board... I spent a lot of time thinking about why his MO list worked and tried to adapt. See all his "best of" lists for Space Wolves had TWC and I just don't like them and don't wanna paint them... so I came up with my own spin on torrent of fire... In fact, I'm acutally working on a more shooty version at 1.5K here

Since we're talking about stereotypes, I've also noticed a lot of younger players (no offense to anyone under 30) who will read the net and find the "broken/cheesy/whatever" list and then try to be king of the pond for a while... But they tend to get schooled vs a better player with competative list or will get shunned by the community. There was a kid at my old shop who was a complete turd... He asked me for a game once and I told him I didn't want to play him cause he was a douche... There was a few minutes of awkward silence and then end of story... but it wasn't his list that made that decision for me. It was his attitude towards the game. See, the way I see it is like this... I can only really spend x ammt of time away from my family for a game... so of course, I want to maximize my fun... Playing against that kind of opponent is no fun... so I don't do it.

Also, I think I get what you're saying about the changes in 5th. Yes, mech is king and if you want to have a good list, you should put your stuff in tanks. But that's really not the fault of the community of gamers for playing a competative game with the tools that are most effective... It's the fault of the game designers. Personally, I'm bewildered that you'd have so many bad choices in the game. For example, Blood Claws vs Grey Hunters - Lower BS, More attacks but get hit easier... They're not worth the tradeoff IMO. Skyclaws and swiftclaws are also bad choices in my codex. So I take the good and leave the bad where possible. The one good thing is there are a few good builds that you'll get out of the Space Wolf Codex (examples - Loginwing, razorwolf, TWC)

Personally, I think that if you really want a fluffy game nowadays - without putting a bunch of restrictions on who can bring what or thinking about powerlevel of the relative lists... You should look into some of the battle missions.. Decide a week before who's playing what and then spend some time writing your army list to the mission... then give it a play... If I'm all inside a fortress you have to assault, then you won't see a bunch of tanks and you won't see my list above that is built on Kill Points, C&C, etc... Also, it will throw the stereotypes for a loop cause you can't go look for "best of list for the mission on page 35" --- for the more competative player, I have a week to design a list and think about tactics for a set mission... For someone more driven by fluff, you get a narritive... Might be the way to bridge the gap....
CLT40k is offline  
Reply

  Lower Navigation
Go Back   Wargaming Forum and Wargamer Forums > Warhammer 40K > General 40k

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Wargaming Forum and Wargamer Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in










Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Linear Mode



Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome