The List or the Player?

[Murphy'sLawyer]

So this is to be a light topic in response to why my opinion is different than Mexicaninja's on the weight of a list build or army options to a player's skill. Now I do not in any way think MN is out and out wrong and I respect his opinion, I just have a different one from my past experience.

 

Now I have been playing other wargames for awhile and was quite good at them too and I did notice a common theme about my play style and enjoyment I got from a game. I like to play the Non-Netlist and want to rely more on my ability than the best list build that runs itself.

 

In Warmachine I found when I played toned down army lists I get solidly thumped pretty good most of the time. In fact if my Caster wasn't assassinated by turn 4 it was a moral victory. This was back when Assassinations carried the same VP's as other win conditions. Even when I told my opponent's I was bringing a non-competitive list ahead of time I found they still brought a tourney list because other lists made them feel uncomfortable and open to losing.

 

After a long time of frustrating games, years in fact I decided to give in and play the Lists. I absolutely went from losing often to winning 90% of my games solidly. It was like I just put my army on auto play and could see how I was going to win by turn 2. I found that play style so boring. There was very little in actual tactics and the list did everything almost on its own.

 

In Malifaux it was not much different, if I took a lower tiered Master I found myself being challenged quite a lot. Sometimes I even felt like quitting the game when Certain players who where there all the time kept bringing the filthiest lists they could put together. But then I could also go to my old reliable Master and List and I would begin to get those easy wins again as I let the list do its thing. I later found a better group and we self edited our lists to be fun for all and I brought a mid level list and gave everyone a great run for their army and I Had to think about my game and use real time tactics on the table and could not just let the list run itself. It was some of the Best Gaming experiences of my life.

 

So this brings me to my point. A list can and does almost win without much effort if it is built right and even though Fantasy does a better job at preventing that than all the other game systems I have played (around 12 I believe.) it still is open to That List.

 

Now Players like MN have seen That List enough times and brings the right tools to deal with That List that it doesn't seem to bother him that much even though it is going to be a very tough game for him and he very well might lose. But he knows he has a chance to win.

 

Those of us with less experience with Fantasy see That List differently. Because we know that those lists are built to make their opponent cry out of frustration and without the level of experience as the Vets here it looks hopeless unless their Über Lord gets sucked into the abyss by some random roll or a freak roll of bad dice happens to throw a combat your direction and you happen to just run their unit down. In affect it is a random chance that gives you a victory and not skill.

 

So what I am saying is that even though you feel confident in being able to beat those WAAC players those of us with less experience walk away from those games hating the hobby for a short time. I.E. We are not having a good time. So give us a little slack when we show some concern and please do keep giving us tips and ideas to counter them. MN you are the man when it comes to sharing your knowledge. thanks.

 

And for the other Vets out there this is for you too. What you may see as not such a big deal because you learned how to deal with those holy hells others out there may not even know where to start. So give them advice and don't bother saying there is no WAAC lists and it is the player and not the list. I have proved that wrong to a point many times in my gaming experience. The List Can Really Matter.

[MexicanNinja]

Well, I do value your statement and I do understand the frustrations with dealing with certain army lists when you are just starting out.  We were all there at one point.  The one thing I do strongly disagree with and will continue to disagree with is the comparison to other game systems.  I also played Warmachine/Hordes, 40k, and Flames of War.  All of those play completely different and there are elements from those and fantasy which aren't taken into consideration when making the comparisons.

 

Here's a short example for each of the three game systems I mentioned as to why I don't to compare fantasy to either of them:

 

1) Warmachine/Hordes- kill the caster and you pretty much win the game.  You can kill a general in fantasy and you could still lose the game.

 

2) 40k- You have 360 degree LoS and you don't care if your rear or flank is exposed to an enemy, unless you are a vehicle.

 

3) Flames of War- It's not how good your model is it's how good your enemy is at.  I.e, models with the 'veteran' rule are harder to wound because they know how to use the "cover" offered to them on the battlefield.  In all honesty, this was the most balanced game I ever played and only stopped because I couldn't find anyone that played this game during my first year I lived in the Portland area.  However, it still can't be compared to fantasy because it's based around real armies which have the actual tactics which were used during real periods in time.

