Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  1. knasserII

    Interdictor? I barely know her!

    Our group used to alternate First Player. I mean... it just seemed so obvious that you'd do that! :D Anyway, posting mainly so I can ask the OP who makes that gorgeous playmat that you're using? I wantssss it!
  2. knasserII

    This drawing explanes the Millenium falcon

    Tell me. In the Original Trilogy.... How many times did you actually see Han Solo plan something? That... Um... Well, never. Good point!
  3. knasserII

    This drawing explanes the Millenium falcon

    Turning still sucks... In Space, Inertia is jsut as much, if not more, of a problem Your physics is good, but you're wrong! It's less of a problem because the distances are far greater and you can see much further. Torsion is only a problem for those who don't plan ahead.
  4. knasserII

    How much fighter packs?

    I would love to try things like 8 A-Wings, but the cost would be exorbitant. It's in no way necessary to use such lists. One thing to note is that a lot of people play Vassal games online and in Vassal, they can obviously try things without consideration of cost. So you may be seeing lists that people only play online and at the table-top, they will play something different.
  5. My apologies - I did not explain myself very well, and I think Vykes gets to my intent: The two spectra that I was referring to are maybe better referred to as this: Narrative vs. Competitive Social vs. Anti-social By WAAC, I mean someone who is anti-social - for whom the enjoyment of the opponent is, at best, no concern. So, yes, I absolutely mean it as a pejorative. I have absolutely no use for that type of player, and my community is blessed not to have any such people trolling around. However, I understand that these creatures do exist. The more interesting spectrum is between narrative and competitive. As I read what they're writing, Joe Boss Red Seven and Chucknuckle are of the narrative kind, where the game should be a reflection of the Star Wars universe, and it's not just a 'game'. The enjoyment comes in a large part from sharing a story with your opponent, who is not an opponent in a zero-sum contest, but is partially engaged in a positive-some collaboration to create a story. I have considerable sympathy for that, because I also yearn for narrative content. For the competitive player, the enjoyment comes from a more zero-sum contest of ability. The game is a game that is won or lost. Of course, it is not zero-sum in the strict sense, because competitive players would still rather play a game that they lose than not play at all. The thrill of the contest is still enjoyable, and as long as the opponents are friendly towards one another they share the bond of both enjoying the game. For the narrative player, there may be little difference between the competitive play and WAAC/anti-social player, because they want something collaborative and they're not getting it from the competitive player. That's disappointing and frustrating, especially if the narrative player has invested a lot of imaginative energy into setting up the narrative game to be played. Does that make it a bit clearer what I mean? It does, and I understood what you meant. I just wanted to clarify that a competitive player should not be called WAAC just because they are not a casual player. For me, and I think most Armada players, we don't tend to mind too much if we win or lose, we're more about the game being good. Losing to a good opponent over a tricky game can be (probably is) more satisfying to me than winning over a weaker opponent - especially if it's an easy victory. It's not the winning, it's the fighting. I'm probably just scarred from WH40K where if you don't tie one hand behind your back and play with a blancmange on your head, people practically accuse you of trying to spoil their fun. I haven't seen 7th edition, but I think there's even something in there about both players having to agree to the models each other use. Can you imagine in Armada a paragraph stating that if the other player doesn't like you fielding ISD-IIs, that you shouldn't include them in your list!
  6. It is a monster. A deformed, over-fed, scarred and brutally ugly monster. And yet it has the most beautiful DNA you could imagine...
  7. Know this was posted months ago but just seen it and want to say it's gorgeous. Also, did Sabine graduate to painting starships?
  8. Perhaps this thread should be renamed the "WH40K has a problem" thread?
  9. So in summary, when I responded to a poster who wrote "casual vs. WAAC", I was correct to say that the opposite of casual players is the competitive player, not the WAAC player and correct in saying that WAAC is a pejorative since you agree that both WAAC isn't the same as competitive play and is also the sort of person who gives others a bad name (your words). I think I get your point - you're wanting to say that WAAC is not just a pejorative term for a competitive player. I would agree with that much, but it is very frequently levelled at competitive players as an insult in the WH40K community. There, perhaps it is even semi-appropriate (much as I resented being called it) because the game is so flawed that without self-imposed holding back, it breaks. But outside that community, people shouldn't think in terms of Casual vs. WAAC.
