Power gaming is a sort of growing problem all around these sights. i dont mean actually making the lists, im talking about how people are constantly complaining about how "unfair" a power gaming list is and etc... but in the long run you see that they arent too effective against any real opponents but just as an all comers list. any comments to support reasons to stop powergaming ?

[chrishin]

if you power game people will not want to play aginst you. probably the best reason.

[Lomendil]

Heh. Wonder how long this powergaming thread's gonna stay unlocked...

Right - unleash the ranty....


Actually, TRUE powergaming is not easily beaten. TRUE powergaming actually often is a take-on-all-comers list. True powergaming is not n00bishly taking 3 Monoliths and a C'tan, it's crafting a list out of the most cost-effective units in a Codex and covering all bases. If you think this isn't true, take a look at the lists that do well in the UK GTs. It's a hotbed of powergaming, because powergaming works.

And it is a problem, when done in an enviroment where most other players aren't doing it. See, as far as I'm concerned, the essence of a fair game is having roughly equal sides. Both players should have armies of roughly equal power, the game should be an even match-up. Then the game is a good challenge for all concerned. Both players can feel honourable in having an equal fight.

What I object to are those players who just want to win regardless of how they do it, or just want to 'kill stuff real quick'. They aren't interested in a good dynamic game, just in victory. It's boring. They're boring. Gimme a good honest fight any day. An uphill struggle against a cheesy army played by some gloating fool whose only real skill in the game is endlessly tinkering with lists on ArmyBuilder - forget it. Though that's a little unfair - there are some powergamers who are also excellent players. But there are few excellent players who are also constant hardcore powergamers - more below.

I can and do win against powergamers. I'm the least sore loser you'll ever find - I readily laugh and rip the piss out of myself when I lose. But it's just cheap for one person to deliberately be trying to start the game with a significant force advantage, and then going on to win due in large part to that advantage. And it usually is that that gives the win, because most good players scorn powergaming. They love the game for the playing of it, not the pure winning. By 'playing' I'm not on about narrative and roleplay (though many good gamers do like those too) - I mean pure gameplay.

Powergaming against other powergamers isn't such a bad thing though, because it's closer to being equal sides - though it's hard to get equal sides when everyone powergames because not all armies can powergame equally, and some armies can tailor against certain other armies much more than in reverse... if you get what I mean... Example - Marines can tailor more efficiently against Orks than Orks can tailor against Marines. When everyone is trying to out-tailor one another, you just end up with what I call a 'Balance of Imbalances' - where you get a kind of 'arms race', each player getting an advantage in one game but losing that in the next when their opponent tailors to their new list, ad infinitum...



Incidentally, in case there's anyone who wants to do the 'War isn't fair. 40k is a wargame' bit, you can save yourself the effort. It's a broken argument - war is all about winning, games are all about fun. Sportsmanship doesn't apply in war, it does applies in games. Fairness applies in games, that's why they have rules and point values. The idea is that everything in the game should be equal relative to points cost - when exploiting the fact that they aren't, powergamers break the spirit of the game.

Also, if anyone wants to chant the ''Cheese' is the invention of sore losers' hymn, you don't need to bother. Yes, it is true there are idiots who cry 'cheese' at anything that beats them. They are the most annoying people in the game bar cheats, far worse than powergamers. But their stupidity doesn't mean that there aren't some cheesy things in the game - because there are. Only a handful, but they do exist. Don't let the ignorance of sore losers cloud the issue. Think about it - when some lunatic fringe nutcase is hooting about how the government are 'oppressing' him by not letting him walk around the streets naked, does this mean that no governments anywhere ever oppress anyone? It's the same logic with cheese in the game.

[Spiritbw]

Originally Posted by Lomendil

Heh. Wonder how long this powergaming thread's gonna stay unlocked...

As long as I don't have to delete mover a page of posts to clean it up I think we can keep it open. Flames and bashing of any kind will earn a heap of smites all round.

[Lomendil]

No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm not that ignorant. Clarification: 'Kill stuff real quick' just refers to attitude - a simplistic mindset where all the player is interested in is smashing stuff in the other army by the most blunt direct means possible, and has no interest in any of the more subtle aspects of the game (like manoevre, feints, ploys, evasive tactics, and all the good stuff that makes Lom happy to play)

Dark Eldar and Nids don't qualify, but the classic cheesy Iron Warriors army (min troops, max ordnance, max Obliterators) does.

