Spoletta wrote: 40K works much better than other games in absence of a social agreement.
MTG is simply unplayable. I'm gonna say "Standard" you are gonna say "Ok, standard!", then i put a premade standard deck on the table and you put a competitive one. Guess who's not going to enjoy the game?
Warmahordes is even worse. The difference between bad lists and good lists is so huge that it is like playing fluffy chaos marines against Eldar scatspam in 7th. You have no chances of winning.
The same is true for popular pc games. Wanna try going against a Goat with a fun and random composition in overwatch?
Apart from some truly nightmare games like imperial soup against mono GK, any other game is at least enjoyable. Yes my fluffy mono SM will not win many games against an optimized IG, but out of 10 games i will win 2 or 3.
This is an excellent post and anyone with experience in competitive gaming beyond tabletops, I'd imagine most people but I don't know, should be able to recognise the truth in this statement.
In terms of video games I think people tend to not see it because it's so much faster and easier to switch over to the meta picks/strategies yourself, so you never really experience a "casual vs competitive" scenario. Also there generally tends to be an automatic system in place matching you against players with a similar attitude towards the game as your own - if you play competitively in a video game, matchmaker systems will pit you against similarly competitive players.
The "40k vs other tabletop games" divide though, that is something that has always boggled my mind. The fact people complain about book bloat in 40k when you have something like DnD/Pathfinder/Flames of War out there where you simply will not own every publication that exists for the game, it is impossible to do so, and they complain about miniature pricing and monoposed-ness in 40k when you have something out there like Malifaux where A) all the models are completely monopse and B ) you are very often paying more per piece of mass-produced plastic than you would be from GW...it's kind of nuts to me. The grass is always greener, I guess.
I agree with what you are saying, but I mean you still see it very much in video games too even with what you say being factored in, so it's no surprise you see it here too.
auticus wrote: Yeah but most of us know that 99% of the population are matched-play only.
Citation needed.
There is no citation needed. The vast majority of games played are matched play games with points. I'd wager there is a much smaller amount of Narrative (way more than open, but much less than matched) and an extremely tiny minority of Open play games out there. Yet GW tries to cater to three styles when one (arguably the one they pay the least attention to) is vastly more popular and desired.
You're potentially making a huge error here. The problem is that the pool of data we have skews towards people who take the game more seriously. We have a healthy tournament scene, we have passionate forum posters. We are in all likelihood the minority though!
There are countless people out there who play super casually who do not engage with online communities or organised play events, or show up to the FLGS for their minis nighy. They buy Dark Imperium and maybe a few other kits and have fun. A lot of these players are kids too.
Sure, we don't know what the real split between us and them is. But you are entirely ignoring this community in your analysis simply because they don't have a voice right here.
auticus wrote: Yeah but most of us know that 99% of the population are matched-play only.
Citation needed.
Any poll ever taken on the subject. Some of which can be pulled up in dakka's history.
Dakka polls? That is meaningless in this context. People posting here will obviously skew towards taking the game more seriously. People who play more casually will be less likely to engage with online communities.
Then what you are setting up is an impossible situation that cannot be gauged but then demanding proof of the impossible situation to try and prove a point that it cannot be proven, which I strongly disagree with.
All we can do are polls, and those polls on not just dakka but every social media site on this game lean grossly towards points-only or predominantly points. Every person I meet in life, or online, for the past 20 years that I've been in this game, has leaned grossly toward points-only or predominantly points.
And I know in my community only about 1/4 of the people are super serious about the game, but all use points and would answer mostly points even if they don't take the game super seriously (but still monitor forums and facebook groups and vote)
Wayniac wrote: There is no citation needed. The vast majority of games played are matched play games with points.
Prove it.
I cringe at the broad sweeping statements as much as the next person but I too have found very few people play with the power level system.
All 3 local hobby shops I have in my area all play for points and most discussions I have here all involve the points system.
It would be an interesting poll to try which would go toward "proving it".
There is another thread that goes on for some 6 pages on this topic here.
I would be terribly interested in any "citation" that would be worth quoting, we mainly have our own anecdotal evidence to go by.
I have played as high as 5000 point games a side and still did not feel a want or need to use power levels (which for Apocalypse level games is the only need I can see for power levels).
Heck, having played games this big and not lose my mind can attest to 40k "being in a pretty good place" for me.
I do like options but having these different tiers of play "seems" like it would be more divisive than bringing us together.
auticus wrote: Any poll ever taken on the subject. Some of which can be pulled up in dakka's history.
Actually, dakka's polls do NOT support the assertion in question. They show people on Dakka playing something like 10% Open games, 30% Narrative games, 60% Matched games, depending on the poll (For example, here) -- and that's for Dakka, which has a tendency towards competitiveness to begin with. So this "99% of people don't play anything but matched" is pulled straight out of your ass. You have no idea what you're talking about and are just trying to claim your experiences are representative of the whole. And that's just the "matched play" assertion, it does not include the "points" assertion.
auticus wrote: Sweet you're one of those people that aren't really interested in discussing
Thus speaks the poster who makes dismissive, arrogant sweeping assertions as his sole form of argument. Hello pot, I'm kettle, and I'd like to say that you're also black.
SHUPPET wrote: Put your ear to the community and the answer to this kind of thing pretty clear.
And the answer is "people use both power level and points, and people also play narrative as well as matched play".
Unless you define "the community" as "only those people whom exclusively play at tournaments", you're not gonna find that 99% of people refuse to play anything other matched play with points. At this point, that argument is little more than the 40k equivalent of the "fox only, no items, final destination" meme.
All I can offer is anecdotal proof, but my local GW does everything by points too. Escalation league he's hosting goes up by 500 points a month, using Matched Play rules. Every game I've played there has been matched play. He's hosting an Apoc game next month using Narrative Play rules with PL, but that's Apoc, and to be expected.
Every time I've played someone from a different store, it's been matched play rules. Everyone who used to play earlier version uses points with matched play rules, since that's the way we're used to. he new PL system looks like a poor substitute for that to me, honestly, and I'm sure I'm not the only player who remembers previous versions to think that way.
A Town Called Malus wrote: The other alternative is that if a Knight is not balanced at all in games at a 500 point limit, why does the game allow it to be taken in such a game?
Simple answer- they're a business and they want to make money, but we all know that.
GW is fully aware of the existence of "that guy". And we all know "that guy" many times is more focused on winning than anything else, to the point where he has no concerns about how anyone else is enjoying the game or how they feel him. He doesn't care if the person he played refuses to play him again and hates him, he won and that's all that matters. "That Guy" will lie and say he wants a 'friendly fluff game' just because his opponent will let down his guard. "He's the type that would grave-rob his own grandmother's casket if he needed to, in order to buy a toy that helps him win.
I have watched, with my own two eyes, "That Guy" overdraft his bank account the week before a tournament to get some recently FAQ'd hot combo. Not only did he overdraft, and straight-up say "I'm over-drafting my account for this"- but he asks if he can leave his car at our shop for a week, tops- and then calls someone to come and pick him up because he's out of gas.
There's worse stories, that's just one that stuck in my head. I'm sure you've seen much, much worse.
...that all being said, you and I both know GW is fully aware that there are people like that and they're more than willing to give them an excuse to throw money in the till. As far as they're concerned, if a 500-point list needs to prohibit LoW units like Knights? Then that's on the local TO or between the players- they're very unlikely to step in and make any kinds of changes that could cost them money, so they're putting that on us.
I mean, let's not act like new models with a new codex isn't almost always a power creep. Have you ever wondered why GW doesn't just spend a longer amount of time playtesting and refining all the Codexes for one big release of all of them balanced against one another? They start scheming on new stuff at least 5 years out, according to Jess Goodwin's interview. I'd bet a Primaris Lieutenant that 9th edition is already written, and I'd bet every single Codex has a draft. But they do these releases over a period of time because every new Codex has got that 'hot goodness' that tons of people want and will pay for.
A Town Called Malus wrote: GW could just put in a system whereby units are excluded from different levels of play through the Keyword system. So, give stuff like Knights and Superheavy vehicles a specific keyword and then put in a rule where units with those keywords are limited at different points levels.
For example let's say the keyword is SUPERHEAVY.
Then just have rules in the matched play army creation rules whereby the number of units with the SUPERHEAVY keyword is limited to:
0 in games =< 500pts
1 in 500pts < games <= 1000pts
etc.
For Matched Play, of course- I'd still say "do what you like in narrative and open play". That's supposed to be the goofy sandbox where you do wild match-ups, and it's fun for that.
I kinda like where your head is at. Another solution would that something like that requires you to spend the same or more points in other units that aren't LoW. Or perhaps require a certain sized Detachment for the Auxillary, something justifies that one big beast of a unit out there supporting a force.
I mean, your idea isn't bad at all but if you wanna see what I mean about "that guy"- well, watch how many people scream at you with their argument being summarized as "I should be able to bring whatever I want because I can and I don't care about how much fun the other player is having."
So, yeah- GW's rules are going to allow things that get 'that guy' spending money, because a scummy player's cash looks just like a decent player's cash.
Well, provided it's from the same country. If we're comparing, the UK's looks kinda weird.
I mean everyone's personal experiences are colored exactly by what is around them.
When I start seeing narrative play discussions and no point discussions not thrown off into some shady part of a group or forum with a handful of posts in a year I'll start to reconsider the stance based on different inputs.
I'm sure those people exist in their garages etc. But they are by far not even close to being any more than a tiny blip on the radar.
So pedantically speaking 99% is misspeaking but the percent of people who will only use or primarily only use points is pretty close to the 90 or higher mark; I'd bet the farm on that.
And that makes a huge deal to design paradigms and sales and marketing approaches, which going back to what we were actually talking about is why knights are stomping around in 500 point games with no restrictions and why restrictions were removed circa 6th or so edition of 40k (and AOS is the same way).
I'm also the farthest from a tournament player that exists. So no I'm not speaking from a closeted view of I only hang out with powergamers that powergame all day in a tournament hall.
Melissia wrote: And the answer is "people use both power level and points, and people also play narrative as well as matched play".
Anecdotal, but in three different countries, and all across the United States- the only time I haven't used points is when my friend and I are just playing around with the system to do some kind of silly game type that isn't even "40k". Literally every single game I've played and seen has used points, albeit some are more flexible about being 'ball-park' within 5 points or so.
Well, points are not really the only thing that defines matched play. Due to Battlescribe I'd assume most games are played with points, even when they're narrative games. At least that's the majority of my games and even GW hints at that in some WarCom articles.
auticus wrote: So pedantically speaking 99% is misspeaking but the percent of people who will only use or primarily only use points is pretty close to the 90 or higher mark; I'd bet the farm on that.
You're going to lose your farm. Even your own poll disagrees with that.
Right now its 14 out of 18 people predominantly or only use points.
Thats a pretty stark comparison. Certainly would be enough to reinforce not wanting restrictions if I want to maximize my sales by not limiting super heavies to certain games when the predominantly vast majority are going to be using points and not just plop things down apoc style.
Sgt. Cortez wrote: Well, points are not really the only thing that defines matched play. Due to Battlescribe I'd assume most games are played with points, even when they're narrative games. At least that's the majority of my games and even GW hints at that in some WarCom articles.
And I honestly think the next edition will use a Power Level system instead of a points system. Not because it's 'better', but for a reason.
Because in order to do a full-blown, fully-optimized squad... you'll have to get more than one kit. And since the name of the game will be about 'always having the unit optimized for the threat' and you'll not be bound by points, they'll all cost the same PL.... you can bet that people are gonna buy 6 Devastator kits to ensure they always have 4 of each weapon as an option. And that's not factoring in people that will buy a multiples of a kit that happens to be one of the few with a very specific weapon.
A Town Called Malus wrote: The other alternative is that if a Knight is not balanced at all in games at a 500 point limit, why does the game allow it to be taken in such a game?
GW could just put in a system whereby units are excluded from different levels of play through the Keyword system. So, give stuff like Knights and Superheavy vehicles a specific keyword and then put in a rule where units with those keywords are limited at different points levels.
For example let's say the keyword is SUPERHEAVY.
Then just have rules in the matched play army creation rules whereby the number of units with the SUPERHEAVY keyword is limited to:
0 in games =< 500pts
1 in 500 < games <= 1000pts
etc.
That would be sensible but it goes against GW's philosophy of allowing essentially completely unrestricted list building. That's the main reason the game is as unbalanced as it is, IMO. With no real restrictions on what you can take in an army you lose one of the best tools a designer has for balancing the game. The other consequence of this is that armies stop looking like armies. Between free rein to soup whatever you want and all the different detachment options, armies now look like a random assortment of stuff rather than coherent forces.
The game is imbalanced because of broken units. Wrath Castellan is broken at any point level and I don't know how you can argue otherwise.
I find that highly unlikely. GW doesn't even update powerlevels in the current Edition so I have the feeling they realize that the system is rarely used, unlike points, which are also for many narrative games the default Option because why not.
Sgt. Cortez wrote: I find that highly unlikely. GW doesn't even update powerlevels in the current Edition so I have the feeling they realize that the system is rarely used, unlike points, which are also for many narrative games the default Option because why not.
Agreed. If they were trying to groom people to accept the new system, they'd keep it constantly updated, and they'd push it at their own tournament events. They just held a tournament event though using points. So I think they introduced the PL system saw it wasn't super popular, and backed off on the idea.
auticus wrote: Right now its 14 out of 18 people predominantly or only use points.
Thats a pretty stark comparison. Certainly would be enough to reinforce not wanting restrictions if I want to maximize my sales by not limiting super heavies to certain games when the predominantly vast majority are going to be using points and not just plop things down apoc style.
Cute how your argument has gone from "99% of people use points" when talking in here to "Do you use points OR POWER LEVEL" when trying to pull the ol' classic "I will put up a poll and report back 10 minutes later when 20 people have responded and one of them is me to report I am right and everyone else is a stoopidhead" maneuver.
Sgt. Cortez wrote: I find that highly unlikely. GW doesn't even update powerlevels in the current Edition so I have the feeling they realize that the system is rarely used, unlike points, which are also for many narrative games the default Option because why not.
Well my theory is that people rarely use PL because they don't think it's an accurate means of balance. Granted, points aren't 'balanced', in a lot of ways.
But I think they'll only have PL next edition, and for your list you'll have "Scion Squad"- and that's it, for 5 PL, no other details unless you raise the PL by adding more Scions to the squad. And then when you and your opponent are alternating deploying your units and you see he's laid down a horde of Hormagaunts, you grab Scions with flamers. Or when he puts down Termagants, you grab the Scions with Volley guns- each time deciding specifically which loudout that squad should have based on your opponent's deployment. You'd essentially be list-tailoring as you deploy...
...which would have you buying lots more kits to optimize your units for anything.
I'd be shocked if this didn't happen- because the system is already in place to transition over to that with minimal adjustments for GW, you're gonna be the one that has to scramble and get all the possible variations of weapons a unit can carry.
Wayniac wrote: I think a better analogy to Warhammer 40k if we're going to use Sirlin's discussion on SF2 is "Old Sagat" rather than Akuma. I'll post the quote below for source but basically, Old Sagat isn't "broken" like Akuma is, but there's also a gentleman's agreement to not use him because he invalidates a few other characters; the field of available characters has more diversity if you remove him. This is a better comparison to 40k because something like the Knight Castellan isn't "broken" in the sense it breaks the game, but it existing certainly means a lot of other things are nonviable to play (most any vehicle for example).
Actual Quote:
David Sirlin, Playing to Win, What Should be Banned? wrote:
The character in question is the mysteriously named "Old Sagat." Old Sagat is not a secret character like Akuma (or at least he's not as secret!). Old Sagat does not have any moves like Akuma's air fireball that the game was not designed to handle. Old Sagat is arguably the best character in the game (Akuma, of course, doesn't count), but even that is debated by top players! I think almost any expert player would rank him in the top three of all characters, but there isn't even universal agreement that he is the best! Why, then, would any reasonable person even consider banning him? Surely, it must be a group of scrubs who simply don't know how to beat him, and reflexively cry out for a ban.
But this is not the case. There seems to be a tacit agreement amongst top players in Japan--a soft ban--on playing Old Sagat. The reason is that many believe the game to have much more variety without Old Sagat. Even if he is only second best in the game by some measure, he flat out beats half the characters in the game with little effort. Half the cast can barely even fight him, let alone beat him. Other top characters in the game, good as they are, win by much more interaction and more "gameplay." Almost every character has a chance against the other best characters in the game. The result of allowing Old Sagat in tournaments is that several other characters, such as Chun Li and Ken, become basically unviable.
That seems way more appropriate to compare to 40k as there are a lot of units that by virtue of being allowed to use make several other things unviable to use
Also, in regards to the idea that it's okay to bring a Knight to a 500 point game because "it's legal", technically yes that's true. Peregrine, in particular, has been very vehement about their ideas that as long as something is legal, it doesn't matter. And has also been equally vehement that it's on the other person to "git gud" and bring a good list, rather than dare to ask the more competitive person to tone theirs down. I remember reading something once about someone who legit got angry at their opponent for NOT doing this, saying how they "wasted their time" and basically throwing a hissy fit because they brought a tryhard netlist and their opponent did not, and naturally they crushed the person. They actually insulted their opponent for not bringing a netlist. This is what Peregrine's attitude reminds me of; it might have even been something they said but I don't think so as they tend to not be as blunt in insulting people.
Banning whatever you want doesn't make certain stuff better. I haven't played Street Fighter in an long time, but Mortal Kombat and SSB are my jam.
The best comparison to make was with SSB Brawl and tons of tournaments banning Metaknight. Banning Metaknight didn't make characters like Kirby more viable though. All it did was stop certain things from happening until something more balanced happened.
With the next two games, we now get balance patches. Certain characters are still unviable though (here's looking at you, Mr. Game&Watch!) and banning the top 10 characters won't make him any better.
GW isn't doing any balancing patches that are gonna help Grey Knights. I will also argue that if you think a character is broken, too bad. Learn to play against them until the next balancing patch. The analogy is bad because old games couldn't be patched and, once done, that's all you get.
Horst wrote: All I can offer is anecdotal proof, but my local GW does everything by points too. Escalation league he's hosting goes up by 500 points a month, using Matched Play rules. Every game I've played there has been matched play. He's hosting an Apoc game next month using Narrative Play rules with PL, but that's Apoc, and to be expected.
Every time I've played someone from a different store, it's been matched play rules. Everyone who used to play earlier version uses points with matched play rules, since that's the way we're used to. he new PL system looks like a poor substitute for that to me, honestly, and I'm sure I'm not the only player who remembers previous versions to think that way.
So my local GW just did a narrative campaign at 50PL. As did another near me. There are plenty of games there using points and also a good number of matched play games, but GW still see value in both narrative gaming and PL. My independent FLGS even ran a tournament using PL last year to try it out.
I would guess that >80% of games taking place in stores/clubs near me are set up using points and >50% are matched play missions rather than narrative/open. I am less sure about what happens on kitchen tables or garages around the country, my limited contact with that side of the game was more at the narrative end of the scale..
That statement of 99% matched play with points? Random made-up statistics are such fun.
Sgt. Cortez wrote: I find that highly unlikely. GW doesn't even update powerlevels in the current Edition so I have the feeling they realize that the system is rarely used, unlike points, which are also for many narrative games the default Option because why not.
Well my theory is that people rarely use PL because they don't think it's an accurate means of balance. Granted, points aren't 'balanced', in a lot of ways.
But I think they'll only have PL next edition, and for your list you'll have "Scion Squad"- and that's it, for 5 PL, no other details unless you raise the PL by adding more Scions to the squad. And then when you and your opponent are alternating deploying your units and you see he's laid down a horde of Hormagaunts, you grab Scions with flamers. Or when he puts down Termagants, you grab the Scions with Volley guns- each time deciding specifically which loudout that squad should have based on your opponent's deployment. You'd essentially be list-tailoring as you deploy...
...which would have you buying lots more kits to optimize your units for anything.
I'd be shocked if this didn't happen- because the system is already in place to transition over to that with minimal adjustments for GW, you're gonna be the one that has to scramble and get all the possible variations of weapons a unit can carry.
Nah, but that's not the way Power level is intended right now imo. I think PL is meant to be the exact opposite of that, for people who don't want to optimize but instead want to get the game started fast with the minis they have on their shelves. But Power level and its uses have been discussed on this board many times and usually it ends with Peregrine shouting everyone down as using Power levels as some kind of virtue signalling... So let's not go down that route here
Aelyn wrote: Are you seriously arguing that it's reasonable to take a knight in a 500 point game?
Is it a legal list? Yes. Therefore it's reasonable.
Or that people a 500 point list that can't beat a knight is automatically weak as a result?
Yep. Or at least it's a list with a very back rock/paper/scissors matchup problem, assuming it's very strong against other 500 point lists.
So legal and reasonable are equivalent? Does that mean any list which is illegal is automatically unreasonable?
And yeah, actually, plenty of social games often include an element of pre-game discussion of expectations (or an unspoken agreement of the same) - have you never played a board game with house rules, or played a shooting game with a group that discouraged spawncamping with a sniper, or agreed not to use a broken character in a fighting game etc? These are pretty common things for a lot of people across a lot of games.
Yes, there are badly designed games that require that discussion. Your FPS example is a great one. Spawn camping with sniper rifles is only a problem when poor design allows it to be a problem. Better map design breaks LOS around spawn points, has you spawn in unpredictable locations, etc. In a good game there's no discouragement necessary because the only people complaining about camping with sniper rifles are people who suck at the game and would rather whine and cry about losing than use the available counters to snipers.
There are plenty of other examples I could name for some very well loved games which are generally considered balanced and fair and yet which frequently involve pre-game conversations (playing rugby / american football at a local field and agreeing to play touch-contact instead of full-contact, handicaps in go, bidding conventions in bridge...) My point is that "benefits from pre-game discussion" and "badly-designed" are not even close to the same thing, and that reaching an understanding before a game of what people are trying to get out of it is hardly unique to 40K.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Formats only exist for particular tournaments and otherwise you follow the most current ban list for any pickup game. That's how it's always been. When was the last time you played?
