GHB17 - massive regiments. Horde armies rejoice.

[Ollie Grimwood]

40 or more strong units do Mathhammer well but combat units of that size rarely live up to the hype. They tend to get in their own way leaving models out of range and if charged by a clever opponent you'll find most of your unit is out of reach even following the pile in move.

I frequently run 20 strong units and even then they struggle to reach maximum efficiency. I've also had them totally neutered by well placed charges.

Of course missile units don't have that problem but so far I'm only aware of combat units (although only clan rats and Stormvermin at this stage) having the discount.

It may also be worth remembering that a lot of war machines gain bonuses against larger units.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ollie Grimwood]

To a point yes.  Large units are *more difficult* to use than shooting units because you have to get them in a position to maximize their contact.  However... I have not found that incredibly difficult to max out their math.

War machines do gain bonuses against larger units yes, so it will depend on if this causes people to start taking more artillery.  Right now in my neck of the woods artillery is very rare because against elite small armies its never really worth it.

 

Well our experiences vary on the first point.

 

Surely though the fact everyone in your area is running small elite armies and given that you say they like to go for the most efficient /powerful stuff it should suggest that large units do indeed need an extra boost beyond what is already available? It's too early to say if they've got it right but I guess we'll have to see how it plays out.

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Freejack02]

5 minutes ago, Auticus said:

Fix the 10% that was broken in the first place.

The fix has not even been released yet - perhaps give the new GHB a chance to arrive and then we can more accurately assess the impact the horde change will actually have on games. 

[Kosmion]

Well it always felt wierd being able to legitematally field 20 clanrats as Skaven anyways..

i believe this will make horde based armies more viable AS WELL, i really dont think a 40pt drop will suddenley make cheap infantry broken all of a sudden

[Sleboda]

2 hours ago, Freejack02 said:

The fix has not even been released yet - perhaps give the new GHB a chance to arrive and then we can more accurately assess the impact the horde change will actually have on games. 

We could even, you know,  play some games with the new points, new rules, and new battleplans or ... radical I know .. stop thinkning that damage output is all that matters. 

[Arkiham]

16 hours ago, Auticus said:

See lol.  Everyone sees the benefits of free points.  Its certainly not mandatory but not taking advantage of free points puts one at a disadvantage when one's opponents will be maxing that candy aisle out.

It's only free if you were taking them already..you're paying more for some trashy unit "woo. Bargain"...

It's only a deal if you need it.

It's like buy one get one half price. Wow! ... hang on im still paying 50% more for something I don't really want.

Hordes getting cheaper is only good if you need them, or already play them, if you're going up against things which already over kill your unit then you aren't really making any gains at all; just making your opponents models better value 

[Mirage8112]

 

5 hours ago, Auticus said:

Thats the question of the day.  Is it really free?

To me, if a model should cost 6 points and its discounted to 4, then you are getting 2 free points.

If a skeleton costs 6 points with 1 attack, 6 points with 2 attacks, and 6 points with 3 attacks, you're getting some free points right there making them have 3 attacks.  Further discounting them would give you more free points.

You're approach makes sense, but I think you're looking at it the wrong way. 

I'm sure you remember back in the days of hordes from WHFB, that units who outranked the enemy got steadfast, and an extra rank of attacks. These two things were the "bonus incentive" to run a large blocks of troops. Ideally the incentive was there to offset the difficulty of running a huge block of models. It was indeed unwieldy, it was difficult to set up a charge when there was scenery, it made you more vulnerable to counter charges ect ect.  The problem there was that the incentive was so damn good, it pretty much far outweighed the downsides. It was clearly a case of what you were talking about earlier where it was "just too good to pass up." 

