Troubling Player Attitudes

[Erik Setzer]

Okay, I'll give a fair warning, this will be something of a rant, but not a rant directed at Games Workshop. The only kind of connection that could be made there is that the players I'll be ranting about play at a Games Workshop store.

Short history: The local GW store has seen the playerbase shift pretty much to a beat-your-face-off group, who greet every new codex with combing it in order to find the best way to milk it for a winning army, with people eagerly throwing their money at buying the hottest new stuff to win. So now you have an idea of the mindset there. As a contrast, the players at a local store named FLGS (yes, they actually named the store FLGS) are mostly people who've played for a long time, and are more drawn to narrative style battles, while still trying to be competitive.

Over the past weekend, there was a local gaming convention, which included a Warhammer 40,000 tournament. The tournament was hosted by a local guy who used to run a store and has run a number of tournaments in the past ~15 years. He likes to make his own missions, with a narrative slant. For example, you might have a mission when a primary objective of destroying the other army, and a secondary objective of claiming objective markers, with the two objectives able to be claimed by different players. The idea is that you're not just trying to sweep away the opposing army, you're also trying to grab precious cargo. Another mission would be like the Relic, with a twist, or quadrant-holding (like old-school Cleanse, again with a variation). He did a mission for a recent club tournament that included "passing" the objective almost like a soccer match (though when it's that far outside the "norm," he usually saves it for the club events). Interesting stuff, makes you actually have to think about what you're doing and the army you bring.

I was reading post-tournament comments in the local GW chat. (There was a Facebook chat set up for people at the GW store to discuss random stuff, mostly GW.) Post-tournament congrats were fine, especially as the tourney winner was a player from the GW store with his Eldar Wraith army (pretty much a Wraithhost with a Seer Council attached). Then things started getting bad, with comments claiming "favoritism" in the tournament. I have no idea what the army that won best painted looked like, but there might have been a reason it beat the GW manager's army (which admittedly was quite nice, it was a Haemonculus army with a lot of conversions painted in an Attack on Titan style with the bigger guys). Then claims of the FLGS players being "afraid" to play the GW players and matchups pitting players from the stores against other players from the same store... though anyone who knows about the concept of the Swiss format that looks to pit similarly-powered armies against each other would know why that was done. It was all just coming off as serious whining about another store's players (and guys I'd known who weren't going to try shenanigans just to win a tournament).

This morning, though, came the comment that put me over the edge. I dropped from the chat, and I don't think I'll be spending any more money with the GW store, despite its convenient location:

"any one else notice each of those weird sc's favored armies with lots of troops? and the guy who wrote them was playing a demon factory army?"

This army was made by a guy who constantly tries to create gimmicky power armies and find any kind of advantage in the rules he can (too often getting the rules wrong in the process). If the army he was playing at the GW store on Saturday was an indication, he likely took a Harlequin/Craftworld combo designed to try to use crazy psychic stuff and combos of special rules. I could go on and on with the kind of stuff he tries to pull with armies.

To come right out and basically accuse a guy of setting up a tournament just to make it easier for him to win is ridiculous. For one thing, the guy who did the scenarios would have only been playing if there was an odd number (as he was running the tournament), and when he does that, he always excludes himself from any prizes. So what would be the point of setting up scenarios that he could win easier?

The scenarios are designed to be interesting, narrative, and require actual tactical thinking and a balanced army, rather than trying to blow your opponent off the table. I personally love that concept. It's how the games are "meant" to be played.

Instead of celebrating interesting scenarios that reward people for taking balanced armies and applying tactical thinking, we have a player accusing the tournament organizer of writing scenarios to benefit his own army that couldn't even place in the tournament. And not a single other person, GW store manager included, called him on it.