Since I actually played? Two weeks ago, roughly. Maybe a month. But your comment shows a fundamental lack of understanding of how MTG works. There is no banlist for "pickup games" by default - formats are what define which sets are legal and which specific cards are banned, and it's (almost) unheard of for formats to exist for a single tournament. That's how it works now, and that's how it worked when I started playing 20 years ago.
I like your attempt to throw shade at me by implying I was out of touch, though.
Was referring to Yugioh in that post. Nobody cares about Traditional Format
With that said, MtG is default standard format and it is hard to argue otherwise. Anything else might be in a particular tournament (nobody does pickup draft, come on).
Wayniac wrote: Also, in regards to the idea that it's okay to bring a Knight to a 500 point game because "it's legal", technically yes that's true. Peregrine, in particular, has been very vehement about their ideas that as long as something is legal, it doesn't matter. And has also been equally vehement that it's on the other person to "git gud" and bring a good list, rather than dare to ask the more competitive person to tone theirs down. I remember reading something once about someone who legit got angry at their opponent for NOT doing this, saying how they "wasted their time" and basically throwing a hissy fit because they brought a tryhard netlist and their opponent did not, and naturally they crushed the person. They actually insulted their opponent for not bringing a netlist. This is what Peregrine's attitude reminds me of; it might have even been something they said but I don't think so as they tend to not be as blunt in insulting people.
No, that's not it at all. The lower power player is not obligated to "git gud", I simply object to the double standard where the competitive player is assumed to be TFG for taking a legal list, the default game style is assumed to be low power lists (because that is playing for "fun"), and the competitive player has the entire obligation to modify their list to suit the opponent's choices while the lower power player has no matching obligation to increase the power of their list to provide a closer match. If one player is obligated to change then so is the other.
SHUPPET wrote: Put your ear to the community and the answer to this kind of thing pretty clear.
And the answer is "people use both power level and points, and people also play narrative as well as matched play".
Unless you define "the community" as "only those people whom exclusively play at tournaments", you're not gonna find that 99% of people refuse to play anything other matched play with points. At this point, that argument is little more than the 40k equivalent of the "fox only, no items, final destination" meme.
I'll eat my hat if GW takes a poll and even 33% use Power level. GW's non-support for PL kinda proves it too.
Wayniac wrote: Also, in regards to the idea that it's okay to bring a Knight to a 500 point game because "it's legal", technically yes that's true. Peregrine, in particular, has been very vehement about their ideas that as long as something is legal, it doesn't matter. And has also been equally vehement that it's on the other person to "git gud" and bring a good list, rather than dare to ask the more competitive person to tone theirs down. I remember reading something once about someone who legit got angry at their opponent for NOT doing this, saying how they "wasted their time" and basically throwing a hissy fit because they brought a tryhard netlist and their opponent did not, and naturally they crushed the person. They actually insulted their opponent for not bringing a netlist. This is what Peregrine's attitude reminds me of; it might have even been something they said but I don't think so as they tend to not be as blunt in insulting people.
No, that's not it at all. The lower power player is not obligated to "git gud", I simply object to the double standard where the competitive player is assumed to be TFG for taking a legal list, the default game style is assumed to be low power lists (because that is playing for "fun"), and the competitive player has the entire obligation to modify their list to suit the opponent's choices while the lower power player has no matching obligation to increase the power of their list to provide a closer match. If one player is obligated to change then so is the other.
They both should be compromising (or playing a different opponent, I guess) which is a lost art?
There's been a lot of discussion on where the "onus" is and who should either go up in competitiveness or down, but really that is a moot point -- they both should be discussing it, so neither wastes their time, and they both should have a fun game
Other people play other games and it might or might not work. Who cares? There is a state where the game works, and they ignore it. That is their problem.
There's been a lot of discussion on where the "onus" is and who should either go up in competitiveness or down, but really that is a moot point -- they both should be discussing it, so neither wastes their time, and they both should have a fun game
Perhaps that discussion comes from the standpoint of the pickup gamer where they walk into store, ask for game, and expect to set up and play.
I agree, and make it a strong point to stress that if I am running a narrative campaign that means keep your adepticon git gud lists out of the event because its not the place for it. That usually works (but not always).
Wayniac wrote: Also, in regards to the idea that it's okay to bring a Knight to a 500 point game because "it's legal", technically yes that's true. Peregrine, in particular, has been very vehement about their ideas that as long as something is legal, it doesn't matter. And has also been equally vehement that it's on the other person to "git gud" and bring a good list, rather than dare to ask the more competitive person to tone theirs down. I remember reading something once about someone who legit got angry at their opponent for NOT doing this, saying how they "wasted their time" and basically throwing a hissy fit because they brought a tryhard netlist and their opponent did not, and naturally they crushed the person. They actually insulted their opponent for not bringing a netlist. This is what Peregrine's attitude reminds me of; it might have even been something they said but I don't think so as they tend to not be as blunt in insulting people.
No, that's not it at all. The lower power player is not obligated to "git gud", I simply object to the double standard where the competitive player is assumed to be TFG for taking a legal list, the default game style is assumed to be low power lists (because that is playing for "fun"), and the competitive player has the entire obligation to modify their list to suit the opponent's choices while the lower power player has no matching obligation to increase the power of their list to provide a closer match. If one player is obligated to change then so is the other.
They both should be compromising (or playing a different opponent, I guess) which is a lost art?
There's been a lot of discussion on where the "onus" is and who should either go up in competitiveness or down, but really that is a moot point -- they both should be discussing it, so neither wastes their time, and they both should have a fun game
But this goes back to the whole "Why should I have to discuss anything beyond asking if they want to play a game, and then points/mission?" question from before. People don't *WANT* to have to discuss anything. They want to roll up to the store, presumably approach someone else who also is at the store with a 40k army, and go "Hey want to play?" and then just say a couple of words re: the points cost, maybe what mission (EW/Maelstrom/ITC/etc.) and then just start unpacking and setting up the board. No other talk necessary unless it's to declare targets or announce rolls. I would be surprised if these people even made smalltalk with the other person.
Or, I suppose alternatively, already arranged a game with someone via social media and have even less discussion because you already said 2k points Eternal War days before you got to the store.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Reemule wrote: The game is fine if you play 2K point ITC games.
Other people play other games and it might or might not work. Who cares? There is a state where the game works, and they ignore it. That is their problem.
Are you seriously indicating that ITC is what makes the game "fine" and that everyone should play that deviate state? Even though said deviate state is the exception and not the norm?
To be honest if we are talking about point levels, I think the game is better at lower point levels than larger. Less room to toss in a random detachment purely for powergaming purposes in smaller points games. 1500 feels like a good place to be at the moment, but it probably depends on the local meta.
Spoletta wrote: 40K works much better than other games in absence of a social agreement.
MTG is simply unplayable. I'm gonna say "Standard" you are gonna say "Ok, standard!", then i put a premade standard deck on the table and you put a competitive one. Guess who's not going to enjoy the game?
Warmahordes is even worse. The difference between bad lists and good lists is so huge that it is like playing fluffy chaos marines against Eldar scatspam in 7th. You have no chances of winning.
The same is true for popular pc games. Wanna try going against a Goat with a fun and random composition in overwatch?
Apart from some truly nightmare games like imperial soup against mono GK, any other game is at least enjoyable. Yes my fluffy mono SM will not win many games against an optimized IG, but out of 10 games i will win 2 or 3.
This is an excellent post and anyone with experience in competitive gaming beyond tabletops, I'd imagine most people but I don't know, should be able to recognise the truth in this statement.
Magic is a bad example. Magic is balanced by core sets specifically. The sets are not made to be balanced against each other. It would be like playing 3rd eddition 40k vs 8th eddition. Bad example. Overwatch? OMG. It's a 1st person shooter - Skill at the game is going to be the greatest contributor at balance (that's why they have match makers) plus - unbalanced champions ARE addressed. LOL would be an even worse example - the game has 150ish champs but the game developers literally tell you they are only concerned about competitive for like 30 of them. I can tell you from personal experience LOL is not in a good place for balance - but it is a 5v5 team game where the game designers deliberately tell you to pick the OP champs lol and even with OP elements - there is nothing more OP than cooperation.
I mean - if GW came out and said - "if you are interested in competitive play - you should just avoid playing space marines and necrons and instead play an Imperial gaurd brigade with knight support or eldar soup because those are the only 2 factions we think should be strong" then I think they could make statements like "The game is in a good place because this is exactly what we are going for". The problem me and lots of people have is. GW appears to be trying to balance the game with CA and Errata but are utterly failing and they make statements like the game is in a good place. Heck no it's not. Half the units aren't even addressed. Units like warlocks go up in price while a command russ goes down. A strike marine still costs more than a DW marine with a storm shield and storm bolter. Bad armies are still bad - good armies are still good. This isn't exactly rocket science ether.
Melissia wrote: To be honest if we are talking about point levels, I think the game is better at lower point levels than larger. Less room to toss in a random detachment purely for powergaming purposes in smaller points games. 1500 feels like a good place to be at the moment, but it probably depends on the local meta.
Aye, both in terms of balance and time, 1500 feels like the sweetspot for 8E. 2000pts opens up too many support options for the big abuseable things, and clearly has trouble managing time at events. I think a move back towards a smaller game size would help a lot.
Wayniac wrote: Also, in regards to the idea that it's okay to bring a Knight to a 500 point game because "it's legal", technically yes that's true. Peregrine, in particular, has been very vehement about their ideas that as long as something is legal, it doesn't matter. And has also been equally vehement that it's on the other person to "git gud" and bring a good list, rather than dare to ask the more competitive person to tone theirs down. I remember reading something once about someone who legit got angry at their opponent for NOT doing this, saying how they "wasted their time" and basically throwing a hissy fit because they brought a tryhard netlist and their opponent did not, and naturally they crushed the person. They actually insulted their opponent for not bringing a netlist. This is what Peregrine's attitude reminds me of; it might have even been something they said but I don't think so as they tend to not be as blunt in insulting people.
No, that's not it at all. The lower power player is not obligated to "git gud", I simply object to the double standard where the competitive player is assumed to be TFG for taking a legal list, the default game style is assumed to be low power lists (because that is playing for "fun"), and the competitive player has the entire obligation to modify their list to suit the opponent's choices while the lower power player has no matching obligation to increase the power of their list to provide a closer match. If one player is obligated to change then so is the other.
They both should be compromising (or playing a different opponent, I guess) which is a lost art?
There's been a lot of discussion on where the "onus" is and who should either go up in competitiveness or down, but really that is a moot point -- they both should be discussing it, so neither wastes their time, and they both should have a fun game
But this goes back to the whole "Why should I have to discuss anything beyond asking if they want to play a game, and then points/mission?" question from before. People don't *WANT* to have to discuss anything. They want to roll up to the store, presumably approach someone else who also is at the store with a 40k army, and go "Hey want to play?" and then just say a couple of words re: the points cost, maybe what mission (EW/Maelstrom/ITC/etc.) and then just start unpacking and setting up the board. No other talk necessary unless it's to declare targets or announce rolls. I would be surprised if these people even made smalltalk with the other person.
Or, I suppose alternatively, already arranged a game with someone via social media and have even less discussion because you already said 2k points Eternal War days before you got to the store.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Reemule wrote: The game is fine if you play 2K point ITC games.
Other people play other games and it might or might not work. Who cares? There is a state where the game works, and they ignore it. That is their problem.
Are you seriously indicating that ITC is what makes the game "fine" and that everyone should play that deviate state? Even though said deviate state is the exception and not the norm?
I mean, that's the equivalent of going into a nonladder StarCraft game and getting mad when you are rolling newbs without much effort, and are wondering why you can't get much tournament practice in.
You need to establish what you want out of *any* game, it's just that in videogames these are discrete options that you choose. These options exist in meatspaxe tabletop games as.well, but you choose them thru dialogue instead of clicking... So... I guess if you don't want to choose to talk, don't, but then you refuse any right to be upset if it's different than what you wanted?
Horst wrote: All I can offer is anecdotal proof, but my local GW does everything by points too. Escalation league he's hosting goes up by 500 points a month, using Matched Play rules. Every game I've played there has been matched play. He's hosting an Apoc game next month using Narrative Play rules with PL, but that's Apoc, and to be expected.
Every time I've played someone from a different store, it's been matched play rules. Everyone who used to play earlier version uses points with matched play rules, since that's the way we're used to. he new PL system looks like a poor substitute for that to me, honestly, and I'm sure I'm not the only player who remembers previous versions to think that way.
I hate to speak for people but this is so obvious. Every store has a few people that suggest using power level but analytical players at the store explain to them it is a much worse version than points and there is no point in using them because battlescribe means you don't even need to do math to make an army. Open play is different. I don't believe many peoples go to game is Open play but most people would be open to play narrative play just the the "SNG's". Then their are gonna be some people that just play Apoc but Apoc is basically match play at like 5k+ points. To say that match play is the majority of games is pretty much on point for all 3 of the shops I attend....Yeah...There are 3 game stores in my area that support a 40k community. There is consensus between them all. If you set up a game and don't say anything about the game parameters - it's matched play 2k points.
Spoletta wrote: 40K works much better than other games in absence of a social agreement.
MTG is simply unplayable. I'm gonna say "Standard" you are gonna say "Ok, standard!", then i put a premade standard deck on the table and you put a competitive one. Guess who's not going to enjoy the game?
Warmahordes is even worse. The difference between bad lists and good lists is so huge that it is like playing fluffy chaos marines against Eldar scatspam in 7th. You have no chances of winning.
The same is true for popular pc games. Wanna try going against a Goat with a fun and random composition in overwatch?
Apart from some truly nightmare games like imperial soup against mono GK, any other game is at least enjoyable. Yes my fluffy mono SM will not win many games against an optimized IG, but out of 10 games i will win 2 or 3.
This is an excellent post and anyone with experience in competitive gaming beyond tabletops, I'd imagine most people but I don't know, should be able to recognise the truth in this statement.
Magic is a bad example. Magic is balanced by core sets specifically. The sets are not made to be balanced against each other. It would be like playing 3rd eddition 40k vs 8th eddition. Bad example. Overwatch? OMG. It's a 1st person shooter - Skill at the game is going to be the greatest contributor at balance (that's why they have match makers) plus - unbalanced champions ARE addressed. LOL would be an even worse example - the game has 150ish champs but the game developers literally tell you they are only concerned about competitive for like 30 of them. I can tell you from personal experience LOL is not in a good place for balance - but it is a 5v5 team game where the game designers deliberately tell you to pick the OP champs lol and even with OP elements - there is nothing more OP than cooperation.
I mean - if GW came out and said - "if you are interested in competitive play - you should just avoid playing space marines and necrons and instead play an Imperial gaurd brigade with knight support or eldar soup because those are the only 2 factions we think should be strong" then I think they could make statements like "The game is in a good place because this is exactly what we are going for". The problem me and lots of people have is. GW appears to be trying to balance the game with CA and Errata but are utterly failing and they make statements like the game is in a good place. Heck no it's not. Half the units aren't even addressed. Units like warlocks go up in price while a command russ goes down. A strike marine still costs more than a DW marine with a storm shield and storm bolter. Bad armies are still bad - good armies are still good. This isn't exactly rocket science ether.
Absolutely this. It's the fact GW says they are balancing, and they may be trying, but they are failing miserably as a result of always being months out of date to any changes that they decide to make, coupled with a seeming complete lack of understanding WHY things are problems, just kneejerk reacting to things that they see "too much of" (nebulous term) at big tournaments who are already playing a houseruled version of the game anyway. And then they claim it's in a good spot when swathes of the game remain unviable due to the consistent and apparent (to everyone but them it seems) issue of Soup + CP farming.
They are either being completely dishonest, or are ignorant.
Drager wrote: I'm just putting this here so I remember to come back to it. I'm going to play this out with a firend of mine later. I'll take the Marines list (1 patrol, Lieutenant, 2 squads of Marines built as on the box (Missile Launcher and Plasma Gun) and an assault squad to get to 500) he'll take the knights (Crusader with Sainted Ion and Ion Bulwark). I'm not a marine player, but I am a tournament player, whilst may mate does play Knights, but only casual so it should be interesting. We'll be playing a random CA 2018 mission so I'll report back later.
I'm curious about the results.
I'll wager a sock without a match that it's over in turn 3.
We played it out now and I'll write it up and post a proper report later, but it was a close game with the marines ahead through most of it, if the game had ended on turn 5 they would have won, but the Knight took it by a point on T6. We're going to do another scenraio with the same armies later in the week and see how that plays as it was really fun.
Melissia wrote: To be honest if we are talking about point levels, I think the game is better at lower point levels than larger. Less room to toss in a random detachment purely for powergaming purposes in smaller points games. 1500 feels like a good place to be at the moment, but it probably depends on the local meta.
Aye, both in terms of balance and time, 1500 feels like the sweetspot for 8E. 2000pts opens up too many support options for the big abuseable things, and clearly has trouble managing time at events. I think a move back towards a smaller game size would help a lot.
Managing time at events hasn't been an issue for several months now, at least not on a national level. Chess clocks seem to have resolved the issue. NOVA also has the judges call out mile markers to keep folks moving. Regardless, games seem to be finishing properly at 2k in our only available metric: tournament play.
The big thing about smaller points is you don't just stop what you consider abuse, you hamstring elite armies. Elite armies either need all the points or no points.
As an example, a barebones Custodes battalion is 600+ points. Their main anti-armor platforms, the Telemon and the Caladius, are 272 and 210 points per unit. Jetbike squad is 270. Basically, at 1500 they can't even take all the tools they need to make a TAC list. You just reinforce Jetbike spam as the best potential all-rounder or for them to soup that Guard battalion in so they don't need their own.
Conversely, at 2k points they can take those things. At 500 Custodes are near broken: you can take 3 Jetbike Captains for 480. Almost nothing can touch them in a 500 point game and they're ObSec. Even if you impose Rule of 1, you still get a Jetbike Captain, an Infantry Squad and a Caladius. It's totally busted.
Except at 2k they can just toss in the cheap guard command point battery without much impacting their list compared to how much it impacts the list when you'er at 1500.
Melissia wrote: Except at 2k they can just toss in the cheap guard command point battery without much impacting their list compared to how much it impacts the list when you'er at 1500.
it's the other way around. At 2K they have the freedom to bring their own detachment of custodes for a battalion. at 1500 the guard battery becomes mandatory because they can't fit their own with everything else
ITC doesn't really change much. I usually just play to table (everyone is trying to do that anyways) the only difference is you just try to hold more objectives than they do so you can get more points. Then you take the secondaries that give you the most points....usually it's going to be 2 killing secondaries or possibly 3.
The big difference with ITC is guaranteed LOS blocking. It does improve the game a lot. This is more of an issue with people having absolute crap terrain options. The ITC rule basically fixes that in the most simple way by saying...these things that don't block LOS actually do.
To be fair, xenomancers, that does help balance out the power that shooty armies have a bit more compared to the apparently abundant situation of almost no terrain on the board.
Melissia wrote: To be honest if we are talking about point levels, I think the game is better at lower point levels than larger. Less room to toss in a random detachment purely for powergaming purposes in smaller points games. 1500 feels like a good place to be at the moment, but it probably depends on the local meta.
Aye, both in terms of balance and time, 1500 feels like the sweetspot for 8E. 2000pts opens up too many support options for the big abuseable things, and clearly has trouble managing time at events. I think a move back towards a smaller game size would help a lot.
Managing time at events hasn't been an issue for several months now, at least not on a national level. Chess clocks seem to have resolved the issue. NOVA also has the judges call out mile markers to keep folks moving. Regardless, games seem to be finishing properly at 2k in our only available metric: tournament play.
Primarily because of the introduction of a significant number of elements and constraints that don't otherwise exist in the game rules and require a much more active role of event staff than may otherwise be required, and, much like the Custodes example below, causes issues with outlier large model count armies.
The big thing about smaller points is you don't just stop what you consider abuse, you hamstring elite armies. Elite armies either need all the points or no points.
As an example, a barebones Custodes battalion is 600+ points. Their main anti-armor platforms, the Telemon and the Caladius, are 272 and 210 points per unit. Jetbike squad is 270. Basically, at 1500 they can't even take all the tools they need to make a TAC list. You just reinforce Jetbike spam as the best potential all-rounder or for them to soup that Guard battalion in so they don't need their own.
Custodes are an extreme outlier case, one that will likely cause issues with almost any proposed change, same way Chess clocks can hit large model count armies.
That said, many Custodes list are and have been quite successful without a Telemon or Caladius, those only got 40k rules relatively recently, and at 1500pts you can fit in two Caladius, a Jetbike squad, the minimum battalion, and still have some wiggle room to play with.
They just dont get to have two jetbike squads and a CP battery to boot at the same time like they would at 2000pts.
A Town Called Malus wrote: The other alternative is that if a Knight is not balanced at all in games at a 500 point limit, why does the game allow it to be taken in such a game?
GW could just put in a system whereby units are excluded from different levels of play through the Keyword system. So, give stuff like Knights and Superheavy vehicles a specific keyword and then put in a rule where units with those keywords are limited at different points levels.
For example let's say the keyword is SUPERHEAVY.
Then just have rules in the matched play army creation rules whereby the number of units with the SUPERHEAVY keyword is limited to:
0 in games =< 500pts
1 in 500 < games <= 1000pts
etc.
That would be sensible but it goes against GW's philosophy of allowing essentially completely unrestricted list building. That's the main reason the game is as unbalanced as it is, IMO. With no real restrictions on what you can take in an army you lose one of the best tools a designer has for balancing the game. The other consequence of this is that armies stop looking like armies. Between free rein to soup whatever you want and all the different detachment options, armies now look like a random assortment of stuff rather than coherent forces.
The game is imbalanced because of broken units. Wrath Castellan is broken at any point level and I don't know how you can argue otherwise.
