# Gamism vs. Hobbism (Stuff about armybuilding and AS)



## Kaizer (Aug 14, 2008)

In Denmark there has and probably always will been a lot of debates about army selection systems and restrictions for tournaments. Through the years I been against these constructions, both because I found them stupid and they prevented them from playing the army I would like to field.

But the couple of months something has changed and I haven’t figured out why. So here are some thoughts of why I have changed.

When I started playing 5th edition I ended up playing with a lot if competitive people which of course let to me being competitive. When in Rome, do as the Romans. And I got quite good and I did a lot of speculating when it came to army lists and tactics. And I really liked the army I played (nurgle themed CSM), both because I liked the concept and probably because it was quite competitive. But do to my bad painting skill at the moment the army was put on the shelf and later sold, and then I started building other armies. It ended up with me building a Ork battlewagon brigade for a tournament in the Netherlands (Battle of the clubs) and afterwards I played it once. I used a great time preparing speculating about the list and the missions, and played some practice matches too. I build up a lot of excitement about the army, but it ended up being about winning instead of having fun. So now I’m changed.

Besides that I started in a new gaming club. They are and have always been known for their extreme army selection system and their high thoughts about fluff, hobbism and “the good game”. This time, I got the ideas first hand instead of read on forums and stuff like that. And it ended up in me starting the Imperial Fist army I always wanted. Not competitive, just with the stuff I like, and I started thinking about my army list being interesting instead of hard hitting. I love my army and I use to many ours painting the yellow on my marines, and still I like playing it because my opponents make armies to have fun and they are legal with in the gaming clubs restrictions and army selection system. I wouldn’t use the army in a competitive setting and I get kind of annoyed seeing my opponent fielding far more competitive lists when we are just playing to have fun. The word cookie cutter ending up being a four letter word.

So here is my questions…
- What are your thoughts about restrictions and army building selections systems? Do you use them?

- Do they improve the game or do they make it into something else?

- What makes you love your army and what motivates your army building?

- Do I seem motivated by gamism or hobbism? And are one better than the other?

Hope someone will take up this debate!

Just thoughts of a guy suffering from insomnia


----------



## AngelofDeath (Jul 1, 2010)

Great thread and I totally agree. Warhammer games should be done with the thought of having fun. Not the thought of crushing my opponent just to win. 
I think just the fact that you brought up this thread makes you believe more in hobbyism and the fact that people should do it because they want to play with friends. 
I play my Blood Angels because I love their background and am reading all of James Swallow's books on them right now. I have never played them because I wanted to kick the crap out of people, I wanted to play them because they became more a part of me rather than just an army, I have customized them how I think they would look best, not what way would make them win the most in tournys. 

Rant over lol... Great Thread!


----------



## AAAAAAAAARRRGGHH (Apr 17, 2009)

What I think of restrictions? Depends heavily on what they are. At our LGS we're pretty relaxed about such things so the only thing we actually restrict in any sense of the word are abusive special characters (Vulkan springs to mind. Even though we haven't seen much to him really.), but we have yet to actually outright ban anything.

Imo, banning something should also only be the last resort. One that shouldn't even come up in a game such as this. After all, if you only want to play to win I suggest you play something else. Something where the games only last a couple of minutes, that way you can have so many more of the shallow victories you love so much.

Generally I see find that a few tweaks can bring some balance to an unstable system, but going too far and bureaucracy strangles the system. Like it has happened with Fantasy. At least here in Denmark the so called "restrictions" have totally gone haywire with people swinging the banhammer left and right. Hell, the last one I looked at had banned, no kidding, "all flying monsters with strenght 6 or above". WTF? And a friend of mine actually suggested we should play with that system (which contained tons of other weirdo rules), but he was nice enough to let me use my dragon because he knows that I love it. 
That pissed me off. I'm only allowed to use the model I have paid a lot of money for, spent a lot of time painting and really love as my army's centerpiece because you are so good and gracious to allow me to? Screw that and screw all the players who makes people come up with this crappe! Glad our LGS store doesn't have to adjust to this shit.

Anyways, now that my somewhat uninformative rant is over, i'd like to say that restrictions shouldn't ever have to be needed anywhere outside of tournies. If you can't play for fun why bother playing?

As such, the gaming experience is vey important to me. First and foremost I like my armies based on how they play. Then comes the fluff and the overall look and feel of the army (aka the models and such). The army doesn't have to inspire me in any particular way, neither do I have to be able to identify with the forces it represents. All I want it to is to look and feel good with minimal effort and be a blast to play. 

Guess what that makes me. That's right, a gamer. 

Btw Kaizer, where do you play?


----------



## Tzeen Qhayshek (May 4, 2010)

I just hate the notion of each army having a "master list" as a recipe for winning. I find it detracting and down right unfair. I want to play to play, not to win - though winning is obviously a bonus.