The guy being accused is also one of the nicest guys I've played in games. Last year I faced off against him in a convention tournament (different con, different organizer), and he was great to play against. Really fun game, and we both let each other correct a mistake where we maybe skipped ahead too fast and forgot to shoot or move a unit or something. A nice, gentlemanly game. At a tournament. Think about the attitude people have about tournament players, now imagine someone at a tournament saying, "Oh, you forgot to do this, you should do that." That's the kind of guy we're talking about here. I actually lost the secondary objective in that mission to him because he summoned some Daemons and I couldn't get in a spot to kill his Sorceror or slay enough Daemons, but I won't blame the mission, as those things were my own fault.

When that level of whining and baseless accusations is considered acceptable, I can't see myself playing games with those people. And as I'm not about to play games with them (or in a store that condones such attitudes), I'm not about to spend money there.

I'm not letting it drive me from 40K (heck, the cheaply made book I just paid $60 for and the realization I needed to spend $500-$600 to get my Marines in "competitive" shape would have done more for that). But I think I'm more convinced than ever that I'd rather play with another group of players, and I'm not about to recommend to anyone I know that they play at the local GW store, until that attitude is corrected.

Am I just being too harsh here? Are such accusations not a big deal?

[Alaric]

To those that dont have time to read the whole shebang: Erik wants to know if anyone else has issues regarding favoritism in their respective clubs/shops when it comes to tournaments.


No. You are not alone Erik. Virtually every painting contest in ours is voted by buddies to get their buddy to win. Tons of 2 faces going for sportsmanship as well. Its just people being people and I doubt it would be much different if u skipped out.

[Erik Setzer]

Actually, that's not quite it... I don't think there *were* issues of favoritism. I can't say for sure with the painting, I haven't seen the other army. Though sometimes painting is kind of subjective (like when I had a well-painted Ork army but it was "marked down" for having units painted as different clans, because, well, that's how Orks were when I started in the game).

One of the claims of favoritism was on pairings. But one group (FLGS) is mainly narrative armies, the other (GW) is mainly beatstick armies. If you go by the idea of a modified Swiss format that pairs like armies for the first round, there's not going to be much crossover. That's not favoritism, it's just different styles. As rounds went on, the groups were more mixed.

The one that bothered me most was the claim the T.O. created scenarios to help his own army, despite the fact he wouldn't score his army in a tourney he's running and only plays if needed to get even participants. He's also a remarkable sportsmanlike player. The person leveling that accusation, on the other hand, is someone who tries to break every new codex upon its release.

I'm upset that such accusations were leveled and nothing was said about them, especially the last one. A good guy was getting his name smeared just because someone couldn't win a tourney with his own shenanigan list. (If it's what I think it was, it wasn't even really a list able to stand the top tourney lists.)

Sorry, trying not to give paragraphs and paragraphs more, just trying to represent things right.

[Fueldrop]

I know the type. They're rare around where I play and have been pretty much driven out by now, but those guys who go for flavor of the month then throw a ****storm when they lose are pretty much universal.

Back in the day I got accused of cheating when my 4th edition codex Eldar annihilated a brand new grey knights list after their codex just came out. The possibility that I'd been playing my army for years and knew how everything worked together simply never occurred to the guy.

[Alaric]

Its all good. Dont apologize for bein yourself. At least you know you have paragraphitis :P anywhoo.
I meant favoritism in general, like you were saying the missions favored his style. I dont envy any TOs that play in their own tourneys for that exact reason. The dude who you are talkin aboot complaining...pretty sure we allll got one of them. We had a guy whos rep was so bad I drove to a different town to play in a tourney (in my tourney days) and they knew aboot him. Funny stuff how that works out. Sadly gaming clubs are not as abundant as we would like.

[Subexarch]

Sadly, there are people who are just like that. There is no way they could have been beaten fairly. It's utterly inconceivable that they were actually outplayed by a more knowledgeable or clever opponent and it is 100% guaranteed that they won't bring this up to the person they are spreading their toxic slander about. Instead preferring to disparage them from the relative safety of social media or their circle of friends. That way there is no way they can be proven wrong. Or punched firmly in the face.
These people exist. In my experience they are eventually driven off by level headed, polite people who refuse to take part in their passive aggressive shenanigans, or the perceived slight they have suffered leads them to stay away from future events.