Dark Eldar can't be powergamed anyway, outside of very small games (I should know, they've been my main army for years). All armies can powergame at small point levels - the game isn't really fitted to be uncheeseable for 500pt or even 1000pt games. Things balance out best at 1500+ points. This is just down to the way Force Org charts are absolute 'one size fits all' rather than scaleable to the game's point level.

[Gotchaye]

I think Lomendil's hit the nail on the head, excepting a few things.

Mainly, my objections center around this quote:

But it's just cheap for one person to deliberately be trying to start the game with a significant force advantage, and then going on to win due in large part to that advantage.

I think this is actually the way the game is supposed to be played. You get to create your own army list not only so that you can take as many interesting units as you want (we wouldn't have the FOC if this was the case), but so that you can take what you think are useful selections. Without any prior understanding, I expect my opponents to be trying to achieve an advantage with their army list - I certainly wouldn't expect a player to deliberately handicap himself just in case I don't show up with a good list.

It's a game, and the object is to win. There's nothing wrong with simply following the rules and trying your best. Powergaming is simply one aspect of trying your best (the bit that players can prepare for - the other is in-game strategy).

I think that, in any game where a powergamer is matched up against a nonpowergamer (to the dissatisfaction of one or both), it's really the nonpowergamer who's at fault for not either clarifying beforehand that he expects his opponent to use a nonoptimal, or handicapped, list, or for not deciding to powergame himself. As an analogy, consider a basketball game where one player shows up with one hand tied behind his back, as he believes this makes the game more entertaining/fair/sporting. Surely the other player isn't obligated to also tie his hand behind his back, nor should be be blamed for not coming to the match with it tied up.

In short, powergaming is the way the game works by default. Just like any other game, we come in expecting people to use any methods allowed them by the rules in order to win - the only purpose of the rules is to provide exactly that sort of definition. If you don't enjoy it, then arrange games with nonpowergamers, or with powergamers who agree to handicap themselves. However, I don't think it's fair to get on to people who have a list advantage over you when you've decided to handicap yourself.

Edit: I realize that what I said can be read as a complete repudiation of Lomendil's post, but I don't mean it that way. I'm just attacking the idea that there's some blame to be attached to powergaming. I think that he's adequately defined powergaming and cheese, and has provided a decent analysis of the problems caused by the existence of both types of gamers.

[Howloutloud]

I think its funny, because my friend powergames with his space wolves and I always take a balanced force (either dark angels or tau) and I almost always slaughter him. the best part is that he accuses me of having a cheesy army. but I always take the same lists with at least 3 full troop choices. I try to take more but my dark angels only have 3 full made right now.

I tell him what army I'm taking beforehand, to which he has the lists memorized, and he tries to tailor his armies to beat me. and I win 99% of the time.

The funniest part is from turn 3-4 and on when I just keep reminding him that the reason that he keeps losing to me is karma. "you know you're losing because you only took two troops, of which your grey hunters is minimised." or "you know you're losing because you took half of your points in your wolf guard body guard (because mastercrafting a missile launcher or lascannon or assault cannon is so much fun)"

like I said, Karma

[Lomendil]

@Gotchaye

Too many flawed premises, IMO.

1. 'Handicap'. This is a misrepresentation. How can a balanced list be handicapped, when the powergaming lists are all in a vast minority of possible and actual lists? And frequently represent freakish deviations from fluff and even common sense? A Handicap is downpowering from the norm - but powergaming doesn't represent a norm, rather a fringe. More on this below.

Frankly, I think this 'handicap' concept is just a way of moving the goalposts semantically. It replaces 'balanced' with 'handicapped' and 'powergaming' with 'normal/good'. The terms are not appropriate though.


2. 'Powergaming is default'. Following that logic, then powergaming is the pinacle of gaming. But you clearly hold interesting units to be valuable, so from that I can infer that you don't think powergaming is the pinacle. You are into the subtler side too. This is simply because the deadliest powergaming lists are always lacking in variety, and also tactically simplistic because they use the units that rely on being inherently kick-ass rather than needing more subtle application to work well.


