Jump to content

"That Guy" in your gaming group


Recommended Posts

so im watching a youtube video by HeyWoah right now and he is discussing choosing an army.  He is going into a lot of different factors, but its on Tiers right now.  An idea for all players to get fun games in, you could break up armies into tiers you agree on, then alternate game days into different tiers (if you have more than one army)  Week 1 you could all play top tier armies, Week 2 do mid-tier armies then Week 3 do a cool model/test army.  Then start from the top.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Paladork said:

it just meant more that someone was more interested in winning rather than having fun. 

What you say about him playing army lists that he doesn't even like simply because they are good is kinda sad, IMO. There is enough competitive diversity in this game that most gamers should at least be able to find a competitive list that they also like! That being said, I think it's important to recognize that you're creating a false dichotomy between "winning" and "having fun". There's a continuum of correlation between the two. For some players, winning or at least trying to win is an important part of having fun. For others it doesn't matter at all.

I think others have pointed out convincingly that this is a case of two players with different tastes. In a perfect world, you'd both compromise. That compromise can look like one of three things:

  1. You each agree to alter your approach to the game partially so that you play more competitive lists and he plays softer lists, thus maintaining at least some level of competitiveness while still having "good games." I can give you a bunch of advice on how to achieve this in practice, if you are interested.
  2. You agree to mix up your games so that sometimes you play tournament practice games and sometimes you play narrative games. That way each of you takes turns playing the other player's preferred mode.
  3. You can get creative and bend the notion of what is narrative and what is competitive. A couple of ideas on how to accomplish this: as someone else mentioned, you can turn each game into a "match" where you play one game with the armies you bring, and then switch to the other side of the table for game 2 and play the other person's army with the winner decided by total VP summed over both games. This gives your opponent a real list-building challenge. A more labor intensive and more outside-the-box idea would be to create your own "competitive narrative" scenarios. The idea in this situation is that your "opponent" would be competing against himself instead of against you. Design a battle-plan that is intentionally asymmetrical. For example, you start with overwhelmingly more points and the goal is for him to hold on as long as possible. Or you get waves of unending reinforcements and the goal is for him to rack up as many kill points as possible before he is wiped out. In these scenarios you get to use whatever models you want (and take advantage of your large collection, and for him the goal is to design as mean a list as possible and beat his own high scores.

Personally I think all three of these compromises can work, but they will require you both to buy in. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Paladork Not sure if you have a Twitch subscription to the Warhammer channel?  If so, some time ago there was discussion with John Bracken about how to be sporting (or similar title).  It was a really inspired discussion - John is well known for writing really competitive lists, but he went over how to play them whilst also having a good game - for both players.  A huge portion of it is down to attitude rather than the list itself.

One thing I'd also say to everybody, is that it's really easy to forget that AoS is at it's heart a game - it's intended for all players to actually get some enjoyment out of it.  If you both come away having not enjoyed the experience then why are you actually playing?  We're not talking about a super competitive grand tournament here - we're talking about a friendly round a club or somebodies house.

I love AoS because it's a system that provides so many different facets to the hobby, but it's really important for to all remember that the way we play isn't the only way and isn't the "right" way (because there isn't a right way).

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, jackmcmahon said:

If you consider not playing with someone because they are better than you, you are That Guy.  If you are not playing to win, it doesn't matter if you always lose.  If you are playing to win, list building is an important part of the process.  

If you are playing me KNOWING one of us won't have fun, you are That Guy. 
Not playing because you won't both have fun seems to be the most reasonable solution and best way to keep a friendship. 

  • Like 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We've had this kind of conversation several times and a few people misunderstand the problem. Especially dividing people into to groups - tournament players vs total noobs. There are all kinds of shades between these two. I guess most of the people are somewhere in the middle. They don't want to run lists consisting of 120 same models and two heroes that at the moment are perceived as the perfect builds for a given army, nor they want to play with made up rules/handicaps/... To be honest for me a person who plays currently the strongest army (DoK,FEC...) with the most powerful list observed from the internet is playing with an aid. It's like admitting you need help to take an advantage.

I have no experience in AoS tournaments but I've been to quite a few card games tournaments. At my local shop half the people were playing the same, most powerful deck. Playing against them was comparable to cleaning floor with a toothbrush - that kind of fun. Yeah, those decks won most of the time. Was it thanks to the players using them? Only partially. That was the reason I stopped coming there.

