|
Post by Catachan Colonel on Dec 5, 2005 11:41:47 GMT -5
To start a discussion...
I have talked with a few people about the armies we are seeing among ourselves lately and wonder if daboyz have become more along the lines of power gamers.
Are we seeing bigger HQ characters? Are we having more of a problem accepting 40% troops as the norm? I am not pointing at any single army here, i know that our group can play under any limitations we choose to employ. The question is more are we relaxing our internal standards?
Just a question?
|
|
rotnak1271
Sergeant
The Googlicious
\,,/ (>_<) \,,/
Posts: 341
|
Post by rotnak1271 on Dec 5, 2005 12:09:16 GMT -5
You speak as though an army that has less than 40% troops is automatically a power gamer army.
Or that an army that has 40% (or more) in troops is not a power gamer army.
|
|
MajorSoB
Moderator
The oldest
THE GRUMPY OLD MAN!
Posts: 2,135
|
Post by MajorSoB on Dec 5, 2005 13:31:57 GMT -5
Interesting topic. I thought I had a non-power gaming army but found it difficult to justify in the eve of the Syracuse tourney when I realized I have a big libriarian and no wheres near 40% troops. I think it is difficult to not "power game" since everyone wants to win and using your best units is often justified as playing within the rules that you are given. Not sure how I feel, since I like winning too but also enjoy a fair hard fought game as well. I have tried to set a goal to take more troops and only one tooled out HQ, maybe a smaller supporting HQ if I take two. How about everyone else, thoughts?
|
|
Iron Warrior
Moderator
The Iron
Iron Within! Iron Without!
Posts: 2,573
|
Post by Iron Warrior on Dec 5, 2005 19:35:32 GMT -5
Well, first I want to say that the term "power gaming" means diffrent things to almost everyone. Power gaming and Cheesy have almost become the one in the same, to some people.
Power gaming and gamers, Me personally,I tend to frown upon and I really try hard not to do it while trying to maintian a "fluffy" army at the same time. In the front of the old Daboyz board there was a little rant that said somehting about us being able to utlize the strength of out Core or Troop choices to win battles and not rely upon Elites/Specials or Tooled up Characters.
I believe strongly upon this tradition and have tried hard to uphold it. Think of it this way, who is the better player: The person that wins with his Tooled up Lords, takes the best of the best elites and a few troops OR The person who takes alot of troops, an elite here and a leader that can fight but is not over the top and wins?
I think the person that can honestly say that they can win with the least amount of "special rules" can consider himself a better player. Many times have I seen tooled up DP's fly single handedly over someones army and win because of one model. Also Have I seen the Guard or IW players take an obscene amount of Ordance and just lay down Ord. Templates over thier opponent and wreck them.
Now would they be considered good players because they were able to roll a few dice, say your dead, and they win? They didnt do much other than set down a template or roll 8 dice where you get no save at all. Some how do you feel cheated when this happens to you. Was there something you could do about it? Most likely not unless you have done the same thing, then the game comes down to who goes first wins.
Well, Im straying off topic here a little bit, To answer the question does it look like we are becoming more of power gamers. Im going to have to say yes. Its becoming more diffacult not to build power armies because of the competition out there. GW is enabling the gaming community by allowing bigger and stronger things available with certain combinations of items/wargear. Is it our fault that we want to win? Is it our fault that we want to have the best army out there? No, I think everyone out there would like that, myself included. But I dont find myself challanged what-so ever if I were to play a powered up army. I dont find it fun either for me but MOST IMPORTANTLY for my opponent.
I can deffenitly see a slide to the power gaming side with this crew. Chaos and Marine players being easily swayed by the power they could have. Its a temptation indead, but one that should be kept in check by ones own conscience, I would hope.
|
|
MajorSoB
Moderator
The oldest
THE GRUMPY OLD MAN!
Posts: 2,135
|
Post by MajorSoB on Dec 5, 2005 20:18:14 GMT -5
Nice rant Ron, very empassioned and I can't help but agreeing with every one of your points. I am not sure if GW is in the position to make all the changes that would be needed to elimate the power gaming, I think you are right that players need to have a concence and decide what is good for them. I think a good win is when you outplay an evenly matched opponent rather than see how much smack you can cram into your list. Let's hope GW doesn't step in because my fear would be a strict limitation to what you could take in all forces, resulting in making our game one with limited choices, and limited creativity.
