Eternal Sadness Of The Wargaming Mind : aka The Death Of Fun

[guidebot]

I understand what everyone is getting at here, and to an extent, it does sadden me a little that most of my wargaming friends have moved toward more competitive and less immersive games.

I started playing 40k in 2nd edition, and started playing MTG just before 4th. I quickly realised (in both games) that you have to find players who look for the same things in the game that you do. It is all about making sure you're playing with the right people.

For example, I've seen novice MTG players trying to "learn" the game by playing at Modern FNM (a high power format environment where you're expected to have a deck that can compete at that level, and the play acumen to match), and I've seen games of 40k where one player's lovingly painted and amazingly themed army is blasted off the table in a turn or two by a plastic grey power list.

It's on you and your opponent to recognize whether you'll each enjoy the game, and that typically takes a little bit of judgement and short conversation.

This has always been a part of gaming that is under-talked-about. It's why certain gaming groups become great friends and play each other for years and years, while other players never want to play each other again after one game.

It's on you to make sure the game you're getting into is one that both you and your opponent can enjoy. If it doesn't look like it, that's no big deal. It's totally fine and not rude to say hey, I don't think our armies/ decks will have a very good matchup, I'll pass on this game.

OP; I'm sorry you didn't have fun at that pokemon cards event. However, there will be likeminded players somewhere - it's on you to find them if you want to enjoy the game the way you see it being played.

[jamierk]

I read this and thought to myself, why do you think this only applies to children? I wish more adults retained a sense of fun about their war gaming. I sometimes struggle against my inner competitor in wargamjng, and remind myself that if I and my opponent are not enjoying our game, we are not doing it right. I tend to think hard about organising slow grows and leagues with much greater restrictions on optimal unit choices to enjoy the fun you first having playing the two sides of an out of the box warhammer game. I remember so much enjoyment simply playing armies given to me and my opponent by games workshop, not those carefully tuned and selected from books and optimised.

Just my rant, there is probably no answer here but it felt good getting off my chest :-)

[Indominus]

Having been only into 40k for about 2 years now, ive discovered that building lists purely to win isnt a fun way to play, not unless youre going to a tournament or competitive event, much less so if your list comprises mainly of spamming good units, or farming CP.

For me at least, building a list that is both fun to use, and able to decently stand a chance against most things is part of the fun. Ive been collecting Nids for about 2 years, and Necrons for the best part of 7 months. Neither of my 2 collections are optimised for winning, and i dont tend to go out and buy units purely for this one list. I like the challenge of making lists with only what i have, even though i might not have a suitable number of certain units like Gaunts(17) or Tyrants(3).

Personally, i think that netlists are not the best thing. If you want to win, it should really require tactics, strategy, and what you do on the tabletop with what you have. Winning isnt always dictated by what models you have, but its depressing when i see some kids using a list that ive seen on the internet. Even more so when they play against my list which had time and effort put into it trying to use what i had to my advantage. 

[N.I.B.]

[gigasnail]

Mar 16, 2018 8:47:17 GMT N.I.B. said:

i haven't heard that song in about a thousand years <3

Mar 15, 2018 13:06:39 GMT Indominus said:

Winning should not have to be dictated by what models you have

dude, fullstop. 100% how your list performs is going to be heavily influenced by what units you put in it. a list with a couple of units of scouts, TAC marines, and a couple of predators lead by a terminator chaplain is of course going to get its (please do not swear) pushed in by a tooled up tournament list. it's up to you to make clear to your opponent what manner of game you're looking for, the same as any collectible, customizable game.

hell, any game really, doesn't have to be MtG or warhammer or xwing. you go play chess at the local coffee house and i 100% guarantee you there is someone there waiting to wipe the table with you. you'll need to make clear what your skill and experience level is, and what kind of game you're looking for, or you're going to have a bad time.

[N.I.B.]

Doh, wrong thread!

[barbedsparky]

Mar 17, 2018 9:10:33 GMT N.I.B. said:

Doh, wrong thread!

Still sort of poignant though, I feel...

[Snaekhar Venomblood]

I agree with all of this - it's why I hate playing against Warriors of Chaos with my fantasy armies (Dwarfs and Lizardmen). 

