Enough with the power gaming!

[Muller]

haha wow, what on earth did you use against armour?

 

Harsh language? :angry:

[Hellios]

To nerf your own army , to show less skills durning the game ? thats like disrespecting your opponent , saying "am so good , that I can win even when I make stupid actions" . Thats almost as insulting as showing up for a game with sub par list [and we pay for tables by the hour, so if I stomp him in 10 min or 1 hour I still pay the same] .

 

The thing is it's not insulting to turn up with a "sub-par" list, in fact I enjoy changing my lists very often, outside of campaigns and tournaments I very rarely play the same list for two games in a row because the true skill of a general is not to construct and direct an army in a battle field of his choosing and crush his enemies although if he can do this... that's all good and well. The true skill of a general is to use the forces he has in a battlefield that may not be in his favour and still crush the enemy. If you can still put up a decent fight (which I argue you can, although no doubt you would disagree.) that's what matters and if you can pull of a win all it's sweeter all the more. If you want a totally (well almost, not 100%) evenly matched board game then what you should play is chess (if you haven't played its good btw). Also golf is another good game although I must admit I merely dabble but have some friends that are very good... anyway this game has a handicap system that puts better players at a disadvantage however I don't hear golf players crying about being insulted because the person they are playing against has been handicapped.

 

Another thing I prefer to do is randomise terrain rather than let people deploy it this sometimes creates huge open killing fields and other times hardly a spot on the board where you can get a long ranged shot. You might even end up on a side of the board with no terrain at all. This makes the game all the more interesting because if 40K was real you couldn't rely on having 4 bits of cover in the corners and something in the middle (or whatever your standard terrain set-up is (not directed at you personally jeske) :P so ;D

[the jeske]

I can't imagine not trying something just beacuse I'm not a master at it.

well I play for almost 20 years now [well actually its going to be 20 years this summer] , If I really really try I can do tabletop lvl of painting . It takes me twice as much time as my wifes master lvl models . Its just not worth the time invested [my painting that is] as it either lowers the cost of the army[if my wife paints it we can sell it for more] or just looks plain better when my wife does it .

 

 

 

 

 

You might even end up on a side of the board with no terrain at all

 

:P for some armies this means auto lose , if they dont get first turn .

 

anyway this game has a handicap system that puts better players at a disadvantage however I don't hear golf players crying about being insulted because the person they are playing against has been handicapped.

I dont know , golf is a bit different you can play against yourself even if your opponent is bad[to have a better score etc] . In w40k you play the same scenarios , the same number of turns [even if it sometimes is random] and there is no handicap system . If I beat someone in lets say 20 min out of wich last 6 minuts is me moping him up with no chance for a win or draw from my opponent . what should I do in the next 40 min of paid table ? play him again ? makes no sense If I play with all my skill [and I alway try to do that] , the resoult would be more or less the same . So a weak army wastes my time and money[gas, paying for the table , time to get there and get back ,time that I could spend with my family or doing everything else] . thats why many people here see others who dont try to make armies as tough as it gets , disrespecting the other players.

[Wolf Priest Haelaeif]

@ jeske:

 

But you do understand that playing the game as a competition is not the only way to do it, don't you? It often sounds as if you tought people who play the game without competition as their first priority were doing something wrong.

[the jeske]

But you do understand that playing the game as a competition is not the only way to do it, don't you?

yes , but unlike most people who oppose"power gaming"[is that even possible in 5th ed??? not with a lot of armies] I dont say that the way people in eastern europe play is the only way to play it [RAW, tournament armies in friendlly games] etc . You wont see me say "screw the non tournament noobs Lash/Nob bikers builds are O K ".

 

 

It often sounds as if you tought people who play the game without competition as their first priority were doing something wrong.

No I didnt say that . Am just showing that people play in a different way in different settings . Its about options . Fluff players in the US/UK can always say no to an opponent [something that I have never seen happen in my 20 years of gaming] . they dont really care what edition is played , because they house rule or dont even care about the rules . they dont care if there are 30 working army builds for w40k or if there are 10 . Now we do care , because if w40k gets dumbed down[like it is done now or how it was in the JJ era of 3ed] , it leds to smaller game groups , fewer tournaments and fewer armies played , because no matter if your a fluff player or not , I dont think people find it fun to play against the same army builds over and over again [and unlike fluff players we dont build armies to lose] .