I'm not arguing otherwise. I made no mention of whether I think the Castellan is broken or not. You do realise it's possible for two different things to be responsible for broken balance? Both soup and individual units can be at fault. Unless you're on the internet, I guess, where everything has to be reduced down to the simplest explanation possible.
A Town Called Malus wrote: The other alternative is that if a Knight is not balanced at all in games at a 500 point limit, why does the game allow it to be taken in such a game?
GW could just put in a system whereby units are excluded from different levels of play through the Keyword system. So, give stuff like Knights and Superheavy vehicles a specific keyword and then put in a rule where units with those keywords are limited at different points levels.
For example let's say the keyword is SUPERHEAVY.
Then just have rules in the matched play army creation rules whereby the number of units with the SUPERHEAVY keyword is limited to:
0 in games =< 500pts
1 in 500 < games <= 1000pts
etc.
That would be sensible but it goes against GW's philosophy of allowing essentially completely unrestricted list building. That's the main reason the game is as unbalanced as it is, IMO. With no real restrictions on what you can take in an army you lose one of the best tools a designer has for balancing the game. The other consequence of this is that armies stop looking like armies. Between free rein to soup whatever you want and all the different detachment options, armies now look like a random assortment of stuff rather than coherent forces.
The game is imbalanced because of broken units. Wrath Castellan is broken at any point level and I don't know how you can argue otherwise.
I'm not arguing otherwise. I made no mention of whether I think the Castellan is broken or not. You do realise it's possible for two different things to be responsible for broken balance? Both soup and individual units can be at fault. Unless you're on the internet, I guess, where everything has to be reduced down to the simplest explanation possible.
It's a case of people complaining that an army can contain multiple broken units (Castellan, Infantry, and Slamguinus/Jetbike Captains), and then blame allies.
The actual problem is an army being able to contain even one unit that's broken. Literally any army could use Scatterbikes last edition if they wanted, for example. Tyranids, CSM, even Necrons could use them!
Melissia wrote: To be fair, xenomancers, that does help balance out the power that shooty armies have a bit more compared to the apparently abundant situation of almost no terrain on the board.
It protects shooting armies from shooting armies too. The main thing is it helps off set the Igygo system.
A Town Called Malus wrote: The other alternative is that if a Knight is not balanced at all in games at a 500 point limit, why does the game allow it to be taken in such a game?
GW could just put in a system whereby units are excluded from different levels of play through the Keyword system. So, give stuff like Knights and Superheavy vehicles a specific keyword and then put in a rule where units with those keywords are limited at different points levels.
For example let's say the keyword is SUPERHEAVY.
Then just have rules in the matched play army creation rules whereby the number of units with the SUPERHEAVY keyword is limited to:
0 in games =< 500pts
1 in 500 < games <= 1000pts
etc.
That would be sensible but it goes against GW's philosophy of allowing essentially completely unrestricted list building. That's the main reason the game is as unbalanced as it is, IMO. With no real restrictions on what you can take in an army you lose one of the best tools a designer has for balancing the game. The other consequence of this is that armies stop looking like armies. Between free rein to soup whatever you want and all the different detachment options, armies now look like a random assortment of stuff rather than coherent forces.
The game is imbalanced because of broken units. Wrath Castellan is broken at any point level and I don't know how you can argue otherwise.
I'm not arguing otherwise. I made no mention of whether I think the Castellan is broken or not. You do realise it's possible for two different things to be responsible for broken balance? Both soup and individual units can be at fault. Unless you're on the internet, I guess, where everything has to be reduced down to the simplest explanation possible.
It's a case of people complaining that an army can contain multiple broken units (Castellan, Infantry, and Slamguinus/Jetbike Captains), and then blame allies.
The actual problem is an army being able to contain even one unit that's broken. Literally any army could use Scatterbikes last edition if they wanted, for example. Tyranids, CSM, even Necrons could use them!
The biggest issue is obviously units that are too powerful. Allies just allow you to get a lot more of those units at once AND allow you the fuel to use them to full effect.
My solution would be. Give every army equal access to CP via making you start with high CP and losing CP for additional detachments and more for allied detachments. Fix broken units (the good and the bad). I doubt allies would be an issue at this point - they would still be used though to plug weaknesses in armies - it's just going to cost you CP - not give it to you.
I really like the idea of everyone starting with the same amount of CP and losing CP for taking allies...I would even say if they stay pure even with extra detachments they don't lose CP...
However that would require a 9th edition/re-write of the CP system
chaos45 wrote: I really like the idea of everyone starting with the same amount of CP and losing CP for taking allies...I would even say if they stay pure even with extra detachments they don't lose CP...
However that would require a 9th edition/re-write of the CP system
I’m sorry but this idea is terrible. Allies aren’t the problem. Through 12 pages there have been many references of how powerful certain mono codex are. Tau. Dark eldar. Genestealer culf. Chaos marines (daemon Primarch edition), astra militarum, Craftworld Eldar.. I’m sorry if your particular army doesn’t fall under the “mono codex army that is good against even soup” list. Wait a few Edition’s and maybe it will. Now here is another problem, let’s say you went to 10 cp each. I lose none for going ynnari right? As ynnari is a faction keyword. It’s basically taking all three Aeldari codex and making one. So now that we know that, ynnari would get no negative impact. Now let’s say you wanna ignore the fact that it’s one faction. I start with 2 less or something? So 8? I barely use 8 as ynnari.. my word of the Phoenix is gonna be what destroys you. Do you wanna nerf that too? So then the army is nerfed to the ground. Is your intention to nerf armies to being unplayable in hopes it makes yours playable competitively? And it you don’t play competitive, then this whole this is ridiculous anyway
The problems with the current CP system are threefold.
1) Stratagems have zero internal balance. Like, whatsoever. Each codex has 20+ stratagems, of which perhaps 2 or 3 are used because the rest are just awful or those 2 or 3 are overpowered.
2) "Elite" armies tend to have more powerful effects than non "Elite" armies for the same amount of CP because the reasoning is they are Elite Armies, they will have less CP than a non-Elite Army, so CP are "worth" more to them.
3) Point 2 is shattered by the existence of consequence free battery battalions. Especial for Imperium, the Loyal 32 is 180 points for 30+ wounds, a LOT of shooting and a LOT of manoeuvrability, along with the durability having 30 single wound models come with due to 8th rules structure.
Furthermore, with 3++ saves being given out like candy, anything that has one can actually survive an entire army dedicated to shooting at it. Which forces the meta to either bring enough to One Shot a Knight or automatically lose.
If they capped Rotate Ion Shields to 4++ and either locked CP to only be spendable on whoever generates it stratagems (Guard CP for Guard Stratagems), or lower the CP gain from detachments for non "pure" armies ala Brood Brothers the game would be in a far better state without the need to tear it all down and start from scratch (again).
BaconCatBug wrote: The problems with the current CP system are threefold.
1) Stratagems have zero internal balance. Like, whatsoever. Each codex has 20+ stratagems, of which perhaps 2 or 3 are used because the rest are just awful or those 2 or 3 are overpowered.
2) "Elite" armies tend to have more powerful effects than non "Elite" armies for the same amount of CP because the reasoning is they are Elite Armies, they will have less CP than a non-Elite Army, so CP are "worth" more to them.
3) Point 2 is shattered by the existence of consequence free battery battalions. Especial for Imperium, the Loyal 32 is 180 points for 30+ wounds, a LOT of shooting and a LOT of manoeuvrability, along with the durability having 30 single wound models come with due to 8th rules structure.
Furthermore, with 3++ saves being given out like candy, anything that has one can actually survive an entire army dedicated to shooting at it. Which forces the meta to either bring enough to One Shot a Knight or automatically lose.
If they capped Rotate Ion Shields to 4++ and either locked CP to only be spendable on whoever generates it stratagems (Guard CP for Guard Stratagems), or lower the CP gain from detachments for non "pure" armies ala Brood Brothers the game would be in a far better state without the need to tear it all down and start from scratch (again).
They did cap ivul saves to 4++. On Tzeentch. Because they saw that people were abusing it...
BaconCatBug wrote: The problems with the current CP system are threefold.
1) Stratagems have zero internal balance. Like, whatsoever. Each codex has 20+ stratagems, of which perhaps 2 or 3 are used because the rest are just awful or those 2 or 3 are overpowered.
2) "Elite" armies tend to have more powerful effects than non "Elite" armies for the same amount of CP because the reasoning is they are Elite Armies, they will have less CP than a non-Elite Army, so CP are "worth" more to them.
3) Point 2 is shattered by the existence of consequence free battery battalions. Especial for Imperium, the Loyal 32 is 180 points for 30+ wounds, a LOT of shooting and a LOT of manoeuvrability, along with the durability having 30 single wound models come with due to 8th rules structure.
Furthermore, with 3++ saves being given out like candy, anything that has one can actually survive an entire army dedicated to shooting at it. Which forces the meta to either bring enough to One Shot a Knight or automatically lose.
If they capped Rotate Ion Shields to 4++ and either locked CP to only be spendable on whoever generates it stratagems (Guard CP for Guard Stratagems), or lower the CP gain from detachments for non "pure" armies ala Brood Brothers the game would be in a far better state without the need to tear it all down and start from scratch (again).
I usually don't agree with you, BCB, but this is 100% spot on and hits the nail on the head.
chaos45 wrote: I really like the idea of everyone starting with the same amount of CP and losing CP for taking allies...I would even say if they stay pure even with extra detachments they don't lose CP...
However that would require a 9th edition/re-write of the CP system
I’m sorry but this idea is terrible. Allies aren’t the problem. Through 12 pages there have been many references of how powerful certain mono codex are. Tau. Dark eldar. Genestealer culf. Chaos marines (daemon Primarch edition), astra militarum, Craftworld Eldar.. I’m sorry if your particular army doesn’t fall under the “mono codex army that is good against even soup” list. Wait a few Edition’s and maybe it will. Now here is another problem, let’s say you went to 10 cp each. I lose none for going ynnari right? As ynnari is a faction keyword. It’s basically taking all three Aeldari codex and making one. So now that we know that, ynnari would get no negative impact. Now let’s say you wanna ignore the fact that it’s one faction. I start with 2 less or something? So 8? I barely use 8 as ynnari.. my word of the Phoenix is gonna be what destroys you. Do you wanna nerf that too? So then the army is nerfed to the ground. Is your intention to nerf armies to being unplayable in hopes it makes yours playable competitively? And it you don’t play competitive, then this whole this is ridiculous anyway
Yeah I'd probably rework every single free activation in the game to something like a 6" extra move or a +1 to hit or wound ability. Shoots twice/move twice/ is just too powerful to even exist. Like I said - it's not rocket science. A unit that shoots twice is like having a free unit.
BaconCatBug wrote: The problems with the current CP system are threefold.
1) Stratagems have zero internal balance. Like, whatsoever. Each codex has 20+ stratagems, of which perhaps 2 or 3 are used because the rest are just awful or those 2 or 3 are overpowered.
2) "Elite" armies tend to have more powerful effects than non "Elite" armies for the same amount of CP because the reasoning is they are Elite Armies, they will have less CP than a non-Elite Army, so CP are "worth" more to them.
3) Point 2 is shattered by the existence of consequence free battery battalions. Especial for Imperium, the Loyal 32 is 180 points for 30+ wounds, a LOT of shooting and a LOT of manoeuvrability, along with the durability having 30 single wound models come with due to 8th rules structure.
Furthermore, with 3++ saves being given out like candy, anything that has one can actually survive an entire army dedicated to shooting at it. Which forces the meta to either bring enough to One Shot a Knight or automatically lose.
If they capped Rotate Ion Shields to 4++ and either locked CP to only be spendable on whoever generates it stratagems (Guard CP for Guard Stratagems), or lower the CP gain from detachments for non "pure" armies ala Brood Brothers the game would be in a far better state without the need to tear it all down and start from scratch (again).
I usually don't agree with you, BCB, but this is 100% spot on and hits the nail on the head.
The power of stratagems is indeed inconsistent. It isn't however related to the power of units using the stratagem. IT is literally a random chance that a unit stratagem combo is at a high power level.
chaos45 wrote: I really like the idea of everyone starting with the same amount of CP and losing CP for taking allies...I would even say if they stay pure even with extra detachments they don't lose CP...
However that would require a 9th edition/re-write of the CP system
I’m sorry but this idea is terrible. Allies aren’t the problem. Through 12 pages there have been many references of how powerful certain mono codex are. Tau. Dark eldar. Genestealer culf. Chaos marines (daemon Primarch edition), astra militarum, Craftworld Eldar.. I’m sorry if your particular army doesn’t fall under the “mono codex army that is good against even soup” list. Wait a few Edition’s and maybe it will. Now here is another problem, let’s say you went to 10 cp each. I lose none for going ynnari right? As ynnari is a faction keyword. It’s basically taking all three Aeldari codex and making one. So now that we know that, ynnari would get no negative impact. Now let’s say you wanna ignore the fact that it’s one faction. I start with 2 less or something? So 8? I barely use 8 as ynnari.. my word of the Phoenix is gonna be what destroys you. Do you wanna nerf that too? So then the army is nerfed to the ground. Is your intention to nerf armies to being unplayable in hopes it makes yours playable competitively? And it you don’t play competitive, then this whole this is ridiculous anyway
Yeah I'd probably rework every single free activation in the game to something like a 6" extra move or a +1 to hit or wound ability. Shoots twice/move twice/ is just too powerful to even exist. Like I said - it's not rocket science. A unit that shoots twice is like having a free unit.
Power from death doesn’t need to be reworked. Word of the Phoenix does. It could even be something as simple as like warp charge 9, 12”. As far as free units go, ynnari isn’t the only thing that gets to do something for free in the game. If you rework one to be almost not worth doing what so ever, do it to all. For instance, marine bolters when within 12” should hit on 6+ and wound on 6+ only because the marines are probably freaking out due to the fact an enemy is actually that close. See how silly that sounds?
Reemule wrote: Yawn. Only dumb players continue to try to shoot the knight with the 3++.
Doom, Jinx, and i'm off to the races. Go ahead and rotate. If you're not Taranis i'll just Vect it anyway.
Additionally, Chaos players will just Death Hex that 3++ away, and solo a Castellan with Morty.
A 3++ Knight isn't the problem. It's a 3++ knight with 0 consequences because the list has like 18 cp. And the fact that you can build an entire list around the castellan that is good enough to compete with some armies 2k.
A 3++ knight is definitely a problem.
It takes out of the meta all the factions that can't deal with it. Just because some can that's not a good reason to leave it like that.
BaconCatBug wrote: The problems with the current CP system are threefold.
1) Stratagems have zero internal balance. Like, whatsoever. Each codex has 20+ stratagems, of which perhaps 2 or 3 are used because the rest are just awful or those 2 or 3 are overpowered.
2) "Elite" armies tend to have more powerful effects than non "Elite" armies for the same amount of CP because the reasoning is they are Elite Armies, they will have less CP than a non-Elite Army, so CP are "worth" more to them.
3) Point 2 is shattered by the existence of consequence free battery battalions. Especial for Imperium, the Loyal 32 is 180 points for 30+ wounds, a LOT of shooting and a LOT of manoeuvrability, along with the durability having 30 single wound models come with due to 8th rules structure.
Furthermore, with 3++ saves being given out like candy, anything that has one can actually survive an entire army dedicated to shooting at it. Which forces the meta to either bring enough to One Shot a Knight or automatically lose.
If they capped Rotate Ion Shields to 4++ and either locked CP to only be spendable on whoever generates it stratagems (Guard CP for Guard Stratagems), or lower the CP gain from detachments for non "pure" armies ala Brood Brothers the game would be in a far better state without the need to tear it all down and start from scratch (again).
They did cap ivul saves to 4++. On Tzeentch. Because they saw that people were abusing it...
um....Well, they capped invuln saves to 4++, and +1 to that...which is only not 3++ if you're getting REAL pedantic about it....
What they nerfed was lords of change who could get 2++ saves.
chaos45 wrote: I really like the idea of everyone starting with the same amount of CP and losing CP for taking allies...I would even say if they stay pure even with extra detachments they don't lose CP...
However that would require a 9th edition/re-write of the CP system
I’m sorry but this idea is terrible. Allies aren’t the problem. Through 12 pages there have been many references of how powerful certain mono codex are. Tau. Dark eldar. Genestealer culf. Chaos marines (daemon Primarch edition), astra militarum, Craftworld Eldar.. I’m sorry if your particular army doesn’t fall under the “mono codex army that is good against even soup” list. Wait a few Edition’s and maybe it will. Now here is another problem, let’s say you went to 10 cp each. I lose none for going ynnari right? As ynnari is a faction keyword. It’s basically taking all three Aeldari codex and making one. So now that we know that, ynnari would get no negative impact. Now let’s say you wanna ignore the fact that it’s one faction. I start with 2 less or something? So 8? I barely use 8 as ynnari.. my word of the Phoenix is gonna be what destroys you. Do you wanna nerf that too? So then the army is nerfed to the ground. Is your intention to nerf armies to being unplayable in hopes it makes yours playable competitively? And it you don’t play competitive, then this whole this is ridiculous anyway
Yeah I'd probably rework every single free activation in the game to something like a 6" extra move or a +1 to hit or wound ability. Shoots twice/move twice/ is just too powerful to even exist. Like I said - it's not rocket science. A unit that shoots twice is like having a free unit.
Power from death doesn’t need to be reworked. Word of the Phoenix does. It could even be something as simple as like warp charge 9, 12”. As far as free units go, ynnari isn’t the only thing that gets to do something for free in the game. If you rework one to be almost not worth doing what so ever, do it to all. For instance, marine bolters when within 12” should hit on 6+ and wound on 6+ only because the marines are probably freaking out due to the fact an enemy is actually that close. See how silly that sounds?
I didn't specifically target ynnari - all moves twice and shoot twice abilities should be removed from the game and made more reasonable. I have no clue what you are talking about with marines hitting on 6's...Seems like a pretty bizarre statement where mine actually makes sense. Shooting twice is like having a free unit - because it shoots just like 2 units. Yeah you have to get a spell off to use it on reapers - but spears can often proc it for themselves. Or maybe....move for a 3rd time. The entire Ynnari index needs to be redesigned. Something like old daemonkin where when you kill or lose units you get points you can use to activate certain powers.
Reemule wrote: Yawn. Only dumb players continue to try to shoot the knight with the 3++.
Doom, Jinx, and i'm off to the races. Go ahead and rotate. If you're not Taranis i'll just Vect it anyway.
Additionally, Chaos players will just Death Hex that 3++ away, and solo a Castellan with Morty.
A 3++ Knight isn't the problem. It's a 3++ knight with 0 consequences because the list has like 18 cp. And the fact that you can build an entire list around the castellan that is good enough to compete with some armies 2k.
So what about the Factions that don't have Death Hex or aren't Eldar besides Harlequins?
"So what about the Factions that don't have Death Hex or aren't Eldar besides Harlequins?"
They can field a 3++ Knight to counter the 3++ Knight. So, each faction has it's thing to counter it!
Eldar: Doom+Jinx
Chaos: Death Hex
IoM: Counter with their own
So it's totally fine.
(Note: yes, this *is* sarcasm about the game devolving into the "Big Three" alliances...)
More seriously, +1 to BCB's post; hit the nail on the head for probably most of what's wrong at the moment in the game.
To expand BCB's answer, though - aside from internal balance, the external balance is also terrible. CWE and Marines (my two armies) are about equally "Elite" - but the CWE stratagems are often much, much better (although not straight upgrades) compared to SM stratagems.
Bharring wrote: "So what about the Factions that don't have Death Hex or aren't Eldar besides Harlequins?"
They can field a 3++ Knight to counter the 3++ Knight. So, each faction has it's thing to counter it!
Eldar: Doom+Jinx
Chaos: Death Hex
IoM: Counter with their own
So it's totally fine.
(Note: yes, this *is* sarcasm about the game devolving into the "Big Three" alliances...)
More seriously, +1 to BCB's post; hit the nail on the head for probably most of what's wrong at the moment in the game.
To expand BCB's answer, though - aside from internal balance, the external balance is also terrible. CWE and Marines (my two armies) are about equally "Elite" - but the CWE stratagems are often much, much better (although not straight upgrades) compared to SM stratagems.
I've been having fun countering a 3++ Knight with my own 3++ Knights... a pair of Knights Gallant is only 100 pts more, and can deal with it quite easily if you have enough mortars / anti-infantry to clear away it's screening guardsmen. But yea, it's still need a knight to kill a knight for IoM vs IoM. Or Dakkabots... enough of those things will put down a Knight with ease.
Orks can put down a Knight if they take 25 Tankbustas and use Mob Up, More Dakka, and potentially Showin' Off along with Da Jump to get them into position to hit it turn 1.
Most factions have some sort of Answer to the Knight, even if the answer is "go hit it in melee".
Marmatag wrote: And the fact that you can build an entire list around the castellan that is good enough to compete with some armies 2k.
I will have to try that out.
I have only one of those guys... I hope it is all I ever "need".
Saw one guy at my FLGS field 3 of those things... I suspect some people have strong opinions about this and his opponents.
I do find that this edition and other additions that have armies "cross-pollinate" with buffs and in this case CP's things get that broken feeling.
Keeping all the various benefits and liabilities of a given army all contained only in that army is the only way to have some semblance of "balance" in my mind.
It is too hard to calculate all the interactions between all army alliances.
Bharring wrote: Maybe the game could just use more tools like Death Hex and Doom.
If every faction had a reasonable "Screw you, Superheavy/Deathstar" option or three, maybe deathstars/superheavies wouldn't be so prevelant.
Personally - some weapons should reduce the effectiveness of invul saves. Like AP is effective again armor but another stat that reduced invo saves that wasn't often found on the same weapon...That would ad some real depth to the game.
"Personally - some weapons should reduce the effectiveness of invul saves."