I really do find it so annoying that you get these idiots who get some sort of pleasure in playing super-competitively even when games are supposed to be friendly. In fact even some GW blokes are part of this - before the death of Fantasy and the debut of AoS, I took my Lizardmen to my local GW to play in an event that lasted across the summer holidays where you would play increasingly-sized games every week, from 600-1000 points I think it was. I took a fairly balanced list - Oldblood with Blade of Realities, 16 Saurus with Spears, some Skinks and in the larger games some Terradon Riders and Saurus Cavalry. Twice out of the 3 times I played nobody else turned up so one of the GW blokes said he'd give me a game - a kind gesture. However, little did I realise that this was a so-called 'baptism of fire' - both times he used Warriors of Chaos, and both times he used an Exalted Hero/Lord (depending on the game size) stuffed into a unit of as many Warriors as possible so that no matter what I'd be able to do he would eventually get to me and stomp his way through my ranks. I of course hid any signs of annoyance/disappointment as my brave Lizardmen were wiped off the table but I still find it annoying that specifically WoC are designed for those who want to be super-competitive - one of their core units is so ridiculously strong that they make one of their elite choices (Chosen) virtually redundant.

It was the same when I first started Tyranids - at about the same time one of my best wargaming friends started Imperial Guard. Our first games were pretty fun - we both fielded balanced armies, me with a mix of gaunts, warriors and monsters and him with a mix of guardsmen and tanks, but later on he just kept getting more and more tanks until he was using more or less a pure tank army in days when things like that weren't allowed unless it was Apocalypse, whereas I was still collecting a balanced army with a good mix of most of the Tyranid units available and a good ratio of gribblies and monsters. He would then just concentrate all his tank fire on my monsters so that my little things would be the only things left and of course in the old days they wouldn't have been able to do a thing against tanks so it became a whitewash victory for him every time we played.

Sorry this was a rant but you get my point?

Luckily because he's now busy with his job and I can't play fantasy at GW anymore the majority of games I play are with my dad now who like me is just a friendly gamer who just wants to have fun and enjoy a thematic battle. It was the same for him when playing his best mate in 15mm Napoleonics when he was younger - his mate always wanted to win. In any case, I agree with what most people here are saying in that while there are those who are over-competitive, you just need to find the right opponents who want friendly games like you do and just play with the units they like for the fun of it. Get to know these kinds of players better and play with them more regularly - they're the gaming friends you want.

[gigasnail]

Social contracting is part of any game. Ignore it at your peril. Of course you're going to have a bad time if you walk a carebear list into a meatgrinder. Your opponent probably isn't going to have a great time either because he's looking for something different than wiping the pink mist that used to be your list off his glasses.

You cannot expect to have a good time if you don't communicate what kind of game you are looking for.

[mattblowers]

Even with a good conversation and an attempt to "tone it down" I find great disparity in games. I remember a LGS doubles tournament at the end of 7th where I played with my son. I knew the guys going and reconsidered the GSC list I had planned. Instead I switched it out for an Inquisition army and my son took Khorne (we had a fluffy back story that made sense, allies didn't matter and we took armies that gave no buffs to each other and had a few hilarious interactions where we lost control of units in the game) since someone on the store forum said that those armies couldn't win. We made it to the top table by winning 2 really close tough fights. We faced Tau with 5 riptides and 2 Y'vhara. We were tabled at the top of turn 3. The two we played were high fiving and whooping all over the place. All fair, no restrictions were placed and they were really friendly blokes. I apologized to them before the game began because I knew we couldn't give a good game.

My point is this: it's REALLY hard to balance a game unless you both are just bringing the hardest thing you can bring. I have seen far more disappointment and feel badsies in so called "fluffy" games than in any tournament. There are only a handful of players I trust to be able to actually bring a fluffy level army. In 8th it's even harder to do than past games because stuff dies so easily.

If you want a really fun experience, play the open war cards. They are a blast. They destroy any semblance of balance but are a hoot to play.

