PDA

View Full Version : SPAM rebuttal...



Exitus Acta Probat
08-31-2009, 10:55 AM
(I did this here instead of on the article for a few reasons, amongst them I think it might be a good lounge 'cursin fest' discuss, it's easier to track responses than the front page, and it's easier to follow on my phone! If admin doesn't like it here, and thinks it should stay on the Front Page article, dump it or move it..) :)

First, Spam as a definition...
BigRed, you're not wholly correct.
Spam in the 'good' player's lexicon is redundancy for assurance. If two melta-units are good, 3-4 are better. NOT all units. NOT units to exclusivity.
I don't know a GOOD player out there who says you should only play with ONE unit in your army repeated over and over.

By intimating that spam is negative, and a crutch for the weak minded, you neglect to recognize the inherent skill in both identifying the units that should be spammed, the units that need to support it, and where the DRT (diminishing return threshold) is reached.

By stating it's a crutch only for noobs, you denigrate the players who hone their list over time to the point where they know PRECISELY where the DRT is reached, or over-reached, and tune in supporting elements/excess from their. Or the shifts in play environments/new codices to identify when that particular SPAM element is no longer as viable/becomes stronger.

By creating an overall sense that 'generalists' are superior to 'spammers' you are generating a hostile environment to a play style in favor of your own pre-conceived notion of what is fair/creative/flexible. This seems to be counter to the 'flavor' from BoLS I have gotten over time. Maybe I was wrong?
A generalist may have a desire to maintain his 'hobby' (a desire to field models he loves/prioritize looks over efficiency), a different play environment at his 'home' store that makes his particular build effective there or simply a different view on what is or is not spam.
By the more general definition of SPAM(larger numbers of 'superior' units vs ALL of them), wouldn't your Overall Winner of BoLScon be considered a 'gaunt spammer?
He had arseloads of them right? He also went for 'fex/'rant/zoie redundancy (from a points perspective it looked like tyrant spam).

Also, when a 'spammer' wins an overall event, does this mean he was a mediocre player with a good list? What about said spammer running up against the rock to his scissors and still winning?
By your description of a generalist approach, a spammer that makes it through an entire tourney massacre after massacre shows a better acumen. Why? Because he would have HAD to have fought at least one unfavorable matchup if the environment was actually mixed. If not, then he would have had to have played (after round 1) a string of players with his own level of skill and army/rules understanding.
But reality is, spam laid down by a good player/general/list builder is not pure spam. The player recognizes weaknesses, strengths, and the most efficacious ways to fill those gaps.
Also, a 'spammer' has redundancy/duality in all his unit roles. A melta-spam guard army should have flamer support/flamer anti-horde transports. A THSS spam army should have vulkan support, and Hvy Flamer/Melta speeders for anti everything work in addition to av-14 transports.
A fire dragon/falcon/serpent/DA spam army has everything covered just with that little bit there, and mobile tarpits/anti horde with Destructor 'locks.

SPAM is a four letter word, but not a bad one.
All armies, generalists to spam (to everything in between) have elements that people take in excess regardless of common sense. They also all have 'bad' players that think their way is the right way till the get their arses handed to them...I have had 'fluffy-bunnies' (and I've gone through my own 'fluffybunny' and 'rarrrWAAC' stages..it's about balance) tell me that the only way to play is without named characters, or anything resembling a net list. Guess what, I have been playing for so long that every one of my armies has gone from great, to mediocre, to ****e and back again...It just so happens my love for rhinos and dreads has turned my 'meh' 3.5/4e army into spam...my mech guard into chimera/melta spam and my 'Zilla into strangler spam. But my 'generalist' solid 3.5/4e Eldar army, Necron army, Ork army has fallen by the wayside...and I don't care. They'll get played and tweaked for a while till the next edition, when they can become the new 'spam'(whatever it'll be called then for vilification) and I can actually say.."I played these when they SUCKED!" Meanwhile, I'll be playing (and sometimes winning) with my current 'SPAM' lists, telling people why they SUCKED two editions ago..(or one ed etc).

:)

warpcrafter
08-31-2009, 11:50 AM
The problem is all these stupid terms that everybody throws around and invests too much of themselves in. The game itself is broken, and all the obsessing in the world is not going to fix it because GW doesn't care what the vast majority of the players want. Until they get over their desperation to please stockholders who don't know or care about the actual games, and selling space marines to tweens, the tournament scene will just be another excuse for people to obsess about something that's really not worth obsessing about. Just play with the toy soldiers, have fun with your fellow gamers and let those who take things too seriously drift on to fantasy football or some other obsessive-friendly waste of time.

Gotthammer
08-31-2009, 12:20 PM
Until they get over their desperation to please stockholders who don't know or care about the actual games,

As a PLC GW has a legal obligation to please its shareholders (ie more profits) in most parts of the world. Getting funding for 'risky' (ie not guaranteed money like more marines) project like the Stompa, Space Hulk and the like would be difficult under those circumstances, so they stick to the tried and true. Probably why BL stopped selling badges and the like, GW would be obliged to cut expenses and raise profits of that arm - not enough profit margin in it and the resources could be better used elsewhere.


On topic I do agree with the OP - spam in of itself is not a bad thing, I feel unit redundancy is critical to an army's ability to fight. If I only bring 1 melta to the party that LR is going to have a field day - just stay 7" away until he's dead and it's not going down very easily. There is the extreme of an entire guard army with a million meltas, but being able to beat that list due to its predictability (or having no armour) doesn't make it inferior - much the same way as I couldn't claim a non-spam list was inferior because I beat it due to its lack of redundancy - I simply exploited that list's particular weakness.

Commissar Lewis
08-31-2009, 01:06 PM
In my opinion, spamming is an extreme. Taking 4 meltas is just stocking a good amount of reliable firepower; it's stronger and better AP than plasma and is safer. Now, if every guard squad under the sun had meltas, then that's just spamming a perceived "ultra option".

There's nothing wrong with packing a lot of a good weapon; it's when it's taken to the extreme that it is "spamming" in the classic sense.

However, there are people that look at a good choice and have nothing but that; and it gives their strategy a flaw. Meltas aren't that good against Guardsmen.

Playa
08-31-2009, 01:26 PM
Hey,


There's nothing wrong with packing a lot of a good weapon; it's when it's taken to the extreme that it is "spamming"

The flip-side of this is when dexes have few viable options in the first place.
Packing multiples of your *only* good weapon is labelled "spam" too.
Similarly, selecting your only truly viable Units, etc.

Some of us have to 'spam' the little good we do have just to be competitive.
There are also the "I dunno, I just like 'em" players to consider.
The true test is inevitably going to be in the gaming.

Is perceived spam somehow 'ruining it' for you?
And if so, how?


Playa

Nabterayl
08-31-2009, 01:35 PM
You know, I agree with your post here, Exitus, but I think Bigred crafted his introductory definition specifically for this reason. From that definition it sounds like Bigred is talking exclusively about the kind of "spam" that stems from the mindset of, "This unit works out best on paper, and therefore it is all I will ever take."

There are a number of ways to decide how things work out on paper, (e.g., do you consider killyness per points or killyness per model the relevant "on paper" measure of "efficiency"?), but they all have the deficiency of only suggesting part of what goes into tactics. I think Bigred is right that building a list based solely on a unit's performance on paper is a crutch to new players.

That's not to say that you shouldn't care about a unit's performance on paper; you should. But it shouldn't be all you care about, particularly if you only have one way of looking at things on paper. Seems to me that's the kind of "spam" that Bigred was restricting his post to.

Jwolf
08-31-2009, 01:41 PM
My biggest issue is that people make Spam lists and then stop, as if that's the apex of list evolution. Spam lists are an important part of the development of lists in an area; they serve as the baseline of competent list building. Over time, I've found that twists in my lists help me a lot against various strong Spam configurations, so I add the twists and move away from the "optimal" builds, in effect moving to a post-optimal configuration. It takes more practice to be good with the lists I make, but I find them to be more effective than a purely maximized list.

Spam lists are generally competitive locally, but almost never #1. A Spam list does very well against other Spam lists and against bad lists, but a solid variable list does better against everything, and generally wins. Of course, if you're lucky to get in 6 competitive games a month, I'd advise you to stick with the Spam lists, because they're easier to use well, and it's much easier to deal with the loss of a Chimera with all hands if you hae 3 more just like it.

Exitus Acta Probat
08-31-2009, 02:17 PM
That's not to say that you shouldn't care about a unit's performance on paper; you should. But it shouldn't be all you care about, particularly if you only have one way of looking at things on paper. Seems to me that's the kind of "spam" that Bigred was restricting his post to.

Okay, so he was referring to only 'extreme' examples, not just a general trend...I can see that.


My biggest issue is that people make Spam lists and then stop, as if that's the apex of list evolution. Spam lists are an important part of the development of lists in an area; they serve as the baseline of competent list building. Over time, I've found that twists in my lists help me a lot against various strong Spam configurations, so I add the twists and move away from the "optimal" builds, in effect moving to a post-optimal configuration. It takes more practice to be good with the lists I make, but I find them to be more effective than a purely maximized list.

Yes, evolutionary dead end would be a bad thing. Do you really think that is all that is represented though?

I thought about it after I left,
and I am wondering if it was less a detrimental post about SPAM, and more really a railing against 'NET'-listing.
Taking everyone's word for it that a>b>c across the board, finding a list online and running with it (ie:JWolf's evolutionary end...the DoDo of lists).

NET-listing is bad from one perspective, good from another.

Kid has finite money, get's crap because of no research and gets spanked...OWNED. Kid stops playing.
OR Kid researches, finds input, builds out a netlist, and wins. Kid's hooked.

Kid finds netlist, buys 'uber' list. Wins and is hooked!
OR Owns friends and fluffy players to the point where no-one will play him/her..

Kid goes to tourney thinking he/she's a bada$$..Gets owned. Doesn't understand that it was practice/developmental issues(or was outclassed due to lack of competitive exposure) and just buys the next super list/unit (quits playing in tourney totally due to disdain)...feeding a bad trend.


both instances could be handled by proper mentoring at a store. Managing the competitive viewpoint while guiding purchases AND new events etc toward learning without arrogance.


Does that sound more like the issues that are being had here?

BlacknightIII
08-31-2009, 02:24 PM
Idk why people freak out over spam.
Plasmas, Meltas, Las, Lance, whatever you happen to spam it all dies the same to me.

mkerr
08-31-2009, 03:55 PM
By the more general definition of SPAM(larger numbers of 'superior' units vs ALL of them), wouldn't your Overall Winner of BoLScon be considered a 'gaunt spammer?

No, Mr. Strange didn't take min-maxed or optimized units and he didn't build his army based solely on the mathematical superiority of the units. For example, if his Gaunt units had been Genestealers then he would be defending himself against the anti-spam-police (instead of the 5e-optimized-list-police).

For the points, Genestealers are overpowered - pushing the balance needle out of whack and creating an opportunity to build a unit of maximum power for minimum cost. Which is not necessarily a bad thing, unless you take this unbalanced unit and SPAM it in your army (compounding the effect).

What Bigred is saying is that on the surface, this seems like a reasonable way to make a powerful army. Find an underpriced unit and take all of them that you can. Simple.

But what more experienced players learn is that there's a lot more to the game than finding these threadbare sections of a codex. That a more balanced list, in the hands of a capable player, is superior when facing another capable player (compared to a min-maxed list in the same situation).


Also, when a 'spammer' wins an overall event, does this mean he was a mediocre player with a good list? What about said spammer running up against the rock to his scissors and still winning?

Of course not. Many things factor into determining the winner of a tournament; list is only a small part of the equation. But an optimised list with a weak point (say Veteran melta spam or Genestealer spam) will have a much harder time against an opponent that has the 'rock' to that army's 'scissors'.


By your description of a generalist approach, a spammer that makes it through an entire tourney massacre after massacre shows a better acumen. Why? Because he would have HAD to have fought at least one unfavorable matchup if the environment was actually mixed. If not, then he would have had to have played (after round 1) a string of players with his own level of skill and army/rules understanding.

In my experience, that's not even close to true. In a four or five round tournament, it's very easy to make it to the end without encountering an unfavorable matchup.


But reality is, spam laid down by a good player/general/list builder is not pure spam. The player recognizes weaknesses, strengths, and the most efficacious ways to fill those gaps.

Min-max spamming is still spamming.

The real problem with spam is that it's not fun for either player. New players get a huge rush out of winning games, so they go to great lengths to build "unbeatable" armies. As they mature, they start to realize that the hobby is a lot more than just winning games. A mature player helps a weaker player in a game instead of crushing him. A mature player avoids taking advantage of another player by utilizing exploits (including min-max spam). A mature player enjoys collecting and expanding his army beyond an optimal tournament list. A mature player wants his opponent to have fun too.

Don't believe the internet hype. There's nothing wrong with the "competitive scene" in our chosen hobby. It's alive and thriving; it's just that real veterans can see further than their win-loss record.

-- mkerr

Chumbalaya
08-31-2009, 05:50 PM
Genestealers overpowered? Rending got nerfed hard, outflank sucks, and now they're overpriced.

Exitus put it very well. Spam =/= one-dimensional or inflexible, at least not good lists. Taking a mix of different units makes target priority easier because some units are simply better suited to certain roles and a competent opponent can pick up on that and eliminate the biggest threat before moving on down to the less intimidating units. If your army has multiple units with the same or similar damage outputs it's much more difficult to effectively neutralize them all. Best part is, you can make your units flexible enough to handle multiple roles (MM/HF Speeder, Vets in Chimeras, Oblits being prime examples) and since you have multiples of them they are disposable so losing 1 unit doesn't severely hamper your capabilities.

Obviously player skill is a big factor, but a skilled player should recognize which units work best in particular roles and understand how to combine said units to make an army that is flexible, powerful, and not reliant on 1 unit or unreliable stuff like having a bad opponent or rolling well. It also behooves a mature player to help his fellow gamers understand what works and why and not get on his soapbox spewing elitist nonsense.

I play competitive lists, I spam, and I do enjoy the fluffy side and converting. I can't paint to save my life, but I try. What draws me is a challenging game against a good opponent with a strong list. I don't care about my win/loss ratio (at least not enough to put it in my sig), I want to see people get better and offer greater challenge. Shackling people with your self-imposed rules because of a sense of moral superiority doesn't help anybody, it encourages stagnation.

mkerr
09-01-2009, 11:02 AM
Genestealers overpowered? Rending got nerfed hard, outflank sucks, and now they're overpriced.

Just to make sure that we're on the same page: Do you have a Tyranids army? Have you used Genestealers in 5E?

For the price, Genestealers are a bargain. Rending, although less powerful than in 4E, is still a fantastic ability. Close combat attacks always targeting the rear of vehicles nicely balanced the nerf to rending - and opened a bunch of new options for a Tyranid player. The bonus to preferred enemy, also gives feeder tendril Genestealers a huge boost. The new option to outflank (regardless of your experience with it) is just that a "new option" - options are always good. The changes to close combat morale checks (and no retreat results) are downright abusive with Genestealers.

With very few upgrades, genestealers can threaten any unit in the game. They are versatile and have a small unit size. For 16pts, you can't beat it.