Don't be a handicaped guy who needs a bigger gun than his mates to play at the same level. Especially if it's not a tournament.

Edited by Aryann
  • Like 3
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps propose lower point games. Generally games around 500 to 1000 range are more swingy than 2k games in my experience. The added variance can swing games in both players favor. In the meantime you can work on slowly improving your list to be as optimal as possible?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Aryann said:

To be honest for me a person who plays currently the strongest army (DoK,FEC...) with the most powerful list observed from the internet is playing with an aid. It's like admitting you need help to take an advantage.

I have no experience in AoS tournaments but I've been to quite a few card games tournaments. At my local shop half the people were playing the same, most powerful deck. Playing against them was comparable to cleaning floor with a toothbrush - that kind of fun. Yeah, those decks won most of the time. Was it thanks to the players using them? Only partially. That was the reason I stopped coming there.

Don't be a handicaped guy who needs a bigger gun than his mates to play at the same level. Especially if it's not a tournament.

I disagree with this, what you're describing is a person trying to do the best they can. For me, both list building and gameplay are quests for perfection. I play strong factions because they lend themselves well to this - polishing a diamond is more fun than polishing a roadside rock.

For my competitive armies, I have never copied someone else's list, yet there always ends up being many similarities. If several people try to optimize the same faction, chances are they'll arrive at similar conclusions. As an avid tournament goer, I know some people that do copy other people's lists, and they tend to perform significantly worse than the players that actually design and perfect their own lists.

There's also something to be said about daring to let go of all excuses and accepting that when you lose, the fault lies with you as a player and not your army.

This is somewhat off topic, so no need to discuss it further. I just want to challenge the notion that trying to perfect your craft is "admitting you need help to take an advantage". That's a narrow-minded way to look at things.

Edited by Solaris
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Solaris said:

There's also something to be said about daring to let go of all excuses and accepting that when you lose, the fault lies with you as a player and not your army.

Me and my friend I play most of the games are both at the pretty same level regarding AoS. Nevertheless no matter how hard he tries to beat me with his Ironjawz he loses games against my Sylvaneth, Nighthaunt and Khorne armies. It's not his fault, it's Ironjawz to be worse due to older battletome. Also I don't take pleasure from beating him. We have 50:50 winning ratio when he brings his Chaos mix army. It can't be a coincidence. What I'm trying to say is that current "army power" is of high importance. I'm sure that if he played DoK or FEC I'd be on the losing side.

27 minutes ago, Solaris said:

This is somewhat off topic, so no need to discuss it further. I just want to challenge the notion that trying to perfect your craft is "admitting you need help to take an advantage". That's a narrow-minded way to look at things.

That's why I would distinguish firendly play from tournament play. I understand that the point of participating at a tournament is winning, thus you bring the best you can with you. However, when playing firends "just for fun" (do not confuse with narrative games) i think we should look for the most balanced play so that all sides are satisfied. In our games with Ironjawz in play we started testing some points adjustments so that we both feel equal.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Aryann said:

Me and my friend I play most of the games are both at the pretty same level regarding AoS. Nevertheless no matter how hard he tries to beat me with his Ironjawz he loses games against my Sylvaneth, Nighthaunt and Khorne armies. It's not his fault, it's Ironjawz to be worse due to older battletome. Also I don't take pleasure from beating him. We have 50:50 winning ratio when he brings his Chaos mix army. It can't be a coincidence. What I'm trying to say is that current "army power" is of high importance. I'm sure that if he played DoK or FEC I'd be on the losing side.

That's why I would distinguish firendly play from tournament play. I understand that the point of participating at a tournament is winning, thus you bring the best you can with you. However, when playing firends "just for fun" (do not confuse with narrative games) i think we should look for the most balanced play so that all sides are satisfied. In our games with Ironjawz in play we started testing some points adjustments so that we both feel equal.

Totally agree, I think it's the responsibility of both players to talk beforehand and adjust to their opponent's expectations when playing casual games. Sometimes I want to try a new list, sometimes I want to practice for a tournament and sometimes I want to roll dice and laugh at my Orruks doing stupid stuff and dying in droves. Talking to my opponent beforehand so we both know what to expect is key to a good gaming experience.

