You have to play to win, otherwise it isn't fun for the other player. BUT, it is perfectly fine to intentionally disadvantage yourself in order to make the game more fun for both of you. It's the struggle to win that makes it fun! It's no fun wiping out an inexperienced player and vice versa, so what I do is try to even things out as much as possible - give them a hill, make a sub-optimal list, have fewer points of stuff. That way I can try as hard as I can to win without holding back tactically during the game. Plus I get to use my favourite models more often.
Playing against better players or those who intentionally go cheesy because they want to wipe the floor with me, I have no qualms about producing cheese myself. I don't tend to have many of those games though.
cornixt
I recognise this. Myself, I usually play to win with a far from cheesy army list, but considerations of preserving victory points or the like always gets thrown out of the window if it is possible to try some wacky and fun in the last turns of the game. Blood for the blood god!
Playing for fun is the goal, but I don’t think that fun and competitive are mutually exclusive concepts. Warhammer has never been a game that is well balanced or conceived and makes for a rather poor choice for the truly competitive players. It has a great background and such a wealth of models to choose from (close to 30 years worth now?) that it is easy to understand why it is so popular with a wide variety of gamers.
I think that one would decide what is personally enjoyable and then tailor that to fit his gaming group in general and individual opponent in particular. Sometimes that will be a heavily themed army that is not very capable and other times it might be a solid, competitive list that is not over the top…other times it might be the filthiest thing that you can field as that what your opponent is playing himself and looking for in return.
Specifically addressing your point regarding double magma cannon etc.: I have yet to get my Chaos Dwarf army together and painted, but I plan to have a super cheesy army ready to go just in case I run into Ogre Kingdoms, Chaos Daemons and other ridiculous armies/lists. My list will feature two magma cannons and two death rockets as well. It won’t be fun for either player, however I see no need to drive an hour to play a game and end up getting Ogred off the board without doing much in return other than getting routed wholesale by a broken army list.
My main army that I intend to play will feature Hobgoblin blocks and chaff as well as wolf riders and will feature a good assortment of as many different unit types that I can manage (minus Fireglaives until I figure out how to turn Blunderbuss into Fireglaives).
Finally, I really enjoy your army painting log and am glad to have found this site/forum.
Actually I make my army’s with two unspoken rules. First is that my deployment line ideally will be symmetrical so you can split a line down the middle and what you get on the left is a mirror of the right. Second visual appeal as a whole, because if it doesn’t catch the eye then what’s the point (IMO). Gaming is glorified toys so to speak to me and art’s and crafts projects, it’s all about having fun and being proud of the aesthetic result to me when you either done or doing it.
So the uber players and play to win lists really chap my hide too. Some people just look for something to hold over others in a strange sense of superiority, like I’m better then you… at Warhammer… today… this game! And for those out there who don’t think losing is fun, well then why is it called a “GAME”, and why can’t you come to the realization that these are fake little army men and wizards riding around on dragons and that no one (in a grand sense) gives a damn about the significance of victory, or even this game for that matter other then you. People aren’t in the bleachers, no one is buying tickets in advance, money isn’t on the line and people don’t devote their entire life to the moment of playing a game of Warhammer, so what’s the point other then fun and entertainment?
And I personally believe you owe it to whomever you’re playing to do you best to not only enjoy the game, but also facilitate them in being able to have a good time, otherwise certain players might only ever play games of Warhammer by themselves if the world could choose to avoid their ruthless nature when it comes to gaming.
So Bolg my answer is definitely for fun and the love of the craft and game! We should all remember to both have fun and be fun while playing against others (sounds like a parent talking to children… weird), but that’s just how I feel.
Playing against better players or those who intentionally go cheesy because they want to wipe the floor with me, I have no qualms about producing cheese myself. I don't tend to have many of those games though.
cornixt
cornixt,
So if you don't intend on playing cheesy games/armies then why do it at all? I wouldn't even want to waste my time with either. There's nothing to be gained in that kind of scenario.
If you have fun, win or lose... you've won!
