Type of FoG players

[Strategos69]

We have had many discussions about V2 and I wondered how was the rapport between those players interested in playing tournament games, ahistorical refights or historical games. I am curious and I would like to know if there are many silent players who play any of them but who do not post as they are not very regular players.

Unfortunately, the poll does not allow for multiple click, so choose whatever you think best fits you and your preferences.

[dave_r]

You've missed out the vast majority of players - i.e. those who play regularly at a club every week. Certainly in the UK.

[berthier]

Even though I play mostly tournament games, I want the historical interactions correct more than I want the artificial interactions of the ahistorical tournament matchups balanced.

[ShrubMiK]

I certainly think you should really be distinguishing between those who play in actual tounament games; and those who may play tournament points games on tournament sized tables, perhaps with tournament victory conditions and scoring..but as a "friendly" club game.

In my experience there's quite a difference between what those two sets of people are looking for from their rulesets and supporting materials.

[Strategos69]

You've missed out the vast majority of players - i.e. those who play regularly at a club every week. Certainly in the UK.

Wouldn't it be options 1, 2 or 3 depending on what they do? (It seems that 1 would fit more.) In the other hand, it is hard to tell what the vast majority is if there is no census of players, not that I know. The problem with the poll is that there is no way to allow multiple answers and 2 polls were too much for just a curiosity.

[hazelbark]

I certainly think you should really be distinguishing between those who play in actual tounament games; and those who may play tournament points games on tournament sized tables, perhaps with tournament victory conditions and scoring..but as a "friendly" club game.

In my experience there's quite a difference between what those two sets of people are looking for from their rulesets and supporting materials.

I am not sure "quite a difference" but an important difference i agree.

The hobby is more fractured than i think 4 simple categories lay out.

[petedalby]

How would you define a Non Historical refight? Surely that's an oxymoron?

[Strategos69]

How would you define a Non Historical refight? Surely that's an oxymoron?

Not quite sure if oxymoron would be the word. They can also be called fantasy games, if you prefer.

Unluckily once launched it is not possible to modify the poll.

[shadowdragon]

Unluckily once launched it is not possible to modify the poll.

Ah! Life is full of such problems.

[gozerius]

I prefer a historical approach, but I am forced by necessity to accept non historical matchups. This means that the armies brought to the table will almost always be extremes of min/maxing to field the most powerful army for the points used. Which gets a bit boring after a while. Rule #1 of painting armies is the most expensive stuff gets painted first, with just enough of the cheap stuff to meet the minimum requirements and round out the army. Then only the more dedicated painter bothers to expand his options. I try to cover the entire range of possibilities, but taking the time to paint 96 figures for a Mob (24pts) means that I could have painted 3 BGs of armored O Sp (240 pts). Or 6 BGs of dismounted men at arms (384 pts).

[stecal]

Mostly historical matchups - either I build & paint 2 paired armies, or my favorite opponents & I arange to build historical opponents. Very rarely play in tourneys as 3 x 4 hour rounds are just an endurance test & I get to miss the entire Con/dealers area.

[timmy1]

OMG, it has reached that moment where I have to admit, D*ve IS right. I agree with him here.

The vast majority of my games are club pickup games, historical where possible but Classical Indian vs Later Horse Nomad if necessary.

I have not voted

[ShrubMiK]

>This means that the armies brought to the table will almost always be extremes of min/maxing to field the most powerful army for the points used. Which gets a bit boring after a while

This seems to confirm my point re. difference in approach by different groups of players

I go out of my way to field varied armies to keep things interesting. If my army is sub-optimal on a given occasion, so be it.

[Cynical]

I voted 1 though I don't think that gives the correct answer.

I play informal mini tournaments with 3-4 friends or at other times we play mainly historical re-fights, so an option 1.5 would be more accurate

[david53]

Seems to be a lot of tournement players around...or maybe thats cause they only can get games then.

[Strategos69]

I voted 1 though I don't think that gives the correct answer.

I play informal mini tournaments with 3-4 friends or at other times we play mainly historical re-fights, so an option 1.5 would be more accurate

That was my fault making the Poll. Certainly there should be a distinction with both of them. In fact it was intended to be multiple choice and actually that is not possible and I had to reformulate. However, I did not expect that many players playing within clubs or in tournaments. In Spain, as far as I know, it is mostly small groups of people playing certain periods. There is a circuit of tournaments, but my distant impression is that there is not much "new" blood in them.

[dave_r]

Seems to be a lot of tournement players around...or maybe thats cause they only can get games then.

Or (as is my guess) that non-tournament players don't follow this forum as closely as tournament players.

They aren't particularly bothered about the direction the rules go - they just play the game that arrives. If it isn't good then they don't play it. A refreshingly honest approach.

[Jhykronos]

I'd have thought the default would be "pick-up games" at 800 points. Or do those count as "informal tournament games".