It was that dragon, Serpent Spam, rearing it's many-headed rage of S6 and S7 shots, with a power-gamer at it's controls. I responded with anger, that particular expression of fear that seeks to quell with the destruction of what inspires. I've scraped my victories out against it, but the feeling I have when playing against it is markedly unpleasant. It's a combination of the fear of defeat and the burning rage we all have against the dreaded 'netlist.' But wait, I'm focused on defeating my opponents, and I've played this list so many times it's approaching netlist. Damnit!
This is the feeling that I've obviously been inspiring in my opponents. We're a group of 20 with about 10 core gamers. I consider everyone who plays in our group a friend. While some of us are going for competitive play, all of us are looking for the elusive fairy 'fun.' I've been so focused on winning that I've failed to appreciate that losing is an unpleasant sensation. Specifically, when the game is over before the models hit the table. I've been spending time making sure my friends have an unpleasant experience - this makes me a bad friend.
There's been a good amount of attention paid to what makes a legal, acceptable, balanced, etc. list. We're a west coast group and we play west coast, which means two detachments, limited LoW selections. We're headed to the LVO and we play like it. But what makes a fun game is much more complex than limiting the inputs in a broad fashion. It calls for limiting the inputs in a specific fashion, game by game. It takes some soul-searching, or at the least, a compassionate analytical analysis. Every game should be fun, informative, or both. Look at the battlefield. Will both of you be getting something from the match?
If you're an experienced player you can usually tell how much a chance a given list has against yours. If the answer to "what will this game be like?" is "a crushing victory for me, a sad defeat for my opponent," then take the high ground: don't play. Scientists don't waste time re-proving Newton's laws. You don't need to test whether SMS spam can defeat foot-slogging Orks. You can better spend the time discussing tactics and list building with your gaming colleague rather than smashing their dreams.
This is all because: if you're a *real* competitive gamer, you need to be playing worthy opponents. There are plenty of unfair matchups in the 41st millennium, and it's not fun to be on the losing side. If you know you can beat your opponent, mix it up. Take out some of your list cheese and put in some fluff. You can practice positioning, board denial, psychological warfare. Playing uneven matches actually can make you a worse player. I learned this at the BAO, when I made some serious tactical missteps because I'd convinced myself the DE couldn't beat my list. My hubris was almost my downfall, and only hot dice pulled me back from a crushing defeat.
Some options we've come up with for making matches more even:
"Walker Tax": you and your opponent both have to take X points in something that is as ineffective as a dreadnought. If you're tired of playing the same matches with the same lists, because you're pretty even and neither one wants to lose by mixing it up.
"Challenge Matches": I challenge you to play with/without X. Examples: no 2+ saves, FMCs, Psychic Powers. Your opponents gets a counter challenge.
"Make My List": You make your opponent's list. Or, if you're familiar with each other's armies, you make a list and then swap armies.
Remember, this is a hobby, and hobbies should be fun. None of us are playing with 'that guy,' but some of us are in danger of becoming him, myself included. There's a place for WAAC - in WAAC on WAAC violence. The rest of us can get more enjoyment and growth as tacticians by playing matches where both sides have a chance to win.
No comments:
Post a Comment