The previous point of letting go of excuses was related to playing top tier armies. When I play my DoK, I know that if I lose, it was because I made mistakes (most of the time). With my Destruction armies, there is always the feeling that I could have won if I brought a stronger list. There's a lot more pressure on me as a player to perform when I bring a strong army to the table.

Edited by Solaris
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have had similar experiences and feel your frustration.  But I will say this: Your friend isn't learning much by beating the ****** out of you. You, however, are likely learning and growing more competent with each passing loss. The net result of this is that you will eventually get better and better. Just stick in there.  In the meantime, try adding more randomness to the table to help offset the skill gap.  Employ Realm rules.  Set up special terrain. Take weird lists.  Bring some endless spells that ****** up his movement. Be unpredictable! 

Having your friend go easy on you would be a disservice to you and the game.  If you are not the best player in your group that means you are in the right group! Never be the smartest person in the room! If you are, find another room. :)

  • LOVE IT! 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/19/2019 at 2:31 PM, Overread said:

Dispel the idea of "casual and tournament" lists from your mind. Because whilst he latter has some meaning the former has no meaning what so ever that is universal to all players. There is simply a sliding scale of skill and your friend is simply higher up the scale than you by a noticeable margin. This means that trying to ask him to "play casual" can actually be hard for him to work out because you're sort of saying "hey build and play a bad army that you'd never actually build nor play." Which is why they still end up being good lists. 
There's also likely a difference in both of your play styles; if he's building lists better and is studying other players then chances are he's also playing better - making smarter choices so that even with a weaker army he'd still likely have an advantage.

have to completely disagree here, sorry :D

Would preface this by saying that I'm an averagely (closer to bad) player. There's some of us who prefer to run lists we like, rather than optimum lists. I run Eidolon of the Sea, because it's cool. What constitutes as fun is different for each hobbyist. 

 

I could run a netlist and do decently, but in the end of the day I won't have any fun with it. I rather run my list and play a more casual game.

Edited by Takaloy
  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/21/2019 at 3:11 AM, Kramer said:

If you are playing me KNOWING one of us won't have fun, you are That Guy. 
Not playing because you won't both have fun seems to be the most reasonable solution and best way to keep a friendship. 

Idk guess our friend groups have different attitudes. If any of my friends said I'm not hanging out because I always lose at (whatever we are doing) they would be mocked endlessly in a loving way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, jackmcmahon said:

Idk guess our friend groups have different attitudes. If any of my friends said I'm not hanging out because I always lose at (whatever we are doing) they would be mocked endlessly in a loving way.

that was the whole point. It;s not about LOSiING it's about not having FUN. and while they often go hand in hand they are to massively different things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Kramer said:

that was the whole point. It;s not about LOSiING it's about not having FUN. and while they often go hand in hand they are to massively different things.

If someone is not having fun because they don't like the game, that's fine. The majority of people don't think aos is fun.  

If someone does like the game, they will have fun playing it. 

If someone is so competitive that the only time they have fun is when they win, that's fine, too.

If that person wants me to stand around for hours pretending that I'm actually playing after building a purposefully bad army so they could lie to themselves about winning, ehhhh. No thanks.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, jackmcmahon said:

If someone is not having fun because they don't like the game, that's fine. The majority of people don't think aos is fun.  

If someone does like the game, they will have fun playing it. 

If someone is so competitive that the only time they have fun is when they win, that's fine, too.

If that person wants me to stand around for hours pretending that I'm actually playing after building a purposefully bad army so they could lie to themselves about winning, ehhhh. No thanks.  

Point one and two, fully agree. Two is false and four contradicts it in my eyes. I do like the game, I love it. Still had games which I didn't have fun. Same goes for you apparently seeing your fourth point. You call it pretending to play, but you are playing. So according to point two you should be having fun.
You just define playing the game to your point of view. Which if perfectly fine, but the flip side of that argument is that other people are allowed to do that as well. 

The OP enjoys playing, but doesn't enjoy his games against that specific opponent. We don't have that opponents point of view but most likely he doesn't enjoy it fully as well. So nothing wrong to come to a middle ground where both have FUN playing the game. 