Scaling attacks for larger units makes sense with AoS's ruleset, since number of attacks is determined by number of models within a certain distance of an attacking model. In WHFB, the number of models that could attack was determined by number of ranks + B2B contact. The larger the block the more attacks it got. That is to say, the number of attacks was set by the core rules. In AoS the number of attacks is set by proximity which means adding extra bodies to a unit doesn't actually change it's damage output. It changes the amount of damage a unit can soak, but if anything that's a poor trade-off for the expense of adding models to the unit. If I'm paying 6 points for 1 model to get 1 attack, it stands to reason that if I pay 12 points for 2 models I should get 2 attacks. But if the core rules mechanic creates a scenario where the model I paid for can't actually attack because it's not in range, then those 2 six point models aren't actually worth an even amount of points. Basically the core rules create an attack bottleneck, whereby adding models to a unit doesn't give any tangible benefit. 

The solution for that is scaling attacks, where the models that can't attack basically transfer their attacks to the front rank. Thats not free points, that's a mechanic intended to allow a large size unit bypass the attack bottleneck and gain extra damage output as you pay for the unit size to increase. (as it should be really.) 

Now, units that start to get into the 20+ unit size onward up to 30, 40+ models have additional handicaps above the attack bottleneck. They're far more vulnerable to charges, they will be unlikely to benefit from cover, and they are unwieldy as F#%k. I think the "massive hordes" rule is intended to offset some these drawbacks. And really, the benefits are nothing like steadfast. Even the bravery buff if fairly minimal and is certainly not enough to offset the amount of casualties a unit can take when charged by 3-4 units. (again if you're running a unit 30 strong it's very reasonable to assume that battleshock will be far worse than being charged by a single unit).

So really, it's not free points. Scaling attacks isn't free attacks, it's assuring that models added to the unit can actually effect combat outcomes without having to physically be at the front lines. We all like dioramas, but one of the big criticisms for WHFB is that unit sizes past 10 models basically made anything extra glorified wound markers. At least now with scaling attacks based on unit size (and really only for battleline units mostly) models contribute to damage output (albeit) indirectly.
 

41 minutes ago, Auticus said:

Damage output is the heaviest factor powergamers take into consideration when min/maxing a list.  So while it is not all that matters, it is the heaviest contributing factor in what gets min/maxed and thus netlisted in lists.

Now if there are scenarios present that neuter damage output where tabling your opponent doesn't win you the game and get you max points for it, you might be on to something.

A model (not unit, but "model") has a particular damage output when you spreadsheet it. That is to say, it can expect to put out/take an average amount of damage based on it's core stats. When you talk about "power coefficients" thats really what you're talking about, because thats the number louisville's gaming is calculating. This method of determining damage output worked very well in WHFB because the damage output was determined by the core rule set and statistics. Combats could be "swung" by taking advantage of a few battlefield modifiers (flank charge, charging downhill, fortifying building ect ect.) but calculating the cost to utility ratio, or the power coefficient worked because when to units met in combat the actual fighting was more or less predicable. 

But things don't work that way in AoS, and trying to determine worth by power coefficients alone is an anachronism. Firstly unlike WHFB, force multipliers are not governed by the core rules, since damage output is largely a function of proximity. You can very easily have a unit that get pinned because of it's positioning and can't bring more than 1/2 it's model count to bear in a fight. That would never have happened in WHFB. In AoS damage output is wild variable, which why things like aura's, abilities that allow escape from combat, hell even changes the pile-in range can make the difference between a unit eating a full plate of attacks vs having to shrug off 1-2. Then there is the activation mechanic. That alone drastically effects combat outcomes and was something that didn't exist in WHFB. It also drastically changes the predicability of power coefficients. 

-----------------

All in all the things mentioned above are uniquely balanced to AoS's rule set. The entire ruleset which includes battleplans, and some of these new rules we're seeing (new rules of 1, new army selection guidelines with allies). I do not think point levels for AoS are drastically off. Nor do I think that 10% of the game is undercosted. I do think some points values can be adjusted but I don't think it's as bad as all that. Using power coefficients alone to determine what's the best for "gitt'n gud" is like trying to pull off a flank charge in AoS. Yes you can do it, but it doesn't work the same way and won't give you the same result as it did in WHFB. 



 

[Sleboda]

3 hours ago, Auticus said:

Damage output is the heaviest factor powergamers take into consideration when min/maxing a list

 These same powergamers who wanted to toss out Blood & Glory and Watchtower (where damage output was a hugely reduced element)?