I play competitive lists, I spam, and I do enjoy the fluffy side and converting. I can't paint to save my life, but I try. What draws me is a challenging game against a good opponent with a strong list. I don't care about my win/loss ratio (at least not enough to put it in my sig), I want to see people get better and offer greater challenge. Shackling people with your self-imposed rules because of a sense of moral superiority doesn't help anybody, it encourages stagnation.

If people are feeling shackled, it's with the unrealistic need to compete with "netdecked" uber-lists. They are being fed fear-based drivel that their lovingly created army is "fail" and that they should just stay home if they don't have whatever power-list is trendy today.

I've seen the fear-based reactions to every new codex in the last few years. "Oh god, nob bikers can't be beat. I should just sell my big bugs army on ebay and buy orks.", etc. Criticizing the _type_ of lists they bring to the table - instead of helping them improve the armies they love and collect - doesn't help the hobby.

It's been proven time and time again, a good player with an army he knows will beat a good player with a shiny new toy most of the time. Love your army, learn the game, master the rules and make damn sure that your opponent has as much fun as you do. These are the lessons people need to learn -- not "find an abusive unit and buy three of them".

Exitus Acta Probat
09-01-2009, 01:10 PM
Just to make sure that we're on the same page: Do you have a Tyranids army? Have you used Genestealers in 5E?

For the price, Genestealers are a bargain. Rending, although less powerful than in 4E, is still a fantastic ability. Close combat attacks always targeting the rear of vehicles nicely balanced the nerf to rending - and opened a bunch of new options for a Tyranid player. The bonus to preferred enemy, also gives feeder tendril Genestealers a huge boost. The new option to outflank (regardless of your experience with it) is just that a "new option" - options are always good. The changes to close combat morale checks (and no retreat results) are downright abusive with Genestealers.

With very few upgrades, genestealers can threaten any unit in the game. They are versatile and have a small unit size. For 16pts, you can't beat it.



If people are feeling shackled, it's with the unrealistic need to compete with "netdecked" uber-lists. They are being fed fear-based drivel that their lovingly created army is "fail" and that they should just stay home if they don't have whatever power-list is trendy today.

I've seen the fear-based reactions to every new codex in the last few years. "Oh god, nob bikers can't be beat. I should just sell my big bugs army on ebay and buy orks.", etc. Criticizing the _type_ of lists they bring to the table - instead of helping them improve the armies they love and collect - doesn't help the hobby.

It's been proven time and time again, a good player with an army he knows will beat a good player with a shiny new toy most of the time. Love your army, learn the game, master the rules and make damn sure that your opponent has as much fun as you do. These are the lessons people need to learn -- not "find an abusive unit and buy three of them".

Now I will be a little 'ruffled'...

1st, I do play stealers...I have played 'nids since 2nd ed. Stealers were nerfed. Yes, you can 'spam' stealers, but you can spam tactical marines as well. Stealers only skew the 'balance' needle against non-mech template lacking slow armies, otherwise they are either at point parity or outclassed.
I say that from both friendly, competitive, fluff and WAAC play on BOTH sides of the table. Oh, and outflank is over-rated. If it weren't free for them, I wouldn't pay for it.

2nd, if I read Chumbas posts elsewhere in the forums, he is not a noob. He is speaking from experience, and to post a response couched in 'don't get caught in the hype' you are calling into question his own development and skill...assuming that he has acquired his opine via the interwebz only and not experience.
You said this to me as well. I am not going to take umbrage, but I am going to point out the terms it is couched in could be considered a might insulting (or at least 'superior').

Some things occur, by dint of development, along 'convergent' evolution.
I recently ran into a list query on another site that mirrors my own personal current SM list so closely I just KNOW I am going to get accused of 'net-listing' if I use it at the next tourney (by people I don't know I am sure, but still).
It's a common recognition of value.

Over your last two posts though, you did clarify something that I think you don't even realize. Your hostility toward 'net-listing'. This is fine, I have no issue with that. But between the tone of the first article, the response from JWolf and you(x2), I think it really is less a 'spam' issue than it is a 'net-list' reaction.
Spam can be acquired in the natural course of list development, independent of other entities.
Net-listing (decking etc) can have a negative impact on a dynamic environment.
Don't assume that one goes hand in hand with the other all the time.

I think we find ourselves assuming (rightly sometimes, wrongly just as often) that whatever current 'power builds' are creeping up have a common source. Occasionally, it really is just a nature of evolutionary trends in the game.
Also, those trends will VARY REGIONALLY. Like evolution in animals, where certain 'species' will be prevalent and responded to by their 'prey/predator' pressures. With the internet, we see these evolutionary trends leap across regional boundaries. Sometimes this will affect our play, sometimes 'mutations' will seem suicidal/superior to us because in our own 'ecosystem' they don't apply/are overpowering.

The 'hype' we see (lauding one play style/list style etc) is a natural progression of these steps, and can apply as strongly across the board or fall flat on their faces.
The truth though, is when an evolutionary step starts crossing natural 'boundaries', we have to view it as a logical progression that may have parallel survivability, or be the next step toward coming out of the trees.

I think we are all coming together (from different angles) to make fire,
but we have to stop sticking our fingers into the embers and then screaming like ninnies....

:)

mkerr
09-01-2009, 02:45 PM
Oh, and outflank is over-rated. If it weren't free for them, I wouldn't pay for it.

Outflank isn't free for them; they have to upgrade to "scutters" to use outflank.

You should 'unruffle'; there's nothing here to get worked up about. The effectiveness of outflank, like many other elements of the game, is regional. What's good or "fail" is entirely dependent on the composition of the community where you play, which is forgotten by a lot of forum commenters.

If every army in your FLGS is mechanized and everyone has multiple Landraiders, then lots of Genestealers isn't that abusive. But against the vast majority of armies in the majority of regions, they are still a fantastic unit. Oh, and in my neck of the woods (one of the most competitive 40k communities on the planet), outflank still works pretty well.

However, spam is universally abusive. It's a method of building armies that doesn't take into account the most important element of the game. Fun. If you want to build an abusive army to win a tournament, that's awesome. But if you are building abusive armies by spamming units in weekly games, then you've missed the point.


2nd, if I read Chumbas posts elsewhere in the forums, he is not a noob. He is speaking from experience, and to post a response couched in 'don't get caught in the hype' you are calling into question his own development and skill...assuming that he has acquired his opine via the interwebz only and not experience.

I only know Chumbalya from his forum responses. I wouldn't presume to know anything about his development or skill. I'm sure he's a fine player and I certainly don't feel superior to him or anyone else. But I don't think his goal (or the other proponents for "optimised" armies) is making the game more fun for every player.

Without pretense, here's the point I was trying to get across. The sky is not falling. Don't buy into the fear-based hype that there's one way to build an army. Because in a month it will change as players react to the current "netdecked" army. Anecdotal example - nob bikers were "unbeatable" for a while. You couldn't find an Ork Biker on a store shelf to save your life and I've never seen so many unpainted Ork armies. Old armies went up on eBay and non-Ork players complained that the system was broken and that they might as well quit. The gnashing of teeth lasted for about TWO months until the community figured out how to beat Nob Bikers. Then it was instantly over. Today, there are probably hundreds of unpainted Ork bikes gathering dust on Austin shelves. In the end, we learned that the sky was not falling.


Spam can be acquired in the natural course of list development, independent of other entities.
Net-listing (decking etc) can have a negative impact on a dynamic environment.
Don't assume that one goes hand in hand with the other all the time.

Spam, according to Bigred's definition of it (which I share), is a bad thing. Regardless of how it's acquired. You identify a unit that is underpriced, then you optimize it to maximize it's effectiveness, then you spam it in your army (compounding the effect).

It's abusive. And worse, it's not fun.

Here's another anecdote: There's a player that used to come to our FLGS. He would wait until he found out who his opponent would be, then he'd pull out an army list from his three-ring binder that is best suited to beating that army. "Chaos Daemons. Okay, I'll bring list #14 with double Null Zones." He would always work to bring scissors to your paper army.

As you can imagine, it wasn't any fun to play him. Why? Because he was abusing the game and the trust between players. He wasn't cheating, but he was making the game no fun. Spamming (and netdecking) has the same end result.

-- mkerr

Exitus Acta Probat
09-01-2009, 03:44 PM
Outflank isn't free for them; they have to upgrade to "scutters" to use outflank.

Gugh...was thinking of my Broodlord and attendant gits...on my phone, didn't feel like editing AGAIN with it while driving. If it weren't for them though, I wouldn't be worrying about the outflank. It's functional as a deployment manipulation, which in itself is good, but not as efficient (IMHO). There are other places I would rather put the points.



If every army in your FLGS is mechanized and everyone has multiple Landraiders, then lots of Genestealers isn't that abusive. But against the vast majority of armies in the majority of regions, they are still a fantastic unit. Oh, and in my neck of the woods (one of the most competitive 40k communities on the planet), outflank still works pretty well.

It's not just raiders, it's really ALL mech for the most part. They have their uses, but as I pointed out they are point dependent values. Against too many opponents they break point parity at best, not point advantage. But, they are not wastes...so to get back on topic! (which I admittedly went off on..lol)




However, spam is universally abusive. It's a method of building armies that doesn't take into account the most important element of the game. Fun. If you want to build an abusive army to win a tournament, that's awesome. But if you are building abusive armies by spamming units in weekly games, then you've missed the point.


Up to a point yes, I will get to that with your last anecdote as well. But, it is not truly abusive if/when that is your chosen play style. Like meets like, and a 'convention' of play styles meet in the middle. I can spam all day...I have enough bloody models to adapt to each edition/'dex with little or no monetary purchase aside from a love for new improved models (I swapped all 9 of my fexes from last ed to this ed into plastic, but eschewed the new 'rant in favor of the Alien queen looking one).
I also still use all my lictors, and hormagants, and warriors etc...regardless of effectiveness...when I want to play for fun.
I can do EITHER style, and see merits in both. Some people want to go tooth and nail on occasion, some want to just have fun...either way is equally valid. AS LONG AS BOTH PEOPLE ARE ON THE SAME TRAIN! (again to last point)



I only know Chumbalya from his forum responses. I wouldn't presume to know anything about his development or skill. I'm sure he's a fine player and I certainly don't feel superior to him or anyone else. But I don't think his goal (or the other proponents for "optimised" armies) is making the game more fun for every player.

I know, and I shouldn't be defending other people either...but if he's having fun, AND his opponents are...who's to say it's bad. I don't mind getting shmeared over and over again, as long as it involves me learning something each time...and nothing makes me happier than to get pasted by someone I've been teaching HOW to be competitive. You cannot really do that by playing them with the 'kids gloves' all the time.


Without pretense, here's the point I was trying to get across. The sky is not falling. Don't buy into the fear-based hype that there's one way to build an army. Because in a month it will change as players react to the current "netdecked" army. Anecdotal example - nob bikers were "unbeatable" for a while. You couldn't find an Ork Biker on a store shelf to save your life and I've never seen so many unpainted Ork armies. Old armies went up on eBay and non-Ork players complained that the system was broken and that they might as well quit. The gnashing of teeth lasted for about TWO months until the community figured out how to beat Nob Bikers. Then it was instantly over. Today, there are probably hundreds of unpainted Ork bikes gathering dust on Austin shelves. In the end, we learned that the sky was not falling.


No pretense misunderstood, I get what you are saying. What I am seeing though is less a true hatred of 'Spam' and more a dislike of 'net-listing'. Of course it'll go away on its own, out evolved or out 'dexed (or editioned).
Regardless though, what can happen is a pendulum swing too far in other directions. Don't denigrate how you don't play. Just because someone else does, doesn't mean you should too.
I play all different levels, and LOVE EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM!
From balls to the walls WAAC, to fluff fest to everything in between. YES, spam is a way to win in a WAAC environment. Yes, middle ground is the way to 'win' in an event designed for an all aspect hobby event, and YES comp/painting/sportsmanship/wins should have equal value in a fluffy event.
But NO single way is better than the other, just different.



Spam, according to Bigred's definition of it (which I share), is a bad thing. Regardless of how it's acquired. You identify a unit that is underpriced, then you optimize it to maximize it's effectiveness, then you spam it in your army (compounding the effect).

It's abusive. And worse, it's not fun.

To someone unprepared for it...see next


Here's another anecdote: There's a player that used to come to our FLGS. He would wait until he found out who his opponent would be, then he'd pull out an army list from his three-ring binder that is best suited to beating that army. "Chaos Daemons. Okay, I'll bring list #14 with double Null Zones." He would always work to bring scissors to your paper army.

As you can imagine, it wasn't any fun to play him. Why? Because he was abusing the game and the trust between players. He wasn't cheating, but he was making the game no fun. Spamming (and netdecking) has the same end result.

-- mkerr

Yes, he wasn't cheating...quite true. In fact, the rulebook says to build your lists after finding your opponent (obviously not in tourney).
BUT, he was obviously not playing the same game everyone else was.
Did anyone explain that to him...nicely. "hey, we're just goofing off on weekends. why don'tcha just pull a random list and a random pairing for sh#3's and giggles. next week I'll tell you what I'm bringing, you tell me what army you're bringing..and we'll spend the whole week preparing..."
or did he just get shunned (visions of charlie the unicorn...shun the non-believer, shunnn shunnunnnun)

now, if that was done and he continued to not care about his opponents' enjoyment...well, it was pure unadulterated d0uchebaggery...plain and simple.
But NO play convention or dislike can control that kind of player, other than shunununnnn. :)
It will exist in any type of play, and any type of environment. Ridding one 'issue' will only bring to light (or create) another.

Now,
I see why you don't like SPAM...which was one of the reasons I started this thread.

You (and BigRed) see it as a mindset of this uber-alles.
Do you really think everyone that brings spam to a tourney only plays like this?
Do you really think everyone that brings spam to a tourney doesn't care if their opponent has fun too?
I don't see that. I see a variagated environment that creates an entire hobby...of which PART is the WAAC (also a 4 letter word that I don't have issue with as long as it doesn't translate in personality as well) group who utilize efficiency "spam" as well as fluff and mid ground (or 'whole hobby').

solarmus
09-01-2009, 04:27 PM
Excessive spam without purpose = bad
Controlled spam/redundancy = good.

mkerr
09-01-2009, 05:15 PM
It's not just raiders, it's really ALL mech for the most part.

A six-man Genestealer squad with no upgrades will generate 3 penetrations against an immobile vehicle (rear AV10). That same squad will generate 1.5 penetrations against a vehicle that moves at combat speed. Three penetrations for a 114 point unit is hard to beat (and that's not even their strength!).


But, it is not truly abusive if/when that is your chosen play style. Like meets like, and a 'convention' of play styles meet in the middle.

If both players are playing abusive lists, it doesn't mean their lists aren't abusive. It just means that they don't mind that they are abusive.

Exploiting under-priced units and taking as many of them as possible is abusive. All game systems are abused and none of them deal well with abusive players. I'm a game designer by profession and I've never seen a game system flourish in the presence of abusive players.


...but if he's having fun, AND his opponents are...who's to say it's bad.

