This is another email from a reader I think is better for discussion for a couple of reasons. Primarily, I've never really had this issue. If someone doesn't like the way I play (even if it's with friendly lists) I explain playing poorly doesn't take away from the game, etc. and they generally understand and in the end their tactics and gameplay are improved. If they don't, I just don't play against them and since I have my regular gaming buddies where ever I've lived, not being able to play against a couple of people doesn't phase me. Secondly, I imagine this happens to a lot of people and what might work for some, may not work for others so having a lot of opinions on the matter could be good.
Anyway, here's the email:
"Hi Kirby,
I am going to leave this bit blank so that you can fill in the appropriate comments on how great your blog is :)
Right now onto my dilemma. Recently I have been have been having difficulty getting people to play against me. I am being accused of playing like a "Jerk" and bending the rules to allow for things that weren't intended. Now I freely admit that with the help of your blog and others I have learnt a few sneaky tricks that I use. Yet it isn't those that are the problem as I let others know about them - even if they refuse to use them. No, it is the fact that I move away from my enemy and pick fights on my terms.
I play Space Wolves with what I think what you would call a Hybrid list (Rhino's/Lasplas/Hunters/Long Fangs/Thunderwolves). I mostly come up against Orks, Eldar, Blood Angels and recently Dark Eldar. They are all fast moving (Orks are a trukk list) and my favoured strategy is to try and get at least 3 shooting with my Long Fangs/Lasplas at the advancing army. If this means I run away with my Grey Hunters and Thunderwolves and use empty vehicles to block their movement then so be it... and recently this has resulted in my opponents, quitting after 2 turns when most of their force lie in ruins and my Grey Hunters are still out of reach of them. They argue that I am not playing in the spirit of the game, by avoiding fights, and that merely I have reduced the game to an exercise in them placing models on the table and then taking them off. For them it is no fun and therefore I am a "jerk". I suppose as these are friendly games I could resolve to play differently, but I use most of these games to practice for tournaments, as I don't get to play very often. So great Kirby help me - do I stop playing avoidancehammer or do I assault forces that are greater than me?
PS: my main opponent is my wife's Ork Trukk list which has been having huge problems with the volume of missile fire the Space Wolves can put out. Battlewagons didn't solve the issue as they are open topped and in the few games she played with them I got some *really* lucky dice rolls and she failed most of her KFF saves. Orks vs SW, seems a really bad matchup?
PPS: Straight up choice - Wolf Scouts with attached Wolf Guard or Rune Priest with JOWW/LL and chooser(Current choice is Tempest/Hurricane)?"
1) Have her mass buggies/Kanz like Mike/fester's list. Up to 30 vehicles will tax your missiles and lascannons.
2) Priest can't go with scouts so Wolf Guard for the extra melta shot and combat prowess.
So first of all, you're using a good list and this is going to compound the problems with the 'jerk' image. I'd make your list a lot more 'fun' by going for less MSU/min-maxing (i.e. max out the GH squads) so the army isn't as top-notch as it could be. Don't go buy new models for this but rather condense what you have into a 'weaker' force. This shouldn't drastically change your tactics but it can help with how people perceive you, particularly if they browse online and see how OP/cheesy/WAAC/etc the Internet generally sees Wolves. I'd also point out quite explicitly you are not bending the rules or breaking the rules (unless you are; and if you are stop! lol) by using good tactics, etc. There is nothing in the rulebook saying you have to move forward or at all, etc.
Then, don't modify your tactics and explain them to your opponent. This is delicate as you don't want to sound condescending but show them how retreating your Grey Hunters so your fire support gets more time to shoot offers you more tactical flexibility which is generated by your list and good tactics. I'm going to assume a lot of their lists are just assault based armies which floor it across the field and try and get into combat. If you can guide them through how your list and their list are different they should hopefully come to two realisations. 1) their list needs to be changed and 2) blindly doing anything in a tactical game isn't too bright.