Shock.

Change the game so that Purple is all that matters, build Purple lists, and then tell people that they found the best Purple.

Amazing how that works.*

Speaking of Purple,  did this same folks complain about Steadfast and unkillable heroes but also capped magic dice to avoid one of the built-in balances to both (Purple Sun)?

In my experience, the game breaks hardest after people "fix" it.  Unintended consequences and all that. 

 

*Side note edit: Pretty much every event comp pack I have ever seen has (unintentionally?) made the powergamers more poweful. By narrowing the experience, limiting what they have to math/tactic out, powergamers get fewer upset results against luck newbies. The very thing comp tried to accomplish  - making a more level playing field for all - actually played directly into the hands of the best players.  Awesome. 

Reason # 73 why I hate house rules.

[BunkhouseBuster]

I'm going to try and be an optimist on this whole situation of cheaper models for max-unit size, and look at the benefits in addition to its detriments.

PROS:

1 - New playstyle.  It encourages a player to fill their army up in a way that was not utilized much by some armies.  We will see a lot more of a playstyle different from the elite-heavy one that has been prominent this past year.  Now players need to look to their armies for the tools and strategies to handle large hordes of models.

2 - More bodies on the field.  It looks pretty cool when painted up.  I don't think anyone can rightly argue this point

3 - More Battleline units (maybe?).  Encouraging players to bring the basic grunts over the more elite models is a good thing in my book.  Not every unit would really be present in every army, nor will the big flashy units and models be present in every battle (fluff-wise).  That said, do we know if this will be affecting all units?  Or just Battleline units that are tarpits?

4 - Wahammer 30K/Horus Heresy does it.  I don't know of anyone who plays 30K/HH that complains about it, and you see it there, except with a "per-model" discount instead of the blocks.  For example, a basic Tactical Squad of 10 guys costs 140 points, but the unit can add in additional model for 12 or 11 points each.  This is done to encourage larger blocks of basic guys over taking the minimum requirements to field the biggest/flashiest/most powerful units.

5 - Encourages sales of more models.  Seriously, this is to be expected.  While GW has been making tremendous strides in the past two years to recover customer loyalty and trust, they still exist to make a profit like any of their competitors.  This change is a way to encourage players to pick up new armies and purchase new models without a new rulebook and line of army books every few years.

CONS:

1 - New playstyle.  For those of us (including me) that don't have the time or effort to study the tacticas, battle reports, or tournament results, any change is something else that we need to study to stay "competitive".

2 - More bodies on table  = more cumbersome games.  Hordes take more time to pull out of their cases, move on the table, take more dice to accomplish anything, and take more time to pack back up.

3 - Discounted units means more points for Other units.  If the way GW handles the cheesy units is to make them more expensive in points, then lowering the points of the Battleline units will cancel each other out to a point.  We won't know the full effect of this until we can see the points costs off all the other units, but it is something to keep in mind.

4 - Too much too quickly?  The incentive to take full size units before was the bonuses received for having N number of models in the unit, on top of these units already (typically) being Battleline.  Now, it's even better.  Was it really needed?  Or did GW overreact on fixing something that wasn't quite as broken as believed?

Time will tell on all of these.  Really, the changes mean diddly-squat for me.  I might be able to afford the next General's Handbook, depending on other expenses that are coming up in my life (including a Kickstarter...).  All I really want is the points values, and even then I'd be okay with Power Levels as a metric for roughly estimating army size and power

[Mirage8112]

1 hour ago, Auticus said:

While that makes sense, that is also not my experience.  When I use my giant blobs of 40 skeletons, I can get most of them into contact with the enemy pretty much all the time unless Im playing vs an elite small model count army.  My opponents can also do this as well.  Particularly when said scaling attack unit has spears with a 2" reach.  

That is why to me it is free points.  

When I run three units of 40 spear armed skeletons, I can drop about 200 dice in my melee phase just from them alone.  Thats kunnin rukk numbers.

Now give me 40 more skeletons which I'll be getting after discount and not changing anything in the list since they will be bonus.

