Are you "competitive"?

[Galas]

Competitive people are totally fine. Casual people are totally fine, as are narrative people.

The problem is when they mix. You can't have fun with people that approachs the game from a different standpoint that you.

I'm pretty bad at Starcraft, for example, and I just don't want to play how the game is meant to be played in the high competitive-end. I have tons of fun playing arcade or friendly matches with my friends, building a bit of everything, etc...

I entered 2-3 times ranked and... my god. They ripped me another one in the low end of the back! And I'm pretty sure that in general competitive people don't like to have a "easy win".

The kind of reasonable competitive people that goes to play agains't other competitive people and don't enter a "Noob friendly scale league" for people to learn to play and if they like the game with a Kunnin Ruk or Sky-fyre spam from day 1.

[MrCharisma]

I don't want to paint 40k players with a general brush with this comment. I do find that 40k players bring a much higher level of competition to the AoS scene. I'm not a 40k player but I find the "netlist" and "win at all cost" type players have this background.

Is this something that is reflected in the UK scene too? 

[ageofpaddsmar]

On 04/08/2017 at 3:06 PM, Auticus said:

Taking advantage of rules, yet remaining within the rules, is one of the top skills a competitive player possesses.

In fact, when I was part of a traveling GT group, we had regular weekly rules-lawyering sessions where we'd argue a rule one way and then have to successfully argue that same rule the other way.

They use a lack of rules to their advantage like floating through buildings as there are no building rules.Or having a model on a bigger base (which is fine) then saying it should be on a smaller base so can fit somewhere it shouldnt.But they are happy for the big base when pumping out buffs.

[Rhellion]

21 hours ago, Spiny Norman said:

VERY competitive players must be VERY sensitive.

I anyhow can't explain your prompt scolding to the very placid single sentence - quote myself - " Seems the poll shows a quite reasonable attitude towards the hobby."

- quote you -

"OMG, does he imply other voters DON'T show a reasonable attitude?! Does he specifically address ME?! Does he imply there is only ONE REASONABLE ATTITUDE around?! DOES he put his opinion ABOVE OTHERS', especially MINE?! - OMG I MUST STRIKE BACK QUICK, HARD AND DIRTY TO SECURE SURVIVAL!"

Even after trying to explain my comment you STILL freaked out. 

I guess you just can't win on the internet.

[rokapoke]

6 hours ago, Rhellion said:

I guess you just can't win on the internet.

Man, you're competitive about everything!

?

[DarkBlack]

I got into wargaming because I enjoy playing a game "seriously" and really testing my mind against my opponent, but some flavour makes it more fun (or I would play chess). GW games are poorly suited to that.

I also enjoy (from time to time) games that are more about just having fun and doing things without thinking too hard. GW games are good for that.

[DarkBlack]

On 8/2/2017 at 4:34 PM, Trout said:

I don't think this poll really covers the full spectrum. What about people who enjoy both competitive games and casual games? I enjoy building the most powerful list possible to play against other people who did the same and I like the more narrative casual style lists for playing against everyone else.

Basically similar to this. I find that other companies (Mantic and Corvus Belli for me) make games that are well suited for the former and GW games are good for the latter (not great for the latter).

[Rhellion]

1 hour ago, rokapoke said:

Man, you're competitive about everything!

?

You made my morning!!! 

[Thostos]

  Sure,,im competative:)

 But dont need to win games for satisfaction..for instance I started playing GW games with 40k just before 6th dropped,,and played Orks for a couple years.My record with them was probably 2-30 or something,lol. I "win" in many aspects of my daily life with my wife,my kids,my job,when I get to the mini`s table  in the evening for a game,my need to "win" has already been satisfied:)

  I do the Toy Soldier hobby for fun only,,certainly I play to win and,as far as AoS goes,I hover around a 50% w/l with most all army builds I do.I play in and organize and run events locally,,have yet to actually win one but dont care either way,just there to have fun and play the game.This doesnt mean that I play armies that I know will get pouded over and over like I did with my 40k Orks,I do builds that  have a chance in getting some wins now and then,yet still contain fun models and abilities for me to enjoy and my opponent to be challenged to win against.

[karch]

On 2/8/2017 at 4:11 PM, daedalus81 said:

Are you WAAC, narrative, or straight up just a points hater?  Make your mark.

Not quite points hater, but I feel they've been tacked on as a last minute thought to salvage sales (which is fine, since GW as a company needs to sell to survive).

I'll stick to narrative-ish games with my mates. Points are a poor substitute for player-agreed balance and generally get in the way of what we look for in a game of AoS (though we're obviously a tiny minority)

[wayniac]

Honestly the more I think about it, the more I think that a lot can be done with a relaxed style of play, as long as both players agree to not abuse it (which, I find, is often the hardest part).  I tend to prefer smaller point games anyways to a full 2000 points, so this tends to always lead me back to thinking why not just do Open/Narrative play without points, but limit to like say 5-6 warscrolls and a couple of heroes, pick a narrative scenario and go.   But too many people are caught up in "no points = bad"