Like Void Zone, Death Hex, or Jinx? (Once again, hillariously, one for each of the "Big Three". Although the IoM one is junk.)
Personally, I'd rather they toned down invuln saves.
Spoletta wrote: 40K works much better than other games in absence of a social agreement.
MTG is simply unplayable. I'm gonna say "Standard" you are gonna say "Ok, standard!", then i put a premade standard deck on the table and you put a competitive one. Guess who's not going to enjoy the game?
Warmahordes is even worse. The difference between bad lists and good lists is so huge that it is like playing fluffy chaos marines against Eldar scatspam in 7th. You have no chances of winning.
The same is true for popular pc games. Wanna try going against a Goat with a fun and random composition in overwatch?
Apart from some truly nightmare games like imperial soup against mono GK, any other game is at least enjoyable. Yes my fluffy mono SM will not win many games against an optimized IG, but out of 10 games i will win 2 or 3.
That is the complete opposite of the experience I had with Warmahordes.
I played that for a decade before it dried up in my area. I went through a six month phase where I deliberately benched all the good stuff in my army and I even with that I still didn't play more than a handful of games that felt unwinable. A tournament level player with a list chosen by throwing darts at a wall would consistently beat a mid-level player with a tournament-tuned list. We complained about the internal balance but the truth was that there really wasn't that much of a gap between the S rank stuff and the F rank stuff.
40k by contrast has consistently felt like any given game was mostly decided by which two factions were involved, and when the factions didn't give a clear favorite list building was usually the deciding factor. Credit where it's due though; GW is doing the best job of trying to balance the game than I've ever seen out of them. It's still not great, but it's mostly improving over time.
Spoletta wrote: 40K works much better than other games in absence of a social agreement.
MTG is simply unplayable. I'm gonna say "Standard" you are gonna say "Ok, standard!", then i put a premade standard deck on the table and you put a competitive one. Guess who's not going to enjoy the game?
Warmahordes is even worse. The difference between bad lists and good lists is so huge that it is like playing fluffy chaos marines against Eldar scatspam in 7th. You have no chances of winning.
The same is true for popular pc games. Wanna try going against a Goat with a fun and random composition in overwatch?
Apart from some truly nightmare games like imperial soup against mono GK, any other game is at least enjoyable. Yes my fluffy mono SM will not win many games against an optimized IG, but out of 10 games i will win 2 or 3.
That is the complete opposite of the experience I had with Warmahordes.
I played that for a decade before it dried up in my area. I went through a six month phase where I deliberately benched all the good stuff in my army and I even with that I still didn't play more than a handful of games that felt unwinable. A tournament level player with a list chosen by throwing darts at a wall would consistently beat a mid-level player with a tournament-tuned list. We complained about the internal balance but the truth was that there really wasn't that much of a gap between the S rank stuff and the F rank stuff.
40k by contrast has consistently felt like any given game was mostly decided by which two factions were involved, and when the factions didn't give a clear favorite list building was usually the deciding factor. Credit where it's due though; GW is doing the best job of trying to balance the game than I've ever seen out of them. It's still not great, but it's mostly improving over time.
7th and 6th were worse than warmahordes, i agree, and indeed i played warmahordes during that time (MK2). But now i vastly prefer the balance of 8th.
Xenomancers wrote: ITC doesn't really change much. I usually just play to table (everyone is trying to do that anyways) the only difference is you just try to hold more objectives than they do so you can get more points. Then you take the secondaries that give you the most points....usually it's going to be 2 killing secondaries or possibly 3.
The big difference with ITC is guaranteed LOS blocking. It does improve the game a lot. This is more of an issue with people having absolute crap terrain options. The ITC rule basically fixes that in the most simple way by saying...these things that don't block LOS actually do.
You don't need to play ITC to make the bottom level of buildings block LoS...
Xenomancers wrote: ITC doesn't really change much. I usually just play to table (everyone is trying to do that anyways) the only difference is you just try to hold more objectives than they do so you can get more points. Then you take the secondaries that give you the most points....usually it's going to be 2 killing secondaries or possibly 3.
The big difference with ITC is guaranteed LOS blocking. It does improve the game a lot. This is more of an issue with people having absolute crap terrain options. The ITC rule basically fixes that in the most simple way by saying...these things that don't block LOS actually do.
You don't need to play ITC to make the bottom level of buildings block LoS...
You don't, but I've seen more than enough people who dislike house rules but consider ITC to be something other than houserule so will use it, while they would say no if you just happened to ask to have the bottom level of buildings block LOS.
Spoletta wrote: 7th and 6th were worse than warmahordes, i agree, and indeed i played warmahordes during that time (MK2). But now i vastly prefer the balance of 8th.
Having done the same I feel it gives you a different perspective.
I do find it interesting how people go "40k sucks, its balance is horrible, but I've played it and only it since around 2010."
auticus wrote: Tournament standard house rules are magical in that way.
I think the main justification is that, when you have dozens of people attending, you don't actually have to do negotiation. You're already there with the rules in effect, and point levels taken care of. Half the work is done!
I'm reallly looking forward to seeing how the new rules being introduced in the upcoming chaos release will eventually find their way into other armies. I would love some Prayers mechanics for my Admech and i'm assuming there will be plenty in the upcoming sisters of battle release. I think it goes a long way to making chaos different from normal space marines which so far has been mostly how many spikes you can put on your minis.
Its that and tournament standard is for many people the real system, so ITC houserules are to many people not really houserules, ITC houserules are real 40k.
auticus wrote: Tournament standard house rules are magical in that way.
I think the main justification is that, when you have dozens of people attending, you don't actually have to do negotiation. You're already there with the rules in effect, and point levels taken care of. Half the work is done!
The flipside to this is there's a lot of things ITC could do themselves (change how CP works, mandate mono armies, reduce points, etc. not that they should necessarily do any of those things, but I mean they could essentially dictate house rules that would be accepted) that would then be taken as gospel because of events. Yet they don't, while GW doesn't seem to be doing enough to balance again. Maybe it's time for ITC to do it like they had to in 7th and balance the game better than GW themselves.
Ultimately what is pissing me off is that GW keeps doubling down on soup and CP farming. It makes me skeptical if they are actually going to address it despite it being probably the biggest issue in 40k. CP farming and having a cheap CP battery power the "good stuff" being even worse than soup.
The game is overall very fun if both players know what type of game they are trying to play. Not everyone brings fluffy lists, and not everyone brings tournament lists. Just discuss what you wanna bring and have a good game.
Tyel wrote: I do find it interesting how people go "40k sucks, its balance is horrible, but I've played it and only it since around 2010."
It's not too surprising. People can love the fluff/models and hate the rules, and many people are in a situation where 40k is effectively the only available miniatures game. Yeah, I'm sure WM/H or whatever is a great game but that doesn't help much when the models are ugly and there are two people in the area who play it (better hope none of them quit).
Tyel wrote: I do find it interesting how people go "40k sucks, its balance is horrible, but I've played it and only it since around 2010."
I find it tragic. I can't imagine being in a situation where the thing I spend most of my free time doing, is a thing of which it's mechanics I loath, because I love how it looks, and I feel like I have to conform to what everybody else does. That must feel pretty terrible. I'm sure I'd just find something else to do.
Tyel wrote: I do find it interesting how people go "40k sucks, its balance is horrible, but I've played it and only it since around 2010."
It's not too surprising. People can love the fluff/models and hate the rules, and many people are in a situation where 40k is effectively the only available miniatures game. Yeah, I'm sure WM/H or whatever is a great game but that doesn't help much when the models are ugly and there are two people in the area who play it (better hope none of them quit).
This is also true. My tenure in Warmahordes was only a year because nobody played it and nobody discussed it as a whole.
40k is a great game if you are looking for list building, and deck building mechanics taking the fore over it being a miniature wargame.
It is not a tactical wargame and never will be, because balanced game design will never incentivize players to go out and get the newest stuff, or sell off entire armies to chase the meta.
I've honestly been driven away from 40k and now am primarily interested in Warlords of Erehwon and Middle Earth Strategy Battle game for their depth, simplicity, and balance. All of this can be done without sacrificing too much flavor as well.
Melissia wrote: and that's for Dakka, which has a tendency towards competitiveness to begin with.
Citation needed.
This sounds like a bit of a sweeping assertion. Please prove that Dakka has a higher ratio of competitive players to casual ones, than the 40k community as a whole.
In my experience, comments that assume a competitive stance seem to greatly outnumber the alternative. I can't prove it; it's just my feeling, which I should also disclose is potentially massively prejudiced by my own stance as a casual - one tends to assume their side is the embattled minority after all. That said, I wouldn't say this is out of keeping with my experience in the real world. Within my local community, competitive is king, and is always assumed, unless their is a discussion beforehand. So I would say that yes, Dakka does tend towards the competitive and this is entirely reflective of reality rather than in opposition to it.
Yeah, I'd agree. In my gaming group dakka is also seen as the board of die-hard tournament players. Just look at all the complaining about the new CSM releases. Many of them boil down to "b-but this is not as strong as A Castellan, so it's utterly useless, as you see nothing but Knights, IG and Ynnari in the game." Needless to say I never encountered any of these factions. If you want to have a more relaxed, fluff oriented forum you could go to Bolter and Chainsword. That's my personal observation, I couldn't prove it admittedly.
It is in a good place. Could be better, for sure, but its still in a pretty good place.
They brought me back with FAQ's. The one of thing I have always been asking for. It changes up the meta keeping the game interesting, and nerfs some of the worst offenders (still living in the hopes of proper nerfs for Soulburst and castellan).
My wishes for GW going forward is to make a official GW product equal to Battlescribe, and for matched play to remove all "VS specific" enemy rules/abilities/stratagems etc. That belongs in narrative play, not matched play!
Ginjitzu wrote: In my experience, comments that assume a competitive stance seem to greatly outnumber the alternative. I can't prove it; it's just my feeling, which I should also disclose is potentially massively prejudiced by my own stance as a casual - one tends to assume their side is the embattled minority after all. That said, I wouldn't say this is out of keeping with my experience in the real world. Within my local community, competitive is king, and is always assumed, unless their is a discussion beforehand. So I would say that yes, Dakka does tend towards the competitive and this is entirely reflective of reality rather than in opposition to it.
It's also down to the fact that discussing balance, army lists and the like is only really possible in the context of competitive, or at least Matched Play, settings. Casual or narrative play is much more of an individual thing, which makes discussion about it a lot more difficult and generally less interesting for a lot of people.
Drager wrote: I'm just putting this here so I remember to come back to it. I'm going to play this out with a firend of mine later. I'll take the Marines list (1 patrol, Lieutenant, 2 squads of Marines built as on the box (Missile Launcher and Plasma Gun) and an assault squad to get to 500) he'll take the knights (Crusader with Sainted Ion and Ion Bulwark). I'm not a marine player, but I am a tournament player, whilst may mate does play Knights, but only casual so it should be interesting. We'll be playing a random CA 2018 mission so I'll report back later.
I'm curious about the results.
I'll wager a sock without a match that it's over in turn 3.
We played it out now and I'll write it up and post a proper report later, but it was a close game with the marines ahead through most of it, if the game had ended on turn 5 they would have won, but the Knight took it by a point on T6. We're going to do another scenraio with the same armies later in the week and see how that plays as it was really fun.
I actually added things up wrong in my haste to report. Going back through my notes it turns out it was a draw!
Spoletta wrote: 7th and 6th were worse than warmahordes, i agree, and indeed i played warmahordes during that time (MK2). But now i vastly prefer the balance of 8th.
Having done the same I feel it gives you a different perspective.
I do find it interesting how people go "40k sucks, its balance is horrible, but I've played it and only it since around 2010."
I find this a lot, and it's a big reason why 40k has so much traction. It's so ingrained in most communities that often it's the only choice, so people stick with it because nobody else plays other games, so you have communities that are essentially GW strongholds where it's only GW products, through good and bad, because almost everyone here has or had a Warhammer army that they used to play, see that Warhammer is still played and gets back into it despite there being way better games out there.
It doesn't matter how much better a game is if no game store stocks the product, none of the regulars have heard of/are interested in it, and any attempt to introduce it as an alternative game to play gets dismissed or met with outright hostility because it's not the game everyone else plays and people think you're trying to muscle in on someone else's turf. I have legit seen this attitude of being yelled at for "trying to push your pet game" into a group that exclusively plays Warhammer and has no desire to do anything that isn't Warhammer.
Reemule wrote: Yawn. Only dumb players continue to try to shoot the knight with the 3++.
Doom, Jinx, and i'm off to the races. Go ahead and rotate. If you're not Taranis i'll just Vect it anyway.
Additionally, Chaos players will just Death Hex that 3++ away, and solo a Castellan with Morty.
A 3++ Knight isn't the problem. It's a 3++ knight with 0 consequences because the list has like 18 cp. And the fact that you can build an entire list around the castellan that is good enough to compete with some armies 2k.
To be clear, its Not RIS, or the Castellan, or House Raven. It is when you have massive amount of CP to pour through a few Specific knights types, with certain stratagems.
Reemule wrote: Yawn. Only dumb players continue to try to shoot the knight with the 3++.
Doom, Jinx, and i'm off to the races. Go ahead and rotate. If you're not Taranis i'll just Vect it anyway.
Additionally, Chaos players will just Death Hex that 3++ away, and solo a Castellan with Morty.
A 3++ Knight isn't the problem. It's a 3++ knight with 0 consequences because the list has like 18 cp. And the fact that you can build an entire list around the castellan that is good enough to compete with some armies 2k.
To be clear, its Not RIS, or the Castellan, or House Raven. It is when you have massive amount of CP to pour through a few Specific knights types, with certain stratagems.
RIS is fine on it's own. The 3 CP to rotate on the castellan is actually pretty dang steep. The castellan is certainly a problem on it's own though. Heck - I'd take it over a Relic falchion which costs 1050 points - I'd take it over literally any titan/superheavy that costs under 1000 points. Granted - most of those units are overcosted - the Castellan is grossly undercosted. It is easily a 750 point model and that is even before nerfing it's OP relic options....2d6 flat 3 damage ap-4 str 9 shots at 48"? ARE YOU FETHING KIDDING ME? +1 invo warlord trait on a 28 wounds t8 model?
Reemule wrote: Yawn. Only dumb players continue to try to shoot the knight with the 3++.
Doom, Jinx, and i'm off to the races. Go ahead and rotate. If you're not Taranis i'll just Vect it anyway.
Additionally, Chaos players will just Death Hex that 3++ away, and solo a Castellan with Morty.
A 3++ Knight isn't the problem. It's a 3++ knight with 0 consequences because the list has like 18 cp. And the fact that you can build an entire list around the castellan that is good enough to compete with some armies 2k.
To be clear, its Not RIS, or the Castellan, or House Raven. It is when you have massive amount of CP to pour through a few Specific knights types, with certain stratagems.
RIS is fine on it's own. The 3 CP to rotate on the castellan is actually pretty dang steep. The castellan is certainly a problem on it's own though. Heck - I'd take it over a Relic falchion which costs 1050 points - I'd take it over literally any titan/superheavy that costs under 1000 points. Granted - most of those units are overcosted - the Castellan is grossly undercosted. It is easily a 750 point model and that is even before nerfing it's OP relic options....2d6 flat 3 damage ap-4 str 9 shots at 48"? ARE YOU FETHING KIDDING ME? +1 invo warlord trait on a 28 wounds t8 model?
Order of Companions and Cawl's Wrath are the only two things that really break it. It's pretty fairly costed IMO if you don't have those. The default Plasma Decimator is the same strength / number of shots as a Leman Russ Executioner w/ Grinding Advance, with a slightly longer range. No problem there. The Volcano Cannon is pretty strong as well, but without the ability to re-roll 1's on number of shots/wounds/damage, it's nowhere near as scary either. They need to make Cawl's Wrath more reasonable (maybe allow it to re-roll number of shots instead of having a flat str/dmg/ap boost), and make Order of Companions more reasonable (maybe make it just re-roll 1's to hit, and make it 1 CP) and I think the Castellan will be a much more fair choice.
Order of companions is way overcosted on anything but a castellan. Castellan is just silly with so many freaking guns with randomness on them. It's just buffing way too many guns. Castellan needs a point increase is all.
Just compare it to other superheavies and that is readily apparent.
If you compare it to a crusader it's only like 70 more points than it's most expensive build.
For those points you get
+4 wounds
2x upraded arm weapons +3 melta guns + close to the firepower of an armiger on it's shoulders. A little bit worse missile launcher.
Yeah I'm gonna say that is worth more than 70 points.
Melissia wrote: and that's for Dakka, which has a tendency towards competitiveness to begin with.
Citation needed.
This sounds like a bit of a sweeping assertion. Please prove that Dakka has a higher ratio of competitive players to casual ones, than the 40k community as a whole.
Ah, the good old "request citation" from me, I request same from you play.
I think the pot / kettle black thing was talked about earlier by Melissia.
BUT YES! I do tend to see more the competitive comments.
I would say we are in a better place for the fluff as well, most anything you want to field can be done and if you dislike fussy addition power points make the army build pretty quick (less granular "balance" but quick).
IMO, this game is too lethal for an IGOUGO system. It has devolved mostly into an alpha strike game, and even trying to play fluffy home games, if someone really likes the look and feel of some highly lethal units and wipes everyone else, it's not overly fair to tell them not to bring them.
I feel that if GW want to stick with the IGOUGO system, they should rein in the dmg and/or AP of a lot of weapons and let people enjoy using their units that thryve put hours into building and painting. It sucks watching them get obliterated in the first turn and then having only a few units left to respond with.
Otherwise it should be changed to alternate activation if they want to keep the lethality.
Again though, this is all just my opinion and I'm sure different people have different tastes. Overall it's a fun game currently and a lot more factions can have fun.
P.S. apologies if this has been a topic already discussed.
Xenomancers wrote: Order of companions is way overcosted on anything but a castellan. Castellan is just silly with so many freaking guns with randomness on them. It's just buffing way too many guns. Castellan needs a point increase is all.
Just compare it to other superheavies and that is readily apparent.
If you compare it to a crusader it's only like 70 more points than it's most expensive build.
For those points you get
+4 wounds
2x upraded arm weapons +3 melta guns + close to the firepower of an armiger on it's shoulders. A little bit worse missile launcher.
Yeah I'm gonna say that is worth more than 70 points.
Well, the Battle Cannon is actually pretty on par with Plasma Devastator (without Cawl's). It's the Leman Russ Battle Cannon vs Leman Russ Executioner... basically the same stats. Without the ability to re-roll 1's, the Battle Cannon is IMO better actually. The Avenger Gattling Cannon vs the Volcano Cannon is almost incomparable, they have vastly different primary target profiles. The Avenger is better vs elite infantry, the Volcano is better against tanks. The Crusader is also better in melee (WS3 vs WS4). Most Crusaders are loaded with the Battlecannon + Avenger Cannon + Ironstorm Launcher, so they clock in at just under 500 points, so the Castellan is 100 pts more. I think 100 pts is a fair cost for the shoulder cannons and 3x melta guns honestly.
So it's not THAT bad, unless you add on the Order of Companions and Cawl's. Until then, I think the price is pretty in line with what I'd expect to pay.
Reemule wrote: Yawn. Only dumb players continue to try to shoot the knight with the 3++.
Doom, Jinx, and i'm off to the races. Go ahead and rotate. If you're not Taranis i'll just Vect it anyway.
Additionally, Chaos players will just Death Hex that 3++ away, and solo a Castellan with Morty.
A 3++ Knight isn't the problem. It's a 3++ knight with 0 consequences because the list has like 18 cp. And the fact that you can build an entire list around the castellan that is good enough to compete with some armies 2k.
To be clear, its Not RIS, or the Castellan, or House Raven. It is when you have massive amount of CP to pour through a few Specific knights types, with certain stratagems.
RIS is fine on it's own. The 3 CP to rotate on the castellan is actually pretty dang steep. The castellan is certainly a problem on it's own though. Heck - I'd take it over a Relic falchion which costs 1050 points - I'd take it over literally any titan/superheavy that costs under 1000 points. Granted - most of those units are overcosted - the Castellan is grossly undercosted. It is easily a 750 point model and that is even before nerfing it's OP relic options....2d6 flat 3 damage ap-4 str 9 shots at 48"? ARE YOU FETHING KIDDING ME? +1 invo warlord trait on a 28 wounds t8 model?
/sigh
If its so good on it own why isn't Chaos taking it? They have access to it and RIS. So are they all just dumb bad players?
Reemule wrote: Yawn. Only dumb players continue to try to shoot the knight with the 3++.
Doom, Jinx, and i'm off to the races. Go ahead and rotate. If you're not Taranis i'll just Vect it anyway.
Additionally, Chaos players will just Death Hex that 3++ away, and solo a Castellan with Morty.
A 3++ Knight isn't the problem. It's a 3++ knight with 0 consequences because the list has like 18 cp. And the fact that you can build an entire list around the castellan that is good enough to compete with some armies 2k.
To be clear, its Not RIS, or the Castellan, or House Raven. It is when you have massive amount of CP to pour through a few Specific knights types, with certain stratagems.
RIS is fine on it's own. The 3 CP to rotate on the castellan is actually pretty dang steep. The castellan is certainly a problem on it's own though. Heck - I'd take it over a Relic falchion which costs 1050 points - I'd take it over literally any titan/superheavy that costs under 1000 points. Granted - most of those units are overcosted - the Castellan is grossly undercosted. It is easily a 750 point model and that is even before nerfing it's OP relic options....2d6 flat 3 damage ap-4 str 9 shots at 48"? ARE YOU FETHING KIDDING ME? +1 invo warlord trait on a 28 wounds t8 model?
/sigh
If its so good on it own why isn't Chaos taking it? They have access to it and RIS. So are they all just dumb bad players?
First off - many do take chaos knights with double avenger cannons rerolling all hits with a stratagem...that is pretty brutal. How many Imperial players play crusaders? Not many...because the castellan is a better option for Imperials. Is it really surprising that people bring the best possible option for something at tournaments? Why play a Chaos Castellan when you can bring an imperial one with better allies AKA imperial guard?