40 skeletons all getting attacks? all 40? That seems highly unlikely to me. I've played against orc hordes, I've run marauders in units 20+. I've also seen bunch of melee dwarf armies and on tables with proper terrain (usually 7-10 pieces) I've rarely seen that happen. Either big blocks get a number of models penned in by terrain or they're limited because of the pile-in rules. I'm not saying that I've not seen it happen, I'm saying that I count one one hand the number of times I've been able to put an entire block of 20+ dryads in combat all at the same time and that is with a 2" reach. 

But 2 big hordes units are a different story, because the frontage spreads out. 2 blocks of 20-30+ troops all in combat at the same time, then that's actually fairly balanced; both units are getting the same bonuses. Against small blocks of higher-tier troops there's no way your getting the benefit of 40 skeletons all in combat, and in that case the attacks should definitely scale, because those extra troops in the back are contributing to the combat. Again not by attacking directly but by letting the models in front of them get a few extra attacks. 

That's not free points. That's allowing models, which you've paid for, to contribute to combat. If anything without scaling attacks there's no reason to take blocks of basic troops in units bigger than 10. Think about it, whats the advantage? Without giving models that can attack extra attacks, they're basically just sitting there buffing bravery. Your basically playing what, 80-120 points for +1 bravery on a unit that already will be likely to lose 7-10 models from combat so having 1 less model flee isn't exactly a fair exchange for the points. Scaling attacks get around that, and I'd say without it just about every single battleline unit in the game would be overcosted and we'd never see battleline in anything greater than min sized units. 

 

1 hour ago, Auticus said:

As to the arguments over power coefficients... I get all that too.  I started using power coefficients in 1999 and by using that model centered mostly on output as well as a few other things (like the old fear auto-break) I was able to consistently place in the top 10 in GTs.  Just for some perspective, thats why I fully trust that model.  Because when I stopped using power coefficients, I also stopped winning all the time and dropped into the middle of the pack.

Im not saying power coefficients don't tell you something about how units will perform. They clearly do. What I'm saying is power coefficients as you are using them worked better in WHFB than in AoS. They still work, but they don't tell the same story. 

 

1 hour ago, Auticus said:

Unfortunately there is no way to objectively prove any of that but warhammer and indeed any tabletop wargame is a mathematics system based on probabilities and statistics.  I think we can all agree on that.  Power coefficients are numbers that are designed to keep your probabilities at the top of the bell curve, which makes it more statistically likely that you will defeat someone who has less of a power coeffecient than you do, in scenarios where killing your opponent is the primary goal.  

I get that but the thing you seem to be missing is that AoS does not generate combat results because of modifiers from the rules set (+1 from charging, +1 from charging downhill, +1 for out ranking, -2 from wounds from challenges ect), it's generated combat results by physical proximity on the board. That is not something you can spreadsheet because the only way you can calculate that is to assume a number of variables before you do your math. It doesn't matter how good the math is, if the presupposed variables don't apply (can the whole unit get into combat? Are there any modifiers to roles? Can the unit activate first? ect ect) then the numbers don't mean anything.  Force multipliers didn't really exist in WHFB the way they do in AoS and not counting for that means data is missing.  
 

1 hour ago, Auticus said:

So again thats why when someone tells me "dude... that's not how AOS works" and I look at the last couple of years and when I've used the power coefficient scores the winner is usually always predicted by the math in any scenario where tabling someone is a victory, why I will continue to not agree with that statement until someone can show me how its wrong... because I'm a results-oriented person.  I don't just follow a methodology that has not been tested or doesn't work.  

If the numbers were coming out wrong and the results were constantly contradicting the numbers, I'd be very open to adjusting my standpoint.  Its either that or I'm 20 odd years of using a flawed system that has just be extreme happenstance worked out very well.

I've already gone through and looked at number of tournaments and compared the results to the stat sheet. In a number of cases I've seen armies with lower power coefficients beat armies with higher ones. Furthermore I've not seen a pattern of tournament winning armies that had the most mathematically superior stats according to the coefficients provided by the spreadsheet. So there's that...