----------



## Katie Drake (Nov 28, 2007)

Kaizer said:


> So here is my questions…
> - What are your thoughts about restrictions and army building selections systems? Do you use them?


No, because they're fail.



> - Do they improve the game or do they make it into something else?


All they do is change the game and not necessarily for the better. For example, let's say that for whatever reason next year's Ard Boyz rules that armies are only allowed to take 1 Heavy Support choice instead of the usual 3. Sure, it might fix the supposedly broken Imperial Guard "problem" that everyone bitches about, but all it'd do in the end is create a brand new "best" army - probably one like Orks who don't usually use a ton of Heavy Support.



> - What makes you love your army and what motivates your army building?


I love my army because I love the Blood Angel Codex, I love my army's colour scheme and its fluff. For me, the main motivator to collecting new units for my army is for new opportunities on the tabletop - I love trying out new units and combinations.


----------



## LuLzForTheLuLzGoD (Apr 3, 2010)

I usually get motivated by things not related to 40k like i have always wanted a viking army theme for my guard.
restrictions i think would be bad because it would just bring more problems than it would fix.
although winning is awesome as long as its a good game i dont really mind losing....too much lol


----------



## gen.ahab (Dec 22, 2009)

- What are your thoughts about restrictions and army building selections systems? Do you use them?

Just makes new and exciting cluster fuckes. IOW if you change something to lessen the impact an army has it will just make another army will just take its place. 

- Do they improve the game or do they make it into something else?

See the previous answer

- What makes you love your army and what motivates your army building?

Its fun to play and I usually build me lists to win. Don't see any other reason to build a list.


----------



## chromedog (Oct 31, 2007)

I build lists to suit the models I have (it's wysiwyg).

I also don't field models that aren't painted (I came in via napoleonics where you just don't field unpainted armies. It just isn't done. )

Given that I also only own models I like the look of, and this is not dependent upon their effectiveness on the table, my lists tend to be on the suck side. I win the odd game, and draw more than I win (close games that come down to last turn).

For the most part, the tourney scene here is still that 40k is a beer and pretzels social game (but you still get tools in the pub, so a tourney is no different).


----------



## HOBO (Dec 7, 2007)

> - What are your thoughts about restrictions and army building selections systems? Do you use them?


I think this only leads to handicapping a list...every Unit in a Codex has a valid use in the game, whether it is powerful or not. It's not the lists that suck the fun out of a game it's the dickhead playing said list that does that. 

That said, my Group play a lot of Narrative and Campaign - based lists where certain unit selection usually applies. This is where the 'power lists' concept isn't abused, and it's more about the storyline and what objectives need to be met.



> - Do they improve the game or do they make it into something else?


In standard games I would say no, and what are people's motives for suggesting restrictions anyway..could be construed as 'sore losers' for one.



> - What makes you love your army and what motivates your army building?


My main reasons are because I'm a collector first and foremost, especially with my IG. I love tanks and have 40+ Russ/Chimera chassis. I also play Death Wing/ Daemon Hunters/ SM's, all are about 3/3K, while IG is at 12K and climbing. I build them to this limit because I want to be able to field a variety of different Units and not just stick to the same few.

The background is also very important, and I have a 100 page Word Document containing every piece of info etc I come across.



> - Do I seem motivated by gamism or hobbism? And are one better than the other?


Neither is the better one, each person has different motivations. Me, I'm both a Gamer and a Hobbyist, and I will powergame against a fellow powergamer, or just play friendly games if that's what's going on...they're both fun.


----------



## Dave T Hobbit (Dec 3, 2009)

Kaizer said:


> - What are your thoughts about restrictions and army building selections systems? Do you use them?


GW are not perfect; however, they have a team of people who design and revise whole systems as a job, so the system is more balanced than not. Whilst hitting on a better arrangement is possible, trying to fix an issue you think they missed without access to their design decisions, is likely to open up another issue and so on....

An examples of how it can all go wrong, even for professionals, is the furore over the Throne of Skulls attempt to balance things for different armies.



Kaizer said:


> - Do they improve the game or do they make it into something else?


They change the game; depending on which army I am fielding I might find it better, worse or not 40K at all.

For instance, a ruling that only the first three armies including powered armour troops to apply may use them; everyone else has to use another army. As the fluff stresses how rare Space Marines are this makes the game more true to canon, so it must be as good decision, right?:grin:



Kaizer said:


> - What makes you love your army and what motivates your army building?


The background. I have really enjoyed the GW concept of Chaos since Slaves to Darkness.

Back in the days of Rogue Trader I picked up whichever models I felt like painting or adding to an army, so I ran Space Marines, Eldar, Squats. Whilst being drawn back into 3rd Edition I used Space Marines for a while as I had lots of them; however they did not gel as I could win but they were boring.

So now I collect based on background, and try to put together a playable army that matches the background.



