|
| |
| by Danny Internets | October 30th, 2009 - 9:49 pm
|
|
In order to examine the differences between players concerned with winning and players concerned with competing it is necessary to take a look at the various paths towards victory in Warhammer 40,000. I categorize these methods into 6 inter-connected domains: (1) Strategy, (2) Tactics, (3) Match-up, (4) Mistakes, (5) Luck, and (6) Cheating. This article examines the first four.
Strategy
Strategy is your over-arching framework, your master plan from the point of conception of your army. Strategy begins with list building which in turn determines what assets your army will have at its disposal and, by extension, what you can or cannot hope to accomplish. Your choices will impact how you play 40k and they should always be made with fulfilling mission goals in mind. Each and every selection will affect the vital balancing act that is army composition.
Because mission goals are normally unknown at the outset of each match, whether rolled for randomly in a pickup game or kept secret prior to tournament rounds, strategy has a necessary fluid component. Based on the scenario presented to us we must be able to evaluate the abilities of our list, the abilities of the opposing list, and commit to a course of action that will lead to fulfillment of the victory conditions. This often involves identification and leverage of strengths, but can also include psychological elements, such as misdirection and surprise. Some strategies are geared towards combating a list and others towards combating an opponent—both are valid, effective, and can be employed concurrently.
An example of a employing a strategy would be building a mechanized, Chimera-based Imperial Guard list and pushing your tank line forward to establish a line of scrimmage on the enemy’s side of the board. In an objective-based mission this would ensure that you have control over the battlefield and, hopefully, the majority of the objectives. Leveraging your mechanized strengths (durability and volume) you can make it very difficult for the enemy to break through your line and reach objectives in later turns.
Read the rest of this entry »
|
| |
| by Danny Internets | October 23rd, 2009 - 9:22 pm
|
|
A Competitive Gamer is, obviously, one who is concerned with competition. But what exactly is competition? Competition is a struggle between two opposing entities for a mutually desired but not mutually attainable goal. Games in general are not categorically required to have a goal as we have already established that play is not a means to an end, but an end itself. This is evidenced by the many games that have no outcome, no winning or losing (tag, hide and seek, jumping rope, etc.). However, there is no shortage of games that do have specific goals and have both winners and losers.
Like play, the struggle is an end but not a means for the Competitive Gamer. The Competitive Gamer revels in an equally matched struggle and he is just as happy to loser a well-played game as he is to win one. The outcome is subordinate; it is relevant only to the extent that it is determined by skill. The fun derived from the game is sporting and cerebral, not egoistic.
Sportsmanship rarely crosses the mind of the Competitive Gamer because sportsmanship comes naturally by means of self-interest: to gain an advantage through any means other than the application of skill would compromise the authenticity of the competitive struggle and dilute the fun that can be derived from it. It’s Adam Smith’s self-regulating “invisible hand” theory in the 41st millennium. The Competitive Gamer is an athlete turned nerd with an uncompromising love and, more importantly, respect for the game, and for gaming in general.
Read the rest of this entry »
|
| |
| by Danny Internets | October 22nd, 2009 - 10:02 pm
|
|
In the grim future of the 41st millennium there exists a false dichotomy. It’s a division conceived of by embittered gamers and perpetuated by lazy groupthink. I speak of the age-old “play for fun” versus “play to win” argument. This talking point will be familiar to anyone who has invested any significant portion of time or energy into the gaming community. A brief visit to any of the general discussion forums of the major online discussion boards of the 40k community (Dakka, Warseer, Bolter & Chainsword, BoLS) will usually yield at least one active thread directly related to the topic. The scripted arguments unfold predictably and the breadth of participants gradually narrows as snarky posters get bored and reasonable voices are shouted down, leaving a scant handful of internet personalities slinging insults and vying for who gets to be king for a day. Moderators inevitably lock the thread, rinse, and repeat.
Face to face discussions of the topic play out differently but are often equally worthless. Even within our small communities there exist factions that are easily discernable by veterans and anyone with a keen eye for social dynamics. Let’s face it, 40k is nerdy hobby and our circles tend to over-represent individuals who shy away from confrontation. Applied as a general rule, it should be no surprise that conversations on emotionally charged subjects, such as this, take place only in contexts where offense is least likely to be perceived. As a result, these conversations occur between like-minded individuals within the group, thus avoiding dissenting opinions and any worthwhile discussion. In the end it’s just a bunch of whiny twats complaining and patting each other on the back for preaching to the choir.
That last statement might seem at odds with my first. If there exists a real ideological split in the 40k community then how can I claim the dichotomy is false? It is important here to make a distinction between a true, fundamental dichotomy and the manifestations of a perceived dichotomy. Regardless of truth, a perceived mutual exclusivity between having fun and playing competitively always results itself in subpopulations of gamers who identify more with one side over the other. Subtle differences in opinion are enhanced through repeated confrontation with one another ultimately causing a clear stratification. Call them sides or camps or whatever label suits your group best.
Read the rest of this entry »
|
| |
| by Danny Internets | October 22nd, 2009 - 9:49 pm
|
|
My hiatus from the 40k community has left me mostly in the dark with regards to more recent developments (e.g., release of the Space Wolves codex) so I’d like to touch on something more generally applicable to the game, and to gaming in general. This is partially prompted by a post on Stelek’s blog, but these are feelings I’ve harbored for some time and which I have not been afraid to discuss on more than one occasion elsewhere.
The next post is the first installment of what started out as a simple rant but gradually morphed into what amounts to a series of essays on both Warhammer and competitive gaming in general. The full text is far too long for a single article, so I’ve decided to split it into several parts and milk it for all it’s worth. Feel free to read them at your leisure. Hopefully they’ll spark some interesting comments, though don’t be put off if I decline to chime in on some points because they may be addressed at length later on.
And now, on to the show…
Email Danny Internets
Dashofpepper: In response to the question, “What will you do now?” I offer this insight into the skills...
Daemon-Archon Ren: My black/red dice are WAAC (ask Stelek) my army is not. Also, funi artykal
Green7: HAHAHAHAHAHA !!
Killswitch: Screw you and your british jokes D:<!
Killswitch: I don’t think his that lame lol ;)
Loading ...