Most fluff players think about w40k in the context of their own army , maybe their own playgroup . A tournament player thinks about those 200+people in his own country and all the other tournament players around the world . Just look at 4th ed , even in tournament games people didnt just play BL khorn or IW [i played AL for example] , there were tons of more or less sub par lists being played all around the world . right now we have what , 3 lists played with chaos all of them with almost the same game play or with game played cloned from other armies [chaoszilla has almost the same gamplay turn 2+ as chaos demon lists].

 

 

also am not sure , If its ok to say , that someone who plays 5 games a year is actually playing the game . He collects the models , he paints them , but play? I dont think so .

[earthen]

The game takes all types of players to keep the hobby healthy.

[Wolf Priest Haelaeif]

It often sounds as if you thought people who play the game without competition as their first priority were doing something wrong.

No I didnt say that . Am just showing that people play in a different way in different settings . Its about options .

 

That is the important bit, because I think you often come across as arrogant or elitist, even though you do not mean it. I just wanted to make sure that I was right in thinking that you are not. :)

 

Most fluff players think about w40k in the context of their own army , maybe their own playgroup . A tournament player thinks about those 200+people in his own country and all the other tournament players around the world . Just look at 4th ed , even in tournament games people didnt just play BL khorn or IW [i played AL for example] , there were tons of more or less sub par lists being played all around the world . right now we have what , 3 lists played with chaos all of them with almost the same game play or with game played cloned from other armies [chaoszilla has almost the same gamplay turn 2+ as chaos demon lists].

 

Now that I can understand. The current codex just does not allow too many different army themes, not even amongst fluff players. While I do not currently play Chaos, I often thought about starting, and what always stopped me was the impossibility to really theme your force with the current codex - which is the way a fluff player sees it, but I can see how this makes viable builds for powergaming just as difficult to find, too. And only theming an army via different colours on models that all have the same rules is not what I consider interesting.

[VonMerrick]

also am not sure , If its ok to say , that someone who plays 5 games a year is actually playing the game . He collects the models , he paints them , but play? I dont think so .

 

I used to play a lot of games back in the 3rd and early 4th. After my marriage, my gaming group stopped meeting and we kind of faded a bit. I've kept current and continued to play occasionaly, but since several of my friends have moved back into the area, we are starting to play again and not just model. Once my army is finished in about a month, I'll probably be playing weekly again at least until November when I'll take a playing break to paint up my wolves. When we do play we perfer larger longer games of almost 3000 points. So it takes a lot of planning to get people over, keep the uninterested wives busy, lock up the kids, and crack open a case of beer.

 

My point was that I play when I can in a friendly non-tournament setting with friends whenever I can, but thats not always possible given my circumstances. Since my friends moved back, they have been building armies like myself and building our own table for my house. As a result we've only played about 5 times since last summer. But this summer, we're planning on having a campaign using mighty empire tiles and devising our own rules on using the map. This way 4 guys who love the hobby are sort of returning to the game playing aspect in a more story driven way. Also I will be trying my hand in some local tournaments later in the summer as my tactical grip on the 5th edition gets better.

 

So I do want to play but can be patient and will wait for my friends to buy and paint theirs as well. In this way we've sort of turned the whole experience into a good time. We got together to purchase our stuff, we're getting together to paint our stuff (and trash talk about how we're going to dominate the others), and finally at the end we'll get together and play the game together.

 

By the way, I really enjoy reading how people from all over view the hobby differently. Like I said earlier, Everyone's viewpoint is equally valid, like all things in life people can look at the same thing and have many different opinions.

 

I am curious as to how some gaming groups, as the Jeske has indicated in Eastern Europe, have become very RAW oriented tournament players, but how some especially near me are more likely to follow a "Rules as Intended" spirit of the game style play where things can be house ruled so the games are competitive but also fun. For example, based on what I've read from the jeske's posts, using an Iron Warriors Basilisk in standard games wouldn't be seen as nostalgic or cool like my red shirts at my local GW thought it was. I was told that my GW store would let me field that anytime I wanted cause it was "cool" regardless of the codex. As stated earlier, it takes all types to make a hobby like 40k work.

[SquirrelKing]

also am not sure , If its ok to say , that someone who plays 5 games a year is actually playing the game . He collects the models , he paints them , but play? I dont think so .

 

Hmmm, watch for the double standard there Jeske! :lol:

 

You say fluff gamers shouldn't judge powergamers for their playstyle preference, and here you say someone who takes the time to collect, paint, and actually play the game, just not often, as not really being a player? If he owns no models, and does none of the hobby side, but plays with his friends NM water warrior army twice a year, but still manages to win tournements worldwide, is he a player then?