I have no idea if either of them are having fun, but that's not really my concern. What he does in his own games isn't any of my business or concern. But when he starts advocating abusive play as THE way to play it becomes my problem. When new players are taught that the hobby is about spamming broken units and crushing their opponent, it becomes a problem for all of us.

I'm well known for finding and talking about "power-combos" and "dirty tricks". I think that exploring the dark side of the rules is a lot of fun, but I don't advocate that players use those hardcore tactics in friendly games. Why? Because it's no fun. If I'm testing a nasty list, I'll let my opponent know in advance so they can also prepare a nasty list. But those games are rarely much fun -- they may be educational and interesting, but either the trick works (and I crush my opponent) or it doesn't (and I get crushed).

To answer your questions:


Do you really think everyone that brings spam to a tourney only plays like this?

Short answer: Yes.

Long answer: Over the last few months, I've been taking a hard look at the hobby and the impact that WE (bloggers, forum posters, tournament organizers and competitive players) have on it. What I've noticed is that new players don't "collect" - they "build". The difference is subtle but important. Most of the new players that I see pick an army based on their perceived strength and build EXACTLY a 2,000 point tournament army.

This is a lot different than just two years ago when new players tended to follow their interest in an army. They'd play with other new players and veterans, learning what works for them and finding ways to build a competitive army that they loved. It took time, but it built long-term, dedicated players.

What changed? Well, we changed the game. Prize support attracted us to larger and larger touranments. We brought competitive lists, forcing an army list arms race. We shared those army lists with others online who optimized and virally spread them. We fostered the power gaming mentality with blogs, forum tacticas and endless local and national tournaments.

Is it a bad thing? I don't know. I do know that the emphasis on "competitive" armies has eclipsed a "well-painted", "nicely themed" and "well-balanced" armies. I feel that players are more likely to become disenfranchised with the hobby once their 2,000pt army isn't the powerhouse they planned. I see this in the sheer number of unpainted and barely assembled armies every week (and the churn of new "competitive" players). I also feel that these players are more likely to quit when they find out that they can't beat veteran players as easily as the internet says they should. I'm concerned.


Do you really think everyone that brings spam to a tourney doesn't care if their opponent has fun too?

Short answer: Yes.

Long answer: I'm seeing more players building "tournament armies" (buying, painting and playing with ONLY the models they need to create their 2,000pt army -- not a single model more than they need) and fewer players building "collections". A lot of players have painted themselves into a corner and can't play anything but the 2,000pt (abusive) tournament army they built.

I feel that the hobby is shifting more toward "winning" games as opposed to "playing" games. I've played with the same group for more than 10 years and we have long stopped caring about winning and losing. We're together because we like each other and share a love for the hobby. If I win more than half of my games, I feel like I'm taking some fun away from a close friend. Our games are often more cooperative than competitive.

The focus is shifting from "both players having fun" to "me winning games to prove that I know what I'm talking about".

If people can't stop themselves from attacking players with "fail" lists, why would I expect them to care if I have a good time when I'm playing with them? I read their responses and blogs and I never see the word "fun" mentioned. I see attacks on other players and bloggers (who love the hobby as much as they do). It's mind-boggling.

-- mkerr

Exitus Acta Probat
09-01-2009, 06:00 PM
A six-man Genestealer squad with no upgrades will generate 3 penetrations against an immobile vehicle (rear AV10). That same squad will generate 1.5 penetrations against a vehicle that moves at combat speed. Three penetrations for a 114 point unit is hard to beat (and that's not even their strength!).


excepting when that is a 35 pt rhino, and the tac squad on board either a) boltguns/flames them to death off the wreck or b)backs off because it wasn't killed/immobilized and they could still move...while the rest of the army nukes the baited GS unit with basic fire. :)
we can go back and forth on this all day, fact is they are NOT over-costed OR over-nerfed. they perform well against some (mixed armies), excellent against others(high cost foot armies), and blech against even others(mid/hvy armour mech armies). sounds like a fair unit to me?




Exploiting under-priced units and taking as many of them as possible is abusive. All game systems are abused and none of them deal well with abusive players. I'm a game designer by profession and I've never seen a game system flourish in the presence of abusive players.

sorry, don't supply said units if you don't intend for them to be utilized.
also, don't supply the tourney if you don't want competitors.




I have no idea if either of them are having fun, but that's not really my concern. What he does in his own games isn't any of my business or concern. But when he starts advocating abusive play as THE way to play it becomes my problem. When new players are taught that the hobby is about spamming broken units and crushing their opponent, it becomes a problem for all of us.

excepting, again, that it really isn't necessarily abusive in all arenas. some people like playing that way. how is advocating your preference over his any different?
I am supposed to stifle my competitive edge to help my opponent have a better chance of winning? should I ask him to not paint as well 'cause I want to win a painting competition? or be miffed because he knows the history better and has a better 'composition' based army?


I'm well known for finding and talking about "power-combos" and "dirty tricks". I think that exploring the dark side of the rules is a lot of fun, but I don't advocate that players use those hardcore tactics in friendly games. Why? Because it's no fun. If I'm testing a nasty list, I'll let my opponent know in advance so they can also prepare a nasty list. But those games are rarely much fun -- they may be educational and interesting, but either the trick works (and I crush my opponent) or it doesn't (and I get crushed).

No, they shouldn't 'always' use them in friendly games. that I don't argue with, unless the group consistently advocates that as 'friendly'.
adjust according to group. step up or down based on flavor. if you can't step up, for whatever reason, find your niche and settle in, or improve your game/painting/understanding.




Is it a bad thing? I don't know. I do know that the emphasis on "competitive" armies has eclipsed a "well-painted", "nicely themed" and "well-balanced" armies. I feel that players are more likely to become disenfranchised with the hobby once their 2,000pt army isn't the powerhouse they planned. I see this in the sheer number of unpainted and barely assembled armies every week (and the churn of new "competitive" players). I also feel that these players are more likely to quit when they find out that they can't beat veteran players as easily as the internet says they should. I'm concerned.

concern is a good thing.
and I don't advocate one method of play over the other....I had a sh## fit conniption (sp?) over on YT## about their opine on Necronomicon. I just quit talking on the subject because it really became a 'pathetic' and 'fail' and 'blo@ me' kind of thing (by participants, not the blog itself). I crossed the inappropriate line in my fervor too. But this is based on the same thing.
there is room for ALL these styles of play, and some ARE more appropriate in different venues than others.
fergawdssake they're using a RAW insane player based FAQ for ard boyz?
talk about some serious RAW gits in that mix? is not allowing your opponent to disembark from a Valk (not that FAQ but typical of its base, or crippling a CSM Dread because you don't like the person that pointed out the RAW chain that allows) it the way to handle things?
Me, he77 no...but it's their style. and we all have a right to play by our style.

I think pointing out the tactical advantage/disadvantage of certain things is good...definitely. but tone is important. making one feel inferior because they play differently, no matter how it's couched, is a bad approach.



If people can't stop themselves from attacking players with "fail" lists, why would I expect them to care if I have a good time when I'm playing with them? I read their responses and blogs and I never see the word "fun" mentioned. I see attacks on other players and bloggers (who love the hobby as much as they do). It's mind-boggling.

-- mkerr

again, I see what you're saying...I really do.

But I think there is an element of hubris on BOTH sides of the fence. I know it, I've been on both sides and on my soapbox both times.
I quit MTG because it became what you fear. The difference? this really is a hobby. the only possible way for that to occur is if GW allows it to happen.
and if they do, there is nothing we can do about it.
coming together, across the community, and accepting the differing types of play as legitimate regardless of how it fits into our viewpoint is the way to go.
don't talk sh##, prove it on the table. :)

and I have developed/playtested games too...take my word for it, I REALLY do understand your take.

I just don't wholly agree with it. :)

mkerr
09-01-2009, 08:00 PM
we can go back and forth on this all day, fact is they are NOT over-costed OR over-nerfed. they perform well against some (mixed armies), excellent against others(high cost foot armies), and blech against even others(mid/hvy armour mech armies). sounds like a fair unit to me?

Even an undercosted, overpowered unit isn't proof against doing something stupid. The fact that a bad player can't always win with an optimized unit kind of proves my point.

In any case, can you give me another 120pt scoring unit that has 18 WS6 I6 S4 Rending attacks on the charge? That can always re-roll misses in close combat? That is fleet and can scout and outflank? And can deal out 3 penetrating attacks per round AV10 rear armor (and penetrate AV12 rear armor)? With LD10?


sorry, don't supply said units if you don't intend for them to be utilized.
also, don't supply the tourney if you don't want competitors.

That's akin to blaming the rape victim.


excepting, again, that it really isn't necessarily abusive in all arenas. some people like playing that way. how is advocating your preference over his any different?

An abusive army is one that abuses the rules. A player's preference doesn't have anything to do with it.


I am supposed to stifle my competitive edge to help my opponent have a better chance of winning?

I'm not asking you to. There's no simple fix for this in the tournament setting, but I recognize it as a problem and have had an open discussion with tournament organizers about the issue (that's where the infamous "mkerr's equalizer" came from -- a way of running tournaments that specifically minimizes the impact of spamming undercosted, overpowered units).

But outside of the tournament setting, there's no place for abuse.


making one feel inferior because they play differently, no matter how it's couched, is a bad approach.

I agree. That's the issue that I have with terms like "fail" and "learn something" and the myriad of other condescending phrases that forum users use under the guise of trying to be helpful.


and I have developed/playtested games too...take my word for it, I REALLY do understand your take.

I just don't wholly agree with it. :)

Fair enough.

I'm taking responsibility for the harm I've caused to the hobby and am focusing my energy on the single most important element of the game - fun. I'm sure I'll still post for power combo, dirty tricks and tacticas, and I'll certainly post more optimized lists and offer feedback, but I'll try much harder to remind myself and other players that our real goal is making sure that everybody has fun. Even people I don't especially like. :)

-- mkerr

Exitus Acta Probat
09-01-2009, 08:43 PM
In any case, can you give me another 120pt scoring unit that has 18 WS6 I6 S4 Rending attacks on the charge? That can always re-roll misses in close combat? That is fleet and can scout and outflank? And can deal out 3 penetrating attacks per round AV10 rear armor (and penetrate AV12 rear armor)? With LD10?

and cannot get across the table in less than 2 exposed turns (or rely on reserves and-or 1/3 chance of wrong table edge) and die to ONE heavy flamer?
sorry, not seein it...and I use em. I've won with my 'nids in tourney, and I still don't spam em. They have to be supported or be supporting. (now, in 4e...Zilla/stealer spam and stealer shock..that was frikkin scary).
but, like I said, we're definitely not going to agree to see this one eye to eye, so no beeg.
Everyone has their favorite 'this unit is over the top' kind of thing going, I do too (my detestation of Incubi knows no bounds, as anyone who plays DE near me knows!)




That's akin to blaming the rape victim.

Okay, c'mon...that's in bad taste, and silly...
And not even close. You come to the table in a tourney voluntarily. You may not realize what you bit off if you haven't been there before, but it isn't THAT far.




An abusive army is one that abuses the rules. A player's preference doesn't have anything to do with it.

Yes, a player's preference does matter. If he doesn't feel that a play style is abuse, then he is not being abused. I'm not going to make the 'guns don't kill people' argument, but there are tools provided. Why give them to me and tell me I cannot wield them?

SPAM doesn't have to be an abuse. Efficiency in competition is far from it, it's expected.
YES, we should be concerned with whether our opponents have fun. YES, we should not be complete arses. YES, we should recognize when we are being overbearing outside an event...but hamstringing ourselves in a competitive event unnecessarily is NOT the route to go either.
That being said, we also shouldn't believe the ONLY way to play is this way.
If you will note, I am not 'choosing' sides here. I believe that an event that is geared whole hobby WILL have mitigation built in, should in fact. Things that can/will compensate and leaven the field. I just don't think a wholesale attack on EITHER method of competition or play is the way to go.
Acknowledge one another over the fence, but don't play if you don't like the other style.
It's like bigotry, over toy soldiers? EGADS! (I am being quite a bit facetious here, I don't believe that you or bigred or anyone else here is being bigoted).


But outside of the tournament setting, there's no place for abuse.

Okay, so at least we agree that inside the tournament settings that efficiency in unit choices for an edge is the norm.




I agree. That's the issue that I have with terms like "fail" and "learn something" and the myriad of other condescending phrases that forum users use under the guise of trying to be helpful.

Absolutely. I have no issue with that statement.





Fair enough.

I'm taking responsibility for the harm I've caused to the hobby and am focusing my energy on the single most important element of the game - fun. I'm sure I'll still post for power combo, dirty tricks and tacticas, and I'll certainly post more optimized lists and offer feedback, but I'll try much harder to remind myself and other players that our real goal is making sure that everybody has fun. Even people I don't especially like. :)

-- mkerr

But do you have to claim responsibility for harm if you improved the PURE competitive element?
It doesn't have to mean you don't play other ways, teach other methods or love other styles or find ways to compete in a hobby environment.
I believe that they are equal, important, and that one cannot survive without the other.
Pushing the boundaries of what a list/army/system can do is the best way to test where it should/can go.
Finding where it's bent, broken or restrictive is necessary. Shifting from one edition to 'dex cannot happen without a flow and change in the way people play. That change cannot come about without challenging the limits given us.
Ultimately, it's a warGAME. How we choose to play our games are no better than the next guy, nor more legitimate.
Also, for all those voices that cry 'cheese' or 'fail' or 'spam' or 'nerfed' in unison, there is discord.
What you think is broken others think is balanced.
What I think is 'fail' others may think is the cat's meow.
even within the 'camps' that are the communities' loudest voices, when push comes to shove the individuals quite often find they do not share their companions opinions as closely as they thought.


:D

Chumbalaya
09-01-2009, 08:58 PM
Boy, looks like I missed the party.

I'm just going to second everything Exitus said, maybe go cry about it on my blog, and then go to sleep.

DarkLink
09-01-2009, 09:02 PM
Personally, I think Genestealers are pretty well balance as they currently are. I think they should trade initiative 6 for initiative 5 and a 4+ save standard, but that's because I hate genestealers. I used to play a pure Berzerker army. Ever since then, there isn't a single unit that I irrationally hate more than Genestealers.
For those of you who have never seen it, back in 4th, a single unit of Genestealers would singlehandedly kill an entire army of berzerkers if the 'nidz player was halfway decent. Even if the Berzerkers could get the charge, the 'stealers would hit first and kill all the berzerkers before they got to strike.
In 5th ed, this hasn't changed much. Though if you run the numbers, an 8 man berzerker squad with a powerfist charging 8 genestealers (which cost roughly the same, depending on the genestealer's biomorphs) will result in both squads being killed.
Of course, now I play Grey Knights in land raiders with Incinerators. If we had a 'nidz player, I could just flame those cursed stealers to death.