The premise that there is a 'default' for the game is flawed anyway, I think. But even ignoring that, I can't see how powergaming can be a default when GW have strived to make the game as balanced as they can. If powergaming were the way the game worked by default, tournaments wouldn't include comp, the rules wouldn't be written to be as balanced as possible, there'd be no force orgs or other balancing measures, every Codex would be openly cheesable (when in fact, under half truly are). GW make efforts to ammend instances of overpowered/underpowered things in the game. But they aren't perfect, and some imbalances creep past. They aren't deliberate, as can be seen by the fact that there are only a few really powergamey lists, and only a few powergameable Codexes. If GW had really wanted powergaming to be default, you could expect all lists to be equally powergameable, or, at least you'd expect Marines to be the cheesiest of all...

Moreover, since when have you ever seen GW promote powergaming in media? As far as I've see, Alessio Calvatore's occasional personal comments in old WDs aside, they don't - they always push for 'good games', fluff driven, with the props going to smart tactics rather than killer lists. Tactica revolve around actual tactics as opposed to 'cookie cutter' list builds (another gripe I have with powergaming: the unoriginality, again, because there aren't many powergaming combinations in the game...)



3. You're taking your personal view as a universal one, and I know that this just isn't true. You say (my emphasis) "We come in expecting people to use any methods allowed them by the rules in order to win" - I know for a fact that this simply does not apply to all gamers. Myself, and the majority of players that I game against, expect people to make good workable lists, and to play to win, but not at any costs, nor to be seeking an easy advantage by taking one of the few overpowered ones. What we are interested in is gameplay. We don't want to have unbalanced sides - we want even sides, with the smarts and maybe a little luck being what determines the battle. We like varied, interesting and flexible lists. We don't count list design as really needing smarts, because list design is dead easy.

Having a more powerful army than the opponent is a cheap advantage, end of story. This is just a fact of life. You can use a less pejorative term than 'cheap' if you like, but the underlying concept remains the same. I just don't care so much about winning that I'll go to any legal lengths to do it - an entertaining game with lots of variety, where the line-up is even and where it's all down to player skill + lady luck.

Originally Posted by Howloutloud

I think its funny, because my friend powergames with his space wolves and I always take a balanced force (either dark angels or tau) and I almost always slaughter him. the best part is that he accuses me of having a cheesy army. but I always take the same lists with at least 3 full troop choices. I try to take more but my dark angels only have 3 full made right now.

I tell him what army I'm taking beforehand, to which he has the lists memorized, and he tries to tailor his armies to beat me. and I win 99% of the time.

The funniest part is from turn 3-4 and on when I just keep reminding him that the reason that he keeps losing to me is karma. "you know you're losing because you only took two troops, of which your grey hunters is minimised." or "you know you're losing because you took half of your points in your wolf guard body guard (because mastercrafting a missile launcher or lascannon or assault cannon is so much fun)"

like I said, Karma

More like bad play. Sounds to me like he's trying to powergame, but failing. Remember, overloading characters isn't powergaming, it's just a bad idea.

And not going for plenty of Grey Hunters?! For shame - they are dead solid, flexible, can have multiple hidden powerfists... Aiya.

[Gotchaye]

Hurrah, numbered points! Edit: I shudder to think of your reply, since our posts seem to be getting longer and longer.

1. I think that 'handicap' is the most accurate word we can use to describe what a player does to himself when he refuses to take a powergamed list. The rules allow X. Instead, you restrict yourself and only allow X-P. That's nothing if not a self-imposed disadvantage, or handicap. A balanced list is not necessarily handicapped (though it is at a disadvantage relative to PG'd lists), you're right, but deciding in advance that you won't be taking a powergamed list is, in fact, a handicap.

I'll admit that the primary value of the term is semantic, but I think that it's actually the proper semantic setting for the argument. You're essentially blaming powergamers for not handicapping themselves. While it can also be said that you're blaming them for taking unfair or cheesy lists, these all imply some wrongdoing on their part, which you have yet to show.

2. I don't think that this follows. The fact that, say, 'five card draw' is the default game of poker does not at all imply that it's the pinnacle of poker (which could be seven card draw or texas hold'em, depending on your preferences). However, it does mean that, if you ask someone to deal a hand of "poker", you have no real right to be upset if they only deal out five cards to each player.

That's not the best example, obviously, since all are distinct games with officially recognized rules. A better example would be Monopoly. By default, it is assumed that the only limitations on each player are the rules. That does not make a game under that assumption the pinnacle of Monopoly, though. Perhaps you believe that the best monopoly experience is gained when ignoring the 3 doubles go-to-jail bit, or when allowing trades between any two players on every player's turn (I think that this is normally disallowed). We would generally consider it unsporting to spring these 'house rules' on someone without warning. The point is that the 'default' method of playing is that laid out in the rulebook, nothing more.