 

I would hate to think that "I don't play the game" just because my opportunities to play are more limited than someone elses.

 

Obviously, a lot of diverging opinions on the subject! :lol:

[Zhukov]

I would say the same. 5 games per year isnt really playing the game. Playing is the battle part as far as I know. It is a part of the Hobby, same with painting etc.

 

So that does not mean that you arent busy with the Hobby. So I agree at least partly here with Jeske. 5 games a year is really low.

 

Depends a bit on the defination of 'playing the game'.

[Preysight]

I would say the same. 5 games per year isnt really playing the game. Playing is the battle part as far as I know.

 

But he does the battle part. 5 times a year.

 

Depends a bit on the defination of 'playing the game'.

 

My definition of playing the game is "one who plays the game".

 

Just because someone doesn't play regularly doesn't mean they're somehow not a player. There are no rules, classifications or regulations based on the amount of time you spend rolling dice on a table. Experience might make you better and more knowledgeable about the gameplay - it doesn't mean people who play less than you aren't players.

[VonMerrick]

Wow, that "5" times a year caused a bit of a stir

 

As stated thats just this past year as a result of a lot of personal stuff, hence I am more unfamilar with the 5th edition than previous ones.

 

I have been in the hobby for 10 years and did play a lot until the summer of 2008. So I think of myself as a player with a "bit" of rust. Thats part of the reason I'm on the forums. I value the opinions of people who have been playing more recently as they can give better insight into certain dynamics better than I can. However, a little time off from battling doesn't entirely make me a noob all over again. (At least in my eyes)

[the jeske]

I would hate to think that "I don't play the game" just because my opportunities to play are more limited than someone elses.

ok , who do you think can say that this or that option/build/rule warps the playfield , someone who plays 5 games a week or someone who plays 5 a year ? and as its more offten then not the "fluff" players that play less , who can say more about the Game [not the hobby ] ?

 

 

You say fluff gamers shouldn't judge powergamers for their playstyle preference, and here you say someone who takes the time to collect, paint, and actually play the game, just not often, as not really being a player?

what can you know about w40k after playing 5 games ? I mean if you dont test and play all the time or at least gold fish all the top tier builds [so play 2 games against eldar , 2 against chaos , 2 against pedr , 2 against khan , 2 against vulkan, 2 against fish of fury etc] , how do you know if the game is balanced or what works and what doesnt , both in rules and in game play . Its like saying that a total new comer[and I dont mean like my wife that painted very good from the start but she does have a master degree in art and speciallises in painting] can paint master class or table top lvl models after 5 models . Because he wont be able to do that. Just like after 5 games , you cant say what is the game about . Even if you have xp from other table top games .

Experience might make you better and more knowledgeable about the gameplay - it doesn't mean people who play less than you aren't players.

does that mean am a painter becuase I did paint a few models in my wife [well a lot of dwarfs mainlly] and a fluff player too , because both my AL and tournament water warriror list are true to codex fluff [respectivlly 3.5th and 4th ed]?

 

 

So I do want to play but can be patient and will wait for my friends to buy and paint theirs as well. In this way we've sort of turned the whole experience into a good time. We got together to purchase our stuff, we're getting together to paint our stuff (and trash talk about how we're going to dominate the others), and finally at the end we'll get together and play the game together.

and again am not saying thats bad . only .. you play and probablly will play in a small group of 5 people [most of the time] . this very offten warps the point of view on builds or unit/model choices or even whole rules. you also say you want to play 3k pts games[so entry apocalyps lvl] and again I can imagin you will have fun for it and will do a lot of "cinematic"[moves made for the cool factor not the tactical one etc] , because if someone doesnt , then apo turns in to a turn 1/2 win [paper/rock/siccors match ups if you try to build serious lists in apo] or the person with more flyer/FW stuff wining . But in a small group you wont have problems with that , in a large playgroup something like that is impossible [one of the reasons why apo is dead here].

[SquirrelKing]

ok , who do you think can say that this or that option/build/rule warps the playfield , someone who plays 5 games a week or someone who plays 5 a year ? and as its more offten then not the "fluff" players that play less , who can say more about the Game [not the hobby ] ?

 

You are absolutely right in that a player who plays more games will have more experience. But my point is that both players (experienced vs inexperienced) are still players.

 

what can you know about w40k after playing 5 games ?

 

Do I like it? Was it fun for me? Do I want to play it again? Pretty essential to anything that has to do with the hobby or game (as you put it) actually.

