| |||||||
| New! Use your Facebook, Google, AIM & Yahoo accounts to securely log into this site, click logo to login | |
| FB Army Fluff Post the fluff about your army here and discuss it with others |
![]() |
| | LinkBack (8) | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
| |
#21 (permalink)
| |||||||||||||||||||
| Senior Member ![]() Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Leeds Age: 25
Posts: 445
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Rep Power: 35 ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | Quote:
- A hypocrit - The type of player I was trying to illustrate. I know a WAAC player wouldn't limit themsleves, I make that point throughout my posts. Quote:
You think football players want to play in the Champion's League just for money? Hell no, they want to play because they recognise it as the foremost competition in club football and if they play in it they're testing themselves against some of the best in the world, it's a challenge of their skill. I've never been payed to play Warhammer, but I have paid for the priviledge to test myself against players in a recognised format. Quote:
If you know in advance that the place your playing is more about fun, but you still play like a GT final, then yes, that would be bad social behaviour, but that is just one situation. It is far far away from declaring totally that playing to win, no matter what the circumstances, is bad social behaviour, as the previous post I was replying to implied. Quote:
Again the challenge of beating a 'unbeatable' list appears, no matter how you choose to go about it, whether it's to change your list, to change your play style or just change your tactics. I'm not confusing optimised lists with power gaming, I'm recognising optimised lists as one part of power gaming. Quote:
Also an example from a doubles tournament a few years ago. Me and my partner squared off against a father son team that brought new meaning to the words 'rules lawyering'. they questioned every decision, took ages to do even the simplest moves and basically made the game hell. Did me and my partner have fun playing that game? No, but when the victory points were totaled and we had a major victory we had such a feeling of satisfaction that it made it worth it. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
The people using the drugs are still playing by the rules, just using everything they have available as an advantage. The people not using the drugs are hampering their own chances of winning by trying to take some percieved moral high ground that the game doesn't recognise. If they refuse to take the drugs and then lose to someone who does, they then have no right to turn around and start declaring their opponent 'beardy' because they used drugs. And the notion that it's the weaker players that do this is laughable for 2 reasons: - It's often people just as strong as the competition that do stuff like take drugs. Ben Johnson was a world class sprinter already before he took drugs. In the analogy of the Olympics allowing drugs do you think they're just going to pick someone randomly and give them drugs? Of course not, they're going to pick the best and then try to make them better. - As your so keen to point out Warhammer is a game not a sport, it has no athletic component, so where does natural ability come into it? For example, one player beats another player solely because the loser didn't study the tactic used because he thought it was 'beardy'. Is the winner a weaker player with less 'natural ability'? Hell no, he brought a tactic to the table that the other player had no knowledge of how to beat it and used it to win. If your opponent decides to blinker themselves by not wanting to use certain tactics due to their own moral code then there's no reason the other player should limit themselves if the rules clearly allow it. Quote:
Quote:
As I've made clear the only play style that you'll have to defend against me is the one where the player tries to force their own way of playing on another. People playing to win and people playing for fun just get on with it. It's the people that say they're playing to win (or sometimes say playing for fun) but then try to impose their own rules on the game by insinuating that certain styles are 'cheap/beardy/etc' to make it look like another persons style of play is somehow worse than theirs that I am attacking. Quote:
The people who cry beard will fence themsleves into their own version of how they think the game should be played and when they come up against someone who doesn't play to their own special way will quite likely get massacred by tactics they either dismissed or never even dreamed of. In fact, how did you translate: "exploring the game, experimenting, trying the unknown, finding counters to supposably 'unbeatable' tactics/armies, they looked at what was 'beard' and instead of refusing to use or play against it, they found out how to beat it." into: "people think because they have basic maths skill they are a great player," because from where I'm sitting they look like 2 totally different and unrelated statements. Quote:
I'm going by assumption that a WAAC player is the same as someone playing to win. Someone that will use every legal means they can to win the game. Someone that doesn't add their own 'code of honour' or 'moral high ground' to the game, someone that will use any and all legal tactics and army lists to win the game. Is that not what it means? Quote:
Quote:
If Warhammer had massive sponsorship and was watched worldwide like other sports then maybe it would be like big sports where your payed to play, but it isn't, it's a minor game and like all others right now the players are paying to have the chance to call themselves the best. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I've never made any insinuation about who's the better person. In summation, to make it clear, it's the people that try to make themsleves look like a better player by calling another person (especially one they just lost to) cheap/beardy/etc that I have an argument with.
__________________ 2000AD's answer to all "How do VC deal with ..." questions: Forbidden Lore + 2 Power Stones. Further answers will require more vodka. | |||||||||||||||||||
| |
Librarium Online - the forum for all your tabletop gaming needs. Librarium Online offers a wide variety of categories, all from choosing your army to building scenery for gameplay. With over 500 new members every month you can be sure that your questions will be answered. Get help from friendly experts around the world and share your work with us in the gallery or in your personal blog!
| | #22 (permalink) |
| Bearded Ninja ![]() ![]() Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Edinburgh Age: 20
Posts: 2,666
Blog Entries: 8 Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Rep Power: 124 ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
AND LO! DID THE GREAT CARNOSAUR RIDING DWARF ARRIVE AND DECLARE; chill out folks, i could lock this thread right now with the amount of sniping thats going on. cheese tends to be a touchy subject and we should get too involved, its only a game after all. and if ANYONE comes out with the "we're only have a civil discussion" excuse i'll lock this thread automatically ![]() [keeps eye on thread]
__________________ ![]() spambot kill tally: 36 Last edited by Arklite; July 8th, 2008 at 13:22. |
| |
| | #23 (permalink) |
| Senior Member Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 348
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Rep Power: 20 ![]() ![]() |
I played against a very good player (informed after the game) in a tourny(2k points) few weeks back and we got a draw. We were both chaos and he had something like: 14 daem. w/ herald and siren,10 bloodletters,3 BON,16 plaguebearers w/herald,5 hounds 6 flamers,scribes. 9 horrors/tzeentch herald. I had: 5 x2 hounds,5 flamers x2, Bloodthirster, scribes,2 tzeentch heralds,10 horrors, 10 x2 bloodletters It was my first time at a tourny in that area so I didn't know what to expect. After i put my stuff down he was commenting on how i was min/maxing and using the "best of the best" etc. He did something I was totally caught off guard - using the siren banner on my BT to force charging into the daemonettes squad - although he beat me in combat I did save on LD and he started complaining how lucky i was etc. Then throughout the game he was telling people viewing the game how I am using the "best stuff". We played along till I think the last turn (due to time ) and that turn i manuevered my flamer units so that they were on out of the charging range of his BON and I fired about 40 shots at them and wounded ~15 times or so. It came down to a draw and he didn't look to happy - I felt really bad after the game. I asked him if i could make my army less cheesy and he said for a 2000 point game i shouldn't have brought so much magic (7pd + scribes) and also a Greater daemon because that's OTT. The next game he pissed off a person i played before and that person quit the 3rd turn. He later told me the guy seemed to be in a really foul mood and i told him it was probably because of me. I think he expected my BT to lose the combat to the daemonettes the first turn (he had 2 ranks+banner+outnumber 1st round) and my BT didn't so that pissed him off. Another regular there said that person I played is a very good player so I think he is probably up there with player who wants to win but probably want to win on his/her own terms (not using "cheesy" lists). |
| |
| | #24 (permalink) | ||||||||||||||||
| Executioner of Khorne Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Ipswich, uk Age: 26
Posts: 293
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Rep Power: 29 ![]() ![]() ![]() | Quote:
Quote:
![]() Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
.Quote:
Quote:
)Quote:
Quote:
wait, think about itQuote:
Quote:
Quote:
)Quote:
Quote:
[quotw]In fact, how did you translate: "exploring the game, experimenting, trying the unknown, finding counters to supposably 'unbeatable' tactics/armies, they looked at what was 'beard' and instead of refusing to use or play against it, they found out how to beat it." into: "people think because they have basic maths skill they are a great player," because from where I'm sitting they look like 2 totally different and unrelated statements.[/quote] 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. 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. Quote:
![]() Quote:
As mentioned earlier, I pay to test my self against the best players. If there was a Risk World Championship I'd bet there's be people paying to play in that too, just so they could say they were World Champion at Risk. If Warhammer had massive sponsorship and was watched worldwide like other sports then maybe it would be like big sports where your payed to play, but it isn't, it's a minor game and like all others right now the players are paying to have the chance to call themselves the best. You don't have to be a competative player to be a good one. Like wise playing to win and having fun playing are not mutually exclusive and I never said they were. It seems your confusing the concept of Playing for Fun with having fun while playing. Don't forget building army lists is only one part of the game. I go to GTs not just to face tough lists, but also tough players, players that know good tactics and play styles, players that will be a challnege to beat with only an average list. Maybe to you they're pointless, but to someone Playing to Win they're fundamental. A player wanting to win will have to think of a way to beat that tactic/list/etc. so that when they play it again they don't lose. Not really, in fact I switched between the 2 during my earlier post while describing the same people. I'm not hiding behind anything. If a player brings a superior list and superior tactics to a game and wins consistantly (to minimise luck being a factor) then I think it's clear that that player is the better player at that game. I've never made any insinuation about who's the better person. In summation, to make it clear, it's the people that try to make themsleves look like a better player by calling another person (especially one they just lost to) cheap/beardy/etc that I have an argument with.[/quote] | ||||||||||||||||
| |
| | #25 (permalink) | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Senior Member ![]() Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Leeds Age: 25
Posts: 445
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Rep Power: 35 ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
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. Quote:
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. Quote:
Basic human nature means there'll allways be people that thrive on competition and winning. Quote:
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. Quote:
Quote:
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. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Also, as mentioned numerous times, it does come down to the circumstances of the game as well. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
[/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. Quote:
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. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________ 2000AD's answer to all "How do VC deal with ..." questions: Forbidden Lore + 2 Power Stones. Further answers will require more vodka. | |||||||||||||||||||||
| |
| | #26 (permalink) | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Executioner of Khorne Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Ipswich, uk Age: 26
Posts: 293
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Rep Power: 29 ![]() ![]() ![]() | Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I guess what this comes down to is what you want out of a game, personally i enjoy troop movement, baiting, flanking and the such, against these style of lists i robbed of many of these things so games becomes a move as fast as you can into combat. Im also greater hater of massed shooting, hence why i dont play 40k anymore. At the end of the day unbeatable isnt even in my equation, no such thing, any list can be beaten with tactics, i just know what makes for a good game in my eyes.Quote:
Quote:
![]() Quote:
again you bring in the average player = weak list, you certainly do have good players who have weaker lists. Still i dont claim it is completely dimissed obviously not if i dont why people cant use toned down list and still want to win.Quote:
Quote:
im not saying their arnt good players but its the same blanket statement you have given about players wanting to use more interesting lists as being weaker.Quote:
![]() Quote:
Quote:
[/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.[/quote] the thing i found with many of no brainer choices was that are pretty easy to use, like a dragon for example, its fast, it hide behind terran far easier due to move rate, it can shoot, march block, terror cannon crews, etc. An infantry block on the other hand needs several units to work in synergy in order for it to work, you need units to take out shooting, to protect against shooting or top screen if its frenzied, you need to protect against units that may march block, ou need to make sure it isnt charged by fast moving units, to make sure it gets the charge, , you protect it flanks or rear from light cav, you need to attack enemy infantry blocks with flank/rear charges at the same time. dont know about you but i always find the infantry unit far more rewarding to unit and filled with plenty of tactics, infact far more than said dragon. Seeing as i need to use more tactics to use mu infantry i wonder why i think you become a better player ![]() Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
![]() Quote:
im sorry but i cant see how using a "better list" which takes minimal part in the came can make anyone a better player.Neither would I Quote:
![]() Quote:
Quote:
![]() Quote:
Quote:
| ||||||||||||||||||||
| |
| | #27 (permalink) |
| Fun guy from Yuggoth ![]() Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Winnipeg Age: 26
Posts: 759
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Rep Power: 54 ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Those are some crazy long posts! I'll try one too. I don't think anyone can declare something like "Everyone who plays WAAC is a jerk!" or "People who don't play the best list they possibly can are morons!". Merit comes from the person, not the playstyle. Having said that, my experience is that cries of cheese/beardiness are usually unwarranted. The individuals making these accusations are angry because an opponent's model/unit/item/spell/tactic/army composition/combination thereof helps them lose the game, and they don't believe it is fair. But why do they care? If they are truly 'playing for fun', what does it matter whether the Skaven list is hard to beat? I understand that playing a game where your forces are wiped out by turn 3 is frustrating, but I find it impossible to believe that experiences like this can be blamed solely on a supposedly cheesy enemy army. Luck, compatibility between armies, and other such factors will also strongly influence how the game plays out. Some people like to make lists which characterful but may be weak. There is nothing wrong with this! However, just as it is not the place of the so-called WAAC player to deride someone for making a list like this, it is also not their place to attack the WAAC for playing to win. There is no moral high ground for either side. Personally, I have never had an objection to a legal list that I've played; the harder the list, the greater the challenge, and the more there is to learn! Finally, I think the term 'WAAC' is insulting. I could be lumped into the group of people that this is being applied to, but I certainly don't try to win at ANY cost - for example, I would never use weighted dice, I will remind my opponent when they forgot advantages, and otherwise play as fairly as I can. But I still play to win, be it Warhammer, Risk, Starcraft, football, or whathaveyou, because that is how I enjoy the game. Whether I win or lose in the end, I want to give it my all. How does anyone have the right to tell me, or anyone like me, that we should not try our best?
