Am i a morally and ethically bad player?

[monkeyboy30672]

One of the veteran players I play a lot with had a crew with Pandora that completely destroyed everyone he went up against, including me three times in a row.

 

Umm... can you give me his list...?

 

Just kidding!

 

 

In order to get out of competitive mindset in 40k I am going to petition some of the players in my 40k group to start playing narrative game missions.

 

How about everyone makes whatever list they want, and then, SURPRISE, everyone has to give that list to someone else. If one makes a "cheese-list", maybe it's a good tactician that can out-wit it. That could be really fun, and the next time lists are made, maybe they will think twice about how much of a steamroller they make...

 

It could teach both the list maker AND the opponent about tactics, both on the gaming table and in the Army Composition. I have said many times in my gaming career that "I lose most of my games in the Army Composition phase"...

[The Godlyness]

I am a power gamer through and though. But I also know the limits of my opponents that I play regularly with. If they want to play a good hard game overkill throw a list together to see the synergy with it and if I lose cool if I don't cool. When I first got into malifaux I fell in love with Pandora due to her fluff. People hate(d) Pandora in 1.5 and I can see why. Some one mentioned that Collette was a difficult master to play so I picked her up. Did not lose much with either. Mainly how the schemes were worked ie sabotage on that bodyguard Collette I am now 4 points ahead. But to play her dancing at a high level took effort and planning. For a few months before gencon I learned how to play Collodi since he was the fastest objective runner this side of the breach. Combined with Pandora that I learned to be a dick with I won gencon. BUT BUT BUT any person who played me would attest that it was good game and they enjoyed it. At the end of the day is what matters having fun. Two or more in some cases getting together and playing a game they love.

[Mako]

I think Brugly covered my perspective way better than I have!

 

Fluffy, not particularly optimised lists, but still playing the game to win. And if there's a big skill differential, a bit of advice to make sure I learn something from the stomping

As long as everyone is still laughing, it's all good.

[The Godlyness]

Also if you thoroughly stomp some one see if they will switch lists with you with the same setup. And luck aside you outplay them or get out played then it's not the list it's the player. This could be readily seen for a veteran 1.5 Colette player and a new one. If you have seen the 2 you know what I mean.

[Hagisman]

Umm... can you give me his list...?

Just kidding!

How about everyone makes whatever list they want, and then, SURPRISE, everyone has to give that list to someone else. If one makes a "cheese-list", maybe it's a good tactician that can out-wit it. That could be really fun, and the next time lists are made, maybe they will think twice about how much of a steamroller they make...

It could teach both the list maker AND the opponent about tactics, both on the gaming table and in the Army Composition. I have said many times in my gaming career that "I lose most of my games in the Army Composition phase"...

I find that if I stick to the same game types I get more and more competitive. Variety can help mitigate it.

[HalcyonSeraph]

 

Personally, outside of tournaments, I don't like to play against crews where I feel like from the beginning, no matter what I did, how good my strategies are, I had no chance of winning. I find it both boring and pointless, as I don't really learn anything from a filth list, or a first edition Alp Bomb, other than "know what the opponent is bringing and build a list specifically against it" Which actually would be cheating. I can take an uphill battle. Hopeless battles are something else. If I see another player feeling like they are in a hopeless battle against me, I try to give them advice and help them get stronger. I'd rather face someone who can beat me half the time than someone I'm going to take out every time.

 

 

That was sort of my point from earlier - if you frequently find yourself coming up against opponents against whom you have no actual chance of winning, then the game itself is very flawed. I dont think M2E has stuff like that really at this point, but 1.5 definitely did, and that was a flaw of the system. 