  10. That's maybe true, but for all my desires for more narrative play, I'm glad that they have tournament rules and that there's a supported tournament scene. However, what strikes me as odd in these comparisons to other games reegsk is arguing that the division between casual/imaginative-style players and WAACers comes out of 40K, whereas you're saying that the other games don't have that. Since I'm not familiar with those other communities, I can't speak to that question one way or the other. We may also be talking about two different divisions. ('Imaginative vs. non-imaginative' as against 'casual vs. WAAC'.) I just want to note that WAAC is a pejorative. Your division (unless you intend to bias it), should really be 'casual vs. competitive' for the proper antonym. The reason WAAC is a pejorative is because it grows out of a mindset that competitive play is wrong. It presumes that putting winning ahead of, say, theme or narrative in a list, is wrong - hence the "Win at all costs". It's saying that the player concerned doesn't care about fairness, feelings, fun, only winning at any cost. That's really not the mindset of a competitive player like myself and the way you get called a WAAC player as a put down over and over in the WH40K community, is one of the reasons I greatly dislike a lot of the WH40K community. I'm fine with people wanting to set up games based around a story, or a theme. I'm totally fine with someone wanting to use an assault force of Howling Banshees because they think the background or models are cool and I place blame for the fact that they can't without their opponent voluntarily self-limiting on Games Workshop's utter absence of play-testing. However, I got really tired of being told I was a WAAC and that I was somehow psychologically flawed because of my 'compulsive need to win'. And yes, I'm not exaggerating. Get into a discussion on DakkaDakka for example, and you will be told such things many times if you argue problems of GW's lack of balance. I pity the person who wants to use a Tau gunline because they actually LIKE those models and bought them. Or whatever the latest, greatest meta-king is in WH40K (it's been a while). Just a note, mainly for clarification and certainly not personal. But WAAC is an insult towards competitive players, not a classification of them.
  11. This. The 40k group in my area has always been the larger one. With the great imbalance between 40k armies, the competitive field boils down into who can exploit the printed rules (not bend or break them, but just realize where GW clearly didn't playtest) to win. And in a tournament, I'm fine with that. But we would do things like map campaigns where almost everyone save for a handful would bring themed lists or lists with units they just wanted to field, not armies that were essentially auto-win builds. Let me give you an example of the types of players I'm referring to from my personal experience. We were playing a map campaign with a strong, regularly updated backstory. Everyone was on board and bringing fluffier lists and having a great time. Then one player decided to start bringing a Daemons of Chaos list with Fateweaver, Skarbrand and the Changeling, with the other best units from the codex. For those unfamiliar with 40k, think of a list with three ISD-Is with the Demolisher title (yes, it felt that broken). The list was perfectly legal. But no one could beat it with their campaign-themed armies. As a side note, I eventually realized that I could stick a Librarian with Null Zone inside of a Land Raider and kill his entire army. He stopped playing when every Space Marine player did the same. But until that point it put a damper on the fun for a lot of players. Because of this mentality of always bringing your top-tier army all day every day, people who don't want to play at that level just stopped showing up. So as more people got recruited in, that's the environment they learned in and that's how they played the game. Again, I'm not saying this is bad, but if you're someone who doesn't want to play at that level, why show up? And that seems to be what happens with X-Wing leagues/campaigns around here. There are two levels of players - those who play on a tournament, competitive level, and those who prefer to fly casual and field whatever ships they like. And I'm not accusing the competitive players of any wrongdoing. They are playing they way they enjoy the game. But it makes it hard for the other camp to enjoy themselves in any open-to-all event when they know they're probably going to lose, but don't want to change their play style. I think the reference to boxing/swordfighting is somewhat similar, but I would tweak it a little bit. In boxing, one guy might have reach and size, but the other guy might have speed. In 40k, one guy might have speed, but the other guy has an AK-47. Sure, the main rules say that guy can't have an AK-47, but the new book that just came out allows that guy and only that guy to have an AK-47. FFG does a much better job of balance than Games Workshop ever has (which is why they've kind of given up), but there are, naturally, some ships that are better than others. The issue is that, when you have one group of players that stay on top of newer builds and want to bring that top-tier force, then you have the other group that just wants to collect the ships they think are cool, then you try to put them into some sort of event outside of a tournament, it can make for a bad scene. As I said before, even if your opponent is a delight to play against, it gets a bit disheartening to get stomped week after week. Personally, I enjoy a good loss. I lost two out of three games at the last store championship I went to. But I learned a lot and I was glad for the opportunity of testing myself against other competitive players. But when I show up at my regular LGS, I'm not looking for a tournament-level game. I just want to push some miniature spaceships around a table and throw some dice with a decent chance of winning without min-maxing. I don't disagree with any of that, except one small part, and I feel for you with the person showing up and destroying a themed / campaign league. That's a very different situation and that person should not have played the way they did, by the sounds of it. Unfortunately, trying to patch the WH40K rules for balance is next to impossible. I thought about writing an alternate rules system for it. Of course GW would try their best to shut it down if it ever became popular. The two little bits I differ on, for what it's worth, are the bit about GW giving up on game balance. I actually think it's deliberate. The constant latest broken codex helps them sell their miniatures. I have a set of Striking Scorpions and other miniatures from around two decades ago. I even have the original Avatar when he was still human-sized. If it were all balanced, why would I need to buy new miniatures. But produce a wave serpent that can stomp all over enemy forces, make a new Avatar that is 4m tall (to scale), and now I "have to". You give GW benefit of the doubt. I'm afraid I can't. It's too much in their interests to keep this constant power churn. The other thing I differ on, though I wont make a big deal of it, is that I still think you're incorrect about some ships or squadrons being OP or not worthwhile. There are a few things I tend not to use as is true for everyone else, but I can still see the value of them. Even Demolisher which when it came out was considered OP, game breaking, etc. I've learned to deal with in a game quite effectively. We had whole threads about how OP it was. We had the same situation with Paragon. I laugh at Paragon now - it's so easily dealt with. Not wishing to start a tangent argument, but I genuinely don't see any significant balance problems in Armada. All too often people think something isn't worthwhile like Vader. And then you get a whole thread of people saying it works great for them. It's the best balanced game I've ever played (with the exception of Go or Chess, if I want to be silly).
  12. I don't know this. I don't know this at all. I also, quite genuinely, don't see what is in conflict between playing to win and a relaxed environment. I absolutely try hard to win a game when I'm playing. That in no way equates to not having a relaxed mindset or remotely being unfriendly to my opponent. In fact, I have usually found it makes it more fun for both of us. I wonder if perhaps there are simply some people who don't distinguish (or have trouble seeing the distinction) between competition and antagonism. People for whom another person trying to beat them at something simply gets received by them emotionally as aggression. It would explain a lot. I have played a lot of competitive sports. Even when my opponent is aggressive towards me, I'm usually fine with that. I'm just aggressive back. But if you're someone who is very aggression averse, or regards any attempt to be better than themself at something, as a social status challenge, then I suppose competitive play must appear as something antagonistic to relaxation. I'm just throwing ideas out there to explore why this might be so, because as I wrote at the start, I genuinely see no conflict between a relaxed environment and competitive play.
  13. What makes these people "power gamers," the fact that they run strong lists or their actual behavior and attitude? It doesn't exactly take a tactical genius to identify things that are "good" in either X-wing or Armada, and I can't really support the idea of penalizing people just because they are exploring the game's limits and not intentionally handicapping themselves. If you want to play by different list building rules that's fine, but it needs to be made clear what the boundaries are rather than peer pressuring with some imaginary honor code and assuming they know what it is. I have always respected your enthusiasm for the game and its subject matter, but sometimes your disdain for competitive play confuses me. Obviously a large part of the appeal for most people is playing star wars, but it's also a star wars game. I find that the mental aspect of exploring the game and trying to improve your skill and strategy as well as the "pew pew I like to fly spaceships around" aspect