Kaizer said:


> ...gamism or hobbism? And are one better than the other?


They are different instances of the overall GW IP: you do not need to be able to paint, convert, or even know the background to win a game; you do not need to play games to be a hobbyist.

I feel that neither is inherently better; however, whichever the group you are interacting with identifies with is better for that interaction as someone who is motivated by primarily fluff and someone who is motivated by primarily by winning are using basic terms (such as, available options) differently so will have to keep translating their concepts.



gen.ahab said:


> Its fun to play and I usually build me lists to win. Don't see any other reason to build a list.


For me, part of the challenge of list building is to keep within my self-imposed restrictions without making a complete Gordon Brown of it.



chromedog said:


> I also don't field models that aren't painted (I came in via napoleonics where you just don't field unpainted armies. It just isn't done. )


Now that is an interesting dilemma for tournaments for which I have not seen a perfect answer; rewarding painting and fluffiness, or penalising lack thereof.

On the one hand, an ugly gun and a pretty gun both kill you the same amount and the dice gods do not actually punish Dual Lash Princes with Nurgle cheerleaders; on the other hand, some of the enjoyment of the game comes from it being played with painted figures with a history instead of counters.


----------



## GrizBe (May 12, 2010)

Personally... if your not playing the game to have fun, I don't see the point in why your playing. Heck... Its a game and a hobby. Not a 'you must win or your dead' real life situation.


----------



## Kaizer (Aug 14, 2008)

I’m agreeing with you KatieD, they fail, and they ruin the gaming experience for some do to the fact that they can’t play the way they want. But yet peoples armies change when new codices comes out, so why not try fixing some of the weird stuff and make people be creative and fun when they build armies instead of building the strongest army?

And it’s here I think these restrictions fail. Because if you want to win and you learn how to build a competitive list without restrictions, you simply start looking at the army selection system and try to find ways of how you can abuse it. It simply makes the cheesy into another one, and there by simply fixes that the strongest list aren’t called dual lash, but simply something else. But how do we make sure the game stays fun. How do we explain people that they should make a fun army with a decent power level instead of him bring his cheese to the table every time? 
And these general thought of telling people to play differently to me seems unfair. They aren’t playing the game wrong, it’s not fair that I’m aloud to bring the units I like and love to play, and he isn’t. How would you secure a balance gaming experience against someone at your club which aren’t really a friend of yours?

I like the idea that HOBO is taking about, these narrative and campaign based restrictions is in my eyes a good way to make the game even more balance and really interesting. But its main weakness seems to be that you can’t just take a quick and fun game without using time to fit it into the campaign or the story. Do you use like a game master or something?

To me it’s quite important that my opponent and I are both fielding our armies to have a fun experience and a good time. But sometimes you end up dragging yourself through the game against the douchbag who are just focus on winning at any cost. How do you make these people cheer up and have fun instead of being annoying? How do we break the ice?

And just to be specific, I played competitive armies for years, and still I always joke around and have fun while I play instead of using every part of my brain to find the best way to win at any cost. Has it earn me tournament prices or titles? No. Have I had a great time? Hell YAH!

Fighting on in the name of having fun


----------



## gen.ahab (Dec 22, 2009)

GrizBe said:


> Personally... if your not playing the game to have fun, I don't see the point in why your playing. Heck... Its a game and a hobby. Not a 'you must win or your dead' real life situation.


Here is a thought, might be tough so just stay with me here, winning.... Is fun. Just a thought so I might be wrong here... But I doubt it. Lol


----------



## GrizBe (May 12, 2010)

Yes but its not fun having such an overpowered list that your opponant is a pushover.


----------



## CLT40k (Jun 18, 2010)

_- What are your thoughts about restrictions and army building selections systems? Do you use them?_
I haven't seen any except "no special characters" - which I think is dumb...

_- Do they improve the game or do they make it into something else?_
Just makes another list the "best"

_- What makes you love your army and what motivates your army building?_
My main armies are Wolves, Guard and Tau (though my Tau have been on the shelf since Jan/Feb - I need more Tau stuff) I run pretty competitive lists and I like the fluff and the tactical stuff pretty evenly. I choose armies based on what I want to paint.... and when I build a list I look to get the most out of my boys/fish... For the wolves, I really dig the space Viking thing... I drove a tank in the Marines, so I have a special place in my heart for the Guard. And I think the tau have really cool looking transports and I dig the way my tau came out... 

_- Do I seem motivated by gamism or hobbism? And are one better than the other?_

Honestly, I don't see a difference... I really like the hobby aspect - which for me involves painting, reading background, etc... I also like the game aspect - which is all about throwing dice and doing tactical stuff... I like the combination of the two... I don't like playing against _the grey horde_ I like having nice terrain. I think you should not be a douche. I think you should know the rules. I think you should be able to look your opponent in the eye after every game and feel good about it. 

