From 1d4chan

Alright, that's the second time the picture has been uploaded and linked on the page. What gives? I don't get the joke if there is one; is it simply a personal attack on some dude that someone thinks is a powergamer?--Dark Angel 2020 (talk) 08:15, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

I have no idea who that is either, it just seems like a personal attack to me. -- Triacom (talk) 15:11, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Metadata is scrubbed, and the image is original, so he can't be tracked down. This is obviously an egofag who wants to be well known as a power gamer.Evilexecutive (talk) 16:50, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
It's either an egofag posting themselves, a dick posting someone to personally attack, or someone posting just some guy that they think looks like a powergamer. In any case it's a shit addition to the article. I added something more relevant in hopes that by having some sort of an image there that user won't put that pic back up. --HK (talk) 17:13, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

There's something deeply retarded in this page. I understand the concept of "powergaming" in rpgs that are collaborative games. But what is a powergamer in a tabletop game like 40k? When a game is competitive a clear winner and a clear loser and the objective is to win the game, there's no "powergamer", there's only a better player. Do you have the concept of powerplayer in chess? It's like going to Usain Bolt and say "pfft you train 10 hours a day, you ruin the fun to other runners". Wtf? Ok there's this annoying person that will rotflstomp a newfag over and over with is ubercompetitive tourney list gloating because he's a pro. But that's just a moron. You seems to recognize that in the introduction when you talk about "tourneyfags" as a neutral term. But then there's a whole paragraph of distilled stupidity when it's said that you should not play with people with optimized lists and even not let them in stores (ok, no tournaments in stores i guess?). Someone is deeply butthurt here I think. Phas (talk) 16:58, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Firstly, it is still possible to be a powergamer in a competetive game. The only difference is that people tend to tolerate them for longer. Secondly, I think that you are forgetting where you are. This is not a wikipedia page; hyperbole is pretty much the norm, as you can tell if you go to any number of pages. --Urist (talk) 17:08, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry but this makes absolutely no sense. In a competitive game the person that tries his every best to win with every means available, is just the standard player. If he cheats, he's a cheater. If he constantly plays with people that has an inferior level of skill to just win instead to try and find a worthy opponent, he's a moron (and this is still debatable to a degree in a tournament environment). Yes, you can play a competitive game in a non competitive way, but that's your choice. You cannot expect people to behave the same like you would expect a d&d player to not be a powerplayer cunt a ruin the game to anyone else. If you go outside playing basketball in the street and there's a guy that is very strong, what do you do, ask him to play "worse"? And there's a difference between "hyperbole" and "bullshit". Phas (talk) 17:24, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Games are fun (>implying games are fun). /tg/ games are, almost by defenition, an interaction between two or more people. If you view the person on the other side of the table as nothing more than a W or an L then you fundamentally don't understand what a traditional game is.