Xenomancers wrote: . How many Imperial players play crusaders? Not many...because the castellan is a better option for Imperials. Is it really surprising that people bring the best possible option for something at tournaments? Why play a Chaos Castellan when you can bring an imperial one with better allies AKA imperial guard?
I don't know about you, but I thought Crusaders were quite popular. Especially with House Krast, the Crusader can be deadly. One guy took a 3 Crusader list to the LVO, did quite well with it. Crusaders are good. Not broken good, just solid.
Xenomancers wrote: . How many Imperial players play crusaders? Not many...because the castellan is a better option for Imperials. Is it really surprising that people bring the best possible option for something at tournaments? Why play a Chaos Castellan when you can bring an imperial one with better allies AKA imperial guard?
I don't know about you, but I thought Crusaders were quite popular. Especially with House Krast, the Crusader can be deadly. One guy took a 3 Crusader list to the LVO, did quite well with it. Crusaders are good. Not broken good, just solid.
I bet you there were 50 times more Castellans compared to crusaders at LVO. I didn't say the crusader was bad. I run a list that has never been defeated in my local ITC tournaments that is a castellan crusader and gallant house tyrannis around GMan with a gaurd battalion. Castellan is god tier. Crusader is just good. Plus - without endless fury it really not that great. Unlike Cawls Wrath - it is still pretty great even without the cawl upgrade - Some games the bonus damage doesn't matter so I don't even take it. Endless furry is always about as good as 1.5 gatling cannons.
If I really hated anything about 40K (which I don't) this would be it. "Good" units, which 40k has A LOT of, are just not "good" enough for hard core competitively play.
Which, to that point, just shows why "hard core" competitively play should not be the default mode for 40K at all.
If I really hated anything about 40K (which I don't) this would be it. "Good" units, which 40k has A LOT of, are just not "good" enough for hard core competitively play.
Which, to that point, just shows why "hard core" competitively play should not be the default mode for 40K at all.
-
It's just a simple cost to potential ratio really. The units with the best ones are the best units no matter how you slice it. It only exist because of units being improperly balanced price wise. That is all I mean when I say the game is unbalanced. Only talking about points to potential ratio. OFC this is even hard to discuss without a deep understanding of what potential really is. It's not a simple math equation. It requires you actually experience list building and playing the game and see the situations that come about. This disparagement between good and bad units would all go away mostly with proper pointing of every unit in the game. At least that is the way I see it. I don't think competitive is the problem - bad pointing is the problem.
It irritates me too because I play with all kinds of players. The ones that really want to build unique lists will come up with ideas and try to make battle plans with subpar effeicenty units and ask me what I think and what can I tell them? Well...that list looks fun to play but it's gonna get rocked against efficient units. It's like sending Shermans vs Tigers....
If I really hated anything about 40K (which I don't) this would be it. "Good" units, which 40k has A LOT of, are just not "good" enough for hard core competitively play.
Which, to that point, just shows why "hard core" competitively play should not be the default mode for 40K at all.
-
If anything, it shows that nobody should have a unit that is THAT overpowered to begin with. I don't even know how you can read that statement and decide "we don't hit the problem units, just don't bring them" rather than attempt balance.
People like Xenomancer are why everyone is right when they say Players suck at balance.
Its not, and never has been about the Castellan.
Its about the unlimited CP poured through the Castellan. This is easy to see, as you only see Castellan when they are in a position to get lots of CP poured through them, never is positions where they are not.
A big part of balance is having the ability to identify the problem.
Blastaar wrote: It is unacceptable that there is a need to have these discussions before playing.
"How DARE I have to interact with my opponent like a human being?! I should just be able to walk into any store, throw down my models, and play a completely silent game with any Tom, Dick, or Stanley that happens by! Forcing me to be a human, and worse, to recognize my opponent as a human who might have different goals than I do, is unacceptable!"
Reemule wrote: People like Xenomancer are why everyone is right when they say Players suck at balance.
Its not, and never has been about the Castellan.
Its about the unlimited CP poured through the Castellan. This is easy to see, as you only see Castellan when they are in a position to get lots of CP poured through them, never is positions where they are not.
A big part of balance is having the ability to identify the problem.
The Castellan getting off a 3++ even once is broken. That has nothing to do with unlimited CP. It's broken at concept that it cam even be done with pure Knights.
Ohh Really? Its Broken. So when it is winning? And what is it winning? Did the 3+ keep the Castellan on the top table at LVO after turn 3? Did it win at the last GT? That was between Tau and Eldar?
Ohh right it didn't.
You and your army skills don't know how to deal with it, and unable to understand your failures at game play, you decide its better to label it broken rather than to Git gud.
Blastaar wrote: It is unacceptable that there is a need to have these discussions before playing.
"How DARE I have to interact with my opponent like a human being?! I should just be able to walk into any store, throw down my models, and play a completely silent game with any Tom, Dick, or Stanley that happens by! Forcing me to be a human, and worse, to recognize my opponent as a human who might have different goals than I do, is unacceptable!"
If Dakka has taught me anything. It's 40k is not about playing a game, but forcing your will on another person until you break them.
Blastaar wrote: It is unacceptable that there is a need to have these discussions before playing.
"How DARE I have to interact with my opponent like a human being?! I should just be able to walk into any store, throw down my models, and play a completely silent game with any Tom, Dick, or Stanley that happens by! Forcing me to be a human, and worse, to recognize my opponent as a human who might have different goals than I do, is unacceptable!"
If Dakka has taught me anything. It's 40k is not about playing a game, but forcing your will on another person until you break them.
You have yet to explain why it's okay for the game to have broken rules though because talking.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Reemule wrote: Ohh Really? Its Broken. So when it is winning? And what is it winning? Did the 3+ keep the Castellan on the top table at LVO after turn 3? Did it win at the last GT? That was between Tau and Eldar?
Ohh right it didn't.
You and your army skills don't know how to deal with it, and unable to understand your failures at game play, you decide its better to label it broken rather than to Git gud.
It IS broken. It showed up in a great number for a reason.
Your argument is like saying 7th Scatterbikes weren't broken because Eldar didn't win a couple of tournaments in 7th. That's literally the equivalent to what you're saying.
Blastaar wrote: It is unacceptable that there is a need to have these discussions before playing.
"How DARE I have to interact with my opponent like a human being?! I should just be able to walk into any store, throw down my models, and play a completely silent game with any Tom, Dick, or Stanley that happens by! Forcing me to be a human, and worse, to recognize my opponent as a human who might have different goals than I do, is unacceptable!"
If Dakka has taught me anything. It's 40k is not about playing a game, but forcing your will on another person until you break them.
You have yet to explain why it's okay for the game to have broken rules though because talking.
Never claimed broken rules were okay. Claimed that talking to your opponent about the rules that exist, broken or otherwise, should not be treated the same way as sticking your face in a LaGuardia toilet for five minutes.
If Dakka has taught me anything. It's 40k is not about playing a game, but forcing your will on another person until you break them.
No it’s not that it’s a perception of laziness. Top players have every dex and spend hours working through game play scenarios. They do their homework and build lists carefully crafted to keep them in the game under all circumstances they can envision and then play the list as much as possible against everyone possible to learn how to adapt.
And then you have Greenhorn Jimbo who read all 4 Blood angel novels and played 6 games with Cousin Darryl in the basement who shows to the event and doesn’t advance and claims its broken.
Blastaar wrote: It is unacceptable that there is a need to have these discussions before playing.
"How DARE I have to interact with my opponent like a human being?! I should just be able to walk into any store, throw down my models, and play a completely silent game with any Tom, Dick, or Stanley that happens by! Forcing me to be a human, and worse, to recognize my opponent as a human who might have different goals than I do, is unacceptable!"
If Dakka has taught me anything. It's 40k is not about playing a game, but forcing your will on another person until you break them.
You have yet to explain why it's okay for the game to have broken rules though because talking.
Never claimed broken rules were okay. Claimed that talking to your opponent about the rules that exist, broken or otherwise, should not be treated the same way as sticking your face in a LaGuardia toilet for five minutes.
So it shouldn't be TREATED that way, so can't you see that it can be argued that it shouldn't NEED to happen in the first place?
"You have yet to explain why it's okay for the game to have broken rules though because talking."
1. He has yet to say it's ok.
2. You have yet to show that it's *not* ok.
3. What nontrivial full-knowledge game *does* have balanced rules? It's a matter of degrees.
If Dakka has taught me anything. It's 40k is not about playing a game, but forcing your will on another person until you break them.
No it’s not that it’s a perception of laziness. Top players have every dex and spend hours working through game play scenarios. They do their homework and build lists carefully crafted to keep them in the game under all circumstances they can envision and then play the list as much as possible against everyone possible to learn how to adapt.
And then you have Greenhorn Jimbo who read all 4 Blood angel novels and played 6 games with Cousin Darryl in the basement who shows to the event and doesn’t advance and claims its broken.
It's almost like, if Top Player had spoken with Jimbo about the difference between casual and competitive play, Jimbo might have had a better experience and be more likely to keep playing, to keep purchasing, and to "git gud." Huh.
Blastaar wrote: It is unacceptable that there is a need to have these discussions before playing.
"How DARE I have to interact with my opponent like a human being?! I should just be able to walk into any store, throw down my models, and play a completely silent game with any Tom, Dick, or Stanley that happens by! Forcing me to be a human, and worse, to recognize my opponent as a human who might have different goals than I do, is unacceptable!"
If Dakka has taught me anything. It's 40k is not about playing a game, but forcing your will on another person until you break them.
You have yet to explain why it's okay for the game to have broken rules though because talking.
Never claimed broken rules were okay. Claimed that talking to your opponent about the rules that exist, broken or otherwise, should not be treated the same way as sticking your face in a LaGuardia toilet for five minutes.
So it shouldn't be TREATED that way, so can't you see that it can be argued that it shouldn't NEED to happen in the first place?
Nope. I don't give a flying feth how balanced or broken the rules are for any game in the world - if you can't communicate with your co-players, whether they're competitive or cooperative, you'll have or give a bad experience, and that's bad.
Blastaar wrote: It is unacceptable that there is a need to have these discussions before playing.
"How DARE I have to interact with my opponent like a human being?! I should just be able to walk into any store, throw down my models, and play a completely silent game with any Tom, Dick, or Stanley that happens by! Forcing me to be a human, and worse, to recognize my opponent as a human who might have different goals than I do, is unacceptable!"
If Dakka has taught me anything. It's 40k is not about playing a game, but forcing your will on another person until you break them.
You have yet to explain why it's okay for the game to have broken rules though because talking.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Reemule wrote: Ohh Really? Its Broken. So when it is winning? And what is it winning? Did the 3+ keep the Castellan on the top table at LVO after turn 3? Did it win at the last GT? That was between Tau and Eldar?
Ohh right it didn't.
You and your army skills don't know how to deal with it, and unable to understand your failures at game play, you decide its better to label it broken rather than to Git gud.
It IS broken. It showed up in a great number for a reason.
Your argument is like saying 7th Scatterbikes weren't broken because Eldar didn't win a couple of tournaments in 7th. That's literally the equivalent to what you're saying.
You have a unit that is available in several factions, and army configurations. If it was Broken, Chaos would have it in Every army. If it was broken Every Pure Knight force would have it. If it was broken, Every formations that can take it would take it.
So why don't they Slayer? Why are all those stupid Chaos players not taking it? All them Dumb Pure Knight Players? Are they just that sad and don't want to win? How do you explain this?
Most of the "git gud" crap I've seen in this hobby only comes out when people start asserting their Mathhammer/theroyhammer superiority, while complaining about how they always lose.
The "git gud" crap is toxic. Fortunately, Dakka (and the rest of the hobby) doesn't seem innundated with it. It rears it's ugly head from time to time, but almost always as a symptom of other toxicity.
Automatically Appended Next Post: "You have a unit that is available in several factions, and army configurations. If it was Broken, Chaos would have it in Every army."
I get the point. But recall that Farseers never go far in tournies in Corsair lists. Are Farseers not OP?
(Yes, it's reducto ad absurdim. But I'm trying to demonstrate where that argument is limited. Not dismiss the argument entirely.)
Reemule wrote: People like Xenomancer are why everyone is right when they say Players suck at balance.
Its not, and never has been about the Castellan.
Its about the unlimited CP poured through the Castellan. This is easy to see, as you only see Castellan when they are in a position to get lots of CP poured through them, never is positions where they are not.
A big part of balance is having the ability to identify the problem.
I can't possibly respond to this properly without violating rule number one. So I will just say LOL.
Bharring wrote: Most of the "git gud" crap I've seen in this hobby only comes out when people start asserting their Mathhammer/theroyhammer superiority, while complaining about how they always lose.
The "git gud" crap is toxic. Fortunately, Dakka (and the rest of the hobby) doesn't seem innundated with it. It rears it's ugly head from time to time, but almost always as a symptom of other toxicity.
Automatically Appended Next Post: "You have a unit that is available in several factions, and army configurations. If it was Broken, Chaos would have it in Every army."
I get the point. But recall that Farseers never go far in tournies in Corsair lists. Are Farseers not OP?
(Yes, it's reducto ad absurdim. But I'm trying to demonstrate where that argument is limited. Not dismiss the argument entirely.)
Might be a missed point. Honestly, I never see corsair lists, but I expect if you did, I'd see farseers in them. The problem isn't that Chaos didn't get to top tables with the Castellan, its that they didn't take them period.
This makes the idea that they are overpowered on their own is void. Adjusting them isn't going to fix the issue. The progression was already put out but people in this thread on what would happen. The castellan gets retired and the Crusader subbed in, and then the Porphy, and then whatever the next thing that is flavor of the day. This will continue to happen till the Order of the Ravens is nerfed out of existence, or they fix CP.
Bharring wrote: Most of the "git gud" crap I've seen in this hobby only comes out when people start asserting their Mathhammer/theroyhammer superiority, while complaining about how they always lose.
Why do I hear a call for Theroy Jenkins in that statement?
It's not uncommon. Proper table setup and good rolling can make any less effective unit amazing in the right hands. Heck, half the reason net lists pop up is because someone used something effectively. Of course, part of that "get gud" is minimizing one's reliance on bad statistic by pursuing one level of quality or another and seeking an efficient level in that quality.
On the other hand, not every game has to be treated as a tournament, either, so those "get gud" players should start to "get gud" at socializing like a proper human.
@Reemule,
My point is that it's possible that the Castellan is OP, and would be as Chaos - but since it's even more OP as IoM, you see it in IoM more often. The theory being, if you're bringing a Castellan list, you bring it with it's best pairing - IoM.
Note the word *possible*.
On your subsitution theory - it happens all the time. Spectres -> Reapers -> Spears for Ynnair/CWE. BananaBikes/SmashFethers for IoM beatsticks.
@Charistoph:
I think proper human interaction is a component of 'git gud' in this game. As I consider the more enjoyed-opponent to be the better 40ker over the higher-tourny-rated one.
Coming from my own hubris, it's amazing how we can delude ourselves into thinking we're amazing at everything, and can do anything better than anyone else, and know everything. And be real donkey caves about it.
Bharring wrote: "You have yet to explain why it's okay for the game to have broken rules though because talking."
1. He has yet to say it's ok.
2. You have yet to show that it's *not* ok.
3. What nontrivial full-knowledge game *does* have balanced rules? It's a matter of degrees.
I have to prove imbalanced rules are bad? You're not serious are you?
Blastaar wrote: It is unacceptable that there is a need to have these discussions before playing.
"How DARE I have to interact with my opponent like a human being?! I should just be able to walk into any store, throw down my models, and play a completely silent game with any Tom, Dick, or Stanley that happens by! Forcing me to be a human, and worse, to recognize my opponent as a human who might have different goals than I do, is unacceptable!"
If Dakka has taught me anything. It's 40k is not about playing a game, but forcing your will on another person until you break them.
You have yet to explain why it's okay for the game to have broken rules though because talking.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Reemule wrote: Ohh Really? Its Broken. So when it is winning? And what is it winning? Did the 3+ keep the Castellan on the top table at LVO after turn 3? Did it win at the last GT? That was between Tau and Eldar?
Ohh right it didn't.
You and your army skills don't know how to deal with it, and unable to understand your failures at game play, you decide its better to label it broken rather than to Git gud.
It IS broken. It showed up in a great number for a reason.
Your argument is like saying 7th Scatterbikes weren't broken because Eldar didn't win a couple of tournaments in 7th. That's literally the equivalent to what you're saying.
You have a unit that is available in several factions, and army configurations. If it was Broken, Chaos would have it in Every army. If it was broken Every Pure Knight force would have it. If it was broken, Every formations that can take it would take it.
So why don't they Slayer? Why are all those stupid Chaos players not taking it? All them Dumb Pure Knight Players? Are they just that sad and don't want to win? How do you explain this?
Because the Chaos ones lack a bunch of Warlord traits, Relics, and Household rules? Then there is already a model count issue with pure Knights and some lists still run them anyway?
Did I seriously need to explain that at all? Especially why the Chaos ones don't show up? That's playing ignorant on purpose.
I could have been clearer on that point. It's possible for a game to be in a good place, if being a social game that people talk about and/or follow a social construct is a healthy state for said game.
You haven't shown that such a state is inherently unhealthy for 40k.
Automatically Appended Next Post: "Reemule is the one saying "get gud" and that castellans are balanced. He probably thinks the game is in a good place too."
I see a lot more of "Get gud at Mathhammer"/"Acknowledge the superiority my thoughts"/"I'm right the universe is wrong" than I see "Get gut at 40k", though.
Bharring wrote: @Reemule,
My point is that it's possible that the Castellan is OP, and would be as Chaos - but since it's even more OP as IoM, you see it in IoM more often. The theory being, if you're bringing a Castellan list, you bring it with it's best pairing - IoM.
Note the word *possible*.
On your subsitution theory - it happens all the time. Spectres -> Reapers -> Spears for Ynnair/CWE. BananaBikes/SmashFethers for IoM beatsticks.
I already said that pretty much Bharring and it's been discussed at length in other threads...Actual tournament players would laugh at the suggestion at bringing a chaos castellan over an IOM one...In a choas army a Castellan is just an undercosted shooting unit. In an IOM army the Castellan is even more powerful and even harder to kill as well as having better CP support. If the two lists would meet the IOM list would win more often than not. So you just bring the IOM man because it is clearly better. It is a diversionary fallacy. It is possible for 2 units to be OP and for one to still be better than the other.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bharring wrote: I could have been clearer on that point. It's possible for a game to be in a good place, if being a social game that people talk about and/or follow a social construct is a healthy state for said game.
You haven't shown that such a state is inherently unhealthy for 40k.
Automatically Appended Next Post: "Reemule is the one saying "get gud" and that castellans are balanced. He probably thinks the game is in a good place too."
I see a lot more of "Get gud at Mathhammer"/"Acknowledge the superiority my thoughts"/"I'm right the universe is wrong" than I see "Get gut at 40k", though.
Ehh if you really break it down. Get Gud means all other those things.
Because the Chaos ones lack a bunch of Warlord traits, Relics, and Household rules? Then there is already a model count issue with pure Knights and some lists still run them anyway?
Did I seriously need to explain that at all? Especially why the Chaos ones don't show up? That's playing ignorant on purpose.
And again, this is why people say players are bad at balance. Like in this case, understands that its not the problem with the model, still advocates to nerf the model. Unbelievable.
Automatically Appended Next Post: My Git Gud in this case means that the 3++ against Range is very playable. That means anyone who cares to learn and try can play around it and win, or play through it and win. It is a game changer, but not a game winner.
If it was such a big deal, you would see all all those knight lists who have it doing a lot better than they are.
Because the Chaos ones lack a bunch of Warlord traits, Relics, and Household rules? Then there is already a model count issue with pure Knights and some lists still run them anyway?
Did I seriously need to explain that at all? Especially why the Chaos ones don't show up? That's playing ignorant on purpose.
And again, this is why people say players are bad at balance. Like in this case, understands that its not the problem with the model, still advocates to nerf the model. Unbelievable.
Automatically Appended Next Post: My Git Gud in this case means that the 3++ against Range is very playable. That means anyone who cares to learn and try can play around it and win, or play through it and win. It is a game changer, but not a game winner.
If it was such a big deal, you would see all all those knight lists who have it doing a lot better than they are.
All those things are tied to the model, so don't pretend they aren't.
Also the lists are still doing well, so I haven't a single clue what you're talking about as if they weren't doing fantastic already.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bharring wrote: I could have been clearer on that point. It's possible for a game to be in a good place, if being a social game that people talk about and/or follow a social construct is a healthy state for said game.
You haven't shown that such a state is inherently unhealthy for 40k.
Automatically Appended Next Post: "Reemule is the one saying "get gud" and that castellans are balanced. He probably thinks the game is in a good place too."
I see a lot more of "Get gud at Mathhammer"/"Acknowledge the superiority my thoughts"/"I'm right the universe is wrong" than I see "Get gut at 40k", though.
There are several cheaper ways to socialize. I could go to a bar and get a couple of drinks and network that way.
Healthy state for the game =/= healthy state for the community, which is what you're more implying in that post.
I think the Castelan shouldn't be able to get a 3++ or should cost more points.
Really its a luck thing. The issue is that if the Knight player is rolling even vaguely hot, the Castelan can kill 400~ points of stuff, more if you can start assaulting, and with slightly above average 3++ rolls it won't die.
Now to be fair I've had games where the Castelan player can't seem to roll anything but 2s, and it does jack before dying rather ignominiously. I have however had far more where the Castelan's killed about half an opponents army in two or three turns while shrugging off 1000s of points of shooting attacks. It renders a huge number of vehicles and monsters not valid choices, because they are just food for Cawls Wrath and the volcano cannon (plus the other guns to make sure).
It might be alright if there were strict hard counters - but for many factions there are not. You just have to brute force it and hope the dice are with you.