On another note, I have to say that I find it annoying when people accuse others of spamming, being cheesy, or otherwise accusing them of shennanigans. Doing so is rather presumptuous, as it is entirely possible that the person is simply trying to incorperate some redundancy in vital units, or is simply a competitive player. Heck, my standard 1500pts Grey Knight list has 3 land raiders in it. You can accuse me of being cheesy (heh, calling Grey Knights cheesy) but I do it because I enjoy playing fully mechanized armies, and land raiders are the only way to do this with pure Grey Knights.
Don't assume that a player is trying to be a cheesy [expletive deleted by the Inquisition] until you've either played them, or seen them play. If you see them bending rules and generally behave in the cheesy manner you initially expected, then don't play them. But don't be so rude as to not give them a chance, when the reason you don't want to play them may be entirely imagined.

Of course, there are some times when you can tell that a player really is someone to be avoided. Like if you see Guard with valkries and 2 10 man GKT squads in them, and the player tries to convince you the terminators fit in there (they don't, and I can point you to the rules in the Daemon hunters codex that confirms that if you want).

mkerr
09-01-2009, 10:30 PM
and cannot get across the table in less than 2 exposed turns (or rely on reserves and-or 1/3 chance of wrong table edge) and die to ONE heavy flamer?

Sounds like a problem with how you play them. I honestly don't care which side my outflanking Genestealers come in on -- they've generally served their purpose before the game's started. If you want to avoid them, you have to clump up your army at least 19" from the board edges. That my 220pts of Genestealers have forced you to deploy your 2000pt army in a nice 34" section in the middle.

I've been playing nids too long to be convinced Genestealers aren't awesome. Yes, the game has changed a bit but they are still an amazing deal for the price.


Okay, c'mon...that's in bad taste, and silly...
And not even close. You come to the table in a tourney voluntarily. You may not realize what you bit off if you haven't been there before, but it isn't THAT far.

The example is spot on. Your argument was that "don't supply said [abusive] units if you don't intend forthem to be utilized". Your blaming GW for players building armies that abuse their game.


Yes, a player's preference does matter. If he doesn't feel that a play style is abuse, then he is not being abused. I'm not going to make the 'guns don't kill people' argument, but there are tools provided. Why give them to me and tell me I cannot wield them?

You must have missed this in an earlier posts. Abusive lists don't abuse other players, they abuse the rules. When you find abusive units/wargear combinations and spam them, you are exploiting the game in a way the designer failed to see.

A mature player doesn't exploit the games he plays.



That being said, we also shouldn't believe the ONLY way to play is this way.

And you've hit exactly on the issue.



But do you have to claim responsibility for harm if you improved the PURE competitive element?

Absolutely. It's because most players (especially newer players) aren't "collecting" armies and don't have the models to play the game without abusive units. Many players don't see a clear distinction between "friendly" games and "competitive" games - they build their army as quickly and efficiently as possible so they can "compete". I think I (as an individual) and we (as a community) have to accept our share the blaim for the current state of the hobby.

We were talking about this a lot at BOLSCON and I made the comment that I still have fun. But now I have fun OVER the table instead of ON the table. Think about that for a second. It's not the _game_ that's fun; it's the _banter_ with my opponent that's fun. We're having fun IN SPITE of the game. I see that as a huge problem and one that we need to work on as a community.


Though if you run the numbers, an 8 man berzerker squad with a powerfist charging 8 genestealers (which cost roughly the same, depending on the genestealer's biomorphs) will result in both squads being killed.

Eight Genestealers with Feeder Tendrils is 136pts. Five Khorne Berzerkers (with a Power Fist) is 145pts.

Guess who wins 100% of the time, regardless of who assaults? Yup, the Genestealers. If they charge charge, they'll kill 10.67 Berzerkers, on average, at Initiative 6. When the Berzerkers charge them, the Genestealers will kill 7.11 Berzerkers at I6.

You need a lot of Berzerkers to beat Genestealers in close combat.


On another note, I have to say that I find it annoying when people accuse others of spamming, being cheesy, or otherwise accusing them of shennanigans. Doing so is rather presumptuous, as it is entirely possible that the person is simply trying to incorperate some redundancy in vital units, or is simply a competitive player.

You misread the thread. I'm not accusing anyone individual of spamming. I'm saying that spamming is 1) a pervasive problem with the hobby, and Bigred is saying that 2) it's not as good - tactically - as people think. It's not an attack, just an assessment.

According to definition Bigred gave of "spamming", the player finds undercosted, overpowered units and takes as many as he can. This effectively allows the player to take advantage of the system to effectively bring more "points" to the table than his opponent.

Exitus Acta Probat
09-01-2009, 11:05 PM
As I said for outflanking:It's functional as a deployment manipulation, which in itself is good, but not as efficient (IMHO). There are other places I would rather put the points.

and stealers: fact is they are NOT over-costed OR over-nerfed. they perform well against some (mixed armies), excellent against others(high cost foot armies), and blech against even others(mid/hvy armour mech armies). sounds like a fair unit to me?

as I said, not over or underpointed...just where they should be..points parity. They are not bad, they are JUST where they should be points/function wise in their army.

I get my use out of outflank once against a learning opponent...then either I or someone else shows them how to beat/mitigate it in such a way as to make the infiltrating or advancing under cover a more appealing method of play. I know how to beat stealer shock, I show friends how to beat stealer shock, I now get to play things other than stealer shock with my nids again and my friends no longer fear stealer shock. I spam, they learn, we move on. Is this bad?


You cannot abuse a system. You can abuse people that operate within the same system you do, if you do nothing to educate them to your way and then leave them beaten so badly it was as though they weren't there when you played. It's a system of tools, designed to provide a convention between players of accepted behavior and interchange. If both players have the same (roughly) expectations, then no matter how the game is played it is not 'abused'. It is 'played'. To use a simple analogy, like someone used somewhere else (maybe another forum, maybe earlier here, not sure...)...to tell someone they cannot use a 2 turn checkmate in chess is tantamount to taking away their ability to win. If the player opens themselves up to it, they deserve to 'learn' that lesson...hopefully it won't be repeated. what other method is going to be taken away next?
In friendly games, you have the expedient of just not playing someone that doesn't play the game the way you do. I like that option.
In events you run, you have the wherewithall to write the rules/scenarios/scoring in such a way as to insure balance in your event. I like that option.
In events you run, you have the right to pull out all stops BUT the battle points, and the most efficient and purestrain scenarios you can, and I like that option.
I will decide where I want to play...If I want to play in the first or second event. HAVING both options out there is fair and right by sheer dint of it being available.

You cannot gripe because one group is telling you you are fail, and come back by telling them they suck. that they are wrong. because you are saying to that group the same thing that is distressing you so greatly.
I think it is wrong to attack BoLScon...I liked the event concept, and what it represented.
I thought it was wrong to attack Necronomicon for the same reason.

I do not think it is wrong to attack Ard Boyz, as it touted itself as an event of the WAAC nature, and then arsed it up with unbalanced scenarios and event handling. And then handed over rules management to a player base made FAQ that solves fewer problems than it 'sometimes' causes.
It will be wrong to attack the 'other' con that will be coming for the same reason as all the above...each has it's own legitimacy, validity, and style regardless of others' opinions of them.

There is a middle ground we can all reach...I think reaching out has started...but it needs to finish before the spinoffs from the main storms keep the sky from clearing.


Now, saying SPAM is not the preferred method of play for your group/event, and that diversity is the watchword...as long as all involved knows the extent to which that influences their games FRIKKIN GREAT!
I intend to play BoLScon next year, finances willing. I also intend to play Y##H con (if it takes off next year) too...and Necronomicon if things arent TOO close together...why? because I shall enjoy each event and the styles of play they represent...

Funkenschlag
09-02-2009, 03:49 AM
I've come across SPAMMING in my group of friends, and in tournaments, and, with my friends it's usually done as one off thing with either the sapmming side or their opponent pretty much saying 'OK, I'm going to lose but it'll be fun watching'. The few times it hasn't gone this way, amongst my friends I hasten to remind you, the person who, invariably, got stomped has been left annoyed and will let the other person know (the SPAMMER) about it. That person is then, not forced, that would be stupid to presume, influenced I suppose would be a better word, to bring a none-SPAM list next time or they face the prospect of not being played, or at the very least b**tched about endlessley. These are people I've known for around ten years and using these, in our opinion, cheap and 'over-competetive' tactics amongst friends is a pretty poor thing to do. Yet it still sometimes happens because sometimes peopel just want the win.

mkerr
09-02-2009, 10:54 AM
You cannot abuse a system.

I'm sorry, that's just incorrect. It may be a concept that's a bit new to you, but it's a major issue with game design. There's always a percentage of players that try to find a way to exploit the game. In computer games, they look for ways to dupe items and exploit bugs. In paper games, they look for power combos to gain unbalancing effectiveness. In wargames, they look for units and wargear options that are underpriced and exploit them.

Sometimes this becomes something of a metagame and lots of players enjoy it. Personally, I enjoy looking for them and talking about them with other players. Generally, you aren't abusing (or exploiting) the players of the game but you are always abusing (and exploiting) the game itself.

The fact that you have fun doing it isn't really relevant. What makes it a problem in our game is that we have a prize supported tournament system that is a large part of the game. At these events it's almost required to take advantage of these exploits to have a chance to win the prizes. The most effective way (in many player's opinion) to gain the maximum benefit is spamming.

But what I'm noticing is that this is becoming THE way to play the game, not just something players use to help them win prizes in rare tournaments. Finding exploits (and sharing them) on the internet is becoming a central part of the culture. And in my opinion, it has long-lasting and far-reaching affects that are detrimental to the game as a whole.

I might be wrong. Perhaps these new players will develop the same passion for the game that I have, but the churn of new players (and unpainted armies and ebay, and to some degree the popularity of professional painting services) leads me to believe that we have a lot more transient players than we used to.


You cannot gripe because one group is telling you you are fail, and come back by telling them they suck.

Oh, I can gripe allright. It might not fix any problems, but I can gripe. :)


I do not think it is wrong to attack Ard Boyz, as it touted itself as an event of the WAAC nature, and then arsed it up with unbalanced scenarios and event handling. And then handed over rules management to a player base made FAQ that solves fewer problems than it 'sometimes' causes.

I have to agree with you here too. The Ard Boyz event may have sold some plastic, but I don't think it's improved the culture. I participate in the Ard Boyz and I enjoy the concept (not necessarily the implementation), but when it's over I go back to playing friendly games.

-- mkerr

Exitus Acta Probat
09-02-2009, 01:45 PM
You cannot abuse a system. You can abuse people that operate within the same system you do, if you do nothing to educate them to your way and then leave them beaten so badly it was as though they weren't there when you played. It's a system of tools, designed to provide a convention between players of accepted behavior and interchange. If both players have the same (roughly) expectations, then no matter how the game is played it is not 'abused'. It is 'played'. To use a simple analogy, like someone used somewhere else (maybe another forum, maybe earlier here, not sure...)...to tell someone they cannot use a 2 turn checkmate in chess is tantamount to taking away their ability to win. If the player opens themselves up to it, they deserve to 'learn' that lesson...hopefully it won't be repeated. what other method is going to be taken away next?



I'm sorry, that's just incorrect. It may be a concept that's a bit new to you, but it's a major issue with game design. There's always a percentage of players that try to find a way to exploit the game. In computer games, they look for ways to dupe items and exploit bugs. In paper games, they look for power combos to gain unbalancing effectiveness. In wargames, they look for units and wargear options that are underpriced and exploit them.

It seemed a little broad, but I do think you really cannot abuse the system provided you, merely abuse the conventions of two players sitting down for social intercourse (which really is what a game involving two or more players face to face) really is.
But I see what you mean.
It's not new to me, and I have been in your camp before. In and out of it. I am in neither camp anymore, really. Finding the most efficient means of defeating an enemy is quite literally the pinnacle of war-game intent, as the game idea comes from intellectual exercises and military application.
By the same token, when NOT competing in a 'there can be only one' environment, everyone should be JUST as concerned with their opponents' enjoyment as there own.


Sometimes this becomes something of a metagame and lots of players enjoy it. Personally, I enjoy looking for them and talking about them with other players. Generally, you aren't abusing (or exploiting) the players of the game but you are always abusing (and exploiting) the game itself.

excepting that unless the game designer tells you that you have failed in his/her intent, you cannot know that you ARE abusing the intent? Jervis has not said 'all tourney players suck', he has just said that hyper-competitiveness is not his focus. We play the game our opponent agrees to, and only when we don't are we abusing something..in my opine that's my opponent.


The fact that you have fun doing it isn't really relevant. What makes it a problem in our game is that we have a prize supported tournament system that is a large part of the game. At these events it's almost required to take advantage of these exploits to have a chance to win the prizes. The most effective way (in many player's opinion) to gain the maximum benefit is spamming.

But what I'm noticing is that this is becoming THE way to play the game, not just something players use to help them win prizes in rare tournaments. Finding exploits (and sharing them) on the internet is becoming a central part of the culture. And in my opinion, it has long-lasting and far-reaching affects that are detrimental to the game as a whole.

I might be wrong. Perhaps these new players will develop the same passion for the game that I have, but the churn of new players (and unpainted armies and ebay, and to some degree the popularity of professional painting services) leads me to believe that we have a lot more transient players than we used to.

I think some of that constant appearance of unpainted models (etc) on ebay has as much to do with our economy right now as anything else, but if that trend really does continue after recovery I won't argue that SOMETHING is innately at issue.
I'm not finding it the only way to game though. I guess I am lucky to have a self managing community (and had in Central Fla as well) where in a friendly environ, if someone took it a bit far they either found their niche (group or store/club) or were encouraged to alter playstyle to fit (either step up or tone down dependant on the group/individual). Also, as a general rule, the better players saw it as their responsibility to help those that needed it...and sometimes find those better than them for improvement.
Do you CONSISTENTLY have people that see HYPER competition as the only method of play?
Really? no sarcasm here, genuine curiosity.




Oh, I can gripe allright. It might not fix any problems, but I can gripe. :)

Point, 100% and my fault for saying it... maya culpa for sure! :)




I have to agree with you here too. The Ard Boyz event may have sold some plastic, but I don't think it's improved the culture. I participate in the Ard Boyz and I enjoy the concept (not necessarily the implementation), but when it's over I go back to playing friendly games.

-- mkerr

I think it was handled well the first year (except for scenarios) and they actually let it slide after that...too much a lack of serious involvement.
it was their (missed) opportunity to create a pure competition event, and delineate a method of competition to satisfy both sides of the fence and hopefully bring them together in the long run.
Instead, it has (sorry for saying it) acquired appropriately the term 'fail'.

Chumbalaya
09-02-2009, 09:18 PM
I would think that as a game designer, you would welcome people to find ways to abuse your system so you know what you need to fix the next time 'round.

BrotherAlpharius
09-03-2009, 06:36 AM
There's too much to deal with point by point but I must applaud Exitus and Mkerr for a vigorous debate.

Generally I'm on the side of Exitus. I think that to talk about abusing the rules system instead of the players is to ascribe too much sanctity to the rules system. The rules system is merely a starting mechanism for players - that's why it says that the most important rule is to have fun and why players often throw in house rules which may "abuse" the original ruleset but entertain the players. If both players have fun then they can decide that the chaos gods have daemonically empowered both sides giving every model on the table in both armies Fleet and Rending if they want to (that was just a totally random example I pulled out of thin air) it doesn't impact me.