If you only play to win you could very well be wasting your time when the dice go against you, or your opponent decides to out cheese even the most worthy of Limburger that you can serve up to the menu, because his army book allows it. It's a lose lose in my opinion if you have to consider the prospect of winning as a means of enjoyment whilst playing a game.
One of my favorite house rules is that no two players can ever use the same army twice against the other in friendly games with out permission before hand. Keeps people on their toes and guessing, and keeps others from sticking to the monotony of their habits.
I'm not trying to be argumentative cornixt, and you seem like a respectful and fun player who knows how to have a good time while playing, but why do you engage the cheesiness if you'd prefer not to?
everybody plays to win, because nobody plays to lose (… rare cases). But if its not played with fun in mind then I’d just as well not bother. Like I’ve said before I don’t get enough games to even know how to play very well or tactically or strategically, so I really never voice an opinion in that area.
So yes winning can be fun, so can be losing. For me a well fought game is all I want and that’s all I aim for.
One of you clever critters should do a thread that defines each armies “cheese” options because I really don’t have a clue of where the boundaries lie.
everybody plays to win, because nobody plays to lose (.... rare cases).
For me a well fought game is all I want and that's all I aim for.
Abecedar
So is a well fought game the goal or winning? I can totally agree with enjoying the quality of a game, but quality doesn't have to do with victory like you said.
And actually a lot of people who compete in most events and enjoy them are losers and never have any illusions of winning even from the start. Look at the marathon runners. How many actually win, one person. Yet how many compete, millions. Still they all enjoy it and get out there every day and do it.
So I'd have to say the vast majority of people who compete in just about anything do it because they genuinely have fun with it and enjoy competition not winning, because the fact of most competition is that you ultimately are a loser in the grand sense, but what you have won/earned is the product of your efforts, regardless of the result.
@propervillanz
Although it was your suggestion that made me ask this question aloud, dont take it personal, I've seen more examples it was just after reading your suggestion (witch is truly valid from a maximized list point of view, especially in a topic on tactics.) that I had to ask this question aloud.
I see both out take on this is from a different perspective, and although I can't really see the fun in the lists you play I would love to understand you better.
You say you dont play in hobby stores. So what kind of list you play is all up to you, I would not want to play them or fun but that wont happen and I can see the appeal of going cheese against cheese if this is pre determent. I think you would consider me one of those snobs, I spend hour painting and even more time sculpting and converting and I consider that a huge part of the hobby, I want my army to be special. I really dont mind losing, just as long as I can have a bit of fun (facing 2 destroyers = no fun).
@Blue
I've known on your take of warhammer for some time,and as I see myself playing this game for quite some time to come. I hope it will be more and more like you suggest. Only thing is I like going to tournaments, even if its just to show of my models (classic snob). Love having that conversation with random people about those old miniatures. (and If i would play an older version that would be out)
@Will
Agree, Handshake is key.
@Admiral
My point exactly, both players should have fun.
Oh and one more thing, in my local game community there is one warhammer player (there are more, I only know him) that is a classic Cookie cut player, he has vampires and Tombkings and If I go play at a bigger tournament I sometimes challenge him for a game, just to check how much I can take. As of course he also complains about every thing and tries to bend his way to a victory. He doesnt like painting. but best of all, he has no tactical insight. He still beats me sometimes and the best thing ever; I really just had to laugh aloud then. I was playing his TK with the Ravening hordes list and I was losing big time, It was turn 5 and I only had my big unit of slaves left. (I had fun, there was a great combat so no worries). then he slammed in my slaves just to finish me off, killed 50% of the unit and what not... But I passed my LD 6 stead fast test. HE actually started complaining about that. It was hilarious! I had 150 points left on the table and he diddnt see the fun in them sticking around. brilliant. I really dont see why he plays this game (and the people just like him).
A well (:
Bolg
Sorry i came off so a$$holey and disrespectful, complete fail on my part :(. I truly get what you are saying and greatly respect your view on this and many other maters discussed in this forum. As a gamer who is still getting his feet under him i also truly appreciate your wisdom when it comes to strategy and tactics as well.
This thread has actually inspired a discussion in my gaming group and we are going to develop/adopt a comp system and run it for awhile to see how it effects or gaming in the hopes that we will get better about bringing less cheese to the table. So thanks for the inspiration and wake up call it is very much appreciated :cheers.