So what are the solutions? Should we start enforcing a strict 40% troops comp in all our tourneys/leagues? Should we start limiting the HQ characters? Or should we do nothing and just hopes this "phase" just goes away on its own? Thoughts, comments...
|
|
|
Post by Norton on Dec 6, 2005 10:10:22 GMT -5
With great power comes ... Heat ray vision.
|
|
rotnak1271
Sergeant
The Googlicious
\,,/ (>_<) \,,/
Posts: 341
|
Post by rotnak1271 on Dec 6, 2005 10:16:53 GMT -5
Power vs ballanced is like porn versus art. You can't explain the difference, but you know it when you see it.
The only way to "fix" this problem in pick up games: There isn't, asside from regular mocking and people saying "No, I don't think I would like to play you."
The way to "fix" this problem in tourneys: Soft scores. Make the army comp based off of your oponents opinion of your army.
Which then brings us back to how everyone's opinions are different on what makes a Power or Cheesy list versus a ballanced list.
|
|
|
Post by Norton on Dec 6, 2005 10:39:00 GMT -5
cough cough, khorne chosen all with speed and kitted out to the gills...
|
|
MajorSoB
Moderator
The oldest
THE GRUMPY OLD MAN!
Posts: 2,135
|
Post by MajorSoB on Dec 6, 2005 14:01:03 GMT -5
Porn versus art...easy fix there, less clothing and more action right? But what does porn have to do with Warhammer, I'm so confused....
|
|
Hagbard The Mighty
Sergeant
The cheesiest
In 40k if something is off, it can easily be explained in-universe as being because the Warp did it.
Posts: 223
|
Post by Hagbard The Mighty on Dec 6, 2005 15:28:01 GMT -5
I doubt you will see any intervention by GW. Power gaming will aways be around. However, GW did make stride in limiting how bad a$$ the charatcers could get in Fantasy. With a bit of effort, the same could be applied to 40k - anyone want to petition them to make 40k version 4.5?
|
|
Iron Warrior
Moderator
The Iron
Iron Within! Iron Without!
Posts: 2,573
|
Post by Iron Warrior on Dec 6, 2005 15:36:17 GMT -5
Ok your getting off topic,
With the suggestion Ben came up with...Its been done and tried. Mocking only leads to the agrivation of the player. And even this will not correct the problem as little is gained through this method.
Soft scores is a good idea but we find people being VERY leinent with the scores because its one of our own we are playing against. Aslo this can be a double edged sword if they decide they just want to outright plain hose you in score becaue you beat them fair and square then there is nothihng stoping them from doing that.
I would suggest a judging of each army by your peers BEFORE play. Like take the 3 people get them together and together judge the army. Granted this would be time consuming but I think more productive and would yield better results as they explain why they judge it this way to the others. Then explain it to the player whos army it is what they got and why after ALL armys have been judged that way there is no retributive strike for a bad score.
I guess some things to look for would be appropiate to list.
1. Did they follow the fluff of his army?
2. Are his HQ/elites filled to the teeth with wargear/enhancements?
3. Did he make the army purely to win
4. Did he take several of the same choice/weapon because they are so good. (ie 9 obliterators for an IW player)
5. Does his army actually look and feel like an army?
6. Did he tool up for one specific oponnent?
7. Did he min out on troops (either # of troops or squad size) -An army isnt an army without troopers-
I guess somethings on sportmanship would be appropiate too. Because some people think that Sportsmanship and comp go hand in hand. When it doesnt.
Sportsmanship is how did your opponent act during the game. Do you think you should penalize the person that show up for the game, plays you, doesnt say much, was ok to play against, the game went well. no rules problems? Or has it become that you have to show up with cans of pop and bags of candy to give to each of your opponenets, act and put on a show for your oppoenent so he gives you a good sportsmanship score. Discard rules that may or may not make or break the game, be careful not to dispute anything with your opponent and play the game he wants to play?
Honestly if there is a problem with the person your playing against you should go to the judge with your concerns. Good sportsmanship should be assumed in any game and should only be penalized if it is a major infraction upon the game (like other sports).