[Inquisitor Wall]

I certainly don't understand the negativity toward players that work to maximize the effectiveness of the games/armies/crews that they are playing.  Constructing an optimal list for your objectives is one of the major components of the gaming experience, and there certainly is nothing wrong with building a crew around that in mind.  Not all players have that in mind when playing a game.  My two big issues with this comes from two different types of players.  I am not a fan of an opponent that is going to intentionally "bend" a rule or try to make things work in a way that the rules clearly contradict, or work to capitalize on what could be a loop hole.  I find that very unsportsman, and removes a great deal of fun from the game.  My second major issue comes from players that strictly play a fluffy crew/army and then actually complain when they lose.  If you have a crew that is fun and you have constructed it solely because all of the models have cool hair or whatever, that's great, but complaining when you lose with your crew is just as unsportsman.  I tend to see a big issue with the second group, because typically people that have constructed something that they see as fun, or fluff orientated also seem to have a certain emotional connection (maybe they spent a month converting all of the models to look exactly how they wanted them) with the models they are using.   

 

I tend to play crews that I think will be fun, or simply because I want to try out something new.  However, that mindset also needs to be accompanied with the understanding that I probably wont win against someone who has been fine tuning a competitive list, but I go into the game with that in mind. 

[Justin]

I remember when I first started playing Malifaux, putting down a list with Seamus and punk zombies. My opponent got huffy because the zombies weren't fluffy enough. I'm not really sure what he wanted...me to use all belles?

 

There are certain players that impose their own strict fluff interpretation, but those are their own rules, not the game's rules. On the other hand, in certain systems, there are certain lists that are so powerful and abusive that playing them is legitimately unfair. In those situations, that is the fault of the game's designer, plain and simple. I'd like to think Malifaux no longer has those but, being the current designer, I leave that judgement up to you.

 

And, finally, there are those players that ruthlessly try to misinterpret every rule to their own advantage. This is the biggest gray area, because sometimes there are misinterpretations that are simply legitimate confusion. On the other hand, I found myself writing a rule the other day that said something along the lines of, "When another model cheats a card within aura6..." and I had to legitimately stop and think, "Do I need to clarify that the physical model needs to be within aura6 and not just the card? Is a player really going to cheat a card with a model across the table, place the card next to this model, and claim it's within aura6?"

[Dracomax]

I honestly think a lot of the negativity you are seeing is not towards "optimised" lists, so much as some of the broken lists seen last edition. If you can wipe out an entire crew in the first round, and the only way to do anything against it is to bring a crew that is only useful against that one list, even though I don't know if I'm going to be faced with it or not, I'm not sure how you can say it isn't a problem.

[Dracomax]

And, finally, there are those players that ruthlessly try to misinterpret every rule to their own advantage. This is the biggest gray area, because sometimes there are misinterpretations that are simply legitimate confusion. On the other hand, I found myself writing a rule the other day that said something along the lines of, "When another model cheats a card within aura6..." and I had to legitimately stop and think, "Do I need to clarify that the physical model needs to be within aura6 and not just the card? Is a player really going to cheat a card with a model across the table, place the card next to this model, and claim it's within aura6?"

I wish I didn't believe this...

[The Godlyness]

This is the biggest gray area, because On the other hand, I found myself wrbecauserule the other day that said something along the lines of, "When another model cheats a card within aura6..." and I had to legitimately stop and think, "Do I need to clarify that the physical model needs to be within aura6 and not just the card? Is a player really going to cheat a card with a model across the table, place the card next to this model, and claim it's within aura6?"

Not sure if joking.... if not I would hate your job for a time. How does one misconstrue that?

[Claymore65]

To be fair, in Malifaux it's very possible to build a fluffy list that's also competitive. For example, taking a crap ton Freikorps models with Von Schill is really the best way to build him. Levi works great with a lot of his core models (Ashes and Dust, Rusty Alyce etc), whereas Sonnia loves having more witchling stalkers around to spread the burning. That is one thing I love about Malifaux. Bringing a fluffy list can actually work very well. Not to mention, if you want to, explain the fluff yourself. Why does Von Schill have 10 rats following him? He was running away from a horde of rats when he randomly encountered his foes. Why is Bishop hanging out with Jack Daw? Well, Jack Daw does show up randomly (in his older fluff at at least). Maybe Bishop was surrounded by Lilith and Nephilim, when suddenly Jack Daw appears out of nowhere with his guilty to fight. Sure, Bishop is probably a little bit scared, but he'll take any help he can get.