I think that for Mkerr to criticise players for abusing the rules system is especially bad if he is a professional games designer (I realise this doesn't make him personally responsible for the flaws of 40k). Yes, the system is flawed. No, players shouldn't exploit things that blatantly fly in the face of any common sense Rules As Intended. However players pay the designer to design a game. Since designers are clearly aware of "system abuse" then they ought to carry out rigorous testing and get input from WAAC players before they publish the games and take the gamers' cash. I've spotted many flaws on my very first reading of a GW document. Flaws are usually well publicised online within days of release. Codex development is supposed to take months yet some of the things that they miss are really obvious. I will concede that GW is a lot better than it used to be in this area. To say, "We didn't think anyone would do that." is no excuse. GW could certainly close a lot of these issues if they followed more of a FAQ or living rulebook approach, instead of the attitude of, "oh well, we messed up, we'll fix it in four years time..."

Mkerr said that a large part of the game is the prize supported tournament. In the north of England I'm afraid it doesn't seem to be. Players paid £7.50 each for a recent GW organised tournament in this region and all the winners got was a paper certificate that the GW manager had blatantly made on his PC in about 5 minutes! I sadly encountered cheating from a pair of young WAAC players but no spamming. (This is a bit of a deviation, I just felt like a brief grumble!).

Mkerr has said that he plays in one of the most competitive environments in the world. If so he perhaps has a skewed opinion of what is "normal" practice. I think that everyone going into a tournament has access to the same information, is going in by personal choice (I thought Mkerr's analogy to blaming the rape victim was both inaccurate and in poor taste) and has to be realistic about what it will be like. I've been slaughtered by WAAC players - will I invite them to come round to my house for a rematch and to try out my new terrain board? No. Will I think that they have somehow spoiled "my" hobby? No. Have I learned something? Yes.

I think the main sufferer in the case of spamming is the spammer - under the old marine codex packing a load of 6-man las/plas squads and as many blatantly underpriced Assault Cannons as you can into an army doesn't give you the chance to become a better (i.e. more skilled and versatile) player, it just made you very good at rolling big handfuls of dice and spotting the sixes!

I also think that the definition of spam is very subjective. I personally don't have a problem with genestealers, I've always found that they die very easily to massed bolter/heavy bolter fire - it's nidzilla that worries me.

Someone also made a very good point about units with limited viability reducing the choices available in some codexes (Tau is one of my own armies that I think suffers in this respect).

Servant
09-03-2009, 07:04 AM
Spam or not, I hate whining - especially from grown men. :)

Not that I'm pointing any fingers, but I came from WarSeer... The amount of gripes generated is appalling.

But mature discussion such like mkerr's and Exitus' is fine, and rare to see. Kudos.

Anyway.

I'd like to make a comparison to the fighting game scene, with its system of tiers and whatnot. Some characters are innately more easy to win with than others, that's a given. Back in the days of the classic Street Fighter II you played either the shotos, Dhalsim or Guile if you wanted to win...

It just might be that I came from the era where video games were infinitely more merciless and unforgiving, but I haven't had a problem looking at "broken" lists. Even though I've played few real games, (preferring instead to collect) I've had my share of games on VASSAL and in case I do get beaten by "tourneyhammer" armies Its no big deal. I play them again and again, using the same list and try to figure out a way to negate their advantages.

mkerr
09-03-2009, 08:46 AM
I would think that as a game designer, you would welcome people to find ways to abuse your system so you know what you need to fix the next time 'round.

Sometimes, yes. In online video games (what I do), abuse is a problem because it turns off players and puts the system out of balance. But, we can iterate the game as soon as we find an exploit and remove it. So in a way "power gamers" just provide additional QA testing. As long as we know it's happening, we can fix it so very little long-term harm is caused.

But paper games are different. We can iterate and fix bugs daily, while they may have to wait several years to "update" their system. In the time that passes between iterations, their game can be irrevocably damaged. Sure they could release erratas to address the issues, but GW has made a decision to not do that (probably because they don't want to sell books that are instantly out of date and need to be "patched").

There's another issue here too. The WH40K designers assume their game is a friendly, social game -- not a competitive game. They believe (often incorrectly) that their players are mature enough to not take advantage of their friends. If a friend finds a way to abuse the system, he's nice enough not to exploit it. So there's no urgent need to fix "bugs" -- the friendly, social game has a self correcting mechanism built in -- the overriding desire for both players to cooperate.

This is completely lost in a competitive game, which leads us to the problem we are addressing. GW's "failsafe" doesn't work in the emerging competitive environment.

-- mkerr

mkerr
09-03-2009, 09:15 AM
Welcome to the discussion!


The rules system is merely a starting mechanism for players - that's why it says that the most important rule is to have fun and why players often throw in house rules which may "abuse" the original ruleset but entertain the players.

Oh, I completely agree with that. I don't have a problem with players doing anything with the game; you want to make tons of house rules in your local group, go for it! Have fun!

But I do have a problem when people start trying to redefine the way the game is played. When THE ONLY WAY to play is by building competitive lists (otherwise you are "fail"), I have an issue.

At this point, I don't know what the long-term impact is. I'm concerned. I'm worried that the organized shift toward tournament and competitive play (and the fact that players are "building competitive armies" instead of "collecting" -- meaning they have no choice but to play abusive armies) is a problem.


I think that for Mkerr to criticise players for abusing the rules system is especially bad if he is a professional games designer (I realise this doesn't make him personally responsible for the flaws of 40k).

I'm not criticizing anyone. No individual is the source of this problem; it's a shift that I'm noticing -- one that I'm partially responsible for.

And game designers are people too, with all of the flaws that everyone else has. Some of the biggest a-holes I know are "professional game designers", lol. We are notorious for our egos. :)


GW could certainly close a lot of these issues if they followed more of a FAQ or living rulebook approach, instead of the attitude of, "oh well, we messed up, we'll fix it in four years time..."

I kind of touched this in my last post, but I don't think that a response from GW is necessary. At least not as far as rules go. If they agree that this is a problem, the best thing they could do is review their RTT prize policy.


Players paid £7.50 each for a recent GW organised tournament in this region and all the winners got was a paper certificate that the GW manager had blatantly made on his PC in about 5 minutes!

In the Austin area, there is a WH40 tournament every weekend. Until recently (we've had a couple of stores within driving distance close), there was about $1000 a month being interjected into the WH40K gaming community. That's pretty impressive when you consider that we're talking about a metro area of less than a million people -- it probably worked out to $15 per active 40K player per month.

That's before BOLSCON dropped $12,000 in prizes into the mix.


Mkerr has said that he plays in one of the most competitive environments in the world. If so he perhaps has a skewed opinion of what is "normal" practice. I think that everyone going into a tournament has access to the same information, is going in by personal choice (I thought Mkerr's analogy to blaming the rape victim was both inaccurate and in poor taste) and has to be realistic about what it will be like.

I hope you are right. I'm hoping that the trend I'm noticing is only local, but the crop of new 40k blogs seems to reinforce the fact that it's not local.

(And the "blame the rape victim" analogy may have been crude, but the "victim" part is apt. We cannot blame the rules for competitive play. If you take a "if they didn't want me to spam these units, they shouldn't have put them in the rules", then you are blaming the victim. The rules are being abused. The rules are the victim.)


I think the main sufferer in the case of spamming is the spammer.(..snip)

And my concern there is that the "spammer" might get bored of the game quickly and move on (to Flames of War or another game). Leaving a bunch of unpainted models on eBay and a bad taste for the hobby. New players are the lifeblood of the hobby -- and if this competitive shift burns them out quickly, that could be a problem.


I also think that the definition of spam is very subjective. I personally don't have a problem with genestealers, I've always found that they die very easily to massed bolter/heavy bolter fire - it's nidzilla that worries me.

What is effective varies from region to region, but the concept spamming isn't regional. Taking underpriced, overpower units (for your region) and taking as many of them as possible is always "spam".


Someone also made a very good point about units with limited viability reducing the choices available in some codexes (Tau is one of my own armies that I think suffers in this respect).

I've got a lot of armies (http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2008/01/project-bell-of-lost-souls-family-photo.html), including all of the short-handed codices - Grey Knights, Sisters of Battle, Tau, Necrons and Chaos Daemons. No codex forces you to spam.

Spamming isn't taking multiples of the game unit. Spamming is identifying and building _abusive_ units and maxing out on them.

-- mkerr

Chumbalaya
09-03-2009, 10:39 AM
Now please note I have no intention of letting this get out of hand. Words come out a lot harsher over the web with no inflection or body language, so don't assume I'm just being an ***, merely offering another viewpoint.


But paper games are different. We can iterate and fix bugs daily, while they may have to wait several years to "update" their system. In the time that passes between iterations, their game can be irrevocably damaged. Sure they could release erratas to address the issues, but GW has made a decision to not do that (probably because they don't want to sell books that are instantly out of date and need to be "patched").

If GW doesn't want to fix their problems, they should make less of them. I don't see why we should suffer because they're lazy.


There's another issue here too. The WH40K designers assume their game is a friendly, social game -- not a competitive game. They believe (often incorrectly) that their players are mature enough to not take advantage of their friends. If a friend finds a way to abuse the system, he's nice enough not to exploit it. So there's no urgent need to fix "bugs" -- the friendly, social game has a self correcting mechanism built in -- the overriding desire for both players to cooperate.

Friendly/social and competitive are not mutually exclusive. I don't want to murder your puppies, I want to enjoy a challenging mental excercise using the game system, models and background I like best. What you're talking about is stagnation, knowing that you can do better but restricting yourself and others because it's what you think is right and anybody who disagrees is a rapist. Not cool.


This is completely lost in a competitive game, which leads us to the problem we are addressing. GW's "failsafe" doesn't work in the emerging competitive environment.

Then instead of sticking their heads in the sand they should address the problems.


But I do have a problem when people start trying to redefine the way the game is played. When THE ONLY WAY to play is by building competitive lists (otherwise you are "fail"), I have an issue.

But I do have a problem when people start trying to redefine the way the game is played. When THE ONLY WAY to play is by collecting fluffy bunny armies (otherwise you are raping your friends), I have an issue.


At this point, I don't know what the long-term impact is. I'm concerned. I'm worried that the organized shift toward tournament and competitive play (and the fact that players are "building competitive armies" instead of "collecting" -- meaning they have no choice but to play abusive armies) is a problem.

It's only a problem if you see it that way. I welcome people trying different ways of playing the game. We've got Planetstrike, Apocalypse, and Planetary Empires for fun, story-driven games, so I think we should get an expansion for competitive 40k. People will do with their time and money what they wish, and so long as their opponent is on the same wavelength nobody is wrong.


I'm not criticizing anyone. No individual is the source of this problem; it's a shift that I'm noticing -- one that I'm partially responsible for.

Comparing how people play a game to rape is a bit past criticism. I don't think this shift is really as dramatic as you make it out to be, I'd consider it just a part of mass communication. People who play fluffy armies or homebrew scenarios often don't feel the need to jump online, but people playing competitively love learning and teaching each other how to better sharpen their skills or hone their list.


In the Austin area, there is a WH40 tournament every weekend. Until recently (we've had a couple of stores within driving distance close), there was about $1000 a month being interjected into the WH40K gaming community. That's pretty impressive when you consider that we're talking about a metro area of less than a million people -- it probably worked out to $15 per active 40K player per month.

That's before BOLSCON dropped $12,000 in prizes into the mix.

Well, I know where I'm moving after school. How much for an apartment?


(And the "blame the rape victim" analogy may have been crude, but the "victim" part is apt. We cannot blame the rules for competitive play. If you take a "if they didn't want me to spam these units, they shouldn't have put them in the rules", then you are blaming the victim. The rules are being abused. The rules are the victim.)

What you call abuse I call learning the system. Real abuse would be Terminators not having terminator armor, Valkyries being unable to disembark troops, and crap like that. Taking multiple units for redundancy's sake is not abuse, it's smart.


And my concern there is that the "spammer" might get bored of the game quickly and move on (to Flames of War or another game). Leaving a bunch of unpainted models on eBay and a bad taste for the hobby. New players are the lifeblood of the hobby -- and if this competitive shift burns them out quickly, that could be a problem.

Then they should have experienced players help them out. It's not enough to spam a unit, you have to understand why you do it and how to use it in a game. It's the same as the guy who buys an army based on fluff and finds out it's terrible. Besides, GW gets their money and we get cheap armies on eBay, sounds good to me.


Spamming isn't taking multiples of the game unit. Spamming is identifying and building _abusive_ units and maxing out on them.

Then you suffer from a one trick pony army, hoping to never come up against your counter. Spamming for its own sake it stupid, taking redundant and flexible units to make your army more capable of handling multiple foes and missions without relying too heavily on 1 unit is smart.

mkerr
09-03-2009, 11:37 AM
Now please note I have no intention of letting this get out of hand. Words come out a lot harsher over the web with no inflection or body language, so don't assume I'm just being an ***, merely offering another viewpoint.

Being an a-hole is my job, lol. Welcome to the conversation, Chumbalaya!

I will say this though: if I feel like I have to pre-qualify my comments, then there's probably a nicer way to get my point across.


If GW doesn't want to fix their problems, they should make less of them. I don't see why we should suffer because they're lazy.

Sure, everyone should make fewer mistakes. That's a really broad stroke at solving the problem (and has shades of blaming the victim again). If you look at GW's history it's clear that they _do_ want to fix problems with the rules. They just don't want to do it with errata (like they used to in the Chapter Approved days). They want to accumulate the feedback and address it every few years in a new addition. This allows them to publish books that aren't instantly out of date.


Friendly/social and competitive are not mutually exclusive. I don't want to murder your puppies, I want to enjoy a challenging mental excercise using the game system, models and background I like best.

And that's awesome! As long as you don't advocate that it's the best or only way to play the game.


What you're talking about is stagnation, knowing that you can do better but restricting yourself and others because it's what you think is right and anybody who disagrees is a rapist. Not cool.

If that's what you think then you failed to understand my analogy. Blaming GW for "spamming" is like blaming the victim for a crime. Spamming isn't the result of a mistake that GW made -- WE are solely responsible for exploting the rules.

Limiting the "competitive" impact on the game doesn't lead to stagnation. This is a hobby, not a sport.


Then instead of sticking their heads in the sand they should address the problems.

This isn't their problem. It's a community problem. It's our problem.


But I do have a problem when people start trying to redefine the way the game is played. When THE ONLY WAY to play is by collecting fluffy bunny armies (otherwise you are raping your friends), I have an issue.

Sure, there shouldn't be a single _best_ way to play the game. We should be tolerant and supportive of all aspects of the hobby.

And drop the 'rape' analogy until you understand it. Abusive lists don't take advantage of other players -- playing someone is a choice. If I don't like you (or your broken army), then I won't play you. Locally, it's a self-correcting mechanism. The only abuse that's happening is system abuse -- exploiting a game rarely makes the game more fun. It's inherently selfish.


Comparing how people play a game to rape is a bit past criticism. I don't think this shift is really as dramatic as you make it out to be, I'd consider it just a part of mass communication. People who play fluffy armies or homebrew scenarios often don't feel the need to jump online, but people playing competitively love learning and teaching each other how to better sharpen their skills or hone their list.