Xenomancers wrote: How many Imperial players play crusaders? Not many...because the castellan is a better option for Imperials. Is it really surprising that people bring the best possible option for something at tournaments? Why play a Chaos Castellan when you can bring an imperial one with better allies AKA imperial guard?
Just a minor point, but thanks for not going to the hyperbolic "none" over the more reasonable "not many" - we see too much of the former when making claims, when the latter is more likely to be close to reality.
Blastaar wrote: It is unacceptable that there is a need to have these discussions before playing.
"How DARE I have to interact with my opponent like a human being?! I should just be able to walk into any store, throw down my models, and play a completely silent game with any Tom, Dick, or Stanley that happens by! Forcing me to be a human, and worse, to recognize my opponent as a human who might have different goals than I do, is unacceptable!"
If Dakka has taught me anything. It's 40k is not about playing a game, but forcing your will on another person until you break them.
Melissia wrote: and that's for Dakka, which has a tendency towards competitiveness to begin with.
Citation needed. This sounds like a bit of a sweeping assertion. Please prove that Dakka has a higher ratio of competitive players to casual ones, than the 40k community as a whole.
Ah, the good old "request citation" from me, I request same from you play. I think the pot / kettle black thing was talked about earlier by Melissia.
Yup she just activated my trap card
Talizvar wrote: BUT YES! I do tend to see more the competitive comments. I would say we are in a better place for the fluff as well, most anything you want to field can be done and if you dislike fussy addition power points make the army build pretty quick (less granular "balance" but quick).
Who's to say that isn't reflective of the overall community? Most people, whether casual or hardcore, talk about unit stats etc when discussing competitive play.
I usually wouldn't ask that kind of evidence for such stuff, but you know, since she insists on sourcing such stuff I just thought I'd point out when she made the exact same error she was harping on about being pretentious in here.
To my memory, polls consistently show around 60% of dakka posters who respond view themselves as primarily competitive players. A quick search shows a few polls to that effect, the most relevant and well-put-together of which is here:
Bharring wrote: I could have been clearer on that point. It's possible for a game to be in a good place, if being a social game that people talk about and/or follow a social construct is a healthy state for said game.
You haven't shown that such a state is inherently unhealthy for 40k.
It's unhealthy for ANY game because that discussion/social contract/whatever you want to call it is 100% the result of a failure in game design. The only time it is required is when the rules alone are inadequate to provide an enjoyable game and you need to negotiate how to modify the rules, how much exploiting of balance mistakes is "too competitive", etc. Mentioning pre-game negotiation is inherently a concession that the game is not in a healthy state and the players are putting in effort to compensate for it and try to salvage the game they like.
Xenomancers wrote: The castellan still requires a nerf even in a chaos army. It's base cost is unquestionably low.
Not convinced a naked Castellan is problematic by any means. You're gonna need something to back that up.
Comparisons to other super heavies is sufficient I think. Compare it to a relic falchion. Even if they are the same cost - why would you ever bring the falchion?
Bharring wrote: I could have been clearer on that point. It's possible for a game to be in a good place, if being a social game that people talk about and/or follow a social construct is a healthy state for said game.
You haven't shown that such a state is inherently unhealthy for 40k.
It's unhealthy for ANY game because that discussion/social contract/whatever you want to call it is 100% the result of a failure in game design. The only time it is required is when the rules alone are inadequate to provide an enjoyable game and you need to negotiate how to modify the rules, how much exploiting of balance mistakes is "too competitive", etc. Mentioning pre-game negotiation is inherently a concession that the game is not in a healthy state and the players are putting in effort to compensate for it and try to salvage the game they like.
I agree.
The game design is simple broken at current state. My incentive behind gaming was allways having a great competetion, learning, becoming better. The game does not promote anything like that. What you are learing is: "Damn, i play the wrong facting." "My composition was weeker than my oponents", or "Had simply bad luck from dices or losing the first turn today". This is what makes people mad, because winning or losing has nothing to do with players skill, because i can simply cheat the skill by playing power creep. I don't want to dominate the game, because i have the greatest skill. I realy do not have! But building an army around brokeness is how the game works. This is how people becoming toxic, because they do nothing wrong, but get smashed in their face simply by game design. You can follow the path the game works, or you get stomped to the ground.
Consequence is, you buy, buy and buy all the creep, and this in a fast manner, we never have seen before. Thousands of sources for rules, books, faqs following one after another. And the worst thing is... i HAVE to buy, because i must. It's not anything more than pure pay to win, microtransaction mechanism included.
That is not the meaning of a tabletop game. Gaming means, playing together, having a good time, learning and laugh.
Powergamers just ruin this game, like they ruin any computer game multiplayer today. And its okay for them, having a broken game, because this is what they benefit from. And also does the manufacturer.
Bharring wrote: I could have been clearer on that point. It's possible for a game to be in a good place, if being a social game that people talk about and/or follow a social construct is a healthy state for said game.
You haven't shown that such a state is inherently unhealthy for 40k.
It's unhealthy for ANY game because that discussion/social contract/whatever you want to call it is 100% the result of a failure in game design. The only time it is required is when the rules alone are inadequate to provide an enjoyable game and you need to negotiate how to modify the rules, how much exploiting of balance mistakes is "too competitive", etc. Mentioning pre-game negotiation is inherently a concession that the game is not in a healthy state and the players are putting in effort to compensate for it and try to salvage the game they like.
I agree.
The game design is simple broken at current state. My incentive behind gaming was allways having a great competetion, learning, becoming better. The game does not promote anything like that. What you are learing is: "Damn, i play the wrong facting." "My composition was weeker than my oponents", or "Had simply bad luck from dices or losing the first turn today". This is what makes people mad, because winning or losing has nothing to do with players skill, because i can simply cheat the skill by playing power creep. I don't want to dominate the game, because i have the greatest skill. I realy do not have! But building an army around brokeness is how the game works. This is how people becoming toxic, because they do nothing wrong, but get smashed in their face simply by game design. You can follow the path the game works, or you get stomped to the ground.
Consequence is, you buy, buy and buy all the creep, and this in a fast manner, we never have seen before. Thousands of sources for rules, books, faqs following one after another. And the worst thing is... i HAVE to buy, because i must. It's not anything more than pure pay to win, microtransaction mechanism included.
That is not the meaning of a tabletop game. Gaming means, playing together, having a good time, learning and laugh.
Powergamers just ruin this game, like they ruin any computer game multiplayer today. And its okay for them, having a broken game, because this is what they benefit from. And also does the manufacturer.
The only time I've had this experience is against a Castellan or Ynnari. Otherwise your analysis is flat wrong in my opinion. And even then there are things I can learn when I lose to them.
Crimson Devil wrote: If Dakka has taught me anything. It's 40k is not about playing a game, but forcing your will on another person until you break them.
To my memory, polls consistently show around 60% of dakka posters who respond view themselves as primarily competitive players. A quick search shows a few polls to that effect, the most relevant and well-put-together of which is here:
Thus my assertion, "Dakka tends towards competitiveness".
I respond to your trap card with a quick-play spell that negates it. My assertion is supported by available data.
Cool story. We've all seen those polls.
Now please prove that those numbers are a higher ratio of competitive players to casual ones, than the 40k community as a whole. Considering that's a direct post of what my initial post asked for. You remember that part right, the part of my post that you had to consciously edit out to make your response?
If you can't do this, feel free to admit you're equally as guilty of making sweeping assertions as those you are so quick to condemn.
To my memory, polls consistently show around 60% of dakka posters who respond view themselves as primarily competitive players. A quick search shows a few polls to that effect, the most relevant and well-put-together of which is here:
Thus my assertion, "Dakka tends towards competitiveness".
I respond to your trap card with a quick-play spell that negates it. My assertion is supported by available data.
Cool story. We've all seen those polls.
Now please prove that those numbers are a higher ratio of competitive players to casual ones, than the 40k community as a whole. Considering that's a direct post of what my initial post asked for. You remember that part right, the part of my post that you had to consciously edit out to make your response?
If you can't do this, feel free to admit you're equally as guilty of making sweeping assertions as those you are so quick to condemn.
It's not possible to prove, but do you genuinely believe that Dakka DOESN'T have a higher ratio of competitive to casual than the general player base?
It seems pretty much inevitable, as casual players are by their nature less likely to engage with wider communities, be that Dakka or any other such community.
We don't have data either way, but it seems pretty logical that this relationship will exist.
To my memory, polls consistently show around 60% of dakka posters who respond view themselves as primarily competitive players. A quick search shows a few polls to that effect, the most relevant and well-put-together of which is here:
Thus my assertion, "Dakka tends towards competitiveness".
I respond to your trap card with a quick-play spell that negates it. My assertion is supported by available data.
Cool story. We've all seen those polls.
Now please prove that those numbers are a higher ratio of competitive players to casual ones, than the 40k community as a whole. Considering that's a direct post of what my initial post asked for. You remember that part right, the part of my post that you had to consciously edit out to make your response?
If you can't do this, feel free to admit you're equally as guilty of making sweeping assertions as those you are so quick to condemn.
It's not possible to prove, but do you genuinely believe that Dakka DOESN'T have a higher ratio of competitive to casual than the general player base?
It seems pretty much inevitable, as casual players are by their nature less likely to engage with wider communities, be that Dakka or any other such community.
We don't have data either way, but it seems pretty logical that this relationship will exist.
I also don't believe that the majority of players don't play with Points rather than PL, and being thats the whole statement Melissia went on a rant about being some baseless assertion, I'd like to point out the hypocrisy of using the assertion that Dakka's polls are more heavily weighted to being competitive, as your driving argument to refute the very proof you asked for.
Dakka's polls will undoubtedly be more competitive based that the community at large.
Of course we can't infer from that that more people use PL than points, that makes no logical sense.
However we have to be mindful that we really don't know anything about the scale of casual or power level based play. It might be that 90% of people use it and play very casually and never engage with wider communities. Or maybe there are hardly any of them we really don't know at all, and there's no way we really can know. By they're nature, the more casual they are the less likely they are to register on any form of data gathering.
GW themselves are probably the only people at positioned to have SOME data, based on sales and such, to make an inference. And they seem to think PL and Open Play are somewhat important, so I think we have to take that at face value in the absence of anything meaningful to the contrary.
Basically, the whole line of debate is pretty meaningless.
It also depends what you mean by competitive. I'm a casual player (in that I don't do tournaments and I don't necessarily play an optimised list), but I do use points and I still try to win the games I play, so I do care about balance.
If you try to ever win a game, you're competitive by definition. If you're not trying to win the game, what's the point of playing 40k instead of just drinking 30 beers and watching some cute anime girls hold hands?
BaconCatBug wrote: If you try to ever win a game, you're competitive by definition. If you're not trying to win the game, what's the point of playing 40k instead of just drinking 30 beers and watching some cute anime girls hold hands?
Genuinely not sure if this is irony or serious...
Anyway, the point is to have fun. Whatever that means. I know some people can't understand how people can have fun without a balanced competitive game, but many people do. We just don't know how many!
BaconCatBug wrote:If you try to ever win a game, you're competitive by definition. If you're not trying to win the game, what's the point of playing 40k instead of just drinking 30 beers and watching some cute anime girls hold hands?
Strong disagree. Ever heard of "having a good time"?*
*yes, I know that different people have different ideas on what a good time is - and my point is that some people have a good time by playing 40k for non-winning reasons.
BaconCatBug wrote:If you try to ever win a game, you're competitive by definition. If you're not trying to win the game, what's the point of playing 40k instead of just drinking 30 beers and watching some cute anime girls hold hands?
Strong disagree. Ever heard of "having a good time"?*
*yes, I know that different people have different ideas on what a good time is - and my point is that some people have a good time by playing 40k for non-winning reasons.
BCB's statement was ridiculous but his point sort of remains. Who plays a game and TRIES TO LOSE? There's not caring if you lose, there's not trying to min/max so you win, but I have never met anyone who actually plays a game and plays it intending to lose. They at least TRY to win.
BaconCatBug wrote:If you try to ever win a game, you're competitive by definition. If you're not trying to win the game, what's the point of playing 40k instead of just drinking 30 beers and watching some cute anime girls hold hands?
Strong disagree. Ever heard of "having a good time"?*
*yes, I know that different people have different ideas on what a good time is - and my point is that some people have a good time by playing 40k for non-winning reasons.
BCB's statement was ridiculous but his point sort of remains. Who plays a game and TRIES TO LOSE? There's not caring if you lose, there's not trying to min/max so you win, but I have never met anyone who actually plays a game and plays it intending to lose. They at least TRY to win.
Not playing to win =/= trying to lose.
Playing for something other than winning isn't the same as trying to lose, or even intending on losing are completely different things. One can play the game and accepts that they may win or lose, and that fact might be completely irrelevant to them, in much the same way that a player who plays to win may accept that their list is a fluffy Eldar Windrider force, and that may be lost on them.
Again, not implying that players who play to win are all uncaring about the fluff and stuff, but just making a hypothetical point.
To my memory, polls consistently show around 60% of dakka posters who respond view themselves as primarily competitive players. A quick search shows a few polls to that effect, the most relevant and well-put-together of which is here:
Thus my assertion, "Dakka tends towards competitiveness".
I respond to your trap card with a quick-play spell that negates it. My assertion is supported by available data.
Cool story. We've all seen those polls.
Now please prove that those numbers are a higher ratio of competitive players to casual ones, than the 40k community as a whole. Considering that's a direct post of what my initial post asked for. You remember that part right, the part of my post that you had to consciously edit out to make your response?
If you can't do this, feel free to admit you're equally as guilty of making sweeping assertions as those you are so quick to condemn.
It's not possible to prove, but do you genuinely believe that Dakka DOESN'T have a higher ratio of competitive to casual than the general player base?
It seems pretty much inevitable, as casual players are by their nature less likely to engage with wider communities, be that Dakka or any other such community.
We don't have data either way, but it seems pretty logical that this relationship will exist.
I also don't believe that the majority of players don't play with Points rather than PL, and being thats the whole statement Melissia went on a rant about being some baseless assertion, I'd like to point out the hypocrisy of using the assertion that Dakka's polls are more heavily weighted to being competitive, as your driving argument to refute the very proof you asked for.
I don't see any reason why dakka would support more competitive play than the general community. IMO Dakka is probably a good sample of the general community because dakka has a lot of members. There is no reasons to suspect dakka has any different population than a general sample of 40k players picked at random across the globe. All you need to make an account on dakka is have a computer (or smart phone) and an interested in learning more about aspect of 40k be it painting/modeling/playing....these are things practically every 40k player has.
BaconCatBug wrote:If you try to ever win a game, you're competitive by definition. If you're not trying to win the game, what's the point of playing 40k instead of just drinking 30 beers and watching some cute anime girls hold hands?
Strong disagree. Ever heard of "having a good time"?*
*yes, I know that different people have different ideas on what a good time is - and my point is that some people have a good time by playing 40k for non-winning reasons.
There is a pretty general rule in life. People enjoy winning more than losing. Furthermore, people really like close games...blow outs are not at all interesting.
To my memory, polls consistently show around 60% of dakka posters who respond view themselves as primarily competitive players. A quick search shows a few polls to that effect, the most relevant and well-put-together of which is here:
Thus my assertion, "Dakka tends towards competitiveness".
I respond to your trap card with a quick-play spell that negates it. My assertion is supported by available data.
Cool story. We've all seen those polls.
Now please prove that those numbers are a higher ratio of competitive players to casual ones, than the 40k community as a whole. Considering that's a direct post of what my initial post asked for. You remember that part right, the part of my post that you had to consciously edit out to make your response?
If you can't do this, feel free to admit you're equally as guilty of making sweeping assertions as those you are so quick to condemn.
It's not possible to prove, but do you genuinely believe that Dakka DOESN'T have a higher ratio of competitive to casual than the general player base?
It seems pretty much inevitable, as casual players are by their nature less likely to engage with wider communities, be that Dakka or any other such community.
We don't have data either way, but it seems pretty logical that this relationship will exist.
I also don't believe that the majority of players don't play with Points rather than PL, and being thats the whole statement Melissia went on a rant about being some baseless assertion, I'd like to point out the hypocrisy of using the assertion that Dakka's polls are more heavily weighted to being competitive, as your driving argument to refute the very proof you asked for.
I don't see any reason why dakka would support more competitive play than the general community. IMO Dakka is probably a good sample of the general community because dakka has a lot of members. There is no reasons to suspect dakka has any different population than a general sample of 40k players picked at random across the globe. All you need to make an account on dakka is have a computer (or smart phone) and an interested in learning more about aspect of 40k be it painting/modeling/playing....these are things practically every 40k player has.
That's EXACTLY my point, and Melissia claiming otherwise needs to support her broad assertion because as it stands, she's guilty of exactly what she just kicked a big fuss over.
SHUPPET wrote: Now please prove that those numbers are a higher ratio of competitive players to casual ones, than the 40k community as a whole.
Moving the goalposts isn't something I respect. I proved that the majority of dakka players when asked in a poll will say that they are primarily competitive, which was my assertion. You're asking me to cite a source for an argument I never made.
SHUPPET wrote: Now please prove that those numbers are a higher ratio of competitive players to casual ones, than the 40k community as a whole.
Moving the goalposts isn't something I respect. I proved that the majority of dakka players when asked in a poll will say that they are primarily competitive, which was my assertion. You're asking me to cite a source for an argument I never made.
It's isn't moving the goalposts because it's the only way to give your assertion any meaning. For "Dakka tends towards competitiveness" to be true in any useful way it has to be considered with reference to the 40k community as a whole. For example, if 60% of people on dakka play competitively but 90% of people in the wider 40k community play competitively then dakka would be a less-competitive community. And it would be absurd to dismiss an argument based on opinions of dakka members as "dakka is exceptionally competitive", as the original comment that started this whole argument did.
SHUPPET wrote: Now please prove that those numbers are a higher ratio of competitive players to casual ones, than the 40k community as a whole.
Moving the goalposts isn't something I respect. I proved that the majority of dakka players when asked in a poll will say that they are primarily competitive, which was my assertion. You're asking me to cite a source for an argument I never made.
It's isn't moving the goalposts because it's the only way to give your assertion any meaning. For "Dakka tends towards competitiveness" to be true in any useful way it has to be considered with reference to the 40k community as a whole. For example, if 60% of people on dakka play competitively but 90% of people in the wider 40k community play competitively then dakka would be a less-competitive community.
Why? You're post is very hard to decipher. Stating that dakka tends towards competitiveness is fine. It qualifies the data it generates.I don't see why or how this needs to be tied to how or why the greater community plays, or collects. Dakka is dakka.
Maybe it's my reading comprehension here (ts my anniversary, Ive had a few lovely whiskeys and frankly have more important things on today), but it seems that reading this, that for your assertion to be true, that dakka is seemingly (or should be) reflective of the community. That's not necessarily true. It's perfectly logical to suggest that the competitive elements of a community will congregate under one banner, but which wouldn't necessarily represent the greater community.
And it would be absurd to dismiss an argument based on opinions of dakka members as "dakka is exceptionally competitive", as the original comment that started this whole argument did.
Not necessarily. While that argument may be true for the opinions of dakka members who are competitive, it may hold no relevance to a (hypothetical) greater community that isn't. It may be that dakka indeed doesn't necessarily reflect the 'real wargaming world'.
*yes, I know that different people have different ideas on what a good time is - and my point is that some people have a good time by playing 40k for non-winning reasons.
There is a pretty general rule in life. People enjoy winning more than losing. Furthermore, people really like close games...blow outs are not at all interesting.
Not true. People generally enjoy a good game, weather they lose or not. I'm not saying everybody, I'm saying GENERALLY. Then if you win, it's icing on the cake.
When asked, most people would say that the games they've enjoyed most are fun close games. NOT fun close games that they won.
The point is that for "dakka trends towards competitiveness" to be true in any meaningful way it has to be the case that dakka is more competitive than average. The implication of the original argument that started this exchange was that because dakka is more competitive than "normal" 40k communities evidence from dakka polls is not representative of the overall community and shouldn't be used to justify statements like "the vast majority of players use points". This is a valid point to make if, say, 60% of dakka members play competitively while only 20% of 40k players as a whole do. In that case you could make the very good argument that dakka is a biased sample and what is true of dakka isn't necessarily true of the wider community. But it isn't valid if, say, 60% of dakka members play competitively while 90% of the wider community does. In that case it's absurd to say that "dakka trends towards competitiveness" because dakka is the much less competitive outlier. And in that case the opposite conclusion is probably true, that if most players in a 60/40 competitive/non-competitive group play with points only then it's almost certainly the case that the margin in favor of points is greater in the wider community.
Not necessarily. While that argument may be true for the opinions of dakka members who are competitive, it may hold no relevance to a (hypothetical) greater community that isn't. It may be that dakka indeed doesn't necessarily reflect the 'real wargaming world'.
Yes, and that's why people are asking for justification for the (implicit) claim about how dakka relates to the wider community and whether or not its poll results are representative.
Bharring wrote:@Charistoph:
I think proper human interaction is a component of 'git gud' in this game. As I consider the more enjoyed-opponent to be the better 40ker over the higher-tourny-rated one.
Coming from my own hubris, it's amazing how we can delude ourselves into thinking we're amazing at everything, and can do anything better than anyone else, and know everything. And be real donkey caves about it.
Quite true. Some of the most enjoyable games are the ones where "gitting gud" would have actually ruined it. As an example, which army is generally considered the most fun to play with and against? The answer is usually "Orks" or "Orcs", depending on the Warhammer. Why? Because they take a serious game and turn it on its head. Even when they are competitive, they still provide some level of memorable moments, if not flat out comedy. And most of the players recognize that they are playing the wackiest army and tend to embrace that feeling. Honestly, I don't think I've met an Ork/Orc player who was overly stressed about the game and tend to be the most chill of the meta, either in store or online.
Peregrine wrote:
Bharring wrote: I could have been clearer on that point. It's possible for a game to be in a good place, if being a social game that people talk about and/or follow a social construct is a healthy state for said game.