_Tzeen Qhayshek said, "I just hate the notion of each army having a "master list" as a recipe for winning. I find it detracting and down right unfair. I want to play to play, not to win - though winning is obviously a bonus."_
They don't... There are a lot of ways you can run guard to be effective, you can run space wolves a lot of different ways to be effective too. Tau are pretty much locked into a mono-build. But there really isn't a "master list" out there... What we DO find is that 4th Ed codices have some limitations when compared to 5th ed codices and there are certain builds that are just more competitive. 

_GrizBe said, "It's a game and a hobby. Not a 'you must win or your dead' real life situation._
I totally agree... But lets compare this to other sports systems. I played Rugby in college and we'd beat the hell out of each other on the field. Afterwards we'd all go have beers. Playing hard and competitive is fun. The only time it gets un-fun for me is when people are being unfriendly during the game. But you can be friendly and competitive at the same time. So is your problem the style of competitive play or people being jerks while playing?

_Kaizer said "I always joke around and have fun while I play instead of using every part of my brain to find the best way to win at any cost" _
So do I, or at least I try too... But for example, I had a guy get mad at me cause I had a unit in B2B with an immobilized vehicle during his assault phase. He was upset because I got to hit it again since he didn't shoot me off it, assault me off it, etc... Is it MY fault I know some rules and he doesn't... Is this what you mean by using every part of my brain to win at all cost? If so, then I would say it's YOUR RESPONSIBILITY AS A PLAYER TO KNOW THE RULES AND NOT GET BENT OUT OF SHAPE WHEN YOU'RE WRONG. (btw that wasn't directed at you... just a general shout) I think you have a responsibility to be a good sportsman at all times. I think if you slow play somebody you should be beaten with a sock full of quarters. Ie, regardless of what game we're playing, we should compete, play hard and have fun. 

I play the game to have fun. I don't play just to "crush" my opponent. Playing against a weak list NOT FUN FOR A COMPETITIVE PLAYER. It's just not challenging when you know you've got the win on turn 1 and it won't be due to good generalship on your part but because your opponent is stupid and made bad choices in their list. 

One of the things I've not been able to figure out is what a fluffy list looks like... Is it the models you have? Is it taking bad choices (whirlwinds, swooping hawks, vespids, rough riders) I haven't seen anything from GW that would spell out what a fluffy list is (unless you want to run a company) I play space wolves and guard primarily, so if somebody would post up a fluffy list and why it's fluffy I'd appreciate it. I mostly just think fluffy=stupid choices so I'd like to be illuminated.


----------



## Dave T Hobbit (Dec 3, 2009)

CLT40k said:


> ...if somebody would post up a fluffy list and why it's fluffy I'd appreciate it. I mostly just think fluffy=stupid choices so I'd like to be illuminated.


Just an overview of a fluffy Thousand Sons army-list for no particular points value:

*HQ*
Sorcerer Lord (with or without Terminator armour)
- Mark of Tzeentch
- 2x Any Psychic Power (probably Warptime and one other)​
*Troops*
N x Thousand Sons Squads
Aspiring Sorcerer
- Any Psychic Power (probably Bolt of Change or Doombolt)
- Melta Bombs
8 Rubric Marines​
*Elites*
_None_

*Fast Attack*
_None_

*Heavy Support*
Three of:
Defiler
Vindicator
Predator
Land Raider​
This would be fluffy because it is solely Thousand Sons, Sorcerers, and TS vehicles; it therefore reflects all Thousand Sons being either Sorcerers or Rubric Marines. The lack of a DP as HQ reflects the TS hatred (and lack) of mutation (which is pretty much a given on the road to Daemonhood). It also lack close combat punch which fits with the TS belief in standing off rather than charging forwards.

Is it less easy to compete? Very much so.

Is it stupid? Not if your goal is to be unassailably true to canon.


----------



## gen.ahab (Dec 22, 2009)

GrizBe said:


> Yes but its not fun having such an overpowered list that your opponant is a pushover.


I think it is fun but it makes my opponent feels like shit and I don't like being an ass hole which mean it isn't fun. I suppose your right, I want my opponent to have fun while I am killing him.


----------



## Katie Drake (Nov 28, 2007)

GrizBe said:


> Yes but its not fun having such an overpowered list that your opponant is a pushover.


Frankly, that's the problem of the "opponant" rather than the problem of the person with the good list. It's really not that difficult to build a list that won't get automatically curb stomped by any other list especially given the vast amount of information available on forums such as this and the ever increasing number of blogs dedicated to gaming. People spend endless hours painting figures and reading fluff - I don't see doing a little research in to finding out what makes a good list as a death sentence.


----------



## GrizBe (May 12, 2010)

Thats kind of the problem though.. the mindset of 'Oh, if my list isn't competative, I can't have fun.' 