I actually find this thread really interesting and very timely. I have been quite frustrated at Warhammer lately. I’ve been playing for 10 years since 6th Edition. I’ve been playing Orcs and Goblins in that time. That army hasn’t done too well since 6th Ed. Still, I stuck through them and made the best with them. I would even say that I had a 50% success rate with my Greenskins all through 7th Ed. It was an uphill battle, though. The army book was under powered and I struggled. There were some match ups that I couldn’t win unless there was a dramatic swing in luck in the dice. It was hard.
In the past few years, our local area has changed. With a few stores closing and people changing their attitudes, there are less local games each week. People aren’t as willing to drive a little further to get to the only game store in the area. So, we don’t see a variety of players and there isn’t the friendly local game play as much as there used to be.
At the same time, there has been a rise in state wide (US) tournament play. Different players from different cities travelling a few hours for one day and two day tournaments. There is a number of different comp packs, but most of the time it’s centered around the idea that you can bring what you want (even special characters), but can get hit hard for comp. You get a wide variety of players, but the top 1/3 (at least) is pretty competitive list building. If you want to do well, you need to bring a tough as nails list.
We had a GT early in October and I brought my Orcs and Goblins list. It’s a well balanced list and has the potential to do well against any army. I struggled all weekend. I went 1/2/2. My first game was agains the guy who won Best Overall. He’s a great guy and had a really tough list. He told me that I gave him the toughest challenge of the whole weekend. For me, though, it was still an uphill battle even from the get go. One of the long standing local guys (who is also quite good) asked why was I still playing an army that defeated itself? He’s right, though. I think I’m of a caliber that I can compete at the tables, but the army book that I am using is just too under powered.
I’ve been burnt out on Greenskins for a while, though. This last GT was my last go with them. I know I need a change. After one army for 10 years, I need something different. I have been slowly collecting Chaos Dwarfs for a few years and before the LoA list. I do like that the LoA list is hard, though. I think I can pick a tough army book and compete at the higher end tables with the competitive players with it. I don’t intend to have less fun games, but I do intend to play high stakes games. I want a tough list that I can win with, but that doesn’t mean I am going to be a bad player. I still want to have fun, but I want to win at the same time.
The same guy who asked when I would change armies also said he hoped I didn’t play an army list that was all about war machines and blunderbuss to sit back and blast the opponent. I played a game with the new list and got a draw. Some advice was to just castle up in the corner. I admit that that sounds really boring and I might as well play regular dwarf gunline if I want to go that route. I started to think and I like being an aggressive player. I’m going to try to build a list that maxes out on fast things and little to no war machines. I think it can be competitive and still more enjoyable than a gunline. Sure, it might still be a bit harsh for some of the local guys that still come to the game store, but it should be OK for tournaments.
If there is a 3000 pt GT in the future, I am sure it will allow special characters. I’m sure to bring 2 K’Daai Destroyers. I will not even think twice about it. If they use the Swedish Comp again, I might not even get a bad comp score as I take no war machines!
I at one point would travel across the nation participating in fitness events and would never win. I would rarely if ever win a single event, would occasionally qualify to advance to the next level of the national event, but never made it any farther and knew the result before I even set out to compete, but my goal wasn’t to win, it was to become stronger, faster and a better athlete, and to do something at each event that no one else was capable of doing that day.
Not to get all zen master or Confucius, but you have to set out in life in hopes of achieving something never considering the possibility of success or failure, because if the result of your pursuits dictates the ultimate purpose, then aren’t were all just dead men after all?
I'm not trying to be argumentative cornixt, and you seem like a respectful and fun player who knows how to have a good time while playing, but why do you engage the cheesiness if you'd prefer not to?
Animatone
We can't always pick our battles, sometimes it;s better to even the playing field upwards (I'm not the best player in the world!) rather than not play at all.
If playing with a weaker list is affecting my enjoyment, wouldn’t it be smart to move to a more competitive list? I could say that moving to play to win more is moving to have fun more. I’m tired of doing bad at tournaments due to my army list being bad. I will have more fun when I have a more even chance to win. I think for me the challenge is to see if I can win at events. I want to move into a more competitive state of the game. That is where I will have the most fun, I think. I’ve been playing friendly games for years and now want to see if I can compete at the bigger tables.