 

how do you know if the game is balanced or what works and what doesnt , both in rules and in game play

 

Again, this has nothing to do with actually playing the game. All of this is experience, and knowledge in the finer points of one aspect of the hobby.

 

does that mean am a painter becuase I did paint a few models

 

Yes it does. Maybe not a good one :lol:, but a painter none the less.

 

I think you are saying that playing 5 games doesn't make you a good player. That to attain a certain level, let's call it pro, you need to play a certain number of games (like in chess). I totally agree with that. But playing one game does make you someone who played 40k. The number of games can help to define what level you are at playing said game.

 

Jeske, you play at a certain level, and you play a certain way to get what you want out of the hobby. I also do that. Thus we are two different players, playing for different reasons and for different goals. That's all.

[juliusb]

I love Possessed Marines! The new box is great for modeling even if you don't do conversions and the models just look great. Most fun I've had painting in a while too. I also love the randomness of their Daemonkin rule, truly 'chaotic'.

 

I once had a squad of 5 tie up 3 Obliterators for an entire game, I rolled for Power Weapons. The final 3 turns (6 assault phases) saw the sole remaining Oblit limply slapping my lone, equally impotent Possessed marine in an epic battle of weakness. I've never seen so many made 5+ invulns, it was pretty funny because this pillowfight took place on a hill right in the middle of the board. Those two guys must've been so embarrassed.

[the jeske]

Do I like it? Was it fun for me? Do I want to play it again? Pretty essential to anything that has to do with the hobby or game (as you put it) actually.

I dont think so , you cant say , if you like the game if you havent played against most of the field. how can you like or dislike something you dont know ? you may have played against someone you dont like , got screwed by counter set up or bad match up and stomped turn 2 [what considering someone is not really xp with the game can happen offten]. and not forget the random factor of rolls , even the best army may just not work , no man ever has won against his own dice.

Again, this has nothing to do with actually playing the game. All of this is experience, and knowledge in the finer points of one aspect of the hobby.

ok here am reaching the border of understanding the english language , because I dont understand this here . Either your a player or your a hobbiest or your a painter/converter , there is no other options[well maybe judge or TO , but thats not really w40k only]. I know am a player , the game is important to me , the most important thing[well the most important thing in w40k] , My wife is a painter , she cares about how models look like [thats why she picked eldar] . Someone who plays 5 games [or just very few games] a year is not a player , he is hobbiest a collector of w40k models .

 

 

I think you are saying that playing 5 games doesn't make you a good player. That to attain a certain level, let's call it pro, you need to play a certain number of games (like in chess).

its impossible to be a pro in w40k , because no one is able to live out of it . best thing people do is generate extra income [one can win stuff in some tournmanents , sometimes even cash , but generally painting generates more cash].

[eyescrossed]

Someone who plays 5 games [or just very few games] a year is not a player , he is hobbiest a collector of w40k models .

I rarely get to play (because of lack of players near me, only about 1 game every 2-3 months). but playing is the most important thing to me. So what am I? I don't collect it for the sake of collecting, I collect it to play with it.

 

Apparently though, I'm not a player according to you.

[Wolf Priest Haelaeif]

Also, a hobbyist is not someone who simply collects models, but someone like me, who enjoys all (or at least most) aspects of the hobby equally: painting and modelling, playing competitively and playing storytelling games, collecting, reading and maybe writing fluff. That's a hobbyist. And I think that is actually the majority of 40K players. Yes, I use players as a word for anyone who actually calls WH40K or WHFB or both his hobby.

[Zhukov]

I rarely get to play (because of lack of players near me, only about 1 game every 2-3 months). but playing is the most important thing to me. So what am I? I don't collect it for the sake of collecting, I collect it to play with it.

 

Well then you are are someone who wants to be a player, but which your current situation not allows you to be.

[eyescrossed]

I rarely get to play (because of lack of players near me, only about 1 game every 2-3 months). but playing is the most important thing to me. So what am I? I don't collect it for the sake of collecting, I collect it to play with it.

 

Well then you are are someone who wants to be a player, but which your current situation not allows you to be.

That is so untrue I almost gagged on my hot chocolate when I read it.

I am a player, since I play. Even if it isn't so often.

 

Where do "player" and "aspiring to be a player" meet? How many games a year do I need to play to be deemed a player?

[Zhukov]

Ah well I'm just fokking around a bit haha. Thats of course hard to tell how many games you have to play per year to call someone a wh40k player.