[Erik Setzer]

I actually thought the beat-face mentality of play would be driven off, but it seems to have spread to most of the players at the store. Aside from wanting to play other games (not just minis games, stuff like D&D and some board and card games as well), I and a couple of friends had already started playing at another store. I'm hoping something makes them come around to their senses, but eh... at least I still have plenty of people to play games with, and the kind who *want* to play narrative battles based around a Troops-centric army.

[Fueldrop]

If you insist on being a "Beat-Face"...

1) Have an Ork Warboss.
2) Name him "Boss Beatface"
3) ???
4) Profit!

[Denzark]

As you describe it they sound like an unpleasant group. Although in the interests of fairness, the internet allows people to make whinging sweeping statements anonymously thus acting as a de-facto 'brave pill'. Arguably (not trying to play devil's advocate) someone could say that we are only getting one side of the story from you and that you are just doing what they are doing!

Irrespective of my pedantry though, to call someone's integrity is particularly crap, especially if a.) The accused has gone to all the effort of creating the tournament. And b.) The individual or his mates didn't actaully win so accusations of preferential treatment are unfounded.



I think the only way to resolve accusations like this is to call them out on it in the forum in which they were raised, telling them they are wrong and out of order, and actually come across as veiny throbbing phalluses for doing such a thing.

You may wish to include a link to this thread as well.

For my tuppence it sounds a good call that they are being bang out of order.

[Erik Setzer]

Can't provide a link. It was in a Facebook chat between people who play at the local GW store, only people in the conversation can view it (strangely, I can't even view messages from before I dropped myself from it). It was supposed to be to discuss events and stuff at the GW store.

Some of the people aren't bad outside of the games, at least from my limited non-game interactions.

An FLGS player won best painted, I'm still not sure what his army looked like. A GW player won the tournament, though, with Eldar. Given the nature of the missions, I think Space Marines could have dominated, but as they'd come out the day before, it wasn't considered fair to let people bring a codex that most of the participants wouldn't have had access to yet (and some of the SM players might not have been able to afford it yet).

I did call out the worst comment on the chat, but not sure what happened afterward (I was told he apologized for his comment), because I dropped from it. There were some other things that were bugging me, but those aren't really relevant here, and I took them up with the appropriate party so he knew my concerns.

[Mr Mystery]

Trouble with these situations is trying to separate dodgy behaviour from sour grapes after the fact.

Though I am a very strong advocate of Organisers not taking part in their event unless it's a pre-arranged scenario game being played for a challenge. Campaign? Run it, don't play it. Tournaments? Run it, don't play it.

I've never seen it turn out very well when they get involved.

[Havik110]

Ill give you what I think...

I consider myself to be a competitive player in that I want to win, but at the same time i want to have fun. I own DE, BA, and a troop heavy sisters army...I didnt play when BA was op back in 3rd so I can officially say I dont have any op armies and I dont have the ability to field cheese.

I have only played in 1 tournament since the end of 5th and in that tournament the organizer limited you to 1 cad and you could take 1 formation if you wanted, no super heavies. i knew what I was getting into when I went and that was the kind of game i wanted to play.

I will choose who I want to play against and what kinds of army I want to play against when i am not playing in a tourny because i cant imagine 3 WKs being fun to play against, same with the adamantium lance, same with the loth invisibility bomb. I also dont like playing against players who dont at least have 3 crapily put on colors on their models. if you are at the FLGS and you ask for a game and you have grey models with a new to semi new dex i assume you bought the new hottness...

that being said i have played in tournies and pick up games where I am happy to help you out, remind you if you forgot something, and allow you to fix a mistake so that we both have fun so long as you are not being an @$$hat...last ardboys (5th ed) I played green tide in the 2nd round and i was out of the runnings and had my 3rd game wrapped up...i would win this game on objectives and my opponent knew it, and said i guess you win...and then i told him orks dont hold objectives, orks need to waagh!!! I lost the game to have fun (i knew I had won, he knew it so why sit there and not have fun)

In the end there will always be whiners, and in the end there will be people that think im whining about WKs or the Craftworld cheddar book (I am) but thats the way it is. you can be competitive and not a WAAC Douche...In the end this is a game and you need to have fun playing it despite what GW is doing to ruin it...