[gigasnail]

It was a tournament. People showed up with a hard list and won. You're sort of proving a different point than I think you're trying to make. Taking an under powered faction (on purpose) to an event is not going to get you very far unless everyone is on board and is taking quirky unoptimized lists as a condition of the packet. Some guys told you inquisition couldn't win and you basically said "wait, hold my beer" and it had the expected outcome.

The upside to it is that everyone seemed to have had a great time. That's always a win.

My point is that it's possible to show up and not get blown off the board in a one-sided match and everyone has a good time and a good game if you communicate and approach building lists from a similar mindset.

[mattblowers]

Jun 9, 2018 20:53:44 GMT gigasnail said:

People showed up with a hard list and won. You're sort of proving a different point than I think you're trying to make.

Good lists run by good players wins tournaments. We tabled an Eldar warp spider/scatbike/WK list and outscored a Riptide wing list to make it to the top table. We stood zero chance against a fully optimized list with competant generals but did really well with a goof list against players that didn't play really efficiently.

My point is that it's possible to show up and not get blown off the board in a one-sided match and everyone has a good time and a good game if you communicate and approach building lists from a similar mindset.

It's possible but really difficult to achieve outside of a structured tournament that presupposes everyone is bringing their best. The onus really is on the more experienced players to adjust accordingly to level of competency at the event.

When all else fails and I'm in a game that has gone sidewise and the end is inevitable, I pick something else to play for "you aren't going to table me", "I'm going to kill x unit", "I'm going to control more objectives end game" etc to give the game some levity back. It helps me relax and remember to have fun even though the day is blown in terms of winning. It's still a hobby we do for fun after all.

[killercroc]

I'm going to throw my 2 cents into this topic, now be warned there are a lot of posts and I didn't read everything so there may be some topics I bring up that were already said or I'm missing the point on a few things others have said.

Warhammer I have noticed is a complicated game. Not so much the game itself as the rules are toned down but the actual application of the game is not simple. First off the rules aren't balanced between shooting and combat so depending on the list you bring and the list your opponent brings either shooting or combat can be quite strong. In my last game I had a mix of combat and shooting units but the most combat I did was by 6 Genestealers charging 3 tactical marines, all damage done before that was with the shooting phase. I had strong shooting unit and my opponent had strong shooting units, the main difference was our target priority. I simply made better target choices than he did which gave me the game. Secondly the board is very rarely balanced as well. Sure you can have lots of terrain but if everything is a flat floor level ruin and you can see from one side of the table to the other what is the point? My last game really wouldn't have changed at all if there was no terrain to be seen. This point is to point out the game can be unaffected or swing in one direction depending on the table. With no clear rules on terrain and set up left to the players discretion we're already seeing some biases forming before the game even begins. I know if I bring artillery bugs I want some LoS blocking terrain to hide them behind, meanwhile when my opponent brings all shooty units he wants as little LoS blocking terrain as can be.

Now, when it comes to list building people seem to see cheese when they want to and see balance when they don't. My friend who loves to play Horus Heresy plays Imperial Fists and has this one list that's nothing but breachers with apothecaries so his core troop is about 40 T5 marines with an invuln save, FnP and re-roll saves against blast weapons and he has to give up deep strike to do this. It's almost impossible to get through his troop blocks as they are also backed by tanks, artillery and a Fellblade plus 2 squads of 10 lascannon guys that can intercept units arriving from reserves. His list is perfectly tuned with every buff character and unit perfectly designed to work together can can take down infantry, tanks or a mix of both. He spent years perfectly crafting his list the be the best list possible for HH Imperial fists and everyone hates playing against it but to him it's completely balanced and not hard to beat. Which in a sense is true but the only way to beat him is basically mass Vindicators which nobody has so the only way to beat his list is to build your own super specific list and then he just changes to his dread and terminator heavy list. It's an endless cycle of counter and counter-counters and he sees his list as "just for fun"

And really that's the disconnect. For him playing a super specific toned army meant to beat anything is fun, because as much as I like the guy he's a power gaming win at all costs ass that can never tone it down. Even in games that have been strictly proposed as fun only he'll always bring some hard as nails list that will win in 2 turns and any time someone tries to point out the problems he never accepts that his lists are too strong because there is a counter out there for his list... a counter that just so happens you need to know his list ahead of time to pull of and requires spamming units that nobody has. I think that, no matter what some people will power game and cheese and never see their lists as over powered so talking to them ahead of time about having a for fun game doesn't matter because they don't see it that way.