This is what I've generally done/seen done and the response is generally positive and people adapt and change. Some people or groups won't because they like their paradigm too much and trying to shake it up is next to impossible. So here's where the community comes in. Do you see this type of approach working as well? Anything else that you feel might work better or well in conjunction? Let's help out a fellow gamer improve the competition around him!
fester40k 73p · 743 weeks ago
Orks vs Space Wolves is always an uphill battle though, unfortunately.
Meister_Kai · 743 weeks ago
As for your specific problem:
As Kirby has said, a good portion of why you are experiencing the woe you do is due to you playing what is arguable the best army in the game right now (Space Wolves) and it sounds like you are running a really strong build on top of it. To further exacerbate your problem you are seemingly playing vs people who mostly play armies not nearly as optimized as yours.
Let me tell you about playing vs optimized Space Wolves with a 4th edition codex (what most people in your area seemingly use).
Its not fun. It is, as your friends put it, an exercise of you just shooting them off the table. I get to play my ass off zooming my Eldar tanks around the table while you refuse flank or castle every game and shoot me down with missiles. My 3-5 Lances and 2-8 Pulse laser shots at BS 3 (twin linked or not) just cannot stand up to 15 Lascannons or 20 some missiles or whatever firepower your list indulges in.
I don't even want to think about how bad Orks or other behind the curve codices have it.
I think the thing that pisses most players off vs Space Wolves are TWC and Grey Hunters. Grey Hunters are capable of beating most old codices (and some new codices) elite assault units in combat with little difficulty. Likewise, TWC are for all intents and purposes ridiculous. You can tool the unit to do anything you please, it is incredible durable while being relatively under-costed as well.
Old codices can't stand up to your shooting. If their elite assault units actually get to your lines, they often have the privilege of being eaten by your basic troops. Surely you can see how disheartening this is.
What I suggest you do:
Play a different Space Wolf variant. Play Blood Claws, Ragnar Blackmane, Skyclaws, all those units that are actually perfectly fine but aren't 100% optimized. It is relatively hard to make a bad Space Wolf army because you have rules like Counter Attack to bail you out of bad situations.
Kirby says he has had success turning his game community around, thats awesome. Every other story I've read though says the process takes a LONG time (read: years) if it happens at all. Those 4th edition players that keep running at you that you keep snubbing? They don't want to change a thing about what they're doing, they want YOU to change. They are usually unwilling to change at all, so trying is futile.
Either take bad units and play into their desires, try to very slowly change them, or don't play them at all. Unless there are other people playing optimized armies like you are you don't need the playtesting experience, your inbuilt resiliency and firepower should see you through as long as you don't screw up your deployment too bad. This isn't true vs other good 5th ed lists, but if thats what you were playing against you wouldn't be having this problem.
My .02 at least.
VT2 79p · 743 weeks ago
The 'best' army, in that when properly run, it destroys you, is tau.
Gorak · 743 weeks ago
VT2 79p · 743 weeks ago
Meister_Kai · 743 weeks ago
One turn of bad shooting and you are done. If someone gets to your lines you are more or less screwed (for all the hype Kroot really aren't all that hot).
You roll bad with Wolves one turn, who cares (its also a good deal harder to have a completely bad turn of shooting with wolves based on them having so many long range shots). Oh you mean you actually got to the wolves parking lot? Prepare to get beat down by their basic troops that when assaulted, hit like Assault Marines.
You basically have get lucky. Do you roll hot and your 2-4 Rail Cannons all explode something, or does BS 3 on a lot of your stuff rear its ugly head and you get advanced upon?
An army that even when completely optimized STILL relies on above average shooting to take on the good lists (and has a lot of trouble stopping armies such as mass FNP jump Blood Angels) just isn't as hot as many internet people make it out to be.
Tau are a good army though, best 4th ed army probably. Don't go saying they are better than Guard/Wolves because then I'll have to ask for proof which I don't think you can provide.
Meister_Kai · 743 weeks ago
Space Wolves
Imperial Guard
Blood Angels (these first three are all pretty equal honestly, but each one edges another one out slightly)
Dark Eldar
Tau
Vanilla Marines
Witchhunters (Immo spam in particular)
Tyranids
Eldar
After this is drops of pretty steeply.