[Path Walker]

Anything with custom rules has to have an implicit level of trust in the organizer, if you don't have that, you get complaints, you have to make sure the rest of the community doesn't tolerate that, get your friends to challenge the problematic behaviour and refuse to play troublesome people until they redress their attitude.

And if you think your Codex was faulty, call up GW Customer Service and let them know, they'll fix it.

[Denzark]

I did call out the worst comment on the chat, but not sure what happened afterward (I was told he apologized for his comment), because I dropped from it. There were some other things that were bugging me, but those aren't really relevant here, and I took them up with the appropriate party so he knew my concerns.

Sounds like you did all that was reasonable.

[Path Walker]

Even the most critical hobbyist would be hard pressed to say GWs customer service was anything but stellar

[Houghten]

Even the most critical hobbyist would be hard pressed to say GWs customer service was anything but stellar

I've had mixed experiences with it. On the one hand, they replaced my mismoulded Dreadnought with no fuss and when the replacement turned out to be mismoulded in the exact same way, asked me to name a kit up to £30 and sent that to me free.

On the other hand, I've repeatedly had to remind them about a query with a missing page in the Small Format Tau Codex that I raised in April and still has yet to be resolved.

[Erik Setzer]

Though I am a very strong advocate of Organisers not taking part in their event unless it's a pre-arranged scenario game being played for a challenge. Campaign? Run it, don't play it. Tournaments? Run it, don't play it.

That's what this T.O. tries to do, but with people sometimes dropping out at the last second, you might get an odd number of players, and that's a mess. So he'll have an extra army on hand and play without scoring himself. And if his army is similar to what I faced last year, it's not that bad. The likely issue is that the guy throwing out the complaint likely brought his Harlequin/Craftworld mash-up based on small tooled-up units and characters in vehicles relying on tricks to win combats, and that's not something that can win an objective-based scenario. Rather than say "I screwed up," he lashed out at the T.O.

- - - Updated - - -

Oh yeah, sometimes tourney rules can matter, so for anyone wondering, these were the rules listed for this tourney:


To participate you will need to bring a 1,850 point force with the following parameters:
Battleforged.
Proxy/substitute models not allowed.
Painting is optional.
40K Approved Forgeworld units allowed.
Must have official rules for all units (digital copy acceptable).
Your army list must be on paper with all options and point cost listed

That's it. 1850, Battle-forged, have to have the rules, can even use FW stuff. No restrictions on detachments, formations, anything.

Those of us who know the T.O. know he likes to run narrative missions with objectives (and so do a couple other T.O.'s who tend to run the local convention tourneys). It mixes things up, means you can't just wreck your opponent, you actually have to have a force that can react and do different things. Some armies can be really brutal and still good with objectives, i.e. a drop-pod Marine army (even more so now) or a mobile Eldar force. But when you start limiting the number of models you have, for example, things start getting tougher, so an army of just Knights might not handle it as well, and an army with an Adamantium Lance and Thunderwolf Death Star will have some problems claiming all the battle points, as that's typically run as two units (they can wreck an army, but not hold objectives all over the board).

It's possible, to be fair, that some people were just caught off-guard by a tournament not being about just beating the other person's collection of miniatures in a cage match? I don't really do tournaments outside the local scene, so I'm not sure what the "usual" tournament does.

[Alaric]

If you insist on being a "Beat-Face"...

1) Have an Ork Warboss.
2) Name him "Boss Beatface"
3) ???
4) Profit!

YES. Morning laugh successful.