 

That's not to say unfluffy lists aren't ok too. The important part is to have fun with your list. If you really want to use Hannah wtih Lilith, go ahead! It's what's fun for you. When it comes down to it, it's just a game. Let people have fun with it how they like.

 

On a more rleated note, I agree with most people here. I'm not personally very competitve, but I do try to win. It's more fun for both of us that way. I like it when the game is more easy-going, letting people take their time to crack jokes or laugh at hilarious events. I'm also very careful with new players, since getting curbstomped is absolutely no fun at all. Still, it's a great game, and as long as everyone has fun you can be as competitive as you'd like.

[Justin]

Not sure if joking.... if not I would hate your job for a time. How does one misconstrue that?

 

Not joking.

 

And by reading it literally. The card IS within aura 6.

 

Although I suppose you could argue that auras need LoS and cards don't officially have a Ht. But does not officially having a Ht just make it Ht 0? Wait, when I place cards on the table, can my models move over them? 

 

It's weird. I've seen a number of threads that were basically just one player squinting really hard at a rule resulting in a line of argument that would make the game implode.

 

Anyway, point being there is always a way to squint at a rule and stop it from working. Assuming M2E is relatively balanced, I'd say that's the only way I would get annoyed at how a player chooses to play. I'd love to just make every rule perfectly clear but, well... *points up to my last example*

[hypoking]

Cards aren't even game constructs! You may be wandering into some Heart of Dorkness territory here.

[Justin]

Cards aren't even game constructs! You may be wandering into some Heart of Dorkness territory here.

 

The rules for aura just reference "objects". (Pg. 50, auras, second sentence of second paragraph).

 

*sets rulebook on fire*

[rythos42]

Eric has a great post on his blog about "that guy" and "squinting", which you're reminding me of Justin.

 

http://www.ericjgames.com/2013/08/that-guy-ruins-games/

[Tye_Informer]

I play Malifaux for fun. Winning against a good opponent is fun. Good narrative is fun. Helping a new player craft an awesome story with you is fun. Grounding a new player into the dirt is not fun, watching them leave the store with their head down is not fun. Seeing the moment a person decides they are just done playing this game is not fun.  

 

That doesn't mean you can't bring a competitive list to play a competitive player. It does mean that bringing your same beats-everything list every single time you play, no matter who you are playing, is a jerk move. If a guy has played 8 games of Malifaux and lost the last 7 games, then bringing your uber-competitive list to smash him into the dirt is a jerk move. If winning is all that matters to you, then play someone else, if not then try something that you've never tried before. You could even tell them that you are trying out a new thing and not sure how it will work, let them be in on the testing of it so when it does amazing, they can feel some joy too, they were in on the plan.  I had an opponent, in a fun game, tell me about a new thing he was going to do, and I changed the way I played so I could help make sure it worked so we could both see it in action. I lost, but it was still fun because I got to see a cool interaction between models and then figure out ways to counter it in future games. 

[The Godlyness]

The rules for aura just reference "objects". (Pg. 50, auras, second sentence of second paragraph).

 

*sets rulebook on fire*

Does this I can use them terrain and block los. You can't see though them so that is the obviousthing is to give them the blocking ttrait. I build a wall with my hand I am now inviolable. I think you are squintingat your oown rule book. Step away play a game of malifaux with just guild guardsmen and have some fun. Have mcmourning as your leader.

[Hateful Darkblack]

Some games I play much less competitively than I could. Some games I give my all to stomp them.

 

After each game, I really like to go through what happened, discuss what each of us did right and how we could have improved, and hopefully both learn from the game.