Sorry i came off so a$$holey and disrespectful, complete fail on my part :(. I truly get what you are saying and greatly respect your view on this and many other maters discussed in this forum. As a gamer who is still getting his feet under him i also truly appreciate your wisdom when it comes to strategy and tactics as well.
This thread has actually inspired a discussion in my gaming group and we are going to develop/adopt a comp system and run it for awhile to see how it effects or gaming in the hopes that we will get better about bringing less cheese to the table. So thanks for the inspiration and wake up call it is very much appreciated :cheers.
propervillanz
No worries, I didnt take offence, this is the internet; there is a language barrier and more so things should not me taken to serious.
If my rant inspired your group into a discussion about less cheese I can honestly say I achieved more than I would think when I started typing.
And I promise you this, games with a well balanced list (It doesnt have to be weak, just no scary doubles and the likes) Are more fun. Losing with a all Goblin* list is not bad at all, there will be chaos and fun But winning with a All Goblin list is _awesome_
I actually find this thread really interesting and very timely. I have been quite frustrated at Warhammer lately. I've been playing for 10 years since 6th Edition. I've been playing Orcs and Goblins in that time. That army hasn't done too well since 6th Ed. Still, I stuck through them and made the best with them. I would even say that I had a 50% success rate with my Greenskins all through 7th Ed. It was an uphill battle, though. The army book was under powered and I struggled. There were some match ups that I couldn't win unless there was a dramatic swing in luck in the dice. It was hard.
I picked PLAY TO WIN.
Groznit Goregut
I can really see your frustration, I started off with O&G (always favoring the Gobbos) Back in 4rd edition. for many years the were my one and only army. My opponents bought new armies, I just switched from Forrest Gobs + Savage Orcs to an all cavalry army. 6th edition was awesome for my O&G and I did well on tournaments. then 7th ed came out, all my possible lists were nerved and I stopped playing them for the first time ever. I started vanilla Dwarves and you are right, playing castle is dull, especially if you come from a greenskin background and I would advice against it.
What you say about your local game scene sounds frustrating, I see the need there to also bring a tough list as you still want to compete. As I play for so lang already I know I'm in a very luxury position having a game group that plays for fun and even a selection of tournaments than ban over zealous people. I do wish that for anyone that whats it.
I actually attended the ETC twice under 7th edition. I brought CD's (there were like 3 or 4 of us) and my list was way to weak to do much. I did have a great game against a guy from Team Canada. I later found out he actually was American, was a top player and was asked for to play for his own country but didnt like the attitude of the team as they took it way to serious. It was more a sport for them, wining is everything. I dont think I will do well if I ever attend a tournament in the states (:
If playing with a weaker list is affecting my enjoyment, wouldn't it be smart to move to a more competitive list? I could say that moving to play to win more is moving to have fun more. I'm tired of doing bad at tournaments due to my army list being bad. I will have more fun when I have a more even chance to win. I think for me the challenge is to see if I can win at events. I want to move into a more competitive state of the game. That is where I will have the most fun, I think. I've been playing friendly games for years and now want to see if I can compete at the bigger tables.
Groznit Goregut
If your goal is to win a tournament at all costs, how can that be fun. and what if you dont win? is that than just a waist of time?
If your goal is to have fun, you bring a list that feels right and you play 2-3 great games at a tournament isnt that an easier and more attractive goal to achieve? I'm probably sounding like a warhammer hippy right now. But I will tell you I actually won at smaller tournaments (mostly by accident seriously) but I also won Best Sportsmanship once or twice and I must say, those prices game me more satisfaction My games were fun and My opponent thought so to. (defiantly starting to sound like a warhammer hippy right now)
(Best price to win at any tournament of course is best painted. Doesnt matter what list you brought, you might just lost 3 games, but hey who cares.)