[Defenestratus]

Reason #586 why "competitive" plastic dolls is the most moronic, stupid, inane, fruitless thing ever.

Just go play games and worry less about keeping track of who wins and more about how much fun you're having not being in your office or on the job site. Once this is achieved, all the artificially created drama surrounding your beloved plastic dolls seems to never happen.

I swear that our society has grown so complacent, so comfortable in our own existence - no need for day to day struggles to stay alive and exist - that we go out and willingly look for things that give us trouble and cause us hardship. For something that is supposed to be fun, escapist, and relaxing, the tournament scene almost universally turns it into a miserable experience.

Congrats idiots.

[Charon]

that we go out and willingly look for things that give us trouble and cause us hardship.

Like having to read your personal opinion presented as a fact with the added value of insulting as many people possible.

I can understand your "no sports and no competition for me attitude" but blaming people for having fun doing this is moronic.

[CoffeeGrunt]

I...actually agree with Charon. People enjoy the game in different ways, and for some that involves smashing faces and gloating about it. I dunno if it's really fair to go Armchair Psychologist on them and start claiming it's because their life has no meaning and their parents never loved them, (or some of the other accusations that float around towards WAAC players.)

Speaking as a casual-as-heck gamer who just uses 40K as a reason to get a chat and some time with mates, and have a bit of a laugh.

People of different clans are going to be abrasive towards each other, though. You see it online with the eternal Warmachine vs 40K arguments that go nowhere, and people approach 40K from different directions for different reasons. Is it a symptom of a complacent, sedentary society? No more so than anything else, really.

[Path Walker]

Like having to read your personal opinion presented as a fact with the added value of insulting as many people possible.

I can understand your "no sports and no competition for me attitude" but blaming people for having fun doing this is moronic.
But I guess you will enjoy your place with Mystery and Pathwalker on my ignore list because, like them, there was never any value in your posts anyways.

Whats brilliant about this is that the troubling attitude was (as it always is) from a competitive player who spat his dummy out because things didn't go his way, these attitudes are directly correlated with trying to make a hobby into a competition.

The trouble stems from that and saying that its a problem when it threatens a group of players in an area is appropriate.

[Defenestratus]

I can understand your "no sports and no competition for me attitude" but blaming people for having fun doing this is moronic.


Well, I don't think that I confused anyone with these "facts" versus "opinion". Anything posted on a forum without a reference citation should be taken as "opinion". And while I think that competitive toy dolls is a rightfully moronic enterprise, I'm actively engaged in competitive sports all over the place. Heck, half of my entire income depends on sports. I played football (American, not the panzee type) in college and semi-professionally... My spouse operates on professional athletes every day. Don't think she's ever had to treat a competitive 40k player (amazingly she did see a professional poker player for injuries related to a disfunction in his facial muscles).

Well then....

If you don't have enemies, you don't have character. --Paul Newman

[Path Walker]

I dunno if it's really fair to go Armchair Psychologist on them and start claiming it's because their life has no meaning and their parents never loved them, (or some of the other accusations that float around towards WAAC players.)


It probably is though.

[Mr Mystery]

Reason #586 why "competitive" plastic dolls is the most moronic, stupid, inane, fruitless thing ever.

Just go play games and worry less about keeping track of who wins and more about how much fun you're having not being in your office or on the job site. Once this is achieved, all the artificially created drama surrounding your beloved plastic dolls seems to never happen.

I swear that our society has grown so complacent, so comfortable in our own existence - no need for day to day struggles to stay alive and exist - that we go out and willingly look for things that give us trouble and cause us hardship. For something that is supposed to be fun, escapist, and relaxing, the tournament scene almost universally turns it into a miserable experience.

Congrats idiots.

This.

Absolutely this.

It gets doubly absurd when others feel super-competitive-bet-your-grandmother-type-stakes are the correct way to play.

There isn't a correct way to play. At all. Sure, there's the strict rulebook version, but then this is a hobby game, and since it got going, large part of it has been very Crowleyesque - Do What Thou Wilt.