GreyICE · 743 weeks ago
In any case, yeah. You're taking an 'ard army versus 4th edition codices, which can't field anything like that. Versus refined Dark Eldar, Tyranids or Guard, yes, you can field that and have a fight. You are still fielding arguably the best codex in the game (Everyone whines about the Vendetta's 3 TL BS 3 las cannons at 130. 140 gets the wolves 5 BS 4 missiles that split fire and DON'T stop working off one shaken/stunned result).
loudanddeep 48p · 742 weeks ago
I love the SW fluff and story; was reading my codex just last night. I love the paint schemes, and some of the units are very cool.
However, just as i had to admit my pre-faq doom was just too good, I could not in good faith debate the claim that SW are arguable just a bit too good...
Comrade · 743 weeks ago
An example would be against a guys kan-wall army that I could never beat. I'd give it a match, lose horribly, go home and re-write (Not tailor) my list to fix up obvious problems and tighten my game, come back the next week and get stomped.
That being said, a month or two of this guy winning every game he played (It was a really good list) he said to me "I'm gonna tool it back or I'll never get a game again".
He still plays hard lists, but he does make an effort to change things up inorder to challenge himself. That being said, there are always two parties on this. The one party that says bringing baals to the waals hard comp-lists into an enviroment that isn't that competative is a, as the kids call it, 'dick move' And those that say "Kids gotta deal." and bringing whatever they want.
Both are right. Both are wrong. Its all a matter of perspective I guess.
chumbalaya 79p · 743 weeks ago
The people with the 4th ed armies are as willing to change as you are. Playing down to their level is a good start, as is trying to introduce more advanced concepts gradually. Don't expect things to change overnight because it ain't gonna happen. The most important thing is that you're able to get games in and enjoy yourself, so work with that in mind.
Aurenian 57p · 743 weeks ago
Mercury · 743 weeks ago
If on the other hand your opponents are looking to make the step up to competitive play themselves, then you have every right to teach them a pink army lesson in how to improve their list and expose it's weaknesses.
Linked to the above is sportsmanship. I'm not accusing you of being a bad sport, but I'm sure that all of us could improve our sportsmanship sometimes. I know I certainly could! A defeat by a pleasant, gracious opponent is just much easier to take than a defeat by someone who repeatedly plays the same optimised army.
If your friends are set in their ways and reluctant to change their army lists, then your beating them and telling them to improve their tactics/model selection is going to seem very patronising. I think that you need to play down to their level slightly and introduce change gradually i.e. you improve your 'dumbed-down' list at the same rate at which they improve theirs. Be patient though: finances are likely to be a major sticking point so change might be slow....
VT2 79p · 743 weeks ago
My heavily biased opinion is 'in warhams, no one likes a winner, except if the winner happens to be they.'
Zjoekov 74p · 743 weeks ago
Therefore please don't change your way of playing.... Dumbing down your own gameplay probably won't be fun for you. Just taking a much weaker list is a much easier (and better) solution for now. This way you can still enjoy your game by playing how you want (that is playing smart/to win), without the same devastating effect.
This in combination with the suggestions about 'upping' their game should work out.
What bothers me though is that the kind of people who call others a jerk for 'playing to win' are the actual jerks... The people who really don't care about winning don't react like that. They respect the fact that others play this game for different reasons than you and simply talk about it or just look for other oppenents.
So yes, the agressive kind of people DO want to win. Badly. Well VT2 talked about this already in an article so no need to repeat it. Ugh.
Icareane · 743 weeks ago
A lot of people like to play with their collection of models, and their army will reflect that. Nothing you can do to change that.
In my gaming club, we try to use armies with equivalent power levels. I usually post the list I would like to play on our private forum and someone will pick up the glove (or not), on the other hand when someone propose a battle, I always ask how they evaluate their army and I try to match that. Sweedish comp is sometimes also used to help non hardcore gamers evaluate army lists.
This way we usually have interesting battles enjoyable for both sides.