Pretty much its a vicious circle of 'I can't have a stupid list or I'll get stomped' - 'I can't play the army I want to play as it'll get stomped' - 'I won't have fun if I loose, which means I need a strong list' and so on...

Then your trying to push that on other players who may not be as experienced, or care if 'X unit is better then Y for z reasons', or they don't want you use certain models as it costs too much for their budget or because they don't like the look of them or want to paint them.

Seriously... what is the problem with the players these days? Don't get me wrong... I'm not one of these 'Oh, we don't keep score as it upsets people if they loose' idiots. But the thing is, its a hobby and a game. Everyone should have fun doing it. Okay, some people may have fun trying to make the toughest list they can... but really, whats the point of that at the end of the day? If your undefeatable, no-ones going to want to play you and you will get accused of being a jerk, even if your not. 

Maybe I'm just being over-nostalgic, but when I started playing, everyone had lists like the fluffy one Dave posted... and whats wrong with that? Everyone had fun, sometimes you won, sometimes you lost and the army you had fit with the general theme rather then all being a generalised mech force that you had to have to get anywhere.

Wheres the soul gone out of the game?


----------



## Katie Drake (Nov 28, 2007)

GrizBe said:


> Okay, some people may have fun trying to make the toughest list they can... *but really, whats the point of that at the end of the day?* If your undefeatable, no-ones going to want to play you and you will get accused of being a jerk, even if your not.


The point is to play against other people doing the same thing, to match wits with your opponent and hopefully have a close game. I can't think of anyone that would be happy if they won every game they ever played. The whole idea is to constantly improve as a gamer and you learn a lot more by losing than you do winning in the vast majority of cases.


----------



## GrizBe (May 12, 2010)

And thats kind of the point and the problem again. Its just a constant circle of trying to muscle out and one up the other person, making it an obsession rather then a bit of fun in your free time which is what it should be, and forcing out the guy who's new and doesn't know how to compete or just wants to play his 'fluffy' army and just plain have fun.

Theres no heart left in the game.


----------



## Katie Drake (Nov 28, 2007)

GrizBe said:


> And thats kind of the point and the problem again. Its just a constant circle of trying to muscle out and one up the other person, making it an obsession rather then a bit of fun in your free time which is what it should be, and forcing out the guy who's new and doesn't know how to compete or just wants to play his 'fluffy' army and just plain have fun.
> 
> Theres no heart left in the game.


No, it's about trying to improve *yourself*. It's like working out or something, you do it because it makes you feel good and to improve your health. I really don't see how this involves forcing the new guy out of the game. In fact, last summer I played against a guy who'd bought a Tyranids army but hadn't played a game before. After our first game, every time I saw him we'd either play one another or chat about his army, tactics and all that. Now, one year later he's become a pretty good player and can beat me just under half the time (a little more in the last couple months since I've been fiddling with my new Codex). If that's forcing a new person out of the game I don't really know what more to say.

There's plenty of heart left in the game. You're just looking for it in the wrong place.


----------



## genesis108 (Jul 29, 2009)

Katie Drake said:


> There's plenty of heart left in the game. You're just looking for it in the wrong place.


Like the mirror..maybe there's no more hert in the game as far as HE is concerned, but plenty of players and hobbyists still have plenty of heart and dedication to the game.


----------



## HOBO (Dec 7, 2007)

GrizBe said:


> Theres no heart left in the game.


Talk about an over-generalization:nono: The Web has a lot to answer for.

In 20+ years of Gaming I have witnessed very little bad behaviour, and it's not like it's hard to stamp out. Just alienate the arseholes if they don't tow the line..they usually came/come around, well if they ever wanted to get any games.

If there's so many arseholes in the area you play that the fair-minded players are outnumbered, then I feel for you, but around where I live they are few and far between, so the above works very well. Plus if the FLGS/GW Store near you condones such behaviour then you're screwed..but surely that's not the case, as it sends the wrong message for a start, and isn't condusive for getting people into the games.

My non-constructive comment to fix the problem would be to move and/or find new players to game with:biggrin:


----------



## DonFer (Apr 23, 2010)

I'm pretty new to the game and I'd like to give my thoughts about it.

I'm a former M:TG player that was burnt out by the competition there was in it. Frankly there wasn't room for fun anymore. Like someone mentioned earlier the fact that there are forums out there discussing the "decks-to-beat" kind of crap, killed my desire to play the game. See, it was impossible to play a fun game without seeing that 99% of the players were copying the best decks. So the fun in the game was gone. The fact that there was also a list of banned/restricted cards added insult to the injury 'cause one couldn't play with some cards just because the same morons that designed them, had second thoughts about 'em and decided they were actually broken (of course this list was for tournaments but finally it was just as official in casual play too). Long story short, I left the game for good.