[Path Walker]

This.

Absolutely this.

It gets doubly absurd when others feel super-competitive-bet-your-grandmother-type-stakes are the correct way to play.

There isn't a correct way to play. At all. Sure, there's the strict rulebook version, but then this is a hobby game, and since it got going, large part of it has been very Crowleyesque - Do What Thou Wilt.

I am always amused that the WAAC crowd love quoting the rules but convineintly ignore all the bits about it being a fun narratvie game and you should feel free to change them with your opponent if you want to. Its a very fundamentalist way of looking at 40K.

[Defenestratus]

It probably is though.

I wouldn't have a problem with the tournament participants if their little whacked out view of 40k stayed inside the confines of their events.

Unfortunately, their behavior influences others. I've seen it more times than I care to relate. New players to the game see articles on BoLS about breaking the game (for the purposes of winning tournaments or complaining about it winning tournaments) and they go out and start thinking "this is how the game is supposed to be played!" It's how I show up at a GW store and see the only guy who is there to play says after we've setup terrain and are rolling for deployment "oh btw I'm using my list I'm using for next month's tournament, I need to practice". *EYEROLL* (It ended up being a drop pod SW army with tigirius coming to the picnic with his buddy centurions in a drop pod) Fine - I either play this guy or I drive 30 minutes home and just put my minis back on the shelf. I don't get the opportunity to play very often and subjecting myself to a dreadnought-socking in the nether regions is ultimately better than going home without rolling dice - but it could have been a much more pleasant experience for both of us, instead of just one of us.

So while competitive doll players personally affect and influence my enjoyment of the hobby, I'll feel free to share my unsolicited opinions about them in hopes that I turn around just one player's opinion on the matter.

[Cap'nSmurfs]

The sad thing here is that my experience of the Warhammer Fantasy competitive scene seems to be so much more, I don't know, convivial? Even while the same things - facebreaker lists, crazy combos, a competitive mindset - hold sway. Maybe it's just the people I interacted with.

[Erik Setzer]

I don't think all tournament players have the same mindset, and that's part of the problem here. Some of the guys who went to the tourney hadn't been in many tourneys but still had the "win any way you can" mentality (or just build nasty lists because they thought that was fun). A lot of local people play in tournaments but are still less "WAAC", more fluff... and that's how the tournaments tend to be structured. At one point, they included painting, comp, and sportsmanship in the tourneys.

I'm not going to say beatstick armies are a "wrong" way to play the game, but if you're not playing that way, it won't be fun. Similarly, they might not have fun with a more narrative style of play (as evidenced by the lack of willingness to play Maelstrom missions, much less anything from, say, Altar of War, or Cityfight or Planetstrike). While I could play a beatstick style (assuming I could afford it), it requires me to take the game seriously and get into "competitive" mode, which makes me feel kind of wrong. It's hard to describe the feeling, but it's like bringing out a part of yourself you don't like. So I try to avoid that.

I think T.O.'s should probably say "This is going to be a more narrative tournament" to let people know what to expect. I get the idea of not posting missions in order to not let anyone make a list tailored for them, but I suppose something like "You want to make sure you can complete objectives as well as destroy your foe" might be a way to do it?

[Charon]

The sad thing here is that my experience of the Warhammer Fantasy competitive scene seems to be so much more, I don't know, convivial? Even while the same things - facebreaker lists, crazy combos, a competitive mindset - hold sway. Maybe it's just the people I interacted with.

Probably because you actually interacted with them and do not suffer from an extreme case of prejustice.
Idiots can be everywhere. I once had a game against a BA player with a wonderful painted and fluffy army. He even named all his Troop Leaders and Squads. Failed his 5" charge by rolling 3 scatter all his dice across the club packed and went. Fluff players... the way to have fun... right? Because this guy defines all Fluff fun players... ever. No exceptions and this is why fluff players are morons because of reasons. It is fiction after all... playing according to some whacky story a drunken writer wrote during a weed session... is utterly stupid... right? RIGHT?

