[2000AD]

Before I begin the reply I'd like to requote a part of my previous post you didn't reply to and make something clear:
" In addition I'd like to point out something not brought up in my previous posts.
The very best WAAC players are the ones that also play some games just to have fun as well. (again this is inspired by the articles by Dave Sirlin)
In a quick summation of the linked article the main reasons why WAAC players will also play just for fun are:
- Research. If you only ever play the safe option you'll never know if it's worth taking the risk at the right time. Likewise if you dedicate yourself to playing one way you might never find out there's a better way to be playing. Playing just for fun allows you to test new ideas in an environment where there's no risk.

- Limited local player pool. Sure, in your area you might be a class above everyone else, but if you constantly demolish everyone then that's going to wear down even the most adamant 'just for fun' player. If the only options available to you are:
A.) demolish everyone once and then no one wants to play you again
or
B.) play for fun and keep playing week in and week out, bring out the big guns only when needed.
then obviously B.) is the only real option. "

To make things clear:
I am not advocating playing to win at all times. I am not saying it's ok to agree to go for a friendly game yet take out your uber-army of doooooooom and domintate them.
I'm advocating that playing to win is not intrinsically a bad thing.
I'm advocating that players that dedicate themselves to playing to win, tend to be, on average, better players than players that don't.

Originally Posted by HappyJim

The problem with the player with the way you tried to illustrate is that along with other traits you ossicate it with using a weaker list, its like your saying if you like weaker like but expect to win your a poor player, this is a constant throughout your post.

Actually what I'm trying to say throughout is that if you deliberately play weaker (for eg. because you consider things beardy) and then automatically expect other people to follow the same things as you, or even insult another player because they don't follow your special guidelines, then that is making you a bad player.
The 'expecting to win' part comes from that, in my experience, the players who cry beardy tend to genuinely think they are better players because they don't 'play beardy'. If they get beat, they'll all to easily dismiss the loss as "I only lost to that guy because he was beardy, I'm still the better player." when more often or not it's not the list but the player that beat them.
Also, if you deliberately use weaker lists and avoid using stuff you call 'beardy' then you can't truly say you are playing to win. If you impose limits on yourself, you're playing to win in your own slightly different game, not playing to win the game itself.

Oh please, we are talking about toy soldiers, we are not talking about football, obviously however your are not testing yourself if your using the no brainer choices, take a skaven SAD list, do not even pretend it takes a competent player to win with such lists. Its all about ego, and pride, some people are affraid they might fail.

Even if it doesn't take a competant player to use it it will take a competant player to beat it. And if a list is so good it's broken then why shouldn't someone playing to win use it? If they can go out and dominate tournaments with it then why not? Use it until someone finds a way to beat it (and 99% of the time "unbeatable" lists turn out to be beatable after all) or the game designers admit it's broken and either fix it or ban it.
Basic human nature means there'll allways be people that thrive on competition and winning.

Thing is i only actually care about the example i gave, i personally give a damn about how people play at the GT's, thats none of my buisness and to be honest its just a bunch of nerds trying to beat their chests in the only way they know how. I went to a GT once, i would never repeat the experience, while i meet a few cool people i meet just as many idiots, the problem is when you pay abit of cash to play warhammer people seem to think it gives them a right to cheat, thats against the social code i see in place for a game of warhammer.

If you only care about the example you gave then we're already in agreement.
As for cheating at GTs I can't say I've seen any. I've seen some honest mistakes (magic armour + enchanted shield = 3rd place -> mid table), but I've never seen blatent cheating, probably because the people attending GTs are normally very well read on rules and will call anything they can.

Im sorry but thats the worst kind of victory, that is spoken like a true WAAC player,

I'll take that as a complement.

i player warhammer for the enjoyment of the, this really goes back to my anaogly of perberty, some people take longer to get past the need to win. To be honest, i have played some truely appauling players in my time who i have beaten with little or no effort, how did make the game better for both of us, offer advice and weaken my list, trust me, its a better game .

And your analogy of puberty is flawed. Playing to win is not just a phase some people go through, it's a part of human nature. While I agree younger people are more competative and the onset of puberty does tend to see a drop in competativeness, it is never comlpetely dismissed.
As for weakening lists, I tend to have better games against good list/good player than weak list/average player, I like the challenge. Then again if I'm playing for fun it becomes any list/any player that isn't an absolute cock.

Oh we have all played people like that, yes its great to beat them once, would i want to repeat the experience,

Depends on the circumstances. Would I want it as a friendly game in a store, no. Would I want it if it was the deciding game at a GT, hell yes.

certainly not, then again this is in a tournament enviroment again, isnt it really to be expected? as i said people turn into dicks and think they have certain rights when they pay money to play warhammer.

Maybe, but in my experience the majority of people are just as friendly as everyone else. They can be a bit more competative, because there's actually something on the line in those games, but that doesn't impact how they are as a person. There's always a few bad apples, like the father son team i mentioned, but only in the same proportion as you'd find anywhere else.