  • This is nonsensical again. Competition is a strong form of interaction between people. Two people testing their skill and wits against one another will make these people bond far more that plain "having fun". And who says that competing isn't having fun? People compete in sports while exhausting every little ounce of energy left in their body, risking to injure themselves, up to the very point where the buildup of toxic biproducts of methabolism will literally make them unable to move to come up on top and still have fun and positive interaction. In really traditional games like chess people uses all the intelligence they have to desperately beat a worthy opponent in a merciless game and we know that in history chess players developed bonds that went across the entire world. This idea that a competitive player in a competitive tabletop game is a "power player" and he is bad, seems to me to be just whining by someone who got his ass busted. Phas (talk) 19:36 , 3 May 2018 UTC
      • Lol wut? Did you see the rosters on tournaments during 7th edition? Each and every one was an unholy abomination of WAAC, abusing every mechanic available. Even in 8th there is a core difference between casual play of IG vs Tau and BULLGRYNS WITH CELESTINE OFFICER OF THE FLEET WITH DAGGER OUTFLANKING TANKS FEARLESS CONSCRIPTS CONGA vs WHOLE BOARD OF RIPTIDES PROTECTED WITH SHIELD DRONES. If you don't understand it and really think it only takes a better player to win and WAAC is the only way to - well, it's your choice, but it's not something most people would approve. --Flutist (talk) 22:22, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
        • The better player is the one who wins a competitive game, by definition. You are pinning poor game balance on competitive players. What you describe is a fault of GW, not of the players. You don't like the 40k balance? Fine. You don't like to play 40k competitive, fine. You can find equally minded people and play some narrative driven stuff or whatever. But that's your personal choice like playing tennis with your friends instead of joining a tournament. I used to sail when I was young(er) but I usually didn't join any regatta because I didn't like to sail competitively. That doesn't mean that I could criticize competitive sailsmen like "powersailors" with their uber powered ultra sleek brand new sailboats because it would be utterly moronic. Phas (talk) 00:34 , 4 May 2018 UTC
    • Sounds like powergaming is more imprecise than incorrect - you may or may not be thinking more along the lines of netlisting or something like that. -- 23:23, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
      • That's more correct, yes. But then again it's only a natural phenomenon that vastly predates internet. Whenever you get to seriously compete in any game or sport, you will start to learn techniques from others and train on them. Can't see anything wrong with that. Phas (talk) 00:34 , 4 May 2018 UTC