Furthermore, while I appreciate that your personal gaming experience within your group is largely driving your opinion on the matter (that is to say, you trust your own experience rather than somebodies anecdotes about theirs), I have to say that correlation is not evidence of causation. You provided a lot of anecdotes about how well you do when you build your lists by the spreadsheet, but I haven't seen any concrete lists, battle reports, or analysis of your games. I don't know what kind of terrain you play with, how many battleplans you rotate through, house rules and play style and the model collections you and your opponents have access to.

Without knowing those things and picking them over with a fine tooth comb, the bast I can say is that your experiences are the result of your own local meta. Maybe tournament lists make there way in frequently. But what I can tell you is that if math was the sole determining act we'd see that reflected in tournament results. And we don't. We do see a few things frequently, but it isn't like the days of WHFB when the top 5 lists from a tournament were 2 Chaos warriors armies with chariots and chimera spam, 2 Vc lists with triple terrorgeists and 1 dark elf blood cauldron bomb. Tournament winning army lists have been surprisingly diverse (I'd like to see some more FEC and general death armies, but we'll see what the future holds) and that alone makes me skeptical. if it as as you say, it would be evident in a large portion of competitive games outside your meta. But it's not. That's why I've said in the past that it must be something particular to your gaming group or your particular style of play. I'm not saying L2P, I'm saying there's probably another explanation. Kunnin' Rukk' might place frequently in the top 5. But it's not every top 5 and it certainly isn't always 1st. 

if that data doesn't carry outside of your experience, then it doesn't carry. Full stop. It doesn't mean it isn't useful. It doesn't mean it doesn't apply in some way, it just means it isn't as integral as your making it out to be. If you opponents painted all their models red, and won every game, would you be arguing that red models are the way to win games and should get points adjustment? No. it doesn't mater how many times those two facts ("red" and "winning") are present together. It doesn't carry outside your gaming circle, it just doesn't carry. 

[chord]

I'd love to see a discount for liberators.  Taking 30 of them could be a fun shieldwall.

[polarbear]

Though AoS is slightly more constrained than the sum of all human action, perhaps appealing to the authority of spreadsheets and formulae is similarly the pretence of knowledge. Not to say it's without use, as all information is valuable, but these things might not be as telling as they can appear.

[Sleboda]

20 minutes ago, Auticus said:

Except when years of experience shows that they are?  I mean - there are many dozens upon dozens of manuals written on the subject from as high a level as you can get in game theory.

 

How many of those manuals have been based on situations involving terrain, tables, and vague rules that all vary from table to table, game to game, etc.?

Poker and black jack? Sure.

Risk and M:tG? Perhaps.

Warhammer and Age of Sigmar? Not so much. 

 

Btw, it would help the discussion,  I believe, if we had a more clear picture of your terrain, scenario,  friendly agreement environment.

Not that you are,  but for all we know you are playing of 3x3 tables with no terrain. Fer instance.

[Mirage8112]

Just now, Sleboda said:

Btw, it would help the discussion,  I believe, if we had a more clear picture of your terrain, scenario,  friendly agreement environment.

Not that you are,  but for all we know you are playing of 3x3 tables with no terrain. Fer instance.

+1

[mdkinker]

I think part of the problem people might be having is in thinking through probability. Squigs may grab a tournament heat here and there (with moonclan grots, btw, which are high powered in Auticus' system of valuation) and matchups + battleplans + generals can throw some loops in things (which is awesome!), but we can look at units and think about which one is a better choice most of the time. We can then create armies with synergies that are most likely to win most of the time. It would be a strange argument that argued against this.

I play in an environment where if something's not fun to play against, we stop playing with it (or just play with less of it, etc.). Others aren't in that spot, or don't want to be. I'm happy I don't have to worry about power gaming ruining my experience. I think some are in a gaming circle where power gaming could potentially ruin their AoS experience (who wants to lose all the time, especially when "winning" is so much more important, in that circle). I also think that power gaming is a legitimate way to play games. In my experience it often leads to some condescending interactions and myopic play, but some are willing to bear more of that in order to participate in a gaming culture that pursues mastery.