Your whole post seems to me like you feel you have the moral high ground, the thing with the term cheese/beard/etc is that it has been around everr since i remember, if you learnt to play warhammer in GW then your going to pick up the slang. The whole problem occurs when you have a guy playing for fun/showcase models/meet people vs mr I MUST WIN/ARROGANT/etc, the problem is the first guy wants to enjoy himself and the 2nd guy dosnt care of the other guy enjoys himself, so we have the start of the social problem. Generally when you break social code you are going to have remarks made in away that offends/anouyes you. People dont change that much from school, people just like to pretend they do (i work in a play school and the teachers are worse than the kids )

From your characterisation it seems that the problem with mr I MUST WIN/ARROGANT/etc is not with his army and play style but with his personality. Bad personality is not something that is automatically linked to playing to win, in fact I've seen a few players who play for fun that make the game just as unenjoyable as bubonic plague due to their personality.
Also, as mentioned numerous times, it does come down to the circumstances of the game as well.

Actually the main difference is really that a game is something to pass the time, a sport is something to compete in, the game becomes something to compete in if you lack the athletic ability for sport or you take life far to seriously.

At their core, every sport is a game, it is a contest between people to see who is better at that activity. Sure, you can just play them to pass time, but there are allways people, no matter what the game, that will play it to see who is better at that game.

Of course you find it funny, just as i have found many parts of your post, please, not everyone need to pick the best army to win, you know why, because not everyone has the massive ego that needs stroking.

You're right, not everyone needs to take the best army to win, but if your intention is to win, then picking the best army you can is the best starting point.

I have played the unfluffy powergaming list, i simply get no joy from using them, i never found them a challenge to use.

If you don't like playing that way the don't, I'm not trying to change how you play.

[/quote]
I guess the difference is here is that base my views on personal experience rather than speculation, many of you points assume your better than someone else because you have no restraint.[/quote]
And in my experience a good player with a good list wins more often than a bad player with a good list or a good player with a weaker list.
As for assuming a player with no restraint is (on average) better than a player that limits themselves isn't really that much of a stretch.
A Manchester United team that uses all it's players and tactics is better than a Man U team that doesn't play Christiano Ronaldo because they think using him is beardy.

Intellegence isnt a abilty, some people are simply more so than others, some people eat better food which improve this, for a sport you have to work hard, train hard many hours if a day and for many its becomes a fulltime job.

And likewise if you dedicate time to Warhammer you can become better at it and you can overcome a natural ability (If Warhammer has natural ability) with enough practice.
While Warhammer is no where near the stage that you can become a pro, it is certainly at the stage where you can have very talented amateurs.

I guess the main problem is you really dont even understand how beardy is used or perhaps your just selfish and have concerns for others around you. At the end of the day warhammer is a two player game, not a one player game. If you people are happy playing you great, have fun, it dosnt fit into the way i recieve enjoyment from the game which is the most important thing as far as im concerned.

I totally agree that the person on the other side of the table can make the game a joy or a pain, but army and playing style are not automatically linked to personality. I've had many games against people who had power lists and played to win, but they were as friendly as anyone else.

I wouldnt say its a bad thing persay but more it has its time and place,

On that we agree.

my main issue with you original post was the arrogance and the claims your a better player if you play to win.

I apologise if i came off as arrogant, but I do genuinely believe that if you don't limit yourself then you will become a better player.
I'm not saying you automatically become a better player by accepting that, but I think it is the first step on becoming the best player you can.
I think that if you take two players of equal ability, yet one imposes limits on himself then the he is more likely to lose.

I personally would never make someone change a list in order to play me,

Neither would I

if i have a problem with certain playstyles i would however rather talk about it online than create a bad vibe with people i play.

Fair enough, I tend to try and resolve my problems and get them out of the way. Then again, I don't really have problems with playstyles.

armylist creating is nothing more than basic maths,

Frankly that's ridicolous. So I can calculate how many zombies I can get in 2000 points, does that mean an army of zombies is any good?
Basic maths isn't even that important given the widespread availability of tools to do it for you.
Building a good list is about knowing how to get the most out of the points limit for your army, knowing what units complement each other, minimising your weaknesses while maximising your strengths, trying to predict what your opponent(s) will be taking and a whole host of other things on top of those.
To say army building is just basic maths displays a fundamental lack of knowledge about it.

the thing is, is using a army based around say 3 models playing the game to the fullest? actually seems to me that its actually playing the game in a very limited fasion.

If it's a very good army and you're a good player, so it'll take an equally good and army and player to beat it then yes, it is playing the game to the fullest.

People who think they can create a army list seem to believe they have some amazing skill rather than the cold hard truth is that you can do some basic maths, when you are exploring the game to the "fullest" you clearly mean armylist creation as well.

Given that I repeatably mention tactics and play style, no, I don't clearly just mean army list creation. New armies are part of it, but there's other parts too.

I mean perhaps im wrong, perhaps the skaven 4 warlocks, 20 jezzails, 2 warp lightniing cannons, rattling cannons with every unit is playing the game to the fullest, well bar when i actually play i dont have actually take part in the movement phase but rather sit back and roll dice.

IMO playing the game to it's fullest is taking the best army you can and playing as good as you can. If that Skaven list is the best you think there is fair enough, I bet there's lots of other players out there who think their army is the best there is and will try their best to prove that on the gaming tables.