GW has certainly not tried to make the game as balanced as possible, at least not in the sense that it doesn't matter how you spend your points. They've tried to balance the game such that it's possible to make a variety of competitive armies out of each codex's list. However, I don't really see your point - even if GW encouraged powergaming, why would they make it easy? Isn't that a bit like saying that GW really doesn't want people to play, since they make it more difficult than it could be by making you buy models and the like? Army list creation is supposed to be as large a part of the game as tabletop tactics - by putting in FO limitations and by toning down units that are obviously excellent buys, they add complexity to this process and make it more challenging, and thus more rewarding, for the player.

That aside, what on earth does developer intent have to do with anything? If we bump into each other in a GW and you ask me for a game, I'm going to assume that you mean "a game of 40k as described in the 40k rulebook and appropriate codices and faqs", not "a game of 40k as it is meant to be played by the developers, whose intent may or may not be in line with the material we can objectively decipher".

3. Sorry about that. I should have simply said that I expected such things, and that others ought to. Granted, if you're in a playgroup that always takes nonpowergamed lists, you can build an expectation for that sort of thing, but if you run into a random person, no such expectation can legitimately exist. If you ask someone for a game, what have they really done wrong? They're just using all means available to them under the rules to win. We certainly don't call it cheap when a chessmaster pulls of something that no one saw coming - even though his opponent may not have seen it coming and so had no chance to defend against it. Even if it was something that the other guy saw coming, but he, believing it to be unfairly powerful, didn't plan for it and refused to use it himself, we should still have no sympathy for him.

I still think that we're mostly in agreement with each other. Yeah, having a more powerful army can often be an unearned advantage (which is how I think you mean 'cheap' - one problem with the word is that it's really hard to nail down a definition for it). Yeah, you can beat a better player by powergaming an army, provided he hasn't. That in itself does not make powergaming wrong. You can beat a better player by standing in the open and shooting, provided he refuses to attack you for the entire game. That doesn't mean that you're doing something wrong, though it's quite obviously a cheap advantage, in the sense that you've done nothing to earn it.

What you think is more fun is irrelevant. I too prefer to play against more balanced lists, and I hate going against min-maxed Iron Warriors, Armored Company, Eldar platform death, 5 solo Crisis Suits in 1000 points, or any BT player who sees me coming and takes that horrific Lance immunity thing (army tailoring in general gets to me, if it comes to that). However, I can't, in good conscience, find these people at fault. They simply see the game in a different light, and I had no right to expect them not to take every advantage available to them. To resolve this, my playgroup has all agreed not to do anything horribly outrageous, and not to tailor based on the next opponent. We're playing by house rules, and we're having more fun than we were, but I'm not about to claim that I somehow know how to play 'better' than do the powergamers. If I walk into a store and ask someone for a game, and he pulls out 9 Obliterators, some Defilers, and a Basilisk, I'm not going to lecture the guy or get mad at him. It's up to me to say "Hey, how about a more balanced game? I don't think I'd have much fun going up against that," if I feel that way. Or, I can just play him, probably get badly beaten, and accept it. He's not doing anything wrong.

[MechTau]

Let me try again, O mighty moderator...

Power gaming is bringing lists that kick ass. The most ungodly one I can easily think of is using the Saim-Hann army list to create an army of Jetbikes or whatever... god that is insane. An IG player who brings nine sentinels. A Tau player who plays highly mech might be considered in this catagory, but no, the Devilfishies arn't scoring units.

Cheesy is being absurd. Three Monoliths and a C'tan in 1500 points. Sure I can't do a thing against it, and yes, it could be increadibly powerful, but you are 15 Necrons from phase out. Cheesy is creating a list that is a rock, and unless someone brings "paper", the cheese wins.

In a tournament or a no holds barred occaison, powergaming ought to be aplauded. Half the game is choosing your army. Cheese is rather appealing, but boring to face.

What makes cheese and powergaming (both deliberate abuse of loopholes to create something the army list creators did not intend) wrong is when someone brings their finely tuned Saim-Hann jetbike army to face off an eleven year old's half painted Ultramarines.

Another thing is that "power gamers" tend to be obnoxious, unfriendly bitches. The only thing that will appease my anger is ripping one apart. However, many will tell, some powergamers are nice, friendly people who almost apologize for the hell they unleash.