If playing with a weaker list is affecting my enjoyment, wouldn't it be smart to move to a more competitive list? I could say that moving to play to win more is moving to have fun more. I'm tired of doing bad at tournaments due to my army list being bad. I will have more fun when I have a more even chance to win. I think for me the challenge is to see if I can win at events. I want to move into a more competitive state of the game. That is where I will have the most fun, I think. I've been playing friendly games for years and now want to see if I can compete at the bigger tables.
Groznit Goregut
Rarely has it that my list affects my enjoyment, but rather my opponents attitude and playing style that rather sucks the life out of the game. And as far as a bad army list goes and judging your enjoyment of the game by the standards of the tournament, well I hope the next GT gives you victory points based on army composition, because wouldn't it be a joy to see people taking all core lists with no magic items and playing conservative because they've already won based on the lack of cheese in their army?
My point being that tournament play is subjective based on the standards of the tournament and that if winning is the goal good luck, because how many tournaments have any of us won? I would love to see how power players would do in tournaments I've played in where you have to have 3 lists and both you and your opponent choose which one you want to play against. And the kicker is you're ranked on comp based on the worst (often the most cheesiest) of your lists. And comp does carry VP's with it, so even if you win the game you loose based on the abundance of rare choices, magic items, and lack of core choices in your list.
These kinds of thoughtful tournaments have been the best I've ever played in because we're all held accountable for our respective army lists and just because you and your army book can pull off some wicked combinations, that doesn't mean you should, because you'll be judged and either rewarded or penalized for it. In these turnaments the winner is often the guy who ran with the big dawgs and lost, but did it with a lot of core choices and little to no magic items. And the best part is his opponent picked his army for him.
So Groznit if the tournament gave you in game VP's based on composition would you then alter your list knowing that you might not win based on the rules of the tournament? I'm not leading you in this question, but just saying it sounds like you're at the mercy of the tournament and more so winning based on competitive gaming. Why not just have fun first and worry about winning later? Make the army that looks cool, or fits the background of the army, or a story, or something that's off the cuff and not what every other player is running at the local GT? After all only one guy wins in the end, and if your not that guy that makes you a loser in my book, but that's not a bad thing to me as long as you're fun to play against and a good person to game with.
If your goal is to win a tournament at all costs, how can that be fun. and what if you dont win? is that than just a waist of time?
Bolg
I wouldn't say that I want to "win at all costs" is the goal. I do want to take a list that is more competitive, though. I want a tough army to see how I can do when the army I am using isn't holding me back. I want to see an army that can go against the top builds and do OK. I don't want to be a dick and ruin someone's day. I ALMOST won best sports at the last event, but one guy I tied with dunked my points. I'm generally a nice guy, but you can be a good guy and have a tough list.
So Groznit if the tournament gave you in game VP's based on composition would you then alter your list knowing that you might not win based on the rules of the tournament?
Animatone
Almost all tournaments do give some sort of victory based on comp. scores. The last event used Swedish comp and gave VP's based on your score. I ended up scoring a 17 from 0-30 with my Orcs and Goblins. It wasn't a crazy hard list, but it was the best I could bring. So, in the end, I got 17 VP's in the event. That's a solid victory to count for me. Too bad all my other scores were pretty low. I came in 25th out of 34 based on just battle points. I ended up 17th overall due to all my "soft scores".
The funny thing is that if I went with the Chaos Dwarf list I was thinking about (with no war machines) then I would've had the same comp score! I am pretty sure I would've won more games, too.
I was two votes short of Player's Choice for painting. It's probably b/c I won a few one day tournaments this year with my army. It is old hat at this point. I almost won Best Sports except one guy who gave everyone he played a low score all weekend. If he gave me an average score, I would've won. I need a new army and I want to win more games.
I wouldn't say that I want to "win at all costs" is the goal. I do want to take a list that is more competitive, though. I want a tough army to see how I can do when the army I am using isn't holding me back. I want to see an army that can go against the top builds and do OK. I don't want to be a dick and ruin someone's day. I ALMOST won best sports at the last event, but one guy I tied with dunked my points. I'm generally a nice guy, but you can be a good guy and have a tough list.