 

Maybe it helps if you compare it with other things in live:

If you play chess 5 times a year, does that make you a chess player?

If you play football 5 times a year, does that make you a football player?

If you play computer games 5 times a year, does that make you a gamer?

 

My intuition says no by all these questions. Although one could still watch football a lot and have football as a hobby. Same with 40k, you could still invest a lot of time in other aspects of the hobby so you could still be an 40k hobbiest. So one things does not exclude the other.

[cathar the great]

You can't just create two or three categories of people and divide everyone you know into them, there's just way too much to the hobby for that. I play about ten to twenty games a year. Most of them are special scenarios and part of a narrative campaign.

 

That doesn't make me a good gamer, but a gamer nonetheless. I don't claim to be able to give sound advice to someone who wants a good list, but I can still give advice along the lines of "This unit was good in These situations...".

 

And I think this is more useful advice than "Double lash princes, max oblits /repeat"...

 

/OT

From reading through your posts in this thread, jeske, I got a clearer picture of you and your view on the game. That's good, because I had always viewed you as an arrogant and stubborn pro-gamer with no soul for the hobby, which you are not. But often, you seem that way because of your posts.

 

I know it's hard to say what you really mean if English is not your mother tongue, I often fail at that, too, but you should really take a little more time rephrasing what you want to say so it doesn't create harsh comments and discussions

[Zhukov]

I know it's hard to say what you really mean if English is not your mother tongue, I often fail at that, too, but you should really take a little more time rephrasing what you want to say so it doesn't create harsh comments and discussions

 

Maybe its not needed to defend Jeske as he can probably do this himself, but this count in general too: who are you to say that someone should take a little more time rephrasing things? Read that sentence again please.

[cathar the great]

I know it's hard to say what you really mean if English is not your mother tongue, I often fail at that, too, but you should really take a little more time rephrasing what you want to say so it doesn't create harsh comments and discussions

 

Maybe its not needed to defend Jeske as he can probably do this himself, but this count in general too: who are you to say that someone should take a little more time rephrasing things? Read that sentence again please.

 

 

It's advice, someone can take it, or leave it, I'm not trying to be arrogant here. Just look at this thread! Already a couple of posts were deleted because of personal arguments that happened because someone didn't get across what they really meant...

[SquirrelKing]

I dont think so , you cant say , if you like the game if you havent played against most of the field. how can you like or dislike something you dont know ? you may have played against someone you dont like , got screwed by counter set up or bad match up and stomped turn 2 [what considering someone is not really xp with the game can happen offten]. and not forget the random factor of rolls , even the best army may just not work , no man ever has won against his own dice.

 

You see, these examples ( apart from playing against a bad player) are from a tactical point of view. What if I don't care if I lose the game? Or roll badly? But had a great time imagining the cinematics of the battles, laughing with my opponent, learning the game. The tactical side of the game is but one aspect of the game: there is the battle intuition of the player, the luck of the dice, etc.

 

I think you have a very clear idea of what you like/dislike. Just don't apply it to everyone or as rules of thumb.

 

ok here am reaching the border of understanding the english language , because I dont understand this here .

 

I was just commenting on your mention of knowing the rules and balance of the game. I was just saying that these are complementary to playing the game: as in you can still play the game without detailed knowledge of the game system and its faillings. This knowledge probably makes you a better player, but doesn't define you as a player.

 

Either your a player or your a hobbiest or your a painter/converter , there is no other options[well maybe judge or TO , but thats not really w40k only]. I know am a player , the game is important to me , the most important thing[well the most important thing in w40k] , My wife is a painter , she cares about how models look like [thats why she picked eldar] . Someone who plays 5 games [or just very few games] a year is not a player , he is hobbiest a collector of w40k models

 

I don't think that those characterizations are mutually exclusive. You can be all of those to a lesser extent. Better at some and not as much in others. I think the only time you are only one is if you actually don't do anything else. i.e. I only play games, I don't own models, don't paint. Or someone who only likes the painting/modeling aspect but doesn't play at all.

 

Again, what I'm trying to say is that you seem to see a player as someone who concentrates only on the tabletop game aspect of the hobby, who is strategically sound and informed on the higher end aspects of tactics and tries to apply them in every game. While I see a player as someone who joins someone else at moving little plastic men on a table and rolling dice.

 

I understand your point of view, all I'm saying is it doesn't apply to the majority of gamers (I would think). I can be wrong, and I'm ok with that. :blink: