Welcome to Librarium Online!
Join our community of 80,000+ members and take part in the number one resource for Warhammer and Warhammer 40K discussion!
Registering gives you full access to take part in discussions, upload pictures, contact other members and search everything!
Was on another board when someone asked the question : Why is it that most players have no problem fielding a unit/combo/rules glitch/playstyle in a tournement without a second thought that they would never use in a friendly game? More precisely, why do people choose to keep a different line drawn in the sand for tourney play vs all other play?
There were a few people interested in discussing it, but too many with the simple answer "it's a tourney, it's competition, so whatever I can do is okay" even though they admit to not playing this way in all other games.
What are your personal experiences with this, have you giggled at the thought of taking 8 MCs to a tourney but knew you'd be beaten and tarred and feathered by friends if you tried it at your LGS?
Do you feel that all things are a go in a tourney, because it is somehow a different game than at other times?
Just wondering, thanks
P.S. This isn't a thread on cheese, what constitutes it nor if it exists, the MC was an example that pops up but has no relavant place besides it being an example of an army some may find objectionable in friendly games.
16,000+ of Eldar (only need flyers)
7,000+ of Nids (want heirophant)
6,000+ of Space Marines (need rever titan)
4,400+ of Cygnar (all models for the faction)
1,500+ of Legion (just started)
Personally, I've always tried to play a more fair game, even in tournaments. I play the game for fun, and while some choose to take it more seriously, I get enough stress from work and preparing for the Bar exam that I'd much rather have a good time playing than make an unpleasant, terse, experience for myself and my opponents. That being said, I do play to win, and don't roll over just to have a good time playing.
Friendly games are about having a good time. Some of these units, combos, etc are effective, but not that fun because it tends to disrupt the game's balance. Also you can afford to use your fluffy armies or more unusual units in friendly games since your opponent probably won't be fielding an army intended to utterly annihilate all of its foes.
There is no such thing as a plea for innocence in my court. A plea for innocence is guilty of wasting my time. Guilty.
- Inquisitor Lord Fyodor Karamazov
From a personal standpoint, I had trouble for a long time expressing why exactly I wanted to keep casual and tourney play separate. Then it hit me - I typically like to win but only if I felt that my opponent had an equal chance of doing the same. Slaughtering people in casual play strikes me not only as unsportsmanlike but very boring as well. In a competition, however, it would make sense to give yourself an equal chance of winning considering that everyone else will be attempting to abuse their preferred armies to the greatest exent. If only this weren't the case, but that's the way that tournaments seem to pan out. They are tournaments after all.
That being said, I can sort of understand why people would want to play to win all the time, even in friendy games. It can actually be beneficial and force players to improve themselves in order to catch up with the power curve, however, this also assumes that the local attitude towards such things is favorable. Where I play, people don't generally approve of playing to win All The Time. At the very least, it's nice to inform someone if you're going to be playing a list that is quite nasty so that perhaps they can prepare accordingly, or it will cushion the blow when they get smacked around.
Last edited by NiteRabbit; January 5th, 2008 at 20:28.
If you're playing to win, you take a competitive army. Quite often you'll only being playing a person at a tournament once, and you won't know them so well (thus mitigating the emotional impact of grinding some poor sod into the dirt). While the people on the top tables might be more familiar with each other, they're the sort of people who are so competitive that they know what to expect (particularly as they'll be taking something similar), and just get on with it.
In a club's environment (with the same people each week), it's a different social setting. Nothing is getting recorded and the environment is more relaxed. You turn up with some uber power super lean army of the apocalypse when the guy across from you just wants a way to unwind, then he's going to be a bit narked at having his army steamrollered - he's the wargaming equivalent of a punching bag.
Personally, my armies do not vary between club and tournament. I build strong armies, but not the point that they're horrendously overpowered. I tend to take the units I like and see what I can do with them. The club play informs the tournament play, except that I'm even more ruthless in a tournament (particularly if my opponent is a powergaming loon, in which case he gets no mercy from me at all).
Having an army and not owning a rulebook is like owning a car with no steering wheel.Originally Posted by amishcellphone
Well, for me, I am just around for the fun and there's definately some fun in competitive tournaments.
I like friendly games for the possibility of experimentation. Trying new tactics, new unit combinations with my main armies, or using those silly units that nobody gives a second thought. Like the new Chaos Spawn. Fortunately, the guys I play with are really cool with using lots of proxy models.
I havn't been in that many tournaments to give a good answer to this, but I would agree with the mentality that in tournaments you expect to field very competetive armies and thus you have to bring one of your own to stay on an equal level.
Casual gaming is, for me, an occasion to do something that me and my friends enjoy and have a good time doing it. I don't make 'bad' lists just to have a very equal game if my opponent is less experienced than me, I just try to keep the atmosphere at a casual level and make sure both enjoys it. Some times though, I have to battle some real gits. Then it is no-holds, all-out beatings that I deliver (or at least try too!).
In our minds, it all boils down to one simple concept.
Those that I play against in friendly environment are the same people that I talk to on a regular basis, have dinner with, joke about random movies, and pretty much call my buddies. They're the people that I get to see, and they're the ones that will remember that I brought Cheesy Army #15 to game night and made a good attempt at ruining their fun. These are the people that I strive to give a good game too, because good games are the best ones to talk about afterwards.
Tournaments, however, are different. Joe Schmoe across the table is someone that I've never met and probably won't ever see again, unless it just happens to be at another tournament down the line. It's cut throat, because the people you're playing are just nameless faces; people in your way, there to be slaughtered on your way to victory. It's war, people, and war is a bloody business.
The lines get muddier when you go to war against your friends, but even in those cases, I'm more likely to think of an unsanctioned club tournament another set of games between friends, and I treat it accordingly.
Granted I have yet to participate in an "official" tourney, I have seen a difference in players' attitudes among other venues. Back when the Halo LAN parties were all the rage, sportsmanship and the like were observed at our own events, even though we played to win. But I was shocked and appalled by the behavior on display at tournaments and/or when money was on the line. Really, the attitudes were disgusting; sportsmanship went out the window.Pure stress and tension. I always made it a point afterwards to distance myself from people who put money on videogames.
Granted, videogames are an extreme example of this. I am very glad to have joined the ranks of 40k players, where even the biggest douchebags can still be pretty civil.
"It takes a vast amount of self control to be this dangerous."
---Ogvai Ogvai Helmshrot, Jarl of Tra, VI Legion Astartes
Most people who enter tournaments understand that it is a competion and they are there to compete. The answer to this question is contained within the definitions of the words.
Competition is essentially striving for something for which someone else is also striving for. Now, would one truely be striving if they did not do everything that they could, within the rules, in order to reach their goal?
No (although it was rhetoric, I felt compeled to reinforce this).
This would indeed include, so called, cheesing out an army, exploiting non-sensicle rules and gramatical loop holes for which GW are so famous for.
A tournament is a competative platform for wargaming and a friendly game is just that.
It is possible to enter a tournament for fun, but this is not competing and that is not why the majority of people are there.
It's worth a krak!