But in your fourth point you make it about winning. Nobody is suggesting what you are writing, nobody is suggesting a purposefully bad army so people can lie to themselves, that's wholly your paradigm of having fun being exclusively tied to winning and losing. (again perfectly fine, but do realise that's not the 'truth' for everybody). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Kramer said:

Point one and two, fully agree. Two is false and four contradicts it in my eyes. I do like the game, I love it. Still had games which I didn't have fun. Same goes for you apparently seeing your fourth point. You call it pretending to play, but you are playing. So according to point two you should be having fun.
You just define playing the game to your point of view. Which if perfectly fine, but the flip side of that argument is that other people are allowed to do that as well. 

The OP enjoys playing, but doesn't enjoy his games against that specific opponent. We don't have that opponents point of view but most likely he doesn't enjoy it fully as well. So nothing wrong to come to a middle ground where both have FUN playing the game. 

But in your fourth point you make it about winning. Nobody is suggesting what you are writing, nobody is suggesting a purposefully bad army so people can lie to themselves, that's wholly your paradigm of having fun being exclusively tied to winning and losing. (again perfectly fine, but do realise that's not the 'truth' for everybody). 

I reread my own post and realized it could be read as me meaning I only have when winning.  Haha sorry, what I meant was that any game where you compete inherently has the goal of winning.  How do you play chess? Move your pieces around to checkmate them and prevent the same to you.  How do you play soccer? Kick the ball into the net and prevent the same to you. Etc. Descriptions of games in which you compete are written as "how do you win?" Because the object of the game (not the objective of inidividual players) is to win.  Playing the game, then, is attempting to accomplish this objective.  When you stop trying to win, you stop playing the game.  I'm not saying I only have fun when I win, I'm saying to play the game you have to try.  I am saying that usually people complaining about competitive players are just as competitive, because they went to the internet after losing.  

2&4 not contradictory because trying to win is how you play the game.  Not trying=not playing. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suggest we start a fund to pay for and unleash @Jack Armstrong to face off the "That guy" and a film crew to record the event for historic archive purposes.

It would be like waking up the winter soldier.

Ultimately it would help in the task of bringing back slaanesh as well - tears of sorrow following the taste of defeat which followed the pride and arrogance of being 'that guy'.

  • Like 2
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Kaleb Daark said:

I suggest we start a fund to pay for and unleash @Jack Armstrong to face off the "That guy" and a film crew to record the event for historic archive purposes.

It would be like waking up the winter soldier.

Ultimately it would help in the task of bringing back slaanesh as well - tears of sorrow following the taste of defeat which followed the pride and arrogance of being 'that guy'.

Funnily enough as a random aside, one of the groups I used to play 40k with (back for 7th edition) turned out to be a bit of a power gamer.  Although we made the best of it, the games we played against them tended to be a pretty one-sided affair with our more thematic armies generally bearing the brunt of their super powerful units.  That was until the day one of our group decided to show that they too could bring along powerful units and proceeded to wipe the army off the table.  No words were said, but the message was clear - "just because you can, doesn't mean you should".

  • Like 5
  • Haha 1
  • LOVE IT! 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/19/2019 at 8:31 PM, Overread said:

Note he doesn't sound like "that guy". "That Guy" is not just  a competitive skilled player; he's a cheater who will win at all costs and who will cheat/deliberately pick on newbies; who will be obnoxious and generally a poor sport to play against etc... Ergo your friend isn't a bad sport it seems; its just a skill difference between you both that is causing the issue. 

So, if the OP came in with, say, Order Serpentis, Skal BCR (etc.) and lost to a fine-tuned Skaven, DoK, FEC (etc.) net list, this is evidence of a "skill difference"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Kyriakin said:

So, if the OP came in with, say, Order Serpentis, Skal BCR (etc.) and lost to a fine-tuned Skaven, DoK, FEC (etc.) net list, this is evidence of a "skill difference"?

Potentially, but due to the inherent difference in the power of different armies the variation in skill difference might be less. 

It's still true that a really top end power-list can lose if controlled by someone with a lack of skill. Power lists are not simply "put down and win no matter what". You get the same thing in other games too like Magic the Gathering - a top deck in the hands of a novice can still lose very easily (if not more so because they won't know the spell combos). 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Dead Scribe said:

It takes a lot of bad play for a person using a top end tournament list to lose to a bottom feeder list.  Its possible sure, but not a common thing that I have seen.  

Give me a top tournament DoK or FEC Gristlegore army and you will be shocked how easily I could lose playing them.

  • Haha 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...