With all due respect, you misunderstood my "blame the victim" analogy. The only comparison I made is that "blaming GW for spamming" is akin to "blaming the victim of a crime". No player is a criminal or a victim in my analogy. Twisting my words isn't contributing to the conversation.

To be clear, I'm not saying that there's no place for competitive play. Tournaments and competitive play are awesome additions to the game, but they shouldn't be the foundation of the hobby. It shouldn't be the central or most important part of the game. Why? Because the game isn't designed as a competitive game. It won't hold up to it.

Exploiting a game that was designed as a friendly, social game is easy. Why? Because the designer's aren't too worried about exploits because friends don't like taking advantage of their friends. The game isn't designed as a strictly competive game. GW's recent actions have made that very clear. We - the community of players - have essentially created the hyper-competitive element of the game. In the last few years (due to the internet's ability to connect players), that hyper-competitive element has grown unchecked.


What you call abuse I call learning the system. Real abuse would be Terminators not having terminator armor, Valkyries being unable to disembark troops, and crap like that. Taking multiple units for redundancy's sake is not abuse, it's smart.

Finding underpriced, overpowered units and spamming them isn't learning the system. The designers didn't leave these mispriced items as Easter eggs to be found by veteran players. They tried to make the game balanced, but recognized that if it's not balanced that social pressure would fix it.

The emergence of the internet community and frequent, large tournaments are making social pressure less effective in fixing the problem. "Oh you don't want to play against my abusive army? I'll just wait until Tournament X and play it then." or "Dear blogger, my local group won't let me play my abusive army. What do I do to convince them that I'm right and they are wrong?".

There are all kinds of rules abuse. Exploiting any unintended effect is exploitation. Some of it's harmless (like Imperial Offers giving orders to allied units), some of it's unbalancing (like spamming) and some of it's malicious (like not allowing units in Valkyries to disembark). It's all rule abuse -- even if some or all of the players involved enjoy it. It's not a crime, but it is using the game beyond the designer's intention.


Then they should have experienced players help them out. It's not enough to spam a unit, you have to understand why you do it and how to use it in a game. It's the same as the guy who buys an army based on fluff and finds out it's terrible. Besides, GW gets their money and we get cheap armies on eBay, sounds good to me.

That's really short sighted. Think long-term.

A new player builds an army he loves. He doesn't care if it's terrible; he's not playing to win games. He's playing because he loves his army. He stays in the hobby -- and maybe ends up with a large enough collection that he can build armies that are more competitive. This is awesome for the hobby.

A new player builds a spam army to win games. He cares a lot about winning. If he finds out he can't win as much as he wants (e.g., he just doesn't have the experience or his trick is countered), then he quits playing 40K and moves on to another game. This is terrible for the hobby.


Then you suffer from a one trick pony army, hoping to never come up against your counter. Spamming for its own sake it stupid, taking redundant and flexible units to make your army more capable of handling multiple foes and missions without relying too heavily on 1 unit is smart.

I'm not making the case that spamming is a good or a bad idea. It being an effective or ineffective way to build armies is irrelevant to the point I'm trying to make.

Exitus Acta Probat
09-03-2009, 12:19 PM
I welcome people trying different ways of playing the game. We've got Planetstrike, Apocalypse, and Planetary Empires for fun, story-driven games, so I think we should get an expansion for competitive 40k.



Well,
this strikes me as being stupid...for me not having thought of it first! :D (da##it)

I played Star Fleet Battles competitively for quite a while, and they had it all kinds of right.
Now I don't recommend we supply 'armies' for people to play that typify each race, as SFB does (it works for them, quite, but I don't THINK it'd work for 40k)...BUT...

Work on a specific WAAC (remembering I see that acronym as just a valid play viewpoint as fluffy bunny or whole hobby, so no offense) expansion.
If you look at it, ADB has a specific tourney booklet that outlines QUITE specifically the most balanced way to play in a tournament. Special tourney rules, setup and restrictions as well as scoring methods etc etc.

Exitus Acta Probat
09-03-2009, 12:31 PM
Sometimes, yes. In online video games (what I do), abuse is a problem because it turns off players and puts the system out of balance. But, we can iterate the game as soon as we find an exploit and remove it. So in a way "power gamers" just provide additional QA testing. As long as we know it's happening, we can fix it so very little long-term harm is caused.

But paper games are different. We can iterate and fix bugs daily, while they may have to wait several years to "update" their system. In the time that passes between iterations, their game can be irrevocably damaged. Sure they could release erratas to address the issues, but GW has made a decision to not do that (probably because they don't want to sell books that are instantly out of date and need to be "patched").

There's another issue here too. The WH40K designers assume their game is a friendly, social game -- not a competitive game. They believe (often incorrectly) that their players are mature enough to not take advantage of their friends. If a friend finds a way to abuse the system, he's nice enough not to exploit it. So there's no urgent need to fix "bugs" -- the friendly, social game has a self correcting mechanism built in -- the overriding desire for both players to cooperate.

This is completely lost in a competitive game, which leads us to the problem we are addressing. GW's "failsafe" doesn't work in the emerging competitive environment.

I don't necessarily agree that this is entirely un-intentional... In fact, by putting their hands up and saying 'we didn't intend this', they can deny culpability and STILL reap the benefits from a (with a grain of salt, this is GW we're talking about) moral high-ground. The introduction of Planetstrike/cityfight/Apoc all give them outs even further, AND methods to sell more.
I think there is an element of 'monkey see, monkey do'. The MTG tourney craze went right off the charts, and they rode it into the ground. GW has a blueprint they can follow, pretend they are not, and see the signs (as another company did) and 'avoid' the worst of the pitfalls.
They might or might not succeed, but they can do it.
This is practiced ignorance on their part (IMHO), preying on a fluid environment that has nothing but a juggernaut like head of steam behind it.
Now, we don't have to play like that all the time, but when it comes to tourney...well, they're not doing anything to discourage it. Many of us here know how they support prizes and events...how is that 'downplaying' the competition.
Elephant in the room...THEY are feeding this. It isn't wholly, or IMHO even mostly, the player bases' fault. It is most certainly the crack deale...I mean GW. ;)

I love their hobby, truth. I know them for the beasts they are...truth. :(






And game designers are people too,

I dub thee bu##s#it sir! I have it on good authority you are craven beasts! :D

BrotherAlpharius
09-03-2009, 12:46 PM
mkerr: Thanks for your detailed reply - some fine points. Sadly I have little time to answer further now.
I'm actually flying to the USA for the first time on Saturday but sadly I haven't the space or time to cram in a 40k game, plus I understand you folks have a pretty big country! ;) Maybe if it carries on being a success I will one day make it to BOLSCON to try out this ultra-competitive environment, though first I need to get my hands on a load of genestealers!:D

Chumbalaya
09-03-2009, 12:53 PM
Being an a-hole is my job, lol. Welcome to the conversation, Chumbalaya!

I will say this though: if I feel like I have to pre-qualify my comments, then there's probably a nicer way to get my point across.

I get that, but not everybody has my winning personality and sense of humor, so they get their online egos bruised and any discussion goes downhill ;)


Sure, everyone should make fewer mistakes. That's a really broad stroke at solving the problem (and has shades of blaming the victim again). If you look at GW's history it's clear that they _do_ want to fix problems with the rules. They just don't want to do it with errata (like they used to in the Chapter Approved days). They want to accumulate the feedback and address it every few years in a new addition. This allows them to publish books that aren't instantly out of date.

It seems like they're living in the past then. It hasn't been difficult for other companies to produce living rulebooks in this age of instant communication. And the old argument of "what if people don't have internet" then they probably won't be attending any big tournies and will be perfectly happy with the ruleset as is.


And that's awesome! As long as you don't advocate that it's the best or only way to play the game.

There is no best way to play, only what you and your opponent derive the most enjoyment out of.


If that's what you think then you failed to understand my analogy. Blaming GW for "spamming" is like blaming the victim for a crime. Spamming isn't the result of a mistake that GW made -- WE are solely responsible for exploting the rules.

I understand the analogy, I kept repeating it because I thought it was t3h dumbz0rz ;) I don't blame GW for spamming, I blame them for neglecting what is obviously a big part of their market and screwing things up for everyone instead of addressing the problem ('Ard Boyz fiascos in years past, no standard tourney format, no errata/FAQ support).


Limiting the "competitive" impact on the game doesn't lead to stagnation. This is a hobby, not a sport.

Not accepting anything new because you see it as abusive is stagnation, you stay in your comfort zone all the time and never get challenged. It's not a sport, but I find that learning new things and overcoming challenges is part of the fun. And sometimes there is money/loot on the line, so you have to know your stuff.


This isn't their problem. It's a community problem. It's our problem.

It's their money, it's their market. If we have a problem, they have a problem.


Sure, there shouldn't be a single _best_ way to play the game. We should be tolerant and supportive of all aspects of the hobby.

ding ding ding! Tolerant and supportive, unless we think they're doing it wrong and we know better of course ;)


And drop the 'rape' analogy until you understand it. Abusive lists don't take advantage of other players -- playing someone is a choice. If I don't like you (or your broken army), then I won't play you. Locally, it's a self-correcting mechanism. The only abuse that's happening is system abuse -- exploiting a game rarely makes the game more fun. It's inherently selfish.

Or it opens up new avenues of competition.


With all due respect, you misunderstood my "blame the victim" analogy. The only comparison I made is that "blaming GW for spamming" is akin to "blaming the victim of a crime". No player is a criminal or a victim in my analogy. Twisting my words isn't contributing to the conversation.

There's no crime being committed here, it's just people willing to learn something new and others who think it's wrong. Whatever floats your boat, just step off the moral high ground.


To be clear, I'm not saying that there's no place for competitive play. Tournaments and competitive play are awesome additions to the game, but they shouldn't be the foundation of the hobby. It shouldn't be the central or most important part of the game. Why? Because the game isn't designed as a competitive game. It won't hold up to it.

Who says it can't be? For me, competitive gaming is the central part of the game. Obviously it isn't for you, so no biggie. What makes you more right?


Exploiting a game that was designed as a friendly, social game is easy. Why? Because the designer's aren't too worried about exploits because friends don't like taking advantage of their friends. The game isn't designed as a strictly competive game. GW's recent actions have made that very clear. We - the community of players - have essentially created the hyper-competitive element of the game. In the last few years (due to the internet's ability to connect players), that hyper-competitive element has grown unchecked.

Competitive is not mutually exclusive to being friendly and social, didn't we already go over this? For a game not made to be competitive, there certainly is a big demand for it and the system works fairly well competitively with the newer armies that have multiple powerful builds and the horribly outdated ones stuck with a handful of useful builds. It seems GW has a greater focus in their Codex writing than they had in 3rd or 4th, so the balance is better between armies.

Ran out of time lol, I'll get back to it later.

Alfonzo
09-03-2009, 01:36 PM
Without wanting to get into a point-by-point debate I'll say that I generally agree with the OP, and generally disagree with the blog post.

I build redundancy into all of my lists and I don't really consider it spam. Why would I take three different heavy support choices if I know what I want my HS slots to accomplish? I run a 3 vindicator list most of the time. According to the blog post I should drop down to one vindicator and add some other heavy support to confuse my opponent's target prioritization. Why?

If I take 3 vindicators my opponent knows they are all threats and he has to choose which one is the greater threat. That's a decision that's just as difficult as the variable unit one, if not moreso. Furthermore if my opponent does destroy the vindi that they prioritized, I still have 2 more where that one came from. If I had, for example, a missile launcher devastator squad and a predator destructor and I wanted my vindicator to shoot at some terminators I'm now ****-out-of-luck because my vindicator was the only good choice against them. If I had that unit setup then my opponent knows that the vindi is the biggest threat. I've effectively removed the need for him to make a decision.

Identifying the point where you reach your diminishing return threshold (to steal the OP's terminology) is extremely important in any list, not just spamming. You can build a non-spam list that has too much anti-tank/MC fire compared to its anti-personnel rate. Just because you're spreading it out amongst different unit types doesn't mean it's not the same principle.

Goatboy has discussed the value of redundancies in previous posts on BoLS, and I agree with him.

Culven
09-03-2009, 01:54 PM
OK. I have been following this thread for a while, and I would like to weigh in with some thoughts.

First, I would like to address the idea that some mindsets are more valid than others. It seems that some people think only WAAC/Powergaming is a valid mindset for the game. Other think that only "fluffy" story-driven games are the "true way to play". Then there are some more middle-of-the-road mindsets. I think that anyone who argues that the game is meant for only one approach is mistaken, misinformed, or possibly deluded. In the end, the mindset used when one approaches the game will be entirely their own, and what is right for them will solely rest upon what they want from the game. Now, it is quite possible that this mindset will be significantly changed by the environment in which one plays. If they are in a more competative region, they will naturally be inclined to develop a more powerful army in order to have a more equal footing.

In short, I have no interest in whether my opponent thinks that my army selections are "fail", just because they find them too over- or under-powered. It is my army, and I will play as I like. They can keep their opinions to themselves, and I will keep my opinions about their cheesy army to myself.

Second, I want to address GW's mindset. Mkerr mentioned that 40K is not designed for competative play. It may not have been, but it has become so. GW even acknowledges that players play the game competatively. Yet, they chose not to write a solid set of rules, instead catering to the casual player and hoping that the tournament players could figure it out for themselves. Actually stating this in one of the White Dwarf interviews amazed me. It struck me as simple laziness on their part; as though they couldn't be bothered to write a comprehensive ruleset. At the same time, it seemed a bit insulting to the casual player, implying that they couldn't have fun with a set of tournament quality rules. It isn't as though the rules must be one or the other. Magic is a prime example of a game that developed into tournament play, uses a very solid set of tournament level rules, yet casual players are still able to play the game with a simplified knowledge of those rules.

Sorry, a bit of a ramble there. My point is really just this: GW could write better rules to limit the powergaming rules Easter Eggs, but at the same time, players should know what they want from the game while anticipating the potential mindsets of their opponents. So, provided that the players abide by the rules, then there is no good or bad when it comes to army selection.

Nikephoros
09-03-2009, 03:45 PM
One of my favorite trends of late on 40k forums is for people to post a fairly soft list and say, "critique this list please."

The replies, inevitably, suggest ways to make it more competitive.

The OP responds by saying that he didn't intend for his list to be a "tourney" list and its just for fun so he wont be making the changes.

All this begs the question, "what sort of criticism was he looking for?" I think the answer to that question will solve a lot of the ambiguities being discussed in this thread.

Exitus Acta Probat
09-03-2009, 06:47 PM
One of my favorite trends of late on 40k forums is for people to post a fairly soft list and say, "critique this list please."

The replies, inevitably, suggest ways to make it more competitive.

The OP responds by saying that he didn't intend for his list to be a "tourney" list and its just for fun so he wont be making the changes.

All this begs the question, "what sort of criticism was he looking for?" I think the answer to that question will solve a lot of the ambiguities being discussed in this thread.

On the head...they want '42', but don't know the question...

I think it really comes down SOLELY to perspective.
Even the majority of WAAC players acknowledge the legitimacy (and need) for fluffy bunnies (not just to abuse),
and the majority of fluffy bunnies acknowledge the legitimacy of WAAC play (even from their soap-boxes)...
and the majority of us fall dead center.