are both essential to making a game fun as well as mentally engaging in the long-term. I'm not an ultra competitive player but I do try to find a good balance between things I want to play and what actually works. I'm not averse to playing a game with restrictions if the opponent wants to try something different, but I'm also not going to take issue when someone shows up with a top tier competitive list. It's not my intent to particularly attack either of you guys, but I have seen quite a few posts in FFG forums and other communities from people who seem to think that "playing for fun" and "playing to win" are mutually exclusive. People have fun in different ways, and while some people with a genuine "I MUST win at all costs" mentality can be unpleasant, the other end of the spectrum can be equally distasteful. WH40K is very badly balanced. It also depends heavily on list building whereas whilst it might be possible to build a bad list in Armada, player skill is a huge factor and even unlikely looking fleets can be victorious if the player knows how to use it and has a plan in mind. The consequence of WH40K's atrocious game-balance and frequent churn of latest-greatest army codex, is that game balance has to be enforced at the community level. Games Workshop wont help you. Thus the WH40K community has fractured into those who want to play competitively such as myself (and it sounds like you would be such as well), and those who want to play casually. It's resulted in a very toxic community. Those who wish to play "casually" call their counterparts WAACs players - meant insultingly - for violating the implicit compact of friendly play by using auto-win lists. For want of a better term, at least. They see it as 'Oh, you're just going to spam wave serpents? You're not interested in the game, you're just interested in feeling superior to other people'. From their point of view, it does make sense I suppose, but it misunderstands the mindset of the competitive player. I don't want to play competitively because I want to look down on other people, I want to play competitively because I want to see what I can do and be the best at something that I can. I LIKE a challenge. But similarly I have trouble understanding their mindset. My natural tendency is to view it as boring and self-limiting. Ultimately, the division is probably that they (the casuals) have accepted that WH40K is grossly unbalanced and flawed and think the activity is about just enjoying a game. They think the players have a duty to "make the game work" and if someone doesn't do that, they freak out and think the other has some sort of 'screw the fun, I want to win' mentality. The competitive players, conversely, want a battle and try to get one. Perhaps in their way, the casual players have the more accurate view. WH40K is easily, easily broken. And yet we competitive players keep trying to play it as an actual game that we try our best at. You have something that should be like a boxing match, but is so flawed that in practice it's more like a sword fight - prone to easy killing blows. One group wants to still treat it like a boxing match, trying their best at a match of skills and yet ends up with a game of sudden death. The other wants to treat it as a sword fight but turn it into a ritualized fencing match with a whole load of considerations and "fouls" that you shouldn't do. When the two groups meet, we almost immediately hate each other. By instinct. Our views are utterly antithetical. Plus they call us "WAAC" players which we don't like. Armada isn't like that. It has superb balance and game-structure. It depends very much on player skill. So you can try your best against an opponent and yet not be "cheating" by using unbeatable lists. Even Clon the Unstoppable can, I suspect, be stopped. So I really hope the WH40K concept of "WAAC" types, and competitive versus casual, doesn't make its way to Armada. I mean yes, you get tournaments and such where you might expect more competitiveness. But it's respectful and if you're anything like me, you ENJOY coming up against someone better than you. There might be the odd Armada player that gets upset if they don't win (though I haven't met one nor heard of one), but nobody is going to say something like "two ISDs? You're a WAAC player who just wants to compensate for their own psychological inadequacies". Which, yes, is more or less what I have had said to me in the WH40K community. You can pick what list you want in Armada and people will find it interesting, not a violation of the spirit of the game. WH40K community is toxic over this issue. Let's not get any of it on us over here in Armada land, please! :/
  14. knasserII

    What do we need for epic battles?

    I think 6x4' would be better if we went to 600 points. But that's an entire turn's movement for some which is why I thought going to seven turns might be good. How does the following sound to people: Below 500 points, everything normal. Between 500 and 600 points, 6x4' play area. 600 points and over, 6x4' play area, seven turns length, maximum 25% of points on squadrons. Thoughts?
  15. knasserII

    What do we need for epic battles?

    What limits do you set for 700 points?