You haven't shown that such a state is inherently unhealthy for 40k.
It's unhealthy for ANY game because that discussion/social contract/whatever you want to call it is 100% the result of a failure in game design. The only time it is required is when the rules alone are inadequate to provide an enjoyable game and you need to negotiate how to modify the rules, how much exploiting of balance mistakes is "too competitive", etc. Mentioning pre-game negotiation is inherently a concession that the game is not in a healthy state and the players are putting in effort to compensate for it and try to salvage the game they like.
There is always the need for a discussion of a game before you play. Even in Chess, there is a discussion of who uses which color. Monopoly has hundreds of house rules that people have picked up in their life time because reading rules is hard, and there is always two people who want to use the race car. Uno requires a discussion as to who deals the cards. These are things that game rules never fully cover, yet has never been considered a failure in game design. The durability of these games would attest to their success more than their failure.
Warhammer endures not because of its game balance, that has never been the games' goal, but because Warhammer has always been about getting friends together to push models around and have a good time. In this, it succeeds. WMH provides a much better game balance, over all, yet the competitive aspects have led many people to ignore the non-tournament aspects of the game so that many of the metas have been hemorrhaging players and turning (or returning) to the fun of Warhammer.
Wayniac wrote:BCB's statement was ridiculous but his point sort of remains. Who plays a game and TRIES TO LOSE? There's not caring if you lose, there's not trying to min/max so you win, but I have never met anyone who actually plays a game and plays it intending to lose. They at least TRY to win.
Only in a game when you win more later by losing now. It usually involves gambling in most cases.
There seems to be a disconnect between list building competitively and playing the actual game competitively. I take casual lists all the time because I like variety and care more about playing an army that to me reflects my chapters background and feel than chasing the meta or constantly buying new things when editions change.
What I don't do is once the game start is deliberately play to lose. I think the break down in this discussion comes from some players see not taking the hardest nastiest most up to the meta list as playing to lose. I personally have no interest in playing such a hard hitting game on a regular basis.
Also practically every game in existence requires some communication between players. GW should write a tighter rule set but can we end this fiction that you could play a game as well balanced as say chess and not have to have a bit of words before the game.
I think people dismiss the human interaction a bit too much because they're used to online matchmaking from video games, where a computer does it all for you. But a GW store isn't a matchmaking algorithm.
Melissia wrote: I think people dismiss the human interaction a bit too much because they're used to online matchmaking from video games, where a computer does it all for you. But a GW store isn't a matchmaking algorithm.
Considering the modding that occurs in many games, there can still be discussions there. A lot really depends on the game.
SHUPPET wrote: Now please prove that those numbers are a higher ratio of competitive players to casual ones, than the 40k community as a whole.
Moving the goalposts isn't something I respect. I proved that the majority of dakka players when asked in a poll will say that they are primarily competitive, which was my assertion. You're asking me to cite a source for an argument I never made.
It's isn't moving the goalposts because it's the only way to give your assertion any meaning. For "Dakka tends towards competitiveness" to be true in any useful way it has to be considered with reference to the 40k community as a whole. For example, if 60% of people on dakka play competitively but 90% of people in the wider 40k community play competitively then dakka would be a less-competitive community. And it would be absurd to dismiss an argument based on opinions of dakka members as "dakka is exceptionally competitive", as the original comment that started this whole argument did.
Dakka is not a good indicator of how the community as a whole plays. Out of the 40ish players in my local community, I am the only one who enjoys this site and I think my stated position on "competitive" play speaks for itself.
Probably 10 or so of the players play "competitive" & do go to tourneys.
Melissia wrote: I think people dismiss the human interaction a bit too much because they're used to online matchmaking from video games, where a computer does it all for you. But a GW store isn't a matchmaking algorithm.
There is no reason that 40k shouldn't be as straightforward as an online matchmaking system. The fact that it fails to work that way and requires pre-game negotiation is a failure by GW.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Charistoph wrote: There is always the need for a discussion of a game before you play. Even in Chess, there is a discussion of who uses which color. Monopoly has hundreds of house rules that people have picked up in their life time because reading rules is hard, and there is always two people who want to use the race car. Uno requires a discussion as to who deals the cards. These are things that game rules never fully cover, yet has never been considered a failure in game design. The durability of these games would attest to their success more than their failure.
That is not at all the same. Discussing how to execute the mechanics of the game (which player deals the cards, who plays first, etc) is not pre-game negotiation. The rules provide a structure for making those decisions and there's no real argument to have. You just pick someone or flip a coin or whatever and then start playing the game. What you have in 40k isn't just mechanics stuff like choosing which mission to play or what point level to play at, you're having extensive negotiations about how you should approach the game: what level of competitiveness is "too much", how many copies of a unit is "spamming", etc. None of that is found in the game rules.
The closest thing in your list of comparisons is the house rules in Monopoly, but even then it has more to do with players not understanding how the game works than negotiating over, say, if it's ok to engage in a bidding war over a property just to block a player from completing the set or if it's more "fun" if you let people build their hotels.
Warhammer endures not because of its game balance, that has never been the games' goal, but because Warhammer has always been about getting friends together to push models around and have a good time. In this, it succeeds. WMH provides a much better game balance, over all, yet the competitive aspects have led many people to ignore the non-tournament aspects of the game so that many of the metas have been hemorrhaging players and turning (or returning) to the fun of Warhammer.
Balance and social play are not mutually exclusive concepts, and the lack of balance that hurts 40k as a competitive game also hurts it in the "have fun pushing models around" context.
Melissia wrote: I think people dismiss the human interaction a bit too much because they're used to online matchmaking from video games, where a computer does it all for you. But a GW store isn't a matchmaking algorithm.
There is no reason that 40k shouldn't be as straightforward as an online matchmaking system. The fact that it fails to work that way and requires pre-game negotiation is a failure by GW.
If you want to use a game matchmaking analogy - when you go into matchmaking do you not set filters for the type of game you want to play? Map type, game type etc? How is a 2 minute chat with someone in a store before you play any different and why is so much to ask for?
NurglesR0T wrote: If you want to use a game matchmaking analogy - when you go into matchmaking do you not set filters for the type of game you want to play? Map type, game type etc? How is a 2 minute chat with someone in a store before you play any different and why is so much to ask for?
Because one is about selecting options within the rules of the game (map type, point level, etc) and the other is about your approach to the game and unwritten rules about what is acceptable. Because one is necessary in a game with options that can be selected, while the other is a result of game design failures and a game that is unbalanced or not fun without negotiating limits outside of the printed rules. And because 40k requires all of the same discussion about map types and such, but also requires additional negotiation about how the players should approach the game.
Melissia wrote: I think people dismiss the human interaction a bit too much because they're used to online matchmaking from video games, where a computer does it all for you. But a GW store isn't a matchmaking algorithm.
There is no reason that 40k shouldn't be as straightforward as an online matchmaking system. The fact that it fails to work that way and requires pre-game negotiation is a failure by GW.
If you want to use a game matchmaking analogy - when you go into matchmaking do you not set filters for the type of game you want to play? Map type, game type etc? How is a 2 minute chat with someone in a store before you play any different and why is so much to ask for?
There’s also the element of choosing between the 2 unoccupied people in the store vs a couple hundred online. If you’re going to compare filters to finding a 40k game, realize it’s more like searching for a MW2 lobby today than a game of DOTA 2. You can easily filter yourself out of any game at all.
Melissia wrote: I think people dismiss the human interaction a bit too much because they're used to online matchmaking from video games, where a computer does it all for you. But a GW store isn't a matchmaking algorithm.
There is no reason that 40k shouldn't be as straightforward as an online matchmaking system. The fact that it fails to work that way and requires pre-game negotiation is a failure by GW.
If you want to use a game matchmaking analogy - when you go into matchmaking do you not set filters for the type of game you want to play? Map type, game type etc? How is a 2 minute chat with someone in a store before you play any different and why is so much to ask for?
There’s also the element of choosing between the 2 unoccupied people in the store vs a couple hundred online. If you’re going to compare filters to finding a 40k game, realize it’s more like searching for a MW2 lobby today than a game of DOTA 2. You can easily filter yourself out of any game at all.
Arguably it is better to end up with no game, than a game with clashing expectations which neither player enjoys or gets anything out of.
"just negotiate to your opponent the day before the game", "you do not need the balanced game, one sided games are fun, cos your army is fluffy themed", or this magic "just play casual and the balanced games will appear (btw, where could I get those casual rules? I really really want them)"
Silver144 wrote: "just negotiate to your opponent the day before the game", "you do not need the balanced game, one sided games are fun, cos your army is fluffy themed", or this magic "just play casual and the balanced games will appear (btw, where could I get those casual rules? I really really want them)"
SHUPPET wrote: Now please prove that those numbers are a higher ratio of competitive players to casual ones, than the 40k community as a whole.
Moving the goalposts isn't something I respect. I proved that the majority of dakka players when asked in a poll will say that they are primarily competitive, which was my assertion. You're asking me to cite a source for an argument I never made.
Let's go through this from the start.
Wayniac made a statement that the majority of people in the community play Points, not PL.
You went on a rant about this being baseless assertion, and asked for proof.
He cited Dakka polls as his proof.
You refuted this proof, claiming that "Dakka tends on the competitive side."
And this is where I asked YOU for proof that this isn't reflective of the community as a whole, as you asserted.
Please have a shred of self awareness here, thanks.
It's just obvious by the very nature of what it means to be a casual player that they would be less likely to be active here than a competitive player.
There's no data to statistically prove it, it's just a logical deduction.
SHUPPET wrote: Now please prove that those numbers are a higher ratio of competitive players to casual ones, than the 40k community as a whole.
Moving the goalposts isn't something I respect. I proved that the majority of dakka players when asked in a poll will say that they are primarily competitive, which was my assertion. You're asking me to cite a source for an argument I never made.
It's isn't moving the goalposts because it's the only way to give your assertion any meaning. For "Dakka tends towards competitiveness" to be true in any useful way it has to be considered with reference to the 40k community as a whole. For example, if 60% of people on dakka play competitively but 90% of people in the wider 40k community play competitively then dakka would be a less-competitive community.
Why? You're post is very hard to decipher. Stating that dakka tends towards competitiveness is fine. It qualifies the data it generates.I don't see why or how this needs to be tied to how or why the greater community plays, or collects. Dakka is dakka.
Maybe it's my reading comprehension here (ts my anniversary, Ive had a few lovely whiskeys and frankly have more important things on today), but it seems that reading this, that for your assertion to be true, that dakka is seemingly (or should be) reflective of the community. That's not necessarily true. It's perfectly logical to suggest that the competitive elements of a community will congregate under one banner, but which wouldn't necessarily represent the greater community.
And it would be absurd to dismiss an argument based on opinions of dakka members as "dakka is exceptionally competitive", as the original comment that started this whole argument did.
Not necessarily. While that argument may be true for the opinions of dakka members who are competitive, it may hold no relevance to a (hypothetical) greater community that isn't. It may be that dakka indeed doesn't necessarily reflect the 'real wargaming world'.
See above post. The point is that the claim Melissia made that "Dakka is more competitive than the community as a whole" to dismiss his proof of his opinion, is no less of an unsourced generalization than the claim that "the majority of people use points not PL" that she went on a big tirade about being a "dismissive, arrogant assertion" that he just "pulled out his ass" (her words, not mine). Surely you can see the laughable hypocrisy in that in particular lol, it's why she's so eager to change the subject right now.
Oh gods, all this barking “citation needed!” “prove it!” “no you prove it!” for a mostly unproveable-either-way thing is silly. Guys, just step away from the keyboard and have a cuppa.
Stux wrote: It's just obvious by the very nature of what it means to be a casual player that they would be less likely to be active here than a competitive player.
There's no data to statistically prove it, it's just a logical deduction.
It's also a logical conclusion that the majority of people play with the working ruleset not the busted one, but it didn't stop the rant about how big a fallacy that is now did it? This is my whole underlying point.
That said, I think you misunderstand what casual play means. It doesn't mean they like the game less, it means they like different aspects. I was on 40k discussion MORE when I didn't play competitively. This is a community for modelling, lore, and just general love of the game. ONE of the FOUR painting subcategories has double as many threads than the entire "40k tactics" subcategory alone, so no, I don't agree that logic alone says that this place is going to be significantly more competitive than the general community of the game at all. At the VERY least, claiming that it is a certain way based off "logic", is literally the exact thing that Melissia complained about Wayniac doing, how can you not see that? I don't know how we get to this level of cognitive dissonance.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
JohnnyHell wrote: Oh gods, all this barking “citation needed!” “prove it!” “no you prove it!” for a mostly unproveable-either-way thing is silly. Guys, just step away from the keyboard and have a cuppa.
My. Exact. Point.
There's no real way to prove any of this jive, it's all speculation and interpretation, so at the very least, don't completely gak all over someones reasonable summary simply because they didn't have hard empirical evidence of their interpretation, but then turn around and literally do the exact same thing yourself. It's beyond hypocritical.
Sorry but different interpretations have differing levels of merit, even if you can't conclusively prove them.
Not misunderstanding anything. Being casual doesn't mean for certain that they are less into the game, I absolutely agree. Competitive players however REQUIRE a level of engagement in communities to be competitive.
All I'm saying is there will be a correlation between casual players and players who are less into the game. Not all of them, by any means, but a correlation.
Surely you agree that there will be a correlation between people who are less into the game and people who engage with communities less.
Therefore there will be a bigger drop in representation from casual players compared to competitive players when surveying people on a community forum.
What we don't know is how big that difference is. It might be trivial, or it might be huge.
Not misunderstanding anything. Being casual doesn't mean for certain that they are less into the game, I absolutely agree. Competitive players however REQUIRE a level of engagement in communities to be competitive.
As do painters looking to improve, or to showcase, or to commission, or to help. As do people looking to discuss the lore. As do people from all facets of the hobby for all number of reasons.
Claiming that this forum's polls will have more competitive players than the ratio found in the entire community at large, is exactly that - an assertion based off your personal interpretation of how you suspect it is, but at the end of the day don't have any real proof of - just like the claim that the majority of people play Points and not PL (something that also seems pretty logical, even as a narrative player,we only use Points, the other system just bad on multiple levels). Trying to separate these two statement into "well one is a baseless assertion, but the other is a fair enough claim to make because I agree with it", is just absurdity, all you are doing is picking which one supports your personal perspective more, and throwing any sort of objectivity out the door. If you are going to dismiss people's claims like that, demand they provide proof, and call it "arrogant" to make such assertions, you do not get to turn around and make claims as if you are aware of the exact ratio of competitive players to casuals both here and in the community as a whole. As for you, your post goes on to say that you even don't know, which is exactly my point here. Let's get that understood.
Not misunderstanding anything. Being casual doesn't mean for certain that they are less into the game, I absolutely agree. Competitive players however REQUIRE a level of engagement in communities to be competitive.
As do painters looking to improve, or to showcase, or to commission, or to help. As do people looking to discuss the lore. As do people from all facets of the hobby for all number of reasons.
I think you're misunderstanding my position.
I recognise that the people you talk about exist, that there are quite a lot of them even. People who are big into the lore/painting/hobby aspect, but don't care as much for competitive style play. Those people ARE represented here to some degree. I'm not talking about those though, I'm talking about the truly casual people - not just casual to the mechanics, but casual to all respects of the hobby.
They are UNDOUBTEDLY under represented here. That's not a matter of perspective, it's simple logic based on what they are as a demographic. Polls here do not represent their position at all, they can't.
Therefore we know that the proportion of true casuals (in all aspects of the hobby) will be higher outside of Dakka than within this community.
That is my primary assertion. We know with a pretty high certainty that the set of all people who play skews more True Casual than the Dakka data would suggest. Again, we don't know how much, but it will be more than we see here.
Good than you're on the same page as me then. I agree, it could go either way, and there is logic that could support it either way, neither perspective is flawed. The fact is you admit this claim to be an assertion, as kicked up the entire drama to begin with, so whether made by you or by anyone else also working off intuition and not hard facts (just as the points/power level claim was), this is my entire point here.
Honestly, I don't get the vehemence against wanting social interaction before/during/after. This isn't fething WoW where you just queue up in the Dungeon Finder and get placed with randoms who might as well be AI and don't need to say a word during the entire run, and then leave immediately afterward.
It's a social hobby, by intent and design. All of the wargaming hobbies are. It's not the sort of hobby where you should just roll up, pick somebody at random, say like one or two words and then start setting up, say nothing else except announce your moves, and when you're done maybe say good game, shake hands and then pack up and leave without another word.
Martel732 wrote: It's kinda like begging for a handicap because gw can't do math. People get sick of playing down.
I get that, but it seems to be the intended way to play (not necessarily the negotiation part, but actual social interaction beyond gamespeak), and things like ITC that remove it seem like the outlier. Besides, you can have social interaction with someone that isn't "playing down" or talking about house rules. But it seems like there's a bunch of people who don't want to talk to their opponent AT ALL except to say stuff in-game, whether that's just shooting the gak or talking about some new release or a tournament result or whatnot.
Martel732 wrote: It's kinda like begging for a handicap because gw can't do math. People get sick of playing down.
IDK I think you maybe haven't come to terms with the fact that you just aren't playing the right game. Warhammer 40k is a tabletop hobby for exploring war stories within an expansive, unique sci-fi universe. It's so far from being or intended to be a top-level strategic skills competition, and IMO is all the better for it. You're trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. Why not invest yourself into something competitively balanced (or at least competitively intended) like MTG, or Chess?
It's only a "math problem" if you think the main goal is top level competitive balance and not maximizing the ability to tell fluffy stories and experience the universe on the tabletop.
Alternately like is suggested above, you can just have a discussion with your opponent about what you're bringing and what missions you're playing to maximize balance, and then sit down and have a great time.
Good than you're on the same page as me then. I agree, it could go either way, and there is logic that could support it either way, neither perspective is flawed. The fact is you admit this claim to be an assertion, as kicked up the entire drama to begin with, so whether made by you or by anyone else also working off intuition and not hard facts (just as the points/power level claim was), this is my entire point here.
Now, can we stop going around in circles?
Sure. I just found it quite odd that you seemed to refuse to accept that the users of GW products as a whole would undoubtedly skew more casual in their relationship to all aspects of the hobby than a sample taken somewhere like Dakka.
If we can accept that much, then we have no disagreement!
I mean in my area if you aren't playing 40k competitively you aren't playing. The competitive scene here is huge.
Yeah there are some guys that push the narrative and thats awesome but you have to go out of your way to find those games.
Now if GW would just balance their game, this schism wouldn't exist in the first place. If I'm developing this game, I make sure trash tactical marines and CSMs, for example, have a purpose to being taken. Because no one will otherwise, and the narrative fluff will never be realized.
Martel732 wrote: It's kinda like begging for a handicap because gw can't do math. People get sick of playing down.
IDK I think you maybe haven't come to terms with the fact that you just aren't playing the right game. Warhammer 40k is a tabletop hobby for exploring war stories within an expansive, unique sci-fi universe. It's so far from being or intended to be a top-level strategic skills competition, and IMO is all the better for it. You're trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. Why not invest yourself into something competitively balanced (or at least competitively intended) like MTG, or Chess?
It's only a "math problem" if you think the main goal is top level competitive balance and not maximizing the ability to tell fluffy stories and experience the universe on the tabletop.
Alternately like is suggested above, you can just have a discussion with your opponent about what you're bringing and what missions you're playing to maximize balance, and then sit down and have a great time.
Where I sit, and where I assume many other 'competitive' players sit, is wondering why it cant be both.
A Well balanced game, that provides strategic and tactical depth, does not stop a game from providing a framework for building rich narratives, where as a game that is poorly balanced, and has many mechanical flaws, still adds work to those looking for a rich narrative as they have to manually patch holes, while being directly bad for those looking for a strategic and tactical challenge.
The entire community should want GW to produce well balanced, deep rulesets, that reward good play, because, its healthy for both extremes of gamer. Regardless of what 40k is meant to be, we should not let 'its just meant to be narrative fun', be a get-out clause for not holding game developers to at least some level of expectation, to making an acceptably adequate game for everyone.
Martel732 wrote: It's kinda like begging for a handicap because gw can't do math. People get sick of playing down.
IDK I think you maybe haven't come to terms with the fact that you just aren't playing the right game. Warhammer 40k is a tabletop hobby for exploring war stories within an expansive, unique sci-fi universe. It's so far from being or intended to be a top-level strategic skills competition, and IMO is all the better for it. You're trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. Why not invest yourself into something competitively balanced (or at least competitively intended) like MTG, or Chess?
It's only a "math problem" if you think the main goal is top level competitive balance and not maximizing the ability to tell fluffy stories and experience the universe on the tabletop.
Alternately like is suggested above, you can just have a discussion with your opponent about what you're bringing and what missions you're playing to maximize balance, and then sit down and have a great time.
This is a bit on the extreme side, but it is true. 40k has been the round peg forced into a square hole by things like the ITC, and sure it can resemble a tournament game, even behave as a fairly decent one (with tweaks), but it's still not the intended use for the game.
1- 40k is not at all adequate for any real fair, competitive play.
2- Over time people have sort of brute-forced it to give the illusion of a fair, competitive game.
GW is fully aware of both of these things, and rather than make it clear that their system and product is not made for fair, competitive gaming- they stay silent because it makes them money when competitive players are spending the money.
1- 40k is not at all adequate for any real fair, competitive play.
2- Over time people have sort of brute-forced it to give the illusion of a fair, competitive game.
GW is fully aware of both of these things, and rather than make it clear that their system and product is not made for fair, competitive gaming- they stay silent because it makes them money when competitive players are spending the money.