We, as a community, haven't reached the point where COLLECTIVELY the cliques can actually shake hands and share a room with a smile.
We need our own 'Breakfast Club' to shake it all out! ;)

It's a question of acceptance. If I go to a tournament/venue I don't know the baseline for (ie:the trends of the players), I go in with a high end list without maximization. I go for solid WITHOUT tricks (mech-guard without many allies and without PBS's...LR's and Assault termies with melta, but no Vulkan...No-dakka/sniper Nidzilla...etc etc etc). If I get spanked, I ramp it up next time. If I spank and irritate, I come in for regular games with easy lists (jump pack BA without special characters/Necrons/Mixed orks) and smile alot. Find parity, and start playing their game.
If I come in, and they advertise a tournament that IS supposed to be competitive, I start practicing and tweaking, and looking for maximum firepower...but no matter WHAT, I look to my opponents too. If I find a softer list on the other side of the table, I loosen how AR I am being. If I am outclassed, I buckle down. I never fold, and I try not to overbear. But I DO check the internet for something I may have missed. I don't care if you're gawds gift to the game, there are tricks that we can all miss. Finding them out there may simply help you be prepared for the worst on the other side of the table, or help you unlock that list that's been 'just out of reach'.
As long as that search is at the end of your own personal development as well, it's all good.
When it becomes the Alpha and Omega, not just part of the process, this is where some have trouble.
It can be a bad scene.

I don't think it's now, or maybe even the next edition, that we'll find it...but we're definitely working in the right direction if we're discussing it, as opposed to 'cussing' it.

I really think Chumb's offhanded remark/idea has merit.
A 'WAAC' expansion (if you will) for those that really want to 'ramp it up'. Just like the other story driven events/books/articles, a guide to playing where all people have NO choice but to expect the unexpected and hyper efficient. An arena. A deathworld. A Chaos Gladiator Daemon planet (if you want to get it into the storyline).
A tournament book. A 'Championship Edition' if you will. Agree to play by these rules, and if you whine your opponent will have the right to club you like a baby seal! (the book will have to be the size of the Apoc book, in order to make that a proper threat).

Thus you would have
Basic play (brb/articles etc)
Fluff Play (apoc/planetstrike etc)
Competitive play (Champ Edition/Murderworld whatever etc)

Who knows, something to handle it all.
Default tourneys would be Basic
Indy GT's should have a bit of all three
Game's Days should have a compeitive.
Ard Boyz could become a real circuit, with nothing but Competitive
RTT's could be either, but need to be announced.

etc etc etc

possibilities?

mkerr
09-04-2009, 10:47 AM
I don't necessarily agree that this is entirely un-intentional... In fact, by putting their hands up and saying 'we didn't intend this', they can deny culpability and STILL reap the benefits from a (with a grain of salt, this is GW we're talking about) moral high-ground.

I can promise you that no game designer builds an intentionally flawed game. All of us consider game design something of an art and take a lot of pride in our work. Speaking personally, you couldn't pay me enough to make an intentionally broken game.


Elephant in the room...THEY are feeding this. It isn't wholly, or IMHO even mostly, the player bases' fault. It is most certainly the crack deale...I mean GW. ;)

The only fault that I can lay at GW's feet is their continue RTT prize support policy. Flooding small communities with large amounts of monthly (and in some regions, weekly) prizes fans the flames of the WAAC mentality.

But beyond that small piece, GW isn't at fault for the way we choose to play their game. They've made it abundantly clear in dozens of articles how they play the game (and they way they intended it to be played).


I'm actually flying to the USA for the first time on Saturday but sadly I haven't the space or time to cram in a 40k game, plus I understand you folks have a pretty big country! ;)

Well, we're in Texas, which is a pretty large state (696,200 km^2). Take a look at this Texas-Europe size comparison map (http://www.k5rcd.org/TEXAS%20EUROPE%20SIZE%20COMPARISON%20MAP.jpg). We're in Austin, which is about where Munich is on the map.



It seems like they're living in the past then. It hasn't been difficult for other companies to produce living rulebooks in this age of instant communication.

Maybe, but that's not really germane to the conversation. Even if they were interested in using the internet to errata or FAQ the rules, the game they intended to design doesn't require it. While a game that's designed to be competitive (e.g., M:TG) does.


I understand the analogy, I kept repeating it because I thought it was t3h dumbz0rz ;) I don't blame GW for spamming, I blame them for neglecting what is obviously a big part of their market and screwing things up for everyone instead of addressing the problem ('Ard Boyz fiascos in years past, no standard tourney format, no errata/FAQ support).

Your comments seem to indicate that went a bit over your head (e.g., "anybody who disagrees is a rapist" doesn't even make sense). But no problem, I'm happy to move on.

A game designer can't control how player use the game. But I shouldn't have to change the game I've created just because some percentage of the audience uses the game differently. GW clearly doesn't want to design a competitive game and no amount of *****ing on our end is going to change that.

'Ard Boyz is the creation of the sales group. It really doesn't have anything to do with the design studio and how they think the game should be played. Ard Boyz is just a marketing effort by the sales group to sell more models.


Not accepting anything new because you see it as abusive is stagnation, you stay in your comfort zone all the time and never get challenged. It's not a sport, but I find that learning new things and overcoming challenges is part of the fun. And sometimes there is money/loot on the line, so you have to know your stuff.

I don't have a problem with tournaments and competitive games. I play in LOTS of tournaments (Adepticon, GTs, RTTs, Ard Boyz, etc.). I like other new ways to play the game too (I have more than a dozen armies, most well above 2,000 points and I play Planetstrike, Apocalypse, campaigns, etc.).

I'm not suggestion that we kill competitive play. There's definitely a place for competetive play. But that place isn't the "core" of the hobby.


There's no crime being committed here, it's just people willing to learn something new and others who think it's wrong. Whatever floats your boat, just step off the moral high ground.

You're still missing the point.


Who says it can't be? For me, competitive gaming is the central part of the game. Obviously it isn't for you, so no biggie. What makes you more right?

I'm not talking about individuals here. It doesn't matter what the most important element of the game is to me and you. I'm talking about a shift of the community as a whole. If the core of the game shift from a friendly, social hobby about modelling, collecting and playing to a tournament-based, win at all costs sport -- then the hobby is going to fall apart.

And I'm not saying that I'm right. I'm not even saying that you're wrong. I'm saying that I'm concerned. I'm concerned about the hobby that we all love.


Competitive is not mutually exclusive to being friendly and social, didn't we already go over this? For a game not made to be competitive, there certainly is a big demand for it and the system works fairly well competitively with the newer armies that have multiple powerful builds and the horribly outdated ones stuck with a handful of useful builds. It seems GW has a greater focus in their Codex writing than they had in 3rd or 4th, so the balance is better between armies.

You are changing terms I've defined earlier -- it might help to re-read some of my earlier comments. A "friendly, social game" is a type of game (not an attitude about the game you are playing). It's more cooperative than competitive. We're both working together to a cool, mutually satisfactory experience. We're not as concerned about winning as we are about experiencing something awesome.

When a rules discussion comes up in a friendly, social game the answer should ALWAYS be the result that has the "coolest" outcome.

For example, if you and I were playing and it was the top of my shooting phase and I had a lone Imperial Storm Trooper locked in close combat with your terrifying assault unit close to my lines. I say "I want my Vindicare to shoot my lone Storm Trooper so that the close combat will end and I can shoot your terrifying assult unit".

We both look at the rules and on one hand we have a "you can't shoot into close combat" rule and on the other we have "a Vindicare ignores targeting restrictions". My argument is that "you can't shoot into close combat" is a targeting restriction.

In a competitive game, you'll argue with me to prevent that from happening because the goal is to win. Even if you were already dominating me in the game, you'll make the case against it because you want to win more than you want something cool to happen in the game.

In a friendly, social game (a more "cooperative" game), you might survey the board and agree that it would be MUCH COOLER if the Vindicare (the best and most ruthless marksman in the Imperium) could mercilessly kill one of his own men in order to get a better shot at the enemy. That's an awesome story to chat about over dinner after the game.

The latter decision made for a more exciting and noteworthy game, regardless of the outcome. That's a friendly, social game. You and your opponent cooperated to make something really neat happen.

A "friendly, social" doesn't mean "nice and chatty".

-- mkerr

mkerr
09-04-2009, 10:59 AM
I build redundancy into all of my lists and I don't really consider it spam.

It might not be. Taking multiples of the game unit isnn't "spam".

Re-read Bigred's definition. Identifying underpriced, overpowered units and maximizing on that exploit to fill your army with them, is spam.


In short, I have no interest in whether my opponent thinks that my army selections are "fail", just because they find them too over- or under-powered. It is my army, and I will play as I like. They can keep their opinions to themselves, and I will keep my opinions about their cheesy army to myself.

Sure, I completely agree. I don't care how individual or small communities play the game. Historically, the game varied dramatically from region to region. I'm not talking about that at all.

I'm talking about a shift in the way we as a whole play the game.


Mkerr mentioned that 40K is not designed for competative play. It may not have been, but it has become so. GW even acknowledges that players play the game competatively. Yet, they chose not to write a solid set of rules, instead catering to the casual player and hoping that the tournament players could figure it out for themselves. Actually stating this in one of the White Dwarf interviews amazed me. It struck me as simple laziness on their part; as though they couldn't be bothered to write a comprehensive ruleset.

The game designers are building the game they want to build. That's their perogative. They see the game as a friendly, social game that's more about building a shared experience -- not a competitive, tournament based game.

If you want to play the game differently, then that's cool. Just don't expect them to change their game to suit you.


My point is really just this: GW could write better rules to limit the powergaming rules Easter Eggs

Sure they could, but why should they?

Exitus Acta Probat
09-04-2009, 02:53 PM
The only fault that I can lay at GW's feet is their continue RTT prize support policy. Flooding small communities with large amounts of monthly (and in some regions, weekly) prizes fans the flames of the WAAC mentality.

But beyond that small piece, GW isn't at fault for the way we choose to play their game. They've made it abundantly clear in dozens of articles how they play the game (and they way they intended it to be played).

But frankly, the tide of support IS what I am talking about. This is part of the method to their madness! Okay, so that sounds like conspiracy theory, and I don't think it's really that involved, BUT it creates a circumstance where the tournament 'industry' is supported by them, benefits them sales-wise, and is still deniable by them...it really is a 'best of all possible worlds' sorta thing for them.
I don't think they created it originally with intent, but they are NOT trying to fix it... it DOES benefit them to perpetuate...thus, they are as (or more) responsible for the problems we are addressing than are the rubes (ie;us) that are falling for it!



Maybe, but that's not really germane to the conversation. Even if they were interested in using the internet to errata or FAQ the rules, the game they intended to design doesn't require it. While a game that's designed to be competitive (e.g., M:TG) does.

Excepting for the fact that MTG was not originally designed for tournament, was never anticipated to become what it became, and the creators saw what was happening and implemented fixes/interactive environment adjustments less than 3-4 years in, WITHOUT the level on internet involvement there is today. GW's been at this too long to miss this boat. It is pertinent here.



A game designer can't control how player use the game. But I shouldn't have to change the game I've created just because some percentage of the audience uses the game differently. GW clearly doesn't want to design a competitive game and no amount of *****ing on our end is going to change that.

Excepting that if it is an environment they don't wish to encourage, they would be/should be fixing it.


'Ard Boyz is the creation of the sales group. It really doesn't have anything to do with the design studio and how they think the game should be played. Ard Boyz is just a marketing effort by the sales group to sell more models.

Sales group...sells more models...not interfered with by game creators who 'don't like' competitive environment...
Something's rotten in Denmark.




I don't have a problem with tournaments and competitive games. I play in LOTS of tournaments (Adepticon, GTs, RTTs, Ard Boyz, etc.). I like other new ways to play the game too (I have more than a dozen armies, most well above 2,000 points and I play Planetstrike, Apocalypse, campaigns, etc.).

I'm not suggestion that we kill competitive play. There's definitely a place for competetive play. But that place isn't the "core" of the hobby.

I cannot argue with what you say here, but I brought up the 'rebuttal' based on a sentiment that SPAM is bad. It is a sentiment that also goes hand in hand with, WAAC is bad...or there is 'cheese' etc etc etc.
I am arguing that in a competitive tournament, these things are not bad and have their place as well.
I don't expect to find opponents that want to play me, if all I do is play spam...but I sure think it has a place in my tournament 'game'.


I'm not talking about individuals here. It doesn't matter what the most important element of the game is to me and you. I'm talking about a shift of the community as a whole. If the core of the game shift from a friendly, social hobby about modelling, collecting and playing to a tournament-based, win at all costs sport -- then the hobby is going to fall apart.

And there were those that said the SAME thing about MTG (hell, I did at one point when they ramped up set releases too quickly). There was a hiccup, but GW's had a hiccup. MTG is still IT when it comes to CCG's. GW can make this happen too. I don't want tourney/WAAC uber alles, but ALL aspects equal.

Exitus Acta Probat
09-04-2009, 03:05 PM
It might not be. Taking multiples of the game unit isnn't "spam".

Re-read Bigred's definition. Identifying underpriced, overpowered units and maximizing on that exploit to fill your army with them, is spam.


But where is the threshold of 'good' and 'un-good' (or double-plus-ungood).
Where do we define SPAM over competitive efficiency?
For that matter, where do we define a unit that is hyper efficient in or out of context.
An arseload of cheap, fearless tarpits (the Nid armies Gaunt Horde) may feel like SPAM to one person, and with a different type of backup may actually come across as that against more than a few oddball exceptions.
This was my start to the thread,
WHAT is spam? Who gets to define it? Why is my army, spamming 3 different types of large blast low ap toters better than yours with 3x vindicators? THAT'S the issue here, to me anyway.




The game designers are building the game they want to build. That's their perogative. They see the game as a friendly, social game that's more about building a shared experience -- not a competitive, tournament based game.

And yet they aren't fixing the 'problems' they are complaining about, just reaping the benefits on their bottom line...which is on the UPSWING in a bad economy. ??


If you want to play the game differently, then that's cool. Just don't expect them to change their game to suit you.



Sure they could, but why should they?

Very true...but other people can't assign what is right or wrong either,
just choose who they don't wish to play,
or events they don't want to play in.

The community WILL take care of itself. Individuals/blogs/sites (what have you) will become less and less (or more) topical, garner fewer and fewer(or more) readers as the COMMUNITY decides where it wants to go.
I think it's a phase, that will alter how we play in the long run. The last 2ish years, and the coming couple, will define 6th Edition...and that will define the future of 40k. That's why people are so vociferous now, they want their 'version' to stick, even if they don't know that is what's driving them.
Competition is here to stay, how heavy it becomes and 'normal' it will be considered will develop of its own accord, and those that say 'this is how to play' and 'this is not how to play' will find themselves being tuned out without a bit of honey to go with the vinegar.

mkerr
09-04-2009, 04:23 PM
But frankly, the tide of support IS what I am talking about. This is part of the method to their madness! Okay, so that sounds like conspiracy theory...(snip)

Game development companies just don't work like that. There's no conspiracy theory. I've worked at the exective level of much larger companies than GW and I can promise you this is just a symptom of marketing and product development not communicating. Their marketing arm doesn't really care about what game the design studio wants to make; they care about what they can sell.