 

Now, here's two problems for new gamers:

 

1) Themed armies- Many people build an army built around a theme and when/if you're a new player then this is kind of a bad thing to start with because you are refusing to use certain "tools" and you are not learning how those "tools" help make your army more competitive.  That's not to say that you won't eventually see how to overcome those obstacles but it certainly plays a role as being frustrated with the game.  I will always tell a new dwarf and/or empire player to invest in a cannon; however, I will also let them know that the reason to take a cannon is to keep their opponents with monsters honest.

 

2) Power gamers- This is just a bad way to learn how to play.  Unfortunately, this is how I learned the game and it took me some time to tone down my play-style when I left the gaming community.  If you are brought up in a power gaming community then that's how you believe the game is played because all you play is power gamers.  It may not be what you intended the game to be like but if you want to continue playing the game and that's the only group you have to game with then the lists you end up building are the ultra-competitive lists.

 

It ultimately comes down to the gaming community you participate in gaming with which helps control the balance.  For instance, I think WoW offers great opportunities for new players and veteran players to come together and learn the game together.  It offers a lot of knowledge to everyone involved at game night.  Everyone is learning something each night.  I have yet to go to a game night and NOT learn something new.  Three of us could play the exact same list and it will be played three different ways.  Are any of them wrong?  No, it comes down to the play style of the person playing the list and moving the models.  The majority of the lists brought to game night are all unique and are far from OTT.  However, there is still the opportunity for people to play more competitive games by prearranging a game with someone and letting each other know what you are expecting.

 

I could go on-and-on about why I like going to game night.  It's not for the escalation, it's for the wealth of knowledge, experience, community, attitude, and the welcoming environment it promotes.  Is the way the game is played there a bad thing?  No, because it continuously promotes sportsmanship through every game played.  Am I saying that the veteran's should only play the veteran's?  No.

 

Would I like to see something new offered during game nights on Sunday?  Yes.  It would be amazing if people would ask other players for "practice".   What do I mean by that?   It could be as simple as 30 minutes spent going over different shooting phase tactics, close combat phase tactics.  Heck, I have spent time on my own taking two units and doing a "mock" battle of what could/would happen if this charged that or that charged this and roll some dice.  This could go a long way.  I think one of the main problems with the "veteran" players and the new players is that the "veterans" don't know what the new players don't.  If questions aren't asked one could only assume that the other knows and understands the rule.

 

How many times have you talked with another gamer and assumed they knew something but during the conversation you discovered the didn't?  Wouldn't you think that if they took the time to ask a question which could probably be explained in 10 minutes or less they would then have at the very least a way to understand how to counter your move later during the game?

 

How many times have you talked with someone and you tried to offer advice but the other persons "ego" got in the way and they didn't want your advice but really needed it?

 

There's just too many outcomes and/or scenarios which could or couldn't happen from your post.  It's a great post, don't get me wrong.  You brought up a great example by using me as one of your points.  Yes, I do love a challenge.  The harder the list, the more I want to learn how to beat it.  Eventually it will happen.  It may take me more than 5 games to do it, but it will happen and then I am now forcing that person to change their tactics in order to beat me and they are now playing an old army with new tactics.  In the end, we both learn something.

 

Ultimately it comes down to the community on how the game is promoted and viewed.

[valourunbound]

How many times have you talked with another gamer and assumed they knew something but during the conversation you discovered the didn't?

 

This.

 

As a Skaven player, this is especially important. The Skaven AB basically ignores half of the BRB, substituting in some whacky rule instead. I often assume that, unless people ask, they know what my stuff does. That is very rarely a correct assumption. For example, if you've never played against the doomwheel before, you'd probably expect that it was a chariot with some lighting rod that it can fire. That statement is only about 10% true. Even if I do explain what the doomwheel does, unless I explicitly say "IT IS NOT A CHARIOT" the other player might still think that it is. This might just be a case of bad writing (Vetock...) but it could apply to any army book where something is an exception to the rule.