Given what has been said in this discussion I'm inclined to rewrite the retarded parts of this page. The idea is to highlight the fact that competitive and narrative/casual playstyle are both valid in a competitive tabletop game. Players with different playstyle should learn to behave like fucking adults and stop bitching and moaning and/or gloat like morons when a competitive list rotflstomp a non-competitive one. Since no clear line between "competitive" and "non-competitive" can be drawn, the revolutionary idea is BLOODY TALK ABOUT THAT WITH A OPPONENT THAT YOU DON'T KNOW BEFORE START TO PLAY! Plus other things. Since I don't want to generate some idiotic edit war about this, I'll still wait some days in case some more debate is needed. And probably forget about the whole thing in the process. Phas (talk) 16:27, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Powergaming in competetive games is by definition, the sacrificing of other people's enjoyment of the game for the purpose of winning. What is and is not powergaming varies from group to group. Most people I've gamed with would react to someone bringing that formation of up to six riptides in 7th by refusing to play against them. Tournements are another beast altogether, and don't really play into this discussion, since they are a setting in which everyone has agreed beforehand to bring their most powerful lists. There is a difference between complaining about people who take the fun out of the game, and people whining OP PLZ NERF to anyone who will listen on the internet. --Urist (talk) 17:15, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Ok, I can accept the rationale of your definition. But it boils down to people playing OP competitive lists against a casual player for the fun of mindless rape. And I already categorized them as morons. I prefer the term "moron" because by your definition if Joe The Tourneyfag plays us uber broken dark eldar list with his friend Andy who is another tourneyfag with 200 guardsmen and 9 basiliks, he's not a powerplayer. While if he plays the same broken list against a narrativefag he magically becomes a powerplayer. Substitute "powerplayer" with "moron" and you can see that the same phrase seems a lot more logical. Also, as a personal note, I don't like your idea of ostracizing people that are playing perfectly by the rules because in your opinion are powerplayers. It seems all very subjective to me and therefore a sure way to create personal frictions and problems in groups of people. Phas (talk) 20:03, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
>I don't like your idea of ostracizing people that are playing perfectly by the rules because in your opinion are powerplayers< So you're basically the guy who can bring riptide with 50 shield drones for the non-tournament game because rules allow it? --Flutist (talk) 20:58, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
I'm the guy who doesn't like getting into arguments or having problems with people that didn't do anything that I can define as objectively wrong. This is a discussion of logic and principles. If you try to pin this on me, well, I play AdMech so bad luck for you. What I find interesting of your response is that you admit that playing such lists in a tournament is fine. So people can play turnaments but god forbid that they train for the tournaments because otherwise, they are bad bad powerplayers. Phas (talk) 21:38, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
Tournament play is very different to regular one - you don't go into the strip club and complain about naked women being there, but it's not like walking outdoors naked is fine either. WAAC players can do everything they want behind the closed doors and between themselves, I don't mind, just don't try to shove your complexes down the throat of people who built their armies around fluff and looks. --Flutist (talk) 22:00, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
Actually it's the exact opposite. There's a list of official rules that are the same that are used in tournaments which are public events. If you want to enforce a different playstyle behind the closed doors of your club, is fine. But still, if the place is open to other people besides a couple of your friends, you should bother to homebrew some clear rules about what is allowed and what is not. Otherwise is you who are forcing your complexes down the throat of other people in the form of the ill-defined sin of "powerplaying". I hope that you apreciate that without a clear set of rules, in the complex environment that is any group of people, your logic could easily become "if you beat me I won't be your friend anymore", which is kindergarten level of social interaction. Phas (talk) 22:39, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
*le sigh* That's not the way the game is meant to be played. It's the reason GW imposes more and more limitations on 8th edition basic rules (keywords, limit on detachments, etc). I really, really can't understand how is that you see no difference between the regular sharp player and the WAAC-tournament one, who abuses every loophole to win. Maybe it's just my experiences (been playing for over 10 years now). To draw a parallel, it is also not illegal to borrow 100$ from your buddy and never give it back - there is no document saying you should provided you didn't sign anything, so the law would be on your side. Nowadays I am a proud member of HH community with 25 active players, and there is only one I can call a powerplayer, despite there is another guy who represented our country on ETC once. The latter tabled me in 1750-point game once, while I removed him about 7 or 10 models, but that was not because of the powergaming or one roster to end them all, but because he played it smart (and some bad dice at my side). And no homebrew rules about what should or should not be taken, I'd like to point. --Flutist (talk) 19:10, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Oh, I can see the difference very well. And I can quite understand how depressing is that a game that sports hundreds of units with cool models and varied rules gets de facto restricted to a handful of lists that are competitive. It would be wonderful if the 40k balance could be better - but on such a complex system this can work only to a point, otherwise you lose variety - and I don't quite understand why there aren't "narrative campaign-like rules" to create some guided progression that would graciously impede netlisting while adding another layer of fun. Like in killteam, maybe? But this is still a competitive game and in any competitive game, WAAC is a perfectly valid, if not default, mindset. Hell "competitive" literary means "win at all cost". I would very like to play in non-competitive way and, hell, you know what, I might have more fun playing in your club that in my city where everyone is a tourneyfag. But I would never, ever, allow myself to enter into an argument or even have a bad opinion of or criticize someone just for playing a game without breaking any rules. Respect for other honest players comes before fun. Phas (talk) 19:34, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
There is always a line (albeit sometimes a thin line) between playing competitively and WAAC, a one that exist between playing by the rules and being the rules lawyer. First is good an' proper, second is frown upon, and by GW no less (all those limitations I mentioned). The most important rule of the game is having fun, and if you don't enjoy playing with someone because the only thing he seeks in hobby is owning everyone on the table (and it's very hard to maintain a beautifully painted powerhouse roster in 8th due to constant changes. Ok, maybe that's kinda bad, but I laughed my ass off when I read the butthurt post about buying 400 poxwolkers one week before the FAQ nerfed the Poxfarm once and for all), what's the point? This page isn't about your average Joe who plays competitively and builds his army around certain ideas; it is about that guy who kills all the fun by simply appearing near the table and asking questions like "why didn't you give your Custodes Tribune 3++ with re-roll?" --Flutist (talk) 22:04, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
From the dictionary definition of "competitive": "wanting very much to win or be more successful than other people". There's no line between playing competitive and WAAC, because they literally means the same thing. The rest of your argument is invalid as a result. Phas (talk) 15:24, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
Let's just agree to disagree. The moment you understand "very much" =/= "at any cost", you'll see I am right. Just need to meet a right person to show that IRL. --Flutist (talk) 13:48, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