Harsh as it sounds the only way to deal with these people is not play them. They just have a different understanding of the game and while I see a Guard list with commander, Veterans, Infantry, Specials, leman russ and artillery to be balanced another person sees 3 tank commanders, nothing but russ and minimum 3 Infantry squads as balanced. Which I mean is fine but those people should really only play other try hards and leave balanced games to everyone else who wants to have fun.

Another issue is, and one I'm guilty of, is making good lists that work well and end up smashing your opponent in a for fun game. Just last week I played against an Ultramarine player and had what I thought was a balanced list: Prime & warriors, Broodlord and genestealers, Gaunts, rippers, Carnifex, Biovores, Exocrine, Hive guard, Zoanthropes, Venomthropes, etc. Effectively a balanced list that was both combat and shooty, had psykers, anti-tank/anti-infantry, swarms & MC's. The only thing I didn't have was Fast Attack and really just built an army from what I brought with me not planned out at all, I even had to bring 15 ripper bases just because I had to fill the points and all they did was camp objectives on turn 3. Now I brought as balanced a list that I can think of but I still ended up wasting my opponent off the bored making good use of unit synergy, target selection and tactical choices. It seems sometimes it's not just army balance but player balance too, he sectioned off his army and deep struck units behind things I could just turn around and kill in 1 turn making it easy to take out 1-2 units at a time while I had most my army in one focused point on the map meaning I didn't have to worry about units being separated.

Really the big thing is in the end everyone wants to win, no matter how much they say they just want to have a good time there is a little part in the back of their mind going "Yeah but it'd be cool if I won". Which I think is fine, there is nothing wrong with wanting to win but it'll bias some of the things you do. The only way I see Warhammer being a balanced "for fun" game where people don't play their hardest lists, buy the best units, and make the smartest moves is to have a long talk before the game start. Everything has to be put to having fun. A balanced board that offers fire lanes but LoS cover, that works for both shooting and combat units and also works on objective and kill point games. Next you have to have balanced lists that has a bit of everything offensively but not too much defensively, and you have to play your army well but not hard. Finally needing the mindset of trying to have a good time without just playing to win throughout the entire game. In total, it's just something that isn't easy to do without the right players and the right mindset. Maybe a bit too biological for some peoples tastes but trying to get a competitive species to not be competitive in a competitive setting is almost impossible.

Now, this was just a side bit so I added it in the bottom but one thing I try and do during a game when I can see my opponent is frustrated due to the events unfolding is I pause the game and get everyone around the table a drink to try and slow the heatedness and try to show a more friendly side to deescalate the situation before it can even grow. Usually this helps tone things down. Also I make jokes too, but I always joke around so that's more natural for me and may not work for others. Simple signs of trying to be friendly go a long way in a competitive setting I think.

[mattblowers]

Jun 14, 2018 1:55:54 GMT killercroc said:

Really the big thing is in the end everyone wants to win, no matter how much they say they just want to have a good time there is a little part in the back of their mind going "Yeah but it'd be cool if I won". Which I think is fine, there is nothing wrong with wanting to win but it'll bias some of the things you do. The only way I see Warhammer being a balanced "for fun" game where people don't play their hardest lists, buy the best units, and make the smartest moves is to have a long talk before the game start. Everything has to be put to having fun. A balanced board that offers fire lanes but LoS cover, that works for both shooting and combat units and also works on objective and kill point games.

Well said.

The only thing I see differently is that I think the best balance is found when both people try to bring a "competitive" list. At least then everyone knows what the expectations are. "Fluffy/narrative" games are all over the place in terms of expectations.

My favorite games are mid-table at tournaments. You have nothing to prove at that point and it's just a bit of fun. Bottom tables are no fun because it means you have been getting your teeth kicked in and your opponent is likely soured on 40K and grumpy. Top tables are stressful because, as you noted, everyone really does want to win and you actually have a shot.

[OrkMuncha]

I've yet to play in any tournaments/random people games, I normally just play with me and my small group of friends. Is it really that bad?