Channel marketing and prize support is lazy marketing. Every marketing department tries it at some point or another.


Excepting for the fact that MTG was not originally designed for tournament, was never anticipated to become what it became, and the creators saw what was happening and implemented fixes/interactive environment adjustments less than 3-4 years in, WITHOUT the level on internet involvement there is today. GW's been at this too long to miss this boat. It is pertinent here.

WoTC and GW have almost no similarities at any level. M:TG was always designed as a competitive game (it was build with the concept of "ante") and that's the nature of a collectible card game. Competition (and expansion) drives product sales.

The tournament system was initially community driven, but WoTC saw the strong roots of something that would increase product sales dramatically. Their game (already a strongly competitive game) was interated and expanded to work with tournaments. Because it made sense for their game.

But WoTC hasn't done that for Dungeons & Dragons. Why? Because D&D isn't a competitive game; it's a friendly, social game where players are cooperating to create a shared, mutually satisfying experience. That's much more like the vision that the GW designers have for WH40k.

So WH40K and M:TG are apples and oranges. While GW and WoTC are more like apples and Mott's.


Excepting that if it is an environment they don't wish to encourage, they would be/should be fixing it.

You mean like writing article after article on how the game is supposed to be played? Like dramatically reducing the number of official tournaments? Like removing Chapter Approved and any game content from White Dwarf? Like setting a policy to not errata rules until the next addition? Like rarely releasing FAQ?

GW is distancing themselves from the competitive side of the game. They are moving as fast as they can without alienating players.


Sales group...sells more models...not interfered with by game creators who 'don't like' competitive environment...

The sales group doesn't care about the game past the current quarter. They aren't responsible for long-term vision or direction. If they thought they could sell more models by claiming Deffcoptas were proof against the H1N1 virus, they'd say it -- as long as it sold more models.

The game designers are thinking about where the game is going and where the game SHOULD be going. That's their job -- short-term thinking leads to products like "Lord of the Rings".


I brought up the 'rebuttal' based on a sentiment that SPAM is bad. It is a sentiment that also goes hand in hand with, WAAC is bad...or there is 'cheese' etc etc etc.
I am arguing that in a competitive tournament, these things are not bad and have their place as well.
I don't expect to find opponents that want to play me, if all I do is play spam...but I sure think it has a place in my tournament 'game'.

And my position is that encouraging players to intentionally exploit the rules to gain advantage over other players isn't good for the long-term health of the hobby.

It might lead to some fun discussions (like this one), it might sell a few more models in the short term (like Nob Bikers), but it's probably not going to improve the hobby or extend the lifespan of the average player.

And if you are a new player -- and you only have a 2,000pt "spam" army that you built from an pundit blogger "netdeck" -- how else are you going to be able to play the game?



But where is the threshold of 'good' and 'un-good' (or double-plus-ungood).

If this is truly a friendly, social game, then if you are winning more than half of your games you should take a look at your army and try to tone it down a big.


Where do we define SPAM over competitive efficiency?

Are you taking the unit/wargear because it's underpriced and overpowered? Are you maxxing out on said unit/wargear? Then you are spamming.


For that matter, where do we define a unit that is hyper efficient in or out of context.

We define it with the help of 1) our ability to see the impact of the unit in the game and 2) feedback from our opponents.


An arseload of cheap, fearless tarpits (the Nid armies Gaunt Horde) may feel like SPAM to one person, and with a different type of backup may actually come across as that against more than a few oddball exceptions.

If it feels like spam to them, then they aren't using the definition that we've defined over and over.


WHAT is spam? Who gets to define it? Why is my army, spamming 3 different types of large blast low ap toters better than yours with 3x vindicators? THAT'S the issue here, to me anyway.

If you like to power game and your friends like to power game -- that's awesome. I'm not going to lose any sleep over it. If your local tournament scene is hyper-competitive and everyone likes to try and crush each other -- that's awesome too. I actually enjoy that too -- I come to a tournament expecting to stretch my tactical muscles.

But if you are promoting that "spamming is part of the game" or "exploits are rewards for knowing the rules" or "if you don't play Mech Whatever, you're army is FAIL", then you are playing the wrong game.

WH40K wasn't designed to be played in a hyper-competitive environment. That means it's EASY to find exploits and loopholes and build abusive armies. It's like playing tic-tac-toe competitively. By trying to make competitive play the ONLY way to play the game, you are shortening your lifespan as a player and ultimately you aren't going to here for the long haul. And the gaggle of "l33t" players that are patting you on the back for being so cool? Well they're going to move on as well. And, if we aren't careful as a community, we might lose a lot more than just the hyper-competitive players.


And yet they aren't fixing the 'problems' they are complaining about, just reaping the benefits on their bottom line...which is on the UPSWING in a bad economy. ??

Yeah, if things keep trending the way they are going then GW's stock price might actually climb to HALF of where it was three years ago. GW isn't "reaping" benefits. GW is surviving.


...and those that say 'this is how to play' and 'this is not how to play' will find themselves being tuned out without a bit of honey to go with the vinegar.

Maybe. I don't know, but I can tell you that the community has changed DRAMATICALLY in the last two years and is evolving very rapidly. Is that good or bad? I don't know, but there are some elements that concern me.

For my part, I'm going to make sure that I try to remind people that the goal is to have fun. If you are winning games, but not having fun, then you are playing the game wrong. And if you are winning games and your opponent isn't having any fun, then you are playing the game wrong too.

-- mkerr

Nikephoros
09-04-2009, 06:10 PM
[QUOTE=mkerr;16270]
But WoTC hasn't done that for Dungeons & Dragons. Why? Because D&D isn't a competitive game; it's a friendly, social game where players are cooperating to create a shared, mutually satisfying experience. That's much more like the vision that the GW designers have for WH40k.

So WH40K and M:TG are apples and oranges. While GW and WoTC are more like apples and Mott's.
[/QUOTE

WH40K has much more in common with Magic than it does D&D. Most 40k games don't have a narrator who decides what happens the next turn.

mkerr
09-05-2009, 10:55 AM
WH40K has much more in common with Magic than it does D&D. Most 40k games don't have a narrator who decides what happens the next turn.

Look a little deeper. If you read about how the designers play the game, you'll notice it's more about players cooperating to create a shared experience. They decide what game they are playing in advance, create special terrain and rules for the game, they write stroies that anchor the game in the background of the universe, their armies have character. They cooperate (like a Dungeon Master and his players) to build a game that fits in their persistent universe.

It's more than finding a pick-up game, rolling a random mission and seeing who wins. That's how they envision that game to be played -- that's the game they are designing (otherwise, the fluff isn't really that important).

Sire, winning and losing is part of the game but it's the least important part. If by losing, you create an awesome shared experience (say your Warboss falling in glorious battle to an ironwilled Inquisitor Lord) then you've "won" by making an awesome game.

It's like two civil war buff who replay the Battle of Shiloh over and over to see if Johnston and Beauregard could've pulled out a win over Grant. But with better rules.

Exitus Acta Probat
09-05-2009, 11:42 AM
Game development companies just don't work like that. There's no conspiracy theory.

the conspiracy theory comment was tongue in cheek, ya know that right? :)



WoTC and GW have almost no similarities at any level. M:TG was always designed as a competitive game (it was build with the concept of "ante") and that's the nature of a collectible card game. Competition (and expansion) drives product sales.

Sorry, ante was just a way to give a bit more of a unique tweak to it.
I was there at ground zero, from alpha on, and saw the tourney scene develop from 'we have a HIT here??? holy shasta' to 'we need to make this formal' to 'type I/II etc' to what it is now.
They did start out as a passionate game with fun and story behind it to become what they are now...
what that is I am no longer interested in, so I am NOT saying the comparison is a good thing, just that it's more accurate than it looks on the surface.



So WH40K and M:TG are apples and oranges. While GW and WoTC are more like apples and Mott's.

Actually, I really see it the reverse. I think the precepts of MTG and WH40k are more similar than intended, and the companies (now hasbro(?) for WOTC, though hands offish) have different flow.


You mean like writing article after article on how the game is supposed to be played? Like dramatically reducing the number of official tournaments? Like removing Chapter Approved and any game content from White Dwarf? Like setting a policy to not errata rules until the next addition? Like rarely releasing FAQ?

Like not actually DOING anything about it? just sounding good? (sorry, I know you don't see it that way, but I really think it boils down to deniable culpability...)


GW is distancing themselves from the competitive side of the game. They are moving as fast as they can without alienating players.

Don't see it. I see them making codex after codex that does nothing to correct it. Now, that may be a situation they cannot fix right now...it may have to wait for the next edition. they don't want to put out books everyone says sucks and not sell new product.


And my position is that encouraging players to intentionally exploit the rules to gain advantage over other players isn't good for the long-term health of the hobby.

Truth. But ignoring that style of play in competition, or castigating it, creates the same problem from the opposite direction. Get the same noobs stomped due to unpreparedness will get them to bail too.


It might lead to some fun discussions (like this one), it might sell a few more models in the short term (like Nob Bikers), but it's probably not going to improve the hobby or extend the lifespan of the average player.

GARGH...bikers are such good models...I think the models sold em first, 5e just ramped it up briefly. I could be wrong on that one, I was distracted at the time! (construction market collapse in central fla beginning, wife and friends in const, and myself as well...I was actually a bit off that summer).



If this is truly a friendly, social game, then if you are winning more than half of your games you should take a look at your army and try to tone it down a big.

I don't know about that. Winning them constantly to the consternation of partners, yes...but more than half? as long as they still feel like they're in the game....


Are you taking the unit/wargear because it's underpriced and overpowered? Are you maxxing out on said unit/wargear? Then you are spamming.

again, in PURE competitive play, that shouldn't be reflexively frowned upon.



"if you don't play Mech Whatever, you're army is FAIL", then you are playing the wrong game.

But saying you 'don't play fluff/didn't paint well/are too competitive in a tourney' is a little too much that direction too. IMHO of course. :)



Yeah, if things keep trending the way they are going then GW's stock price might actually climb to HALF of where it was three years ago. GW isn't "reaping" benefits. GW is surviving.


I won't say there haven't been mis-steps, but I think a lot of that can be laid at the feet of the economy! ;)




Maybe. I don't know, but I can tell you that the community has changed DRAMATICALLY in the last two years and is evolving very rapidly. Is that good or bad? I don't know, but there are some elements that concern me.

and that also is truth...but we won't know till we get there. THEN we might know what really was 'fail' or 'spam' lolol


For my part, I'm going to make sure that I try to remind people that the goal is to have fun. If you are winning games, but not having fun, then you are playing the game wrong. And if you are winning games and your opponent isn't having any fun, then you are playing the game wrong too.

but there is where I see it being more important. recognizing when your opponent isn't and adjusting accordingly. Not hamstringing first, then finding the level...

I don't know either, to be honest, which is the better way to play.

mkerr
09-05-2009, 04:44 PM
Sorry, ante was just a way to give a bit more of a unique tweak to it.
I was there at ground zero, from alpha on, and saw the tourney scene develop from 'we have a HIT here??? holy shasta' to 'we need to make this formal' to 'type I/II etc' to what it is now.
They did start out as a passionate game with fun and story behind it to become what they are now...
what that is I am no longer interested in, so I am NOT saying the comparison is a good thing, just that it's more accurate than it looks on the surface.

<i>"ante was just a way to give a bit more of a unique tweak to it"</i> -- What?!? If I win, I get your card. If I lose, you get my card. It's essentially playing for money, which is as "competitive" as a game can get.

I was an alpha player too and played for many years. We had our first M:TG touranment less than a month after the game was released. The game was hellishly competitive from day one -- just at some point, the competitive community got more organized (and WotC followed suit).

With all due respect, I feel like you've stopped playing devil's advocate and are just being contrary. This is an interesting and fun discussion, but it isn't really moving forward any more.


I won't say there haven't been mis-steps, but I think a lot of that can be laid at the feet of the economy!

One last comment, I've been following GW on the market (they are GAW.L on the LSE) for a long time. If you look back, you'll notice they've been slowing digging out of a major hole since early 2005. So the recent economy really doesn't have much to do with it - they've actually seemed pretty resistant to economic downturn.

But it has a lot to do with complacency from the boost they got from the 2001-2003 Lord of the Rings movies. Their recent uptick comes more from price increases and cost cuts (closing stores, reducing store hours, lower rent, single person outlets, etc.) than it has to do with some sort of overarching strategy of product release.

-- mkerr

Exitus Acta Probat
09-05-2009, 11:01 PM
Sorry,
being contrary was not my intent. I do have a tendency to try to debunk positions as a method of examination. If we find ourselves discussing something again, it's all I'm doing. :)

Maybe we 'grew up' in different arenas with the MTG gig. The MAJOR tourneys in my neck of the woods kicked up around about the whole Legends release. It was barely formalized into what wound up being defined later as type I, and pulled a LOT of players.
Everything prior to that was minor, fun, and really revolved around ante. I remember being shocked when they implemented the 4 card cap, and people being relieved when you didn't have to worry about multiple lotus's etc etc...but prior to that, the 'big money' cards (so to speak) were 20$...and that was 3$ more than you could get for a lotus. (yes, duelist listed shivan at 20ish, and lotus I believe at 17???)

Anywho, as I've done a number of times, I digress.
We may have beaten this horse into the ground, truth. GW has a tendency to fluctuate, release a new edition, tweak in, drop, etc...weak profits issue seems to partially be due to global financial issues, as the 5th ed release was greeted shortly after by an economic 'blech' storm.

Personally,
I agree with some elements of anti-net listing. I think as people, we're lazy...not gamers, people period.
I think that when something becomes 'trendy' or 'hot', we will rest on the laurels of others' work and ride it into the ground. When that fails us, we'll blame the system NOT ourselves. We didn't develop the system we tried to use, so we didn't understand it completely and it bit us in the arse.
What I didn't agree with before was the categorization of one style of play as 'beneath' another. I hate an auto-'fail' response as much as the next guy, but I don't like a soapbox treatment either.

I think I've said everything that I can say on the matter,
but I quite respect the opinions that don't reflect my own...I just wanted to pursue them to their logical conclusion to see if there was anything I had missed that should be evaluated closer (other viewpoints, information etc...)

mkerr
09-06-2009, 09:02 AM
Right back atcha, Exitus! :)

I think it's important to say that I don't think there's a right or a wrong answer here (unlike all of my other dicussions where I'm 100% right and everyone else is part of an evil plot to destroy the game, lol). Far from it - this is a stream of trends, perceptions, worries and implications. It's rare that you get to talk about anything far reaching - it was really refreshing.

I'll leave you with this. You and some of the other responders have done a lot to assauge my concerns. But I think that all of us (players, tournament organizers, bloggers, forum users, etc.) should make sure that we don't forget that we're all here to have a good time and that your way to play is no more important or valid than someone else's way to play. And that "fun" needs to be at the heart of everything we do.

-- mkerr