Last word: 40K is a hobby and a game, it's meant to be enjoyable for both players. If most people dislike your way of playing then you may be fighting the army right, but you're definitely playing wrong. Good chess or go players use handicaps to make games interesting for both sides, maybe you should too.
Guest · 743 weeks ago
Von · 742 weeks ago
Gx1080 · 743 weeks ago
Any situation which involves having to bend over for people who don't play seriously and don't even try is honestly a waste of time. And having to buy minis that will probably sit on the shelf because they suck on the board is not fun for me.
I do say "have several lists". Not weaker lists, mind you, but variety is the spice of life. Also, they can't complain.
"Going against the spirit of the game" is a bunch of bullshit for "getting owned". They want to win, and if it bothers you so much, let them. Less of a hassle, because they will keep throwing that until they win.
But then, is stuff like that that motivates my side-Warmachine purchases. So yeah.
Katie Drake · 743 weeks ago
gdmnw 50p · 743 weeks ago
Warboss Stalin · 743 weeks ago
VT2 79p · 743 weeks ago
And if he changes to a perceived weaker list, they'll still lose, because they're bad players.
In time, the cheese will be the guy in general - not his army.
I'm very familiar with the whole scenario.
The only way out is to pull draws, or lose in silly fashions. Make it too obvious, and they'll get mad you're playing down.
Von · 742 weeks ago
I concur. Too much gamer drama arises from people with confused goals; they want to win, but are unwilling to break their unwritten rules in order to do so. I think a full and frank discussion of unwritten rules is better than holding the people who cleave to them in contempt - contempt is amusing, but it's not attractive, and it's not going to win you a large pool of gaming partners - but I agree with the spirit behind encouraging people to either abandon their unwritten rules, or accept that they have to choose between obeying them and playing a good game of warhams.
"TheJerk" · 743 weeks ago
Thanks for the feedback and advice. I will take this all on board. Perhaps, I will put away the Wolves and instead, pull out my Tyranids and start using them for friendly games, because, you know they are terrible ;-)
@ fester - I will send in a list of models at some stage.
Meister_Kai · 743 weeks ago
This is what casual players, the people you are concerned about, probably think about your army.
You could do what Gx1080 suggests (who has said he isn't the most social person) and promptly have no one to play against. I suggest you play Tyranids. Even the most optimized lists aren't that brutal, and let me tell you, the casual players will be much happier to be obliterated in assault than just being shot of the table, they HATE that.
Zjoekov 74p · 743 weeks ago
Well played Tyranids are almost just as effective as Wolves...
Unless the OP is interesting in playing a sucky army; then an incoherent mix of units might work...Might, because when he still wins with it (which I think he will; the skill gap seems large and it will get worse when he keeps learning from Kirby his articles haha) they'll keep whining methinks.
The problem is his oppenents in combination with him; a different army won't change this.
Von · 742 weeks ago
Zack · 743 weeks ago
Aurenian 57p · 743 weeks ago
guest · 743 weeks ago
I don't agree with the 'you shouldn't play people who can't play hard' as thats just isolating yourself, they should learn something from your games and hopefully will grow as players. Wolves are mean butit cirtainly not impossible to get a good game in against them.
VT2 79p · 743 weeks ago
This is why losers are always gonna be losers.
Sethis · 742 weeks ago
It's up to you whether you have the time/inclination/money to try something similar, but I have to say it was a positive experience for me. Good luck!
Ben · 742 weeks ago
As other people have said, I think this is the core of your problem. How much can you really be improving your tournament skills by wiping out people who aren't attempting and may not even have the models/codex for tournament-level play? It has to be sort of boring for you and is clearly frustrating for them. I don't think that switching to Tyranids is the answer either, if you still come into the game with a tournament mindset. I think the only real option is to take a list and an attitude that is appropriate to the setting, or you are likely to run out of opponents before too long. Which sucks for you, no doubt, since it isn't the type of game _you_ want, but is still hopefully better than the none that is the other likely option.
And. Dude. Unless you have a really comfy couch I'd ease up on your wife's orks. ;)
Clive · 742 weeks ago