__________________ Put the box on the table by the window in the kitchen. |
| |
| | #28 (permalink) | ||||
| Executioner of Khorne Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Ipswich, uk Age: 26
Posts: 293
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Rep Power: 29 ![]() ![]() ![]() | Quote:
Quote:
The one thing that bugs me about people defending the powerbuild style play is that simply dont listen, i think i have said it has nothing to do with losing by turn 3 or even losing at all, its simply about enjoyment of the game. You may find enjoyment usinf a skaven SAD list i simply cant enjoy playing it, it dosnt matter if i win or lose, 9/10 times im bored within a few turns. i already explained this earlier, its about the effect on the game style, it changes from a tactical game of chess to charge forward as quickly as i can like a mindless idiot, yeah great! what a great way to spend two hours Quote:
You might think their is more to learn but i have learnt a thing when playing gunlines, i personally find i learn more using a weaker list and beating more powerful lists than using a OTT list. Quote:
I think you miss understand, no one has said not to try playing your best, its up to you how you play warhammer, i personally find i try my best to win with a infantry heavy chaos army, funny since the WD list has come out i've only lost one game ![]() I personally think its a misconception that because i dont use 100 hand gunners, 4 great cannons 4 wizards, two stanks i dont want to win or perhaps Karl Franz + dragon, 2 stanks, 30 handgunner 2 wizards and some great cannons. While i like winning i like to feel i earned it, i just wouldnt feel that way with either of those lists, i also like to see the board filled with troops (and i love the chaos warriors models, the best so far )
| ||||
| |
| | #29 (permalink) |
| LO Zealot ![]() Join Date: May 2005 Location: inside your head
Posts: 2,346
Thanks: 0
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
Rep Power: 98 ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Wow, rep for the long post, I agree with practically everything. But I have something to add as well- going back to the first post and the cries of "Cheese" on all the good armies. If feel: There is a line between what is and is not cheese. ALL tournament armies are cheese. It's that simple, they are WAAC armies, and they should be, because if you aren't there to compete you just wasted all the entrance money and sombebody else's time. However, when playing for fun, I agree that you should always play to win. But you should never play to dominate. Against some of my closest friends and best gaming buddies, I have never lost a game. They make decent lists, but they aren't strong players. I know what it will take to beat them, so whenever I make an army I ONLY try to beat them. Sure, my friend is crushed by any kinds of monstrous mount- but that doesn't mean that I play my HE as Dragon-Heavy just to make sure I win. Instead, I play with maybe 1 dragon, so that I'm 80% positive that I'll win but also make the game close and enjoyable FOR BOTH PLAYERS. So, if you are taking 20PD when you could win with just 5, yeah- that's probably cheese. When you take nothing but handgunners, cannons, helstorm rockets, and mount all your heroes on Pegasi to marchblock- that's gonna be cheese. But when you take nothing but gunners and slaves in your skaven army BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO, then it's okay. See, looking at a list is not enough to call it cheese. You have to look at what the list is up against, and how well prepared (or overly prepared) it is to fight the opponent. |
| |
| | #30 (permalink) |
| It's what's for dinner ![]() Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: USA Age: 22
Posts: 1,083
Blog Entries: 10 Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Rep Power: 71 ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Guy- "Hey, have ever been to Jaimaca?" Girl- "What?" Guy- "Cause Ja-Make-Me-Hot" Now THAT"S cheesy. I guess I would draw the line on whether the player can accept a loss now and then. If they can only have fun by winning, and will go so far as to make the rules always seem to go in their favor ON TOP of a list seemed geared towards their specific opponent, then I would say it was cheesy. Other than that, I would not. Hey, I say if someone spends the time and money to paint a vicious army (and let's face it, power armies tend to be more expensive than balanced ones), then they have earned the right to kick my undead arse from here to Lustria.
__________________ ![]() Daelrog's #1 Wargaming Advice: Get a girlfriend |
| |
![]() |
Similar Threads | ||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Is this too cheesy? | freebooter | Imperial Guard | 4 | June 7th, 2007 05:01 |
| cheesy? | morgul | Chaos Army Lists | 8 | November 11th, 2006 12:17 |
| Why Cheesy? | 74CM | General Hobby Discussion | 2 | August 17th, 2006 23:38 |
| Is This Cheesy? | insomnia | Tyranids | 11 | November 19th, 2004 02:34 |
| Bookmarks |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
| |