 

If I'm being especially competitive or harsh, or a lot of rules arguments come up, I'll probably offer to buy sodas, compliment their figures, etc.

 

What I expect from someone across the table: That they be polite, that they keep rules arguments reasonable and honest, that they show their cards when asked without hesitation, that they not throw an angry fit, and that they make a reasonable attempt to proceed forward at a decent pace (modified by circumstances). Players who refuse to show stat cards, who regularly make mistakes to their own advantage only, or who make up rules arguments in hopes of being unpleasant for competitive advantage are players I find unpleasant.

 

There are folks in my game who are super-competitive, who have played the "broken" lists, and who mop the table with my troops and then bring out a slice of bread to mop up the last of the delicious VP for themselves. Some of them are my best friends and I'm glad they play! (One player I'm thinking of specifically has brought Alp Bombs to the table in play. But he also has a habit of walking friends to their car after a game to make sure that they don't have any car problems. He's amazing and I'm grateful for him!)

[rgarbonzo]

Ikvar the simple answer is yes, yes you are, but only when you play Gremlins because Gremlins are awesome. 

 

Note: The preceding sentence was meant to be demonstrably tongue-in-cheek, however, due to the circumstances of written versus verbal communication this note is included to remind everyone that it is the authors lame attempt at humor and should be taken as such. Even if it isn't very funny. 

[rancor709]

I'd agree with a lot of what's been said above. I enjoy the competitive game, and the way it's portrayed is something of a passion of mine.

 

Players also tend to conflate conduct and competitiveness into one issue. They equate a higher level of competitiveness with the lower level of conduct. The dreaded phrase 'power gamer' is used as derogatory term for a competitive player.  They are of coarse two separate issues and I've never experienced any link between competitiveness and having poor conduct.

 

Bending and breaking the rules is a conduct issue, not a competitive issue.

This All Day this. There is High Level play and there are behavioral issues. The two are not related in anyway. The majority of Games I've had with the more competitive players have been some of the cleanest games I have played. Because play standard is also something we tend to pride ourselves on. A jerk is a jerk, be they competitive or not, and though shalt not Noob stomp. 

[rancor709]

Ikvar the simple answer is yes, yes you are, but only when you play Gremlins because Gremlins are awesome. 

 

Note: The preceding sentence was meant to be demonstrably tongue-in-cheek, however, due to the circumstances of written versus verbal communication this note is included to remind everyone that it is the authors lame attempt at humor and should be taken as such. Even if it isn't very funny. 

I found this clever, and I found the Underlying Note absolutely amazing!

 

Note: The views and opinions of the above are not my own, and shall not be transmitted, rebroadcasts or disseminated without the expressed written consent of the national Football league and NBC sports. All similarities to figures either living or dead is purely coincidence. had this been an actual emergency we have distributed oxygen masks. Opinions are the opium of the masses. 

[Simbrian]

I have one friend who plays Resurrectionists exclusively and as a result he is very proficient with all of them. With the M2E rules McMourning is downright nasty with his various poison abilities. My friend only uses his "Poison Bomb" strategy during League matches that he would like to win. For regular casual play he restricts himself to less... powerful strategies.

 

I think the point that I am trying to get across is that there is room for balance. Different tactics for different occasions.

 

I like to play for fun most of the time. I do silly things to make the game entertaining. My personal favorite is throwing away high cards to keep my Jackalope alive.

[rancor709]

The keeping Jackalope alive is a great minigame to play. Changing it up is not only good for your opponents, but its also good for you as a player to do. It broadens your game and how you view the table. 

[rgarbonzo]

I found this clever, and I found the Underlying Note absolutely amazing!

 

Note: The views and opinions of the above are not my own, and shall not be transmitted, rebroadcasts or disseminated without the expressed written consent of the national Football league and NBC sports. All similarities to figures either living or dead is purely coincidence. had this been an actual emergency we have distributed oxygen masks. Opinions are the opium of the masses. 

Hopefully I can win Post of the Year!