The tough part for me is that EVERYTHING in the book is an exception to the rule. I feel sorry for anyone that has to play against Skaven and is caught off-guard by a rule exemption. That is not how I want to win, but sometimes it happens.

 

 

I could go on-and-on about why I like going to game night.  It's not for the escalation, it's for the wealth of knowledge, experience, community, attitude, and the welcoming environment it promotes. 

 

I get to have a great time once a week, and then think about whacky new ways to build my army for next time. I don't believe that I'm bringing hard lists, and in fact I have not won most of my games during this league. I am thankful for the opportunity to try new lists. With the small points value, I feel like I can try the weird things, because if it doesn't work out, now I know, and I didn't waste someone's evening. This week, for example, you will learn why my clan is called the Wizarding Skyrats. It's going to be fun :)

[Murphy'sLawyer]

Wow, again a very insightful post and I am glad you understand MN.

 

As for WOW game night I too go for the knowledge and people there, not just the game or winning. Heck I have showed up many nights just to watch and learn from watching others play. (I have mentioned before I am a visual learner.) And on those night I still have plenty of fun and learn something new all the time.

 

As for Mock Battles to practice tactics I find that a great idea and honestly your other suggestions are right on the money. I think if players or myself even want to play a non-league game to get a different gaming experience I think that is a good idea. And honestly I don't plan on, and never did, winning a top place in the League. I am just in it for the fun of it. And I would love it if it stayed that way at WOW, and maybe even have it spread to other venues on different nights.

[Murphy'sLawyer]

This.

 

As a Skaven player, this is especially important. The Skaven AB basically ignores half of the BRB, substituting in some whacky rule instead. I often assume that, unless people ask, they know what my stuff does. That is very rarely a correct assumption. For example, if you've never played against the doomwheel before, you'd probably expect that it was a chariot with some lighting rod that it can fire. That statement is only about 10% true. Even if I do explain what the doomwheel does, unless I explicitly say "IT IS NOT A CHARIOT" the other player might still think that it is. This might just be a case of bad writing (Vetock...) but it could apply to any army book where something is an exception to the rule.

The tough part for me is that EVERYTHING in the book is an exception to the rule. I feel sorry for anyone that has to play against Skaven and is caught off-guard by a rule exemption. That is not how I want to win, but sometimes it happens.

 

 

 

I get to have a great time once a week, and then think about whacky new ways to build my army for next time. I don't believe that I'm bringing hard lists, and in fact I have not won most of my games during this league. I am thankful for the opportunity to try new lists. With the small points value, I feel like I can try the weird things, because if it doesn't work out, now I know, and I didn't waste someone's evening. This week, for example, you will learn why my clan is called the Wizarding Skyrats. It's going to be fun :)

You know Valourunbound I like your style and even though our first game had that awkward moment (I really shouldn't have said Misfire even if it was suppose to be a joke.) I did learn my Orc's limitation against other steadfast hordes and got me thinking. That and never waste Doomdiver shoots on a Doomwheel.

 

Hopefully we can get another game in sometime and I will keep my mouth shut when you fire your Warmachines.

 

Oh and next time let's shake hands before the game, you don't need to be sneaky and keep me from getting league points next time, you sneaky Skaven git. (I honestly found that funny and have no hard feelings about that.)

[AgentP]

I need to shake my cane and give my old veteran lecture.

 

I've been playing this game since 1988, when I was a junior in high school playing with my best friend on the floor of his house with the new and fascinating MTV on in the background.  And then I played it in college when a buddy had a table in his dorm and we'd roll some dice and and drink crappy college booze.  And then in my early 20s I lived with some roommates and we would set up a table and play on the weekends, while BBQing and watching TV.  And in my early 30's our buddy had a game table in his basement and we would come over to play and order pizza.  And to this day, my absolute favorite way to play this game is to go to Seth's house (WarlordGhrom), or have him come to mine, and we throw some bratwurst on the grill while the kids play, and we bust out a table, roll some dice, have a drink, and bull[big bad swear word].  