I war binge-reading stuff about rpgs in the wiki and I noticed something... strange. When some crazy unbalanced bullshit comes up in 40k, the (power)player who uses it is criticized more than GW for making it. On (some?) rpgs pages, where you can make an actual case for powergaming to the somewhat wrong approach, it's basically the opposite. cfr Monte Cook or CODzilla I understand that there are infinite variations on how people like to play games, but I would argue that any accusation of powergaming is somewhat more relevant in RPGs than in competitive wargames. Yet the feeling is that in this wiki the RPG powergamer is treated with more "respect" than the wargaming powerplayer. Vice versa RPGs games, where to someone balance could be nonimportant at all, seems to be more criticized for poor balance than competitive wargames. This is odd, should we think about this? Phas (talk) 13:36, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

It's really not that strange, companies like GW and Fantasy Flight are trying to make a fun system for their players to enjoy, Powergamers on the other hand are trying to break that system for their benefit and to the detriment of the other players. When they boost themselves or break a system in the sort of way that they do it (or just find a broken combo) people hate them because that player knows full well what they're doing, they're not just a writer who hadn't thought something through and later realized they'd made a huge mistake. Powergamers are also met on an individual basis (unless you watch streamers) so they're going to stand out more, and Powergamers in RPG's are still a massive issue for whoever's running the session. -- Triacom (talk) 00:34, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, ok, maybe. But do you agree that a "powerplayer" in a non-competitive game like an RPG is a lot more "wrong" that in a competitive game? Oh, god this whole discussion is so strange to me. Do you realize that there's no real-world translation of the term power player? I mean, if you go to say a tennis player and "accuse" him to be a powerplayer with the definition given here, he will be flattered and answer something like "oh, tank you, i practice really hard you know?"
The powergamer in a non-competitive game can be just as bad if not worse depending on the group and GM you have, if they're trying to make themselves great at the expense of everyone else they're playing with then they can fuck right off. There also isn't a powergamer definition for sports players like that because there isn't a system for them to easily abuse (unless they're something like a professional up against a novice), the closest you could get is courts which is why some powergamers are also called "rules lawyers". -- Triacom (talk) 21:32, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Actually, I'd argue that there is an IRL counterpart, and that it is relevant to this. To use the same example, imagine a professional tennis player who went as hard as they could in a match with their baby cousin. They would be seen as a dick. If you apply that to the hobby, it makes sense.
The powergamer is totally acceptable as a thought experiment, like Pun-Pun or Smashfucker, which could be used in a game where it is acceptable to do so, like Tournaments or a campaign/game where it was discussed beforehand. They are not acceptable in casual play, much like the tennis player. Obviously, the tennis player will still win, because they know how to play the game, much like how a powergamer will optimize much more than other players, but breaking the game outside of the competitive scene is unacceptable.
In general, if you see something you disagree with, just add your opinion in an alternative take or note on the page with a disclaimer. --Kracked Mynd (talk) 18:38, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Ok yeah, here I agree with you. But then It's not the style of play, it's the context. And it's kind of a special occasion. I mean, the tennis player in your example will usually play with people on his level and then there was this one time when he has been a douchebag with his baby cousin. And yes if you play 40k at a tournament level and then you take you broken op list that ranked 4th in the national event to the local store to pwn 10 years old kids because it makes you feel good, you are an idiot. But this is very different than saying that if you go play tournaments with your broken op list against other broken op lists because you want to win, YOU ARE A POWERGAMEEEER AND YOU ARE RUINING THE GAAAAME! Which is what transpires from the page and the discussion. I'm thinking on how to write "an alternate take". Phas (talk) 18:51, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
People aren't going to yell at powergamers in tournaments because it's supposed to be a try-hard event where you do whatever you can to win (the page also isn't doing that), people hate powergamers in casual games because those are not that kind of event, those are games where each side is trying to play a fun game and the powergamer is intentionally trying to have their fun at the expense of somebody else. It's a dick move, much like the example listed above, and that's why people hate them. -- Triacom (talk) 21:32, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

About the World of Darkness entry in the A Less Elequent Summary[edit]

Did you know that it's theoretically possible for a player in the original World of Darkness to have the powers of a vampire, a werewolf, and a mage at the same fucking time? Why even bring a fucking party?!