So my point is, over-competitiveness in a game just plain kills the fun part of it. But if there are tournaments there is always going to be this kind of gaming, where fun turns out to be a kill-or-get-killed situation (which btw is a fun irony if you consider the fluff in 40k :biggrin. One enters a tournament to win, (and maybe have fun in the process). But this attitude towards the game cannot be "copied" every time you grab your minis and walk to the local store to "crash" the next poor sod that crossed your path. I'm all for casual and fun games, but I also would like someday to field an army that takes me to the top spot in a tournament. The thing is I'll always enjoy the game in playing not only in winning.

BTW, to answer one of the questions posted, I like both aspects of the game. Painting is a challenge for me and find it a very nice way of relaxing. I cannot say I like playing since my first battle is still pending.... still I think I'm gonna have a blast with my GKs anytime soon. :grin:


----------



## Kaizer (Aug 14, 2008)

To me the gaming and hobby parts are both about trying to improve myself. I painted a nice table top standard for some time now, so I decided that I wanted to put in the time, effort and frustrations into getting above average, and it pays off.

And I feel the same way when it comes to playing the game, but do I improve by playing “easy cookie cutter lists” or by thinking out of the box and making the list that I want to play work as good as possible, better than the average performance?
My general thought of the restrictions as an advantage is that it forces people to think out of the box. When the standard list on the internet isn’t a legal build, you have to think for yourself, and write your own list. And there by improve yourself.

This might involve that you’re making a list that isn’t the best list possible, but I think very few fluffy list automatically becomes useless. The probably get weaker, but then you have to get better at playing it. So it’s about skills and not reading lists on the internet.

But then again there is nothing wrong with being competitive and making hardcore army lists, but the problem to me is mainly the fact that I can’t find a good way to agree on what the power level of a battle should be.


----------



## AngryCanadian (Feb 1, 2010)

is There something wrong with wanting to win every game?

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
i still play to win, i just cant help it, 

of course i try to play ppl with experience, and not crush all the new gamers

in tourny mode- hells yeah 4-5 BattleWagons with 2 Kustom Force Fields, im in it to win it

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 think changing the game to exclude a special character seems childish(i cant win if you use Vulkan so you cant use him anymore)


----------



## Katie Drake (Nov 28, 2007)

Kaizer said:


> but the problem to me is mainly the fact that I can’t find a good way to agree on what the power level of a battle should be.


That's probably because it's pretty hard to quantify a set power level that you want to aim for. How does one decide what's above or below this level that everyone's agreed on? It just becomes a huge hassle and it's almost inevitable that _someone_ is going to end up with their feelings hurt, models they never get to use or something else unpleasant. This is why I'm an advocate of the "suck it up, princess" method. If it's in the army's Codex and doesn't involve blatant bending/breaking of the rules, it's kosher. Just because something's hard to deal with doesn't mean it should be banned or restricted. It's just yet another hurdle to overcome on one's path to self improvement (though it's admittedly a small part of one's overall self).

I'm gonna end this post now 'cause I feel like I'm getting preachy.


----------



## Kaizer (Aug 14, 2008)

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


----------



## Katie Drake (Nov 28, 2007)

Kaizer said:


> 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?


Inevitably there are units that simply... aren't good. That's just life. There's no way to make sure all the options are perfectly balanced against one another even within the context of a single army let alone having each army balanced against the others. So yeah, there are going to be shelved units or units that only come out in Apocalypse games or whatever. For new players, they can avoid buying units they'll never use by doing some research beforehand and asking more experienced individuals for help.

As for an army getting worse whenever a new Codex comes out, I find that a bit hard to swallow. I can't think of _any_ Codex that has gotten crappier every single time it's been updated, at least not as a whole. Sure, often units that were fabulous in a previous edition of a Codex become dumbed down and less useful than others but that's just something people have to accept. It's going to happen one way or another. Fact: Games Workshop is a company. Fact: Games Workshop makes money by selling models. Fact: Games Workshop takes steps to sell as many models as possible. There's no getting around any of this stuff, it'll be the same in any game system.


----------



## gen.ahab (Dec 22, 2009)

Kaizer said:


> 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?
> 
> ...


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.


----------



## Dave T Hobbit (Dec 3, 2009)

AngryCanadian said:


> 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.



AngryCanadian said:


> 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.



AngryCanadian said:


> 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.



AngryCanadian said:


> 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.


----------



## DonFer (Apr 23, 2010)

gen.ahab said:


> 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 :biggrin 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).


----------



## CLT40k (Jun 18, 2010)

Kaizer said:


> 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...


----------



## GrizBe (May 12, 2010)

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.


----------



## CLT40k (Jun 18, 2010)

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.


----------



## Katie Drake (Nov 28, 2007)

GrizBe said:


> 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.


----------



## GrizBe (May 12, 2010)

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'.


----------



## morfangdakka (Dec 31, 2006)

GrizBe said:


> 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.