 

I played this game for 15 years before ever going to a tournament.  And during that time, not once, did I ever think about a list.  Hell, we didn't even build lists in advance, we just threw something together moments before playing.  And I never had a bad game.  Not once.  Ever.

 

My best advice I can give when conversations turn to list building, power creep, metas, anxiety about new builds, WAAC, etc., is to stop.  Do yourself a favor.  Grab a six pack, head to your friend's house, throw on some food and a TV show in the background, and bust out a 6x4 table.  Write your list on a napkin 5 minutes before you roll dice.  Play a leisurely game, where you chit chat more than study the table.  Play where you're more interested in the conversation than the game.  Play where you stop the game entirely for food, and to watch the next couple of football downs, and finishing the game is not nearly as important as just hanging out and having a good time.

 

That is the true soul of Warhammer.  Everything else is a veneer we impose on it.  Tournaments are fun, and a blast to attend.  But they warp your thinking over time.  Stop, and go back to the soul of the game.  When you do that, you'll find your center, and can move forward.

[Romes]

AgentP, while it's important that you've identified what you enjoy in the game, I also think its important to recognize that not everyone is looking for the same things. In my opinion, tournaments only "warp your thinking" if you assume there is one correct perspective from which to play the game. I believe there are many.

 

So I wanted to go back to the question of player or list: 

 

First, it has to be both. I think there's a lot of sentiment in the anti-netlist crowd that you "make up for the list difference with skill". What happens when you play someone of approximately the same skill with a much higher power level list? Yes, those people exist, and because you're both good players and they took an optimized list, you will lose most of the time. If you're fine with that, that's great, but it means the list does matter.

 

Second, I think there is maybe a false impression sometimes that lists are either hard or soft. To me there are four kinds of lists rather than two.

1. Casual list: A list designed purely on whim, the designer does not think about what they might be playing, doesn't think about how to deal with various other options in the game, and just plays what they feel like (think a themed all infantry DE list, it's not necessarily bad, but there are some matchups where it doesn't have a realistic chance of winning).

2. Optimized list (net list)(skew list): These lists are designed to be as powerful as possible, sometimes by the player themselves, but often by someone else. (Kairos Epidemus)

3. Balanced List: These lists are consciously designed to both not take the most obvious choices but to take some form of all the tools necessary to walk into a match and have a chance. At first glance it may look more like casual that optimized, because it may use odd unit choices or not match expectation, but the builder incorporated the elements they think they need. Balanced lists have a way to deal with war machines, a strategy against evasion, and a strategy against deathstars. They may not all be amazing options, but they are there, and every game is a real game. I'll post a copy of what I think is a 3k balanced DE list later (I took this to a soft comp event and received 14/20 for comp). (this is the kind of list I would take to casual games where I wasn't preparing for an event)

 

4. Optimized Comped list (most swedish 10+) These lists are designed to be as powerful as possible within a set of restrictions. When the restrictions are designed well, players attempting to build Type 2 lists will end up with Type 3 lists. I love this type of list because (like type 3) it can generally be beaten by any of the other types and lose to any of the other types depending on the dice and the player.

 

I guess the point is, Murphy, while I appreciate that it can be frustrating for new players to feel like they have no chance (save a cascade) going into a game, much of that really is a list design issue, and can be mitigated without taking net lists. There's a wide variety of power and versatility levels, and if you're committing the time to go to a tournament I think it's worth setting yourself up so that you don't often end up frustrated in no-win scenarios. Maybe this means getting list help from friends or playing some practice games. My group (especially the newer players) tend to circulate their tournament lists via email asking for opinions before turning them in.

 

As far as casual games go, that feels like a very different issue, and as Ghram said in a different thread, it's important to have a mutual understanding of what you're looking for in a game before it begins.

[Murphy'sLawyer]

Thanks for the response Romes. I will say I do personally pick my fellow gamers' heads for ideas and list composition often and luckily my game night fellows are always more than ready with answers. Honestly I avoid a lot of tournaments and the ones I loved were OFCC event and the Malifaux event the Warhamsters throw in the spring. Both events focused more on sportsmanship than top general.