I think a big part of the problem people are having, specifically with Auticus lately, is the mixture of this power gaming perspective mixed with AoS and the doomsday scenario of a gaming group moving away from the game. I didn't play WHFB, but it sounds like power gaming was more prevalent there and that a large chunk of the people who left when AoS dropped were power gamers. It seems like people envisioned AoS as a clean reboot and a "back to the fun stuff" opportunity. What I would say is we should keep each other's different notions of "fun" in mind (along with how partial and valid our own form is). 

[Freejack02]

54 minutes ago, Auticus said:

Look at every broken build currently in the game.  Please tell me where math does not show you that its broken.

Well, when the criteria for what you deem to be "broken" is only judged mathematically on your spreadsheets... it's a bit of an impossible request. 

Sayl is rated as an "F" in efficiency by your metrics - do you see his impact on the game as broken?

[rokapoke]

21 minutes ago, Auticus said:

The assumption when playing a game like AOS for the uninitiated is that they'll pick up a 2000 point force and their opponent will rock up with a 2000 point force, and that both sides will be roughly equivalent in balance.

That of course is hardly the reality, nor has it ever been in a GW game.  (arguably in any game, but the disparity seems worse in GW games)

Wll in my experience this has been the case with AoS. Since the points were released in the General's Handbook (the first instance of GW-official "balance"), every game I've been in has been relatively closely contested. Maybe one or two games that got out of hand in my favor or in my opponent's favor, but by and large I've been in balanced games. That's not everybody's experience because balance is also dependent on the players - nobody in my play group is out to break the game. The balance is fine when nobody's trying to break it. 

[Terry Pike]

6 hours ago, Auticus said:

My community overwhelmingly are esports kind of players that treat any game that they play as the super bowl or world series or professional gaming circuit.  

I wish I had access to this kind of community outside of playing at tournaments near where I live. I don't play people in the city I live in because they aren't competitive and the few times I've played them in the past it wasn't even a game for either of us (I don't play them because I don't want to put them off the hobby). The only 1 I could play competitive games with moved to another city for work

[Ollie Grimwood]

To be honest I've always found true competitive players to be a bit of s rarity. When working for GW, across three stores I probably could only point to 2 really serious tournament players (granted that's a while ago and obviously limited).

From what I've seen of the UK tournament scene it seems that only the top half to third of the attendees are really attempting the win it or play competitively and the rest are simply there to play some games and have a laugh rather than power game.

I'd say though in the U.K. we do have a much higher density of players due to the population size and geography, which makes finding like minded gamers a bit easier.

It's really interesting the different perspective people have in different areas.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Rhellion]

2 hours ago, Terry Pike said:

I wish I had access to this kind of community outside of playing at tournaments near where I live. I don't play people in the city I live in because they aren't competitive and the few times I've played them in the past it wasn't even a game for either of us (I don't play them because I don't want to put them off the hobby). The only 1 I could play competitive games with moved to another city for work

Is Universal Battle still a thing?

[Terry Pike]

I never used UB, like actually being at the table

 

[wayniac]

To be fair, I also think that the UK (Europe in general, perhaps?  Maybe even "Not the USA") are more reasonable in backing off.  What I mean is you can take a very competitive player in the UK tournament scene and they can play hardball when it comes to SCGT or ETC or whatever big tournament, but back off and play a more relaxed or fun list (maybe even without points) at their local club or store on game night.  They have an "off switch" and know when to pull all the stops and when to not.  For whatever reason, in the USA my experience is you tend to see less of that; a USA tournament player (and this is purely anecdotal) tends to only play hardball, and anything else is "playing wrong" or "insulting them" for asking them to tone down a list.  I've actually seen this; I've seen "hardcore" (not really, but they thought they were.  "Tryhard" is the word I'd use, but it's kind of used in a derogatory manner) players get frustrated with a casual player because the casual player didn't bring a hardcore list to a regular game and I mean like downright "This may escalate into a fight" kind of anger, insulting the person for "wasting their time" with a bad list.  Instead of the hardcore player tuning down their list, it was the expectation that everyone else has to "git gud" and meet them on their level, and even thinking that they tone down their list was an anathema.  Something tells me that you don't see that, at least not as much, in the UK scene.

