 | Main - Tactics - Fiction - Rumours - Army Features |
When is a Veteran a Veteran? - Dysartes | |
| At what point in the career of a gamer does he become a veteran? Is it down to the number of armies he owns, or how many systems he plays? Does it depend on his age, or how long he's been playing? Should he be judged on his knowledge of the rules or background? According to Games Workshop's Veterans Evenings, all you have to be to qualify as a veteran is make it to the age of 16, and to play their games. Personally, I disagree with that. Is it fair to describe someone as a veteran gamer based on how old he is? It is my opinion that you cannot define a veteran based solely on this. Going by this logic, a twenty-year old university student who has just started gaming is more of a veteran than a fifteen year old who may have been playing for five or more years. To almost everyone, this would appear illogical, as the fifteen year old will have a much greater wealth of experience when it comes to the hobby. Similarly, arguing that a veteranhood can be judged by how many armies someone owns, or how many points these armies are worth is also a falsitude. It places the emphasis on how much disposable income you have rather than your knowledge of how to use what you have available. For example, when you can just buy a new unit to fill the gap your army has, your tactical growth can be stunted, as you always have the easy escape mechanism handy. Someone who can't afford to buy the latest shiny toy, and has to make do with what he has available, has to learn to use what he has to the maximum effectiveness, and may find new tactics developing based on his unit selection. The other disadvantage to being able to buy everything you want is that most of it will remain unpainted for years at a time, as there is a greter potential for getting distracted by the newest release, leaving what you already have in all its silver and grey glory. The length of time someone has been involved in the hobby is a significant part of whether someone is a veteran or not. The longer someone has been playing, the more experience they have in all aspects of the game. It is possible for someone to walk in off the street and have a natural talent for painting or tactics, but someone with a number of years experience at either is likely to be better than the person who is band new. Knowledge of the rules and background are an important, though not crucial, element of being a veteran. A veteran tends to know most of the rules well enough to game with, but may not know the minutae or happen to have the latest FAQ or clarification to hand. It's always possible that a veteran is a walking rules encyclopaedia, but that isn't a necessary qualification. Most veterans have a reasonably good knowledge of the general background of the games he plays. While a Warhammer 40,000 nut may not be able to give you the details of the Horus Heresy, he will normally be able to give you a rough idea of what happened. Of course, there are people like myself and Brusilov, who have most of the background stored in our heads. After all, the models may have enticed people into the hobby, but the background is a major part of why people stay in the hobby. In my view, being a veteran is based on a large number of elements, a major one of which is attitude. A veteran may be a power-gamer, or a fluff player, but if they approach their games meaning for themselves and their opponents to enjoy it, then they're doing the right thing. If this means a powergamer has to tone his list down to play a new player, or that a fluff player has to have a power list ready to give power gamers a tough game, then all well and good. Approaching the game with the attitude that their method alone is the correct one is, in my opinion, not the way a veteran should behave. | |
Want to discuss this? Or anything else? | |
Main - Tactics - Fiction - Rumours - Army Features | |