----------



## CLT40k (Jun 18, 2010)

GrizBe said:


> 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....


----------



## Lord Reevan (May 1, 2008)

One thing I find annoying about this thread is that people keep complaining that people playing themed lists are basically autofail against competitive lists. This is not the case. I am the head of my gaming group(youthworker and we use the youth centre, tis very helpful others should try it ) so I play the new players to give them a grasp of the game and how the basics work. 

New guy had the marine list that won a tournament printed out and used it. I had a BA list with scouts, normal bike squadrons and a techmarine among other things, basically things that most BA players wouldn't go near. I destroyed him completely. I had an unfluffly but weakened list, he had a powerbuild And i tabled him. main problem was he didn't have a proper grasp on tactics and the rules. A player can use a themed army very well as long as they understand the game well. 

More examples. Entering a tournament soon and a lot of people say that I should be running my jump pack marines in transports. Those guys make back their points every single game. another guy said my list would be destroyed by a lash list. I wasn't lashed onced in my game agaisnt him. you understand the game, you're doing a lot more than the people who "decide" what shoudl and should not be taken. for that reason I find the more competitive players, who understand the game much better than the fluffmasters, give much better games. if a fluffmaster knew the rules as well as a comp player then it'd be a different story.


----------



## Stella Cadente (Dec 25, 2006)

GrizBe said:


> Theres no heart left in the game.


I'd agree with that, these days all people care about is making army x more competitive than army y and labeling army z as being useless, actually playing the game just for the sake of playing stopped LOOOOOOONG ago


AngryCanadian said:


> is There something wrong with wanting to win every game?


absolutely not, but there is something wrong in expecting to win every game and acting like a dickhead when you don't, which unfortunately is becoming more common.


Kaizer said:


> - What are your thoughts about restrictions and army building selections systems? Do you use them?


there are already restrictions and building selections, your restriction is the points, your selections are the FOC, restricting anything else is usually followed by a piss poor reason as to why usually centered around "I can't beat X, X must be banned"


Kaizer said:


> - Do they improve the game or do they make it into something else?


they create something else, and help to further tip the extremely unbalanced nature of 40k even further


Kaizer said:


> - What makes you love your army and what motivates your army building?


I love my army because its Tanks *(NOT TRANSPORTS!!!)* and I love tanks, I also love it because its themed, but nowhere near competitive, armoured companies/battlegroups are about as competitive as a baby fighting a gorilla, its designed for fun, the most important aspect of any wargame.


----------



## CLT40k (Jun 18, 2010)

Stella, you said, "_absolutely not, but there is something wrong in expecting to win every game and acting like a dickhead when you don't, which unfortunately is becoming more common"_

That does not equal being competative... that equal being a poor sport. To imply that is does is right up there with calling somebody a "cheesemonger"

Also: _I'd agree with that, these days all people care about is making army x more competitive than army y and labeling army z as being useless, actually playing the game just for the sake of playing stopped LOOOOOOONG ago_

I think that statement waaayyyy little over the top... To imply that those of us who actually play the game still only do so in order to trounce the unwashed under the iron heal of our uber lists is just plain silly. I enjoy a competative game... Not a beatdown... Nobody wants to be tabled turn 2 and nobody gets much out of tabling somebody turn 2... But you write like this is what the game has devolved to.... and I think for the vast majority of experiances out there you're completely wrong...


----------



## Stella Cadente (Dec 25, 2006)

CLT40k said:


> Stella, you said, "_absolutely not, but there is something wrong in expecting to win every game and acting like a dickhead when you don't, which unfortunately is becoming more common"[/__I]
> 
> That does not equal being competative... that equal being a poor sport. To imply that is does is right up there with calling somebody a "cheesemonger"_


_
never did I say it equaled being competitive, like I said, theres nothing wrong in wanting to win, we all do, there is something wrong in expecting to win every game and acting like a dickhead when you don't.


CLT40k;671225Also: [COLOR=orange said:



I'd agree with that, these days all people care about is making army x more competitive than army y and labeling army z as being useless, actually playing the game just for the sake of playing stopped LOOOOOOONG ago[/COLOR]

I think that statement waaayyyy little over the top... To imply that those of us who actually play the game still only do so in order to trounce the unwashed under the iron heal of our uber lists is just plain silly. I enjoy a competative game... Not a beatdown... Nobody wants to be tabled turn 2 and nobody gets much out of tabling somebody turn 2... But you write like this is what the game has devolved to.... and I think for the vast majority of experiances out there you're completely wrong...

Click to expand...

and I never said that, just look around the forums, you see the vast majority of people these days as labeling every single army as shit, even armies they never have or never will play or play against (especially bloody nid players now they got an FAQ that makes them think for once), and the majority of people do only care about making army x better than army y, nobody cares about just playing what you have and winning with your brain and not the list._


----------



## GrizBe (May 12, 2010)

And hence going back to my points that the games got no heart anymore.