[Kirjava13]

I am so happy that the general attitude of Austrians (I live in Linz) trends more towards narrative, story-driven and less competitive games.

[BunkhouseBuster]

41 minutes ago, wayniac said:

To be fair, I also think that the UK (Europe in general, perhaps?  Maybe even "Not the USA") are more reasonable in backing off.  What I mean is you can take a very competitive player in the UK tournament scene and they can play hardball when it comes to SCGT or ETC or whatever big tournament, but back off and play a more relaxed or fun list (maybe even without points) at their local club or store on game night.  They have an "off switch" and know when to pull all the stops and when to not.  For whatever reason, in the USA my experience is you tend to see less of that; a USA tournament player (and this is purely anecdotal) tends to only play hardball, and anything else is "playing wrong" or "insulting them" for asking them to tone down a list.  I've actually seen this; I've seen "hardcore" (not really, but they thought they were.  "Tryhard" is the word I'd use, but it's kind of used in a derogatory manner) players get frustrated with a casual player because the casual player didn't bring a hardcore list to a regular game and I mean like downright "This may escalate into a fight" kind of anger, insulting the person for "wasting their time" with a bad list.  Instead of the hardcore player tuning down their list, it was the expectation that everyone else has to "git gud" and meet them on their level, and even thinking that they tone down their list was an anathema.  Something tells me that you don't see that, at least not as much, in the UK scene.

 

21 minutes ago, Auticus said:

We have a few people in our community like that.  The phrase "you are wasting my time" comes up fairly regularly when they play games because their opponent didn't bring a busted list.

We had about a month ago one of our powergamers go on a facebook rant about elitists trying to tell them how to play the game and that telling them to tone down for a casual campaign game was insulting and telling them how to enjoy themselves, and that it seemed backward in a competitive game to handicap yourself when the onus should be on the other player to get better and not field weak lists and it wasn't their fault they were willing to go out and buy optimal models when their opponent didn't want to despite any reasoning otherwise.

This.  The classic schism that has shaped the games-workshop dynamic for as long as I've been a part of it.  

This is why I push for tighter math.  It would be a wonderful world if more builds were completely viable against powergamers.  The schism would lessen.  The casual vs competitive would always exist but be less an isssue.

I clicked the like button for these posts, but not because I "like" them, but because I can appreciate the sentiments presented.  While it wasn't that bad in my local 40K group, there is an expectation that players should "get better" at the game in order to keep up since so many of the players fancy themselves to be "competitive".  I mean, sure, they go to the national events as a group and all have matching t-shirts, but I can't fathom how they can justify leaving their families at home for so long just to go be better with toy soldiers than other players (which, thanks to unequal points balancing, is as much an exercise in spending to chase the meta as it is in tactics on the tabletop).

That said, one of our local players just posted on FB that we was "humble-bragging" (is that even possible?) about being in the top 5 worldwide 40K players.  The player in question is also the friendliest of any of the local 40K "competitive" players, and the only one I would consider ever playing since he doesn't come across as a try-hard, meta-chasing, cheesy shenaniganizer.

Don't even get me started on Warmahordes players.  That was an exercise in patience as I am continually told "your army struggles, and you need to bring Units X and Y with Warcaster So-and-so with as few of the cool Warjack models as possible".  Never again will I play Warmahordes at the local shop.

[wayniac]

Well to be fair, that changed in Warmahordes.  But yeah, and I picked up Warmahordes because I had delusions of having a game where I could, in fact "git gud" and compete in.  It didn't work that way in practice, but it was a lofty dream.  Never in Warhammer though, because I firmly believe Warhammer is not, never really was, and never really will be meant for competitive play, it's just been shoehorned into that role (poorly).  Like and analogy I once gave, about building a shed to house tools and then deciding that you could sleep in it; you could, and it might not even be terrible, but the shed was made for holding tools, not for sleeping in.