The big real difference is that some people are in complete denial mode and when someone has some fun "the wrong way" he cant possibly have "real fun™" because only the way I play is "real fun™". So it is totally stupid that there are people who enjoy playing fluffy when I think this is the "wrong fun". Right? Right!

Also on an interesting sidenote: The target audience is kids. The rule of cool in most cases for them means "My boys should smash faces, if they can't they are not cool". Nearly EVERY starter EVER tries to go over and over with special, heavy and melee wepons because "S8 is cooler than S4". We have all gone through this. I know nobody who did not play herohammer or tried to squeeze as many plasma and lasercannons as possible in an army.
GW want these players badly... these new formations are just another way of "if you buy units for 300 € you will get cool new rules to smash faces".

[Alaric]

Wow this thread is all over the place. I despise tournaments meself but don't think that people are idiots. I find people who call the masses idiots are often the biggest ones lol. I mean look at driving, how many people call the other drivers idiots...as they run a red light themselves.

Fun is what you make of it. If you go to a tournament under the pretenses that yer gonna kick arse and lose horribly because someone else had a better list thats on you.

Good topic erik, it got some blood flowin :P

[Erik Setzer]

I really want to know what the guy took to the tournament... The day before I saw him playing against a guy's Tau army. He had a Shadowseer leading a unit of Howling Banshees; an Autarch on Jetbike with another Shadowseer in a Harlequin Troupe; a Solitaire; a couple of Voidweavers... and I'm sure there was more, but it was probably dead at the time I saw it.

Hmm... come to think of it... He was adding the +3" to move with Howling Banshees despite having a Harlequin character in the unit (which would actually negate that because it doesn't have the Acrobatic special rule). But at least he was right on the Banshee mask on the Autarch meaning Overwatch couldn't be fired at his unit, which is a bit of a cheeky trick.

- - - Updated - - -

The comment on what all armies have reminded me of something funny with my own armies:

- My Marines have no grav weapons, and Tactical Squads often get heavy bolters. No Centurions, either. One unit of bikes if I dig out all the bikes I have and assemble them.
- My Eldar collection has no Wave Serpents or Wraithguard (and certainly no Wraithknight).
- I don't have a Heldrake or Mauler/Forge-fiend for my Chaos Marines.

Maybe I'm doing something wrong? :D

[Cap'nSmurfs]

"Probably because you actually interacted with them and do not suffer from an extreme case of prejustice."

I've interacted with a lot of 40k players too; the vibe is different even if I got along with a lot of those folks (I'm quite easy-going in person, really!). The word's "prejudice", btw.

FWIW, I actually agree that there's no monopoly on competitive players being gits.

[Erik Setzer]

FWIW, I actually agree that there's no monopoly on competitive players being gits.

There's no monopoly among any group in the world on being gits, sadly...

[Cap'nSmurfs]

Just so! I think it's fine to get frustrated; it happens to us all. The point is that we should all at least try to act with decency and respect to our fellows, as far as we're able. That's really all we can ask, and all anyone's asking for.

At the same time, we're all different, we want different things, play different ways, and so on. Wider cultures also exist. The trick is to be able to find the like-minded folks and work on your collaborative hobby enjoyment with the people who'll best support and complement that. Which doesn't mean sequestering ourselves off in small groups, but just acknowledging that tastes diverge and that when encountering people who like different things to ourselves that we might not be getting the fullest experience possible. It doesn't mean those folks are wrong.

Consequently, it can also be immensely frustrating if the dominant groups or cultures in your area are at odds with what you enjoy, especially when you seem to be stuck with it. There, I guess, the option that's left to you is a bit of community or consensus building, however you want to do that.

Less circular ramble: we've all got a responsibility to be mindful of the enjoyment of others. Don't be a prick.

[The Girl]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pk0Jeqcv5Q8