Lots of people just see it as a bunch of figures and numbers and stats to be conquered, rather then a game thats for fun.


----------



## HOBO (Dec 7, 2007)

GrizBe said:


> And hence going back to my points that the games got no heart anymore.
> 
> Lots of people just see it as a bunch of figures and numbers and stats to be conquered, rather then a game thats for fun.


Not in my area among the 60/70 players I game with on a regular basis, plus when I frequent GW Stores and other Clubs I don't see it either.

The game's heart is pumping strongly..maybe not where you are, but maybe you should actively try to change the situation..be proactive.


----------



## CLT40k (Jun 18, 2010)

yeah, if all I saw were numbers the game would be no fun... 

When I play, I see my long fangs shooting rockets at the bad guys... My wolf guard busting heads open in the name of Russ and my Rune priest zapping stuff with lightning from his eyes... Speeders go zoom and Wolf Scouts sneak around behind the bad guys to wreck thier stuff... That's what I see.... 

When I design a list, I think "hmmm... how would I handle X threat with this list" - since I don't design lists to play against diff types of armies... (that seems a little cheesy to me... ie, nids get one lists, chaos another, etc...) And yeah, I think of it in terms of numbers... ie, this costs 140 and gives me x... that costs 100 and gives me Y.... I think about having a good spread across the FoC. I think about keeping stuff small, cheap and able to break stuff... so yeah, it's a math exercise to some extent... but is is not why I play... 

Win/Lose/Draw - as long as my little plastic guys did at least ONE heroic thing, I go home happy... If I get dishragged, then I have something to think about till my next game...

And I think there are a lot of folks out there who are just like me... Perhaps you and Stella are just in a bad spot... and maybe I'm just in a good one... But I think it's unfair to say the game has lost its soul...


----------



## Warlock in Training (Jun 10, 2008)

Im kinda like play 2 types of list (Red Corsairs and EC) that are both Fluffy and have Competitive componets.

My EC theme army is mostly made of Sonic Marines, Lash DP and Sorceror, LC Termies w/ Mark of Slannesh in Raider, Dread with Heavy Flamer as a Doom Siren, and then Oblits. The Troops/Elites is very Fluffy and overall Competitive. Dual Lash very Fluffy and effective. Oblits not super fluffy but very effective. 

So all in all its not the Copy Paste Toureny Winning List that most generic power gamers use, but it holds its own. I try to do that with both my List.

So Im a Gamer and Hobbyist. I also dont play games with unpainted models.


----------



## Iron Angel (Aug 2, 2009)

I play Necrons. In 5th. I'm obviously not trying to be a powergamer. I love my undead robot skeletons, but lets face it, 5th came along and raped them of everything that made them powerful.

I play for fluffiness, but winning isn't bad either. My real passion is the hobby itself but I do like actually playing the game as well.

Restrictions/etc:
I don't have to deal with them. I never really have to deal with them. I mean, nobody bans Necrons. I put down for necrons and everyone looks at the sheet, curious because nobody even thought to post availability for them.

Affect on game:
However, I am familiar with such ideas. It all depends. Theres a way to take it too far, but using systems for such things isn't a huge problem. It definitely makes the whole thing much fluffier.

Why I love my army:
I love the fluff for the Necrons, and the fact that there are a lot of holes, or really, just one huge hole, in their history leaves a lot of room for me to make my own histories in. I'm writing about just such a thing right now. As for what drives me to keep building and modeling, I love the look and feel of the models- Necrons are very sinister, but not over-the-top-in-your-face-evil like Chaos, or mean-spirited-nasty-bastard-sneak-murderer like DE. They're something more refined, yet purely evil. They just don't give a damn. We're insects in their way, and they just walk around annihilating everything like its little more than a speedbump. The fluff, appearance, and general feel of the army portrays this very well.

Gamism/hobbyism-
I'm a hobbyist, through and through, but I've met plenty of great "gamists". Just because you like to play the game and win doesn't inherently make you a bad person. Its all about attitude. I've met asshat hobbyists too, and I didn't like them either. As for you, well, its seems you've found a happy medium, and thats cool too as long as your attitude remains up.


----------



## Katie Drake (Nov 28, 2007)

So I think what it all comes down to is that 40K is a great hobby that people have a lot of fun with unless you're in an area full of douchebags. Does that sum things up nicely?


----------



## Wusword77 (Aug 11, 2008)

Katie Drake said:


> So I think what it all comes down to is that 40K is a great hobby that people have a lot of fun with unless you're in an area full of douchebags. Does that sum things up nicely?


I guess it does. Though if your playing in an area of douchebags I could only suggest 2 things.

1. Move, no good people to hang and games with sucks.

OR

2. Maybe theres only one douchebag and you just havn't realized it yet :crazy:


----------