Groznit Goregut
Well than there is no real problem, you dont sound like a cheese player (how could you be, you are a greenskin by hart*). And Playing against the top players is quite possible with a well balances list. just before you field 2 destroyers, play against them and let that decide your take on it. ( I do like the idea of no warmachines, should be quite a Challange.)
*I do not want to make all the true followers of Hashut angry its just that Goblins were my first love. In game I've always been a polytheist, now Its just not only Mork and Gork d:
I want a tough army to see how I can do when the army I am using isn't holding me back.
I'm generally a nice guy, but you can be a good guy and have a tough list.
Groznit Goregut
Groznit
I understand where you're coming from especially as a O&G player, my hat's off to you for that cross to bear, my closest gaming friend has the same problems, but I think you hit the nail on the head. Certain armies/books have strengths and combo's the others don't and this is very advantageous, we all know which armies they are and we all make our choices accordingly. But what you're saying here is that you would rather chose to win, hence an army other than O&G.
It's like having the salary cap in professional sports. We all know what it takes to win, but that doesn't mean it's the right thing to do and measures are taken to prevent the predictability of unfair competition. Might doesn't always equal right, especially in these cases. If GW where to release a $400 dollar model with rules that would blow the doors off anything in the game just to make some money and move some product, what would be the moral position on fielding that choice during a tournament?
You can do it, but should you? Where do you draw the line? What would a generally nice guy do? (I'm just asking)
We all interpenetrate the answer to these questions on our own terms, but I believe that the predictability of power gamers is what ultimately proves my point. The typical reply is "well everyone else can do it if they wanted to", but then there would only be one army at the GT and still only one winner. What fun is that? I laugh and shake my head every time my friends tell me that they go to a tournament and 75% of the players field an OK army and have the greedy fist. This need to be competitive and win really does place certain emphasis on things that favor winning while detracting from the variability and vast array of choices in the game. I really do enjoy the discussion though, and when I do play a game with a stranger I always ask if they have multiple lists available and show them mine of course so then we can both decide what kind of game we want to play, not just one person dropping down a ruthless list while the other wants to try out something that might be untested, or unorthodox.
Here’s a longer reply, I was in a bit of a rush when I wrote the last one. The cheese stuff has already been answered, so here is the rest
If you have fun, win or lose… you’ve won!
But just because I am playing to win doesn’t mean that I don’t have fun if I lose. As I said before, the struggle to win is the fun part, (and here’s the implied part I didn’t say: ) not the winning itself.
If you only play to win you could very well be wasting your time when the dice go against you, or your opponent decides to out cheese even the most worthy of Limburger that you can serve up to the menu, because his army book allows it. It’s a lose lose in my opinion if you have to consider the prospect of winning as a means of enjoyment whilst playing a game.
Don’t forget the prospect of losing! I suppose you could play most of your games in which you already know you won’t win, where your only measure is how much you didn’t win by (or vice versa with winning), but that seems a little sad. There’s a good reason why sports teams are organised into leagues depending on how good they are, and it’s not just fairness; An evenly matched game is far more fun to watch because any side could win.
If you use the game as an excuse to socialise, then fine, but if you want to make the game itself more enjoyable then an even match is the way to do it.
I can really see your frustration, I started off with O&G (always favoring the Gobbos) Back in 4rd edition. for many years the were my one and only army. My opponents bought new armies, I just switched from Forrest Gobs + Savage Orcs to an all cavalry army. 6th edition was awesome for my O&G and I did well on tournaments. then 7th ed came out, all my possible lists were nerved and I stopped playing them for the first time ever. I started vanilla Dwarves
bolg
You and me are so much alike, almost exactly same as me!
I play for fun. Because guys from 10 year of age to 15 they think it fun to beat a girl But they get mad when they lose to one and they cheat a lot…
Guys from 15 to 25 are rule mugers the games take way to long when you play this group . and will beak out the rule books every move
25 to 35 age is a group that is just starting to chill out and want to play… they will have the bigger games and bigger army’s and try to help you and are super nice . They have the best looking Armys and are mostly painted…
35 and older are the best players they will play and will let you win … they will talk nice to you . They will notice when you you wear a low cut top :) But act like they didn’t they will give you hugs at the end of the game and ask when you coming back