 

I would say I find my gaming philosophy a middle ground between MN and AgentP. I am more a casual player that likes to bring a balanced list but will admit finding that balance is harder with some armies than others.

 

I also have to say I don't have as much of an issue now with the topic of the thread because the game night guys down at WOW are great guys and don't bring the nasty lists. But at other places my experience has been different. (Don't like those games where my opponent won't really look me in the eye and just brags about the list, which he copied off a forum, and then gloats when the inevitable happens.)

[WarlordGhrom]

I have to agree with Bronson in regards to what I personally enjoy about the game.  I do know that some people enjoy the power/perfect list building side of games as well.  When we (Bronson and I) were in college we had a game-friend that would always try to optimize his build in whatever game we played.  As the rest of us played for the fun/story/theme side we often had to modify the game to allow him to play his optimized build while evening the playing field with the rest of the players.  This is easy when you play with a DungeonMaster or other Gamemaster where you can impose or modify the story/game to allow for all types of players.  But with a hard and fast ruleset (minis for example) with no gamemaster it does cause conflicts when you have your type 1 vs type 2 (using Rome's breakdowns) playing together.

 

I think OFCC (taking a semi-tourney as an example) aims to be type 3s, but without some more comp restrictions we end up with anything from 1-3 which can and has caused some issues this last year.  So I think that is why it is moving to a 4 potentially to try and get back to that 1 feeling of causal fun gaming for everyone.

 

Now I have no problem with Tourneys or game groups or players being anything from a 1 through 4 type, but I do think it makes a better playing environment where it is clear to everyone which type of games they can expect prior to showing up with a list.

 

Now a player can always change things in regards to power level of a list.  Putting someone like Raindog with a casual list pushes it to a balanced list in regards to power for example :)

 

Going to end it here as I think I'm rambling at this point.

[Guest]

40k player, but I think this topic is universal.

How many times have you talked with someone and you tried to offer advice but the other persons "ego" got in the way and they didn't want your advice but really needed it? Wouldn't you think that if they took the time to ask a question which could probably be explained in 10 minutes or less they would then have at the very least a way to understand how to counter your move later during the game?

I do this in almost every game. I'd attribute it to one of the main reasons I lose most games.

 

On the other hand, my games rarely dissolve completely due to arguments and I think my opponents are gaining from my advice, even if they initially reject it.

 

The big challenge is that by giving suggestions or explanations of rules, I often explain my strategy to the opponent, allowing them win games with less difficulty.

 

I rarely have an opponent that explains their thinking or strategy. When I do, the games are much more balanced and we have a lot more fun.

 

I like to think that game plays itself, more or less, and the players just watch and comment on how things are going. Detached from the unreality of the game. Very enjoyable.

[valourunbound]

We should make that a scenario for the league.

It'd be called, "super villain monologue night."

There would be points for giving away more of your evil plot than the other guy.

 

On a more serious note, I understand your point. I think you're right. It sure beats playing the silent game with your opponent (which is what happens if you aren't friends with your opponent before hand). I actually would be down for playing that type of game, but only if the opponent was willing. Forcing someone to do that would only result in a worse game.

[Murphy'sLawyer]

I just remembered something. Last year I went to Raindog's Rampage with my Dark Elves that I had only been playing for a couple of months. It was an Infantry heavy (Corsairs and Black Guard) with a Kharidyss one min unit of Warlocks and two min units of Dark Riders list. Not a competitive list by Dark Elf standards. I expected to come out in middle of the pack and would have been happy with that. (I went to have fun, not for the win.)

 

In the end I came away with best general and was actually shocked when Raindog announced it. I would have rather gotten the favorite opponent instead but I got personality quirks.

 

This year I am going to Rampage again with O&G this time but I don't expect to get to the top tables by a long shot. Again I just want Fun games and hope my Orcs don't disappoint me by failing a bunch of animosity rolls and misfire my Doom Diver in the first couple of turns like it has done most of the time. I might even start calling mine the Doomed Diver.

 

So just making my point again by showing how I can play much better just by playing a more top tiered army. (That and when Mexicaninja doesn't attend the event.)