I think a new way sportsmanship should be judged should be everyone starts with a top score of, (lets say 30, 10 for each round). If the judge gets and reports of bads sports they start to deduct points from this persons score acorrdingly. If the person in question was an absolute jerk, dirupted the game and the games around him. It was unbearable to play against him, he disputed everything you did, was a very disagreeable person then the max points should be deducted. Like 10pts. Of course it should be up to the judges discression. Sometimes people take things the worng way and it may look like it something was said in bad taste when it actuallity it was ment in a joking manner. Several complaints about the person would eat away at his score. And to go to a judge to cokmplain about a person would take effort on the part of the person that would want to hose the person. In all fairness I think the person should have a chance to defend himself. Again I would think that these situations would be few and far between, as good sportsmanship is expected. This would prevent people from outright hosing people because they may be in contention for 1st place or just doesnt like your amry or the club you belong to.
|
|
MajorSoB
Moderator
The oldest
THE GRUMPY OLD MAN!
Posts: 2,135
|
Post by MajorSoB on Dec 6, 2005 19:29:30 GMT -5
You know Ron, you got me thinking. How does this sound...
While I agree with all you suggestions, I think there is only one way to eliminate all the problems cited. Maybe in tournaments all the players should be responsible for is reporting their battle scores as well as selecting a best painted and best sportman at the end. Maybe, just maybe, the judges should take more of an active interest in the armies as well as the players. During break, each army should have to set up, place their point sheets, and explain why their army is fluffy and representative of that particular army. Soft scores could be altogether eliminated if the GW or tournament judges actually judge. That way only one person would be judging using the same criteria, rather than having each player determine what a 10 or a 4 means. Also, disgruntled players could not hose a well painted and fluffy army just because they were a poor general and got tabled. At Toronto, two players stuck out in my mind. The first gave everyone perfect scores and guess what he got. This is wrong, yeah he was a nice guy, but if I give my first opponent 4s, then your next opponent has a better army and you play a better game, is that fair? The second player that stuck out was the one who finished third ( I think). He recieved average scores, but totatally whacked his opponents, I believe he only gave out 40 out of 80 possible points, giving out the lowest total scores in the whole tourney. All I am saying is that while you list some good guidelines, the only way that club voting and score sniping will stop is by taking it out of the players hands altogether. Everyone likes winning, I do too, but is it really that important? I understand it should be more fair, but as long as you have peoples judgement and opinions involved, controversy will occur.
|
|
|
Post by Catachan Colonel on Dec 6, 2005 20:38:36 GMT -5
staying consistent with established fluff sounds good at first. Works for Ultras iron warriors alpa legion world eaters.
Now pleast tell me how it works for... Green Dragons, Iron Dragons, Fire Claws, Sons of Kemp, Violators?
|
|
MajorSoB
Moderator
The oldest
THE GRUMPY OLD MAN!
Posts: 2,135
|
Post by MajorSoB on Dec 6, 2005 21:42:45 GMT -5
Simple, write up a fluff on your army. If you are a sucessor chapter, then I am sure that you are not that radically different from your founding chapter right? Hey, I see nothing wrong with new marine chapters. If I remember right, my last opponent in syracuse had a custom chapter he had created. It was well painted, imaginative, and wasn't in existance just to exploit some rules to form an uber burly army. We all know the difference in a new chapter "cause someone thought it would be cool" and a customer chapter "cause my Space Wolf army would rock with six landspeeders with assault cannon". All I was saying is that maybe the GW judges should take some time and ask "Is it fluffy?" and maybe read the 200 word fluff page was all are supposed to write at GTs. That should count more than the 1s and 2s you get from a weak player who you beat to the last man, then he lowballed you to seek his revenge.
|
|
Iron Warrior
Moderator
The Iron
Iron Within! Iron Without!
Posts: 2,573
|
Post by Iron Warrior on Dec 6, 2005 22:20:56 GMT -5
Pretty much your talking about the DIY armies. In that case I would reccomend the alternate routes of judgment which I defined earlier. Also you would have to use some generic guidelines because these are indeed generic armies given form.
The 7 steps above that i created could apply to those DIY armies. Step one would be a step that the judge would have to go through all the steps first then come back and taking in to consideration the other 6 steps ask himself is this truley a Marine/Chaos army in accordance with Marine/Chaos fluff?
|
|