What the fuck? I love WoD (Especially Vampire: the Masquerade), but I never heard of anything like this. Aren't those things mutually exclusive to themselves? If this is about Samuel Haight, that guy was created as a joke character. Plus, Storytellers don't give permission to do this sort of shit. The only way I can see this somehow happen is on a extremely old Sixth Generation Elder Vampire who learned Protean ••••• •• Shape of the Beast’s Wrath and got five points in one of the paths of myriad variations of Blood Sorcery, such as Nahuallotl's Flower of the Divine Liqour path. But that would be acceptable, because the person in question is a fucking Elder Vampire, who would never be able to be used by a player, due to the common sense of the Storyteller.

--CountTheDead (talk) 00:39, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Sounds like you, goo sir, should remove it. --Kracked Mynd (talk) 01:38, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, it is at the very least possible for a werewolf to become a vampire. However doing this turns you into a horrible abomination and means pretty much every other werewolf will kill you on sight. Additionally, unlike 3.5, were it is RAW impossible to, for example, be a lich and vampire at the same time (both templates require that you be living to start with), because the OWoD games were not originally meant to be crossover compatible, there is not much RAW (that I know of at least) preventing your mage from being embraced, or your werewolf from awakening. --Urist (talk) 04:55, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Sam Haight may have been a "joke", but yes indeed, the rules support it very well, and any smart and savvy player could do it, too. The trick is that you connive the powers through various sources.
Sam Haight did it by being a kinfolk who used a fucked-up Wyrm-tainted ritual to become a Skinwalker, which is "kind of a werewolf but not really". He then found some weaker vampires, immobilized them, and drained the fuckers dry before killing them, then drinking their blood to be a ghoul. His Awakening is pretty sketchy and certainly a fiat ruling (i.e. they did it for story purposes), but in theoretical optimization, it is both possible (as in "chances are above 0") and legal by the rules (since it clarifies in various places that vamp and werewolf stuff doesn't trigger Paradox for various reasons, and does in fact work alongside Magick very well).
In the final analysis, yes, it is theorycrafting at the finest, but it could factually work.
Sam Haight is simply a narrative example of Pun-Pun, who ALSO relies upon some pretty sketchy interpretations of the rules, as do most of the most powerful D&D 3.5 builds ever conceived. Hence the term "theoretical optimization", as opposed to "practical optimization" (the latter is "stuff you can do almost straight up by RAW without much arguing about effects or intentions).
Now, before you guys start blowing a gasket, you'll notice Sammy had to do some fucked-up shit to get that far. He functionally diablerized a vampire or three, by itself a crime meriting hideous death by the Kindred. He used a corrupt ritual to become a werewolf, which angers those guys just as bad. And the way he acquired his Magick was to metaphysically "rape" a source of such power. By the end of that adventure, there's a reason every faction is trying to kill his ass. Samuel Haight has committed numerous, egregious, horrific offenses against nearly every supernatural being there is in that setting, and none of them are happy with him. The fact he could potentially trigger the end of the world seals his fate: even the Technocracy would have been helping the Traditions eradicate that fucker with orbital lasers if all else failed.
Sam Haight punched his ticket the instant he decided to become a living god; none of the supernatural factions could afford that happening in that setting. The players simply get the satisfaction of being the guys to pull the trigger, if they don't screw things up too bad.
Eisfalken (talk) 09:21, 19 January 2019 (UTC)