I think this is actually correct. But it does fracture the game. I mean, GW may be trying to balance things but they seem to be doing a poor job overall. So maybe it's time for ITC to step up again and balance the stuff GW won't, since they already have market share over competitive 40k so their word is essentially law when it comes to that. As much as I dislike ITC skewing the game, I think if they actually go whole hog like they had to in 7th and have their own houserules and such to fix competitive 40k, it at least does what GW won't: Divide Matched Play into matched play (as in points) and competitive play (with extra restrictions to help further balance the game). Things like reigning in soup, or limiting you to one battalion, or whatever the hell, you get the idea - just go full on split rather than this weird half split.
Yawn. The old, GW is so Machiavellian they get people coming and going with tolls argument.
The truth is GW puts out a game. Its not a great game, its a good game. People naturally try to put it in the framework they feel comfortable with, be it Competitive, beer and pretzel, or sime casual, or whatever self descriptor they assign.
"40,000 is in a pretty good place."
Trying to stay on topic, though the "competitive" discussion and fact finding was a fun aside: the game actually had me dusting off my "store" of models and building more than I ever have.
Too many models seemed to fall in the realm of not worth the points to the point of it being a handicap in prior editions.
Not quite as bad this time around, again more of my own impression of the game than a blow by blow points to benefit ratio investigation.
I had been compiling the unit and weapon costs for comparative cost effectiveness (damn them rolling-in weapon unit costs on occasion for giggles) so i could have subjective evidence of "fairness" as I remake my friend's "Squat Codex 8th edition", I even had to do an update based on the FAQs and couple "Chapter Approved".
Being able to to do this and not lose my mind says something of a better attempt at balance, I particularly like how they change the weapon cost depending on the "BS" value they anticipate firing it.
I think we may never quite do away with the occasional models that are a "deal" in points, you can never tell if that is an intentional sales tool or an oversight in their game testing.
Martel732 wrote: It's kinda like begging for a handicap because gw can't do math. People get sick of playing down.
IDK I think you maybe haven't come to terms with the fact that you just aren't playing the right game. Warhammer 40k is a tabletop hobby for exploring war stories within an expansive, unique sci-fi universe. It's so far from being or intended to be a top-level strategic skills competition, and IMO is all the better for it. You're trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. Why not invest yourself into something competitively balanced (or at least competitively intended) like MTG, or Chess?
It's only a "math problem" if you think the main goal is top level competitive balance and not maximizing the ability to tell fluffy stories and experience the universe on the tabletop.
Alternately like is suggested above, you can just have a discussion with your opponent about what you're bringing and what missions you're playing to maximize balance, and then sit down and have a great time.
Where I sit, and where I assume many other 'competitive' players sit, is wondering why it cant be both.
A Well balanced game, that provides strategic and tactical depth, does not stop a game from providing a framework for building rich narratives, where as a game that is poorly balanced, and has many mechanical flaws, still adds work to those looking for a rich narrative as they have to manually patch holes, while being directly bad for those looking for a strategic and tactical challenge.
The entire community should want GW to produce well balanced, deep rulesets, that reward good play, because, its healthy for both extremes of gamer. Regardless of what 40k is meant to be, we should not let 'its just meant to be narrative fun', be a get-out clause for not holding game developers to at least some level of expectation, to making an acceptably adequate game for everyone.
I’m not saying it can’t be both, but that’s a significantly more difficult equation than a “math problem” as stated above. The easiest way to competitively balance is to aggressively streamline and personally I don’t want that. It’s not about a get out clause (GW clearly cares about balance as at least one of thee priorities, if not the top one), but just that the lamenting is missing the point. I do think the concept of having an ITC tournament and treating that as the main barometer of the state of health of the game is way way missing the point of 40k.
Nobody asked them to be 100% successful every time. But when they observe that two specific army compositions (castellan + AM, ynnari eldar mix) take up 60-70% of the top 30 tables in every tournament for a whole year, then don't just go whistling about and pretending that nothing is wrong with them, then let them go through CA unscathed...
Gordoape wrote: I do think the concept of having an ITC tournament and treating that as the main barometer of the state of health of the game is way way missing the point of 40k.
I think that gets down to what is the measurement of 40k "health"?
We could comparatively measure the annual financial report for Games Workshop, because ultimately the game's health is based on us buying their stuff and them getting an income.
People such as myself may not add much to this measurement since I am not buying any more than I had in the past BUT I am fielding much more of my stuff and catching up on my backlog.
That will probably change as they inevitably add new models that I will feel i need.
The pool of players in my local area has increased by about 1/4 of what it was.
I am playing 40k at least twice a month which changed from twice a year with 6th and 7th.
I used to only play my one reasonably complete army, I now field any 4 and combinations of them (Black Templar, Deathwatch, Astra Militarum, Mechanicus) and building and painting almost daily.
This is only my little part of my world but I figure I am not so "special" that I am the only one who has changed based on this more positive outlook of the 40k ruleset and support.
I’m part of a club that had to cap membership and I can find a game any night of the week, so I’m with you as far as the game’s health being very strong.
"Casual" people are against imbalance because they secretly like fielding broken units, because there's no other explanation with being okay with OP units. Change my mind.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: "Casual" people are against imbalance because they secretly like fielding broken units, because there's no other explanation with being okay with OP units. Change my mind.
First you have me doubting your sanity with your Castellan comments, and then you redeem yourself with this bit of wisdom.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: "Casual" people are against imbalance because they secretly like fielding broken units, because there's no other explanation with being okay with OP units. Change my mind.
Yea cause my mechanized marine list comprising mostly of tacticals in rhinos and drop pods backed by attack bikes and land speeders is really killing it at the top table. Might bring a dreadnaught to really grind out the win.
Wayniac wrote: I think this is actually correct. But it does fracture the game. I mean, GW may be trying to balance things but they seem to be doing a poor job overall. So maybe it's time for ITC to step up again and balance the stuff GW won't, since they already have market share over competitive 40k so their word is essentially law when it comes to that. As much as I dislike ITC skewing the game, I think if they actually go whole hog like they had to in 7th and have their own houserules and such to fix competitive 40k, it at least does what GW won't: Divide Matched Play into matched play (as in points) and competitive play (with extra restrictions to help further balance the game). Things like reigning in soup, or limiting you to one battalion, or whatever the hell, you get the idea - just go full on split rather than this weird half split.
I once used a metaphor for this:
Basically, imagine an online RTS game. Ideally, all factions that you could use in this video game would be balanced against one another and do well if used correctly within their strengths and weaknesses. The real determining factor would be a player's skill and knowledge of his opponents' faction.
However, if GW ran this online RTS- two or three of the playable factions would have some 'Super Special Units' that could be purchased through online micro-transactions- and these units that you buy could be the definition of 'pay to win'- the other factions would have no real, practical way of countering these units without completely laser-focusing on it and even then, it's a huge gamble.
Sure, those 'Super Special Units' may cost $150.00 in the micro-transaction store, and you'd think that'd keep a lot of people from using them while still 'helping to fund the game'... but come on, we all know gamers. They'll pay for it if they hate losing to it enough, and want to win bad enough. They can whine on forums all they want but at the end of the day the profits will determine whether or not they are really that unhappy with the state of the game.
On top of that, why would they bother to balance the other factions to counter those $150.00 pay-to-win units? If people want to win, they'll switch factions and pay for them and GW wins without having to do more work. Everyone else is just whining and as long as they buy the game, GW still wins.
As long as people keep throwing money at the game, without so much as a hiccup- things will not change. And people keep buying it, all day long.
Some of the same people that have told me they hate cheesy soup lists and units... are usually one financial transaction away from funding the very thing they're whining about, whether they buy the units they 'hate' or spend just as much getting units to counter that... they play right into the trap.
We've all read the stories and seen it with our own eyes where guys will live on Ramen for a month, overdraft their bank account, cancel anniversary dates with their wife, skip out on their grandmother's funeral, take their childrens' Christmas presents back to the store, pawn family heirloom jewelry, and outright steal or swindle just to get a new toy that helps them win the game. Don't sit here and act like you don't know or know of at least ONE gamer whose 'addiction' would have have heroin and meth junkies saying, "Dude, I'm taking you to rehab, you've got a problem".
Why the hell would GW change that? Just like people screaming about how much they hated a movie- well, they still bought a ticket to go watch it so we can probably expect a sequel with the same formula- see the Austin Powers trilogy.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: "Casual" people are against imbalance because they secretly like fielding broken units, because there's no other explanation with being okay with OP units. Change my mind.
No one is 'okay' with broken units, I'd rather it be fixed- but "whining about it on the internet" isn't changing GW's profit margin if you're still buying into it.
Casuals like me just don't care about hyper-competitive people enough to cast our lot in with them. Their obsession with being "competitive" with a game system that isn't designed to be competitive is just spinning their wheels and going nowhere because their internet opinion says "no" while their wallet says "CHOKE ME HARDER DADDY".
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: "Casual" people are against imbalance because they secretly like fielding broken units, because there's no other explanation with being okay with OP units. Change my mind.
No one is 'okay' with broken units, I'd rather it be fixed- but "whining about it on the internet" isn't changing GW's profit margin if you're still buying into it.
Casuals like me just don't care about hyper-competitive people enough to cast our lot in with them. Their obsession with being "competitive" with a game system that isn't designed to be competitive is just spinning their wheels and going nowhere because their internet opinion says "no" while their wallet says "CHOKE ME HARDER DADDY".
Eldar players. Eldar players are really ok with broken units. Some of them for real get grumpy if you kill one of their models, because "Eldar should not be losing to X army, they have been training for millennia etc etc."
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: "Casual" people are against imbalance because they secretly like fielding broken units, because there's no other explanation with being okay with OP units. Change my mind.
"Casual players are liars, they're all secretly super-competitive players that are part of a vast conspiracy to make certain things imbalanced so a select few chosen ones win the game."
Also
"This thing is broken, therefore I will buy three of them but anyone who uses them against me sucks, and even though I just hurled $500.00 at this company I can't figure out why they keep doing this to me. HARDER DADDY!"
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: "Casual" people are against imbalance because they secretly like fielding broken units, because there's no other explanation with being okay with OP units. Change my mind.
First you have me doubting your sanity with your Castellan comments, and then you redeem yourself with this bit of wisdom.
Man y'all got butthurt at a joke real fast.
And yeah the Castellan is broken. You never proved otherwise outside "well the list didn't win the last tournament!!!1!", which really isn't proof if you consider how consistently it tops. Whatever though.
Martel732 wrote: Because a legit reason to own every model in every army would drive more sales than a few uberunits.
Gimme a legit reason to own a Toxicrene or a Maleceptor.
They look cool.
In three words he highlighted the differences on why people field a given unit. My response other than this (but not as good) is get them "on sale" now, they will be the model of choice in the next Codex.
Martel732 wrote: Because a legit reason to own every model in every army would drive more sales than a few uberunits.
Gimme a legit reason to own a Toxicrene or a Maleceptor.
They look cool.
In three words he highlighted the differences on why people field a given unit. My response other than this (but not as good) is get them "on sale" now, they will be the model of choice in the next Codex.
I mean, I do own two of them, mostly because I am trying to assemble a whole hive fleet (my dream is to play an Apoc game where's my army against my whole FLGS, as in THE tyranids are coming, gotta team up against a common enemy). But it sure ain't because the Maleceptor looks good. In fact it's the most generic and forgettable monster Nids have.
If you're using the low, low bar of other GW rulesets then fine, it's "good". However, the game feels too much like a Beta release for me to say it's in "a pretty good place", with the issues of the game having stayed at fundamental rules issues (CP farming, Stratagems in general, significant Codex disparities, swathes of units failing at their intended roles) rather than the lower-level shuffling I would expect (Singular dodgy units/stratagems, QoL tweaks) of a game in a good place.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: "Casual" people are against imbalance because they secretly like fielding broken units, because there's no other explanation with being okay with OP units. Change my mind.
First you have me doubting your sanity with your Castellan comments, and then you redeem yourself with this bit of wisdom.
Man y'all got butthurt at a joke real fast.
And yeah the Castellan is broken. You never proved otherwise outside "well the list didn't win the last tournament!!!1!", which really isn't proof if you consider how consistently it tops. Whatever though.
Well still half wrong.
So, I'm curios on your opinion. Why don't Chaos players run it then? Its the games boogeyman, so why don't they take advantage and win some games?
Charistoph wrote: There is always the need for a discussion of a game before you play. Even in Chess, there is a discussion of who uses which color. Monopoly has hundreds of house rules that people have picked up in their life time because reading rules is hard, and there is always two people who want to use the race car. Uno requires a discussion as to who deals the cards. These are things that game rules never fully cover, yet has never been considered a failure in game design. The durability of these games would attest to their success more than their failure.
That is not at all the same. Discussing how to execute the mechanics of the game (which player deals the cards, who plays first, etc) is not pre-game negotiation. The rules provide a structure for making those decisions and there's no real argument to have. You just pick someone or flip a coin or whatever and then start playing the game. What you have in 40k isn't just mechanics stuff like choosing which mission to play or what point level to play at, you're having extensive negotiations about how you should approach the game: what level of competitiveness is "too much", how many copies of a unit is "spamming", etc. None of that is found in the game rules.
The closest thing in your list of comparisons is the house rules in Monopoly, but even then it has more to do with players not understanding how the game works than negotiating over, say, if it's ok to engage in a bidding war over a property just to block a player from completing the set or if it's more "fun" if you let people build their hotels.
Yet, the point I was countering was that a game's rules should require zero negotiation. Who goes first is a point of negotiation. Just because you don't think it isn't a negotiation doesn't make it not a negotiation.
More importantly, this differentiation of the type of game one plays is not unique to 40K, and was only brought about because of the people who clamored for points in AoS and keep trying to change the game from beer & pretzels to seeruz biznezz. When people go to play a basketball game on the court at the park, there is often negotiations as to who gets the ball first, half court or full, point limit, team make up.
As a side note, a bidding war on a property actually is in the rules, provided the person landing on said desired property chooses not to purchase it.
Peregrine wrote:
Warhammer endures not because of its game balance, that has never been the games' goal, but because Warhammer has always been about getting friends together to push models around and have a good time. In this, it succeeds. WMH provides a much better game balance, over all, yet the competitive aspects have led many people to ignore the non-tournament aspects of the game so that many of the metas have been hemorrhaging players and turning (or returning) to the fun of Warhammer.
Balance and social play are not mutually exclusive concepts, and the lack of balance that hurts 40k as a competitive game also hurts it in the "have fun pushing models around" context.
Never said they were exclusive. I was merely pointing out that competitive play is not Warhammer's focus and never has been. Warhammer probably succeeds because of its lack of competitive focus and I gave a pertinent example as to why. Please actually read the paragraph before responding.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: "Casual" people are against imbalance because they secretly like fielding broken units, because there's no other explanation with being okay with OP units. Change my mind.
First you have me doubting your sanity with your Castellan comments, and then you redeem yourself with this bit of wisdom.
Man y'all got butthurt at a joke real fast.
And yeah the Castellan is broken. You never proved otherwise outside "well the list didn't win the last tournament!!!1!", which really isn't proof if you consider how consistently it tops. Whatever though.
Well still half wrong.
So, I'm curios on your opinion. Why don't Chaos players run it then? Its the games boogeyman, so why don't they take advantage and win some games?
It seems you are asking the same question over and over again - getting the same answer. What is your motivation for this argument?
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: "Casual" people are against imbalance because they secretly like fielding broken units, because there's no other explanation with being okay with OP units. Change my mind.
First you have me doubting your sanity with your Castellan comments, and then you redeem yourself with this bit of wisdom.
Man y'all got butthurt at a joke real fast.
And yeah the Castellan is broken. You never proved otherwise outside "well the list didn't win the last tournament!!!1!", which really isn't proof if you consider how consistently it tops. Whatever though.
Well still half wrong.
So, I'm curios on your opinion. Why don't Chaos players run it then? Its the games boogeyman, so why don't they take advantage and win some games?
1. Relics
2. Household Traits
3. More Strategems
4. No room after adding Magnus and/or Mortarion, who are already powerful as is.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: "Casual" people are against imbalance because they secretly like fielding broken units, because there's no other explanation with being okay with OP units. Change my mind.
First you have me doubting your sanity with your Castellan comments, and then you redeem yourself with this bit of wisdom.
Man y'all got butthurt at a joke real fast.
And yeah the Castellan is broken. You never proved otherwise outside "well the list didn't win the last tournament!!!1!", which really isn't proof if you consider how consistently it tops. Whatever though.
Well still half wrong.
So, I'm curios on your opinion. Why don't Chaos players run it then? Its the games boogeyman, so why don't they take advantage and win some games?
It seems you are asking the same question over and over again - getting the same answer. What is your motivation for this argument?
Cause I keep asking if the sky if blue and getting "purple Monkey Washer" as an answer.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Or it's broken but not broken enough to stand up to Imperial Castellans.
So it is broken in chaos, but not enough to showup on the table, so your basing brokenness off what again?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Stux wrote: It's it's the Relics, Traits, and Strats that make it broken then the Castellan itself isn't broken. That's what we're saying.
Yeah Just this. Luckily this is only hard for some dakkaites. As you haven't seen the Castellan touched, but Order of the Raven's was nerfed.
To the Castellan nerfers..
Does it sting to know GW is better at balance than you are?
Stux wrote: It's it's the Relics, Traits, and Strats that make it broken then the Castellan itself isn't broken. That's what we're saying.
The standard tournament Castellan does not get access to traits because it is not in a knight lance. So forget about that. Choas Castellans have access to reroll all hits stratagem - which is pretty dang good for 2 CP. The only deal breaker is relics and warlord traits. Which is why people take imperial ones and not choas ones. Kind of like people chose to be aliotoc over Ulthwe on hemlocks. The Hemlock is still OP as Ulthwe though. You must realize that Heratic knights are basically like playing 0 an army without an army trait...or picking the absolute worst army trait you can imagine. PEOPLE DON'T ACTUALLY DO THAT IN TOURNAMENTS lol.
Quote of the day - "GW is better at balance than you are".
Stux wrote: It's it's the Relics, Traits, and Strats that make it broken then the Castellan itself isn't broken. That's what we're saying.
The standard tournament Castellan does not get access to traits because it is not in a knight lance. So forget about that. Choas Castellans have access to reroll all hits stratagem - which is pretty dang good for 2 CP. The only deal breaker is relics and warlord traits. Which is why people take imperial ones and not choas ones. Kind of like people chose to be aliotoc over Ulthwe on hemlocks. The Hemlock is still OP as Ulthwe though. You must realize that Heratic knights are basically like playing 0 an army without an army trait...or picking the absolute worst army trait you can imagine. PEOPLE DON'T ACTUALLY DO THAT IN TOURNAMENTS lol.
Let's say both me and you have access to a gun. But you have bullets and I don't. So a gun on your hands is actually broken, but a gun on my hands is useless. This does not change the fact that the gun itself is clearly out of place, this is my grandpa's backyard, Billy, and the rest of us are playing with water baloons. The heck is the deal with that gun you carry?
Never said they were exclusive. I was merely pointing out that competitive play is not Warhammer's focus and never has been. Warhammer probably succeeds because of its lack of competitive focus and I gave a pertinent example as to why. Please actually read the paragraph before responding.
Ok, so how is w40k suppose to work outside of tournaments. Two guys decide to play, both put their models down. And one says m8 your army is too strong, your going to beat me no matter what I do. And then what do they do, invent special scenarios that both agree on that balnce the two armies somehow, but don't make the dude with the better army feel like someone is forcing him to play the wrong way? Plus what does stop the dude with the better army from saying that his opponent should just have bought a good army instead of the one he has now?
In tournaments I get how w40k works. there are specific armies that work best. Some are best in a specific setting like ETC or ITC, or what ever GW plays in their events. Some armies like eldar flyer builds seem to be doing great under any setting. The rules are there, everybody knows them. You pick a bad army you are going to have a less fun day. Clear and easy to understand.
The non tournament games to work, seem to require owning multiple points of armies, maybe even mulitple armies, and transporting them all the time, in case this time your friendly game doesn't happen to be vs a knight army player, but a guy with an eldar soup. The next day it maybe someone playing a primaris army. It more less drives the starting cost of an army in to thousands of dollars. That is we assume the play what you want and your opponent has to adjust to your armies power, being true. Because the lists that are not ment for tournament and I see posted even on this forum, seem to be very much like the tournament lists. Sure the eldar player may not have 7 flyers, but he has 4. the IG player does have all the super optimised FW artilery, but just more mortars. But both lists have a swarm of dudes and a castellan.
It is the non tournament way of playing the game that I can't just get my head around.
Never said they were exclusive. I was merely pointing out that competitive play is not Warhammer's focus and never has been. Warhammer probably succeeds because of its lack of competitive focus and I gave a pertinent example as to why. Please actually read the paragraph before responding.
Ok, so how is w40k suppose to work outside of tournaments. Two guys decide to play, both put their models down. And one says m8 your army is too strong, your going to beat me no matter what I do. And then what do they do, invent special scenarios that both agree on that balnce the two armies somehow, but don't make the dude with the better army feel like someone is forcing him to play the wrong way? Plus what does stop the dude with the better army from saying that his opponent should just have bought a good army instead of the one he has now?
In tournaments I get how w40k works. there are specific armies that work best. Some are best in a specific setting like ETC or ITC, or what ever GW plays in their events. Some armies like eldar flyer builds seem to be doing great under any setting. The rules are there, everybody knows them. You pick a bad army you are going to have a less fun day. Clear and easy to understand.
The non tournament games to work, seem to require owning multiple points of armies, maybe even mulitple armies, and transporting them all the time, in case this time your friendly game doesn't happen to be vs a knight army player, but a guy with an eldar soup. The next day it maybe someone playing a primaris army. It more less drives the starting cost of an army in to thousands of dollars. That is we assume the play what you want and your opponent has to adjust to your armies power, being true. Because the lists that are not ment for tournament and I see posted even on this forum, seem to be very much like the tournament lists. Sure the eldar player may not have 7 flyers, but he has 4. the IG player does have all the super optimised FW artilery, but just more mortars. But both lists have a swarm of dudes and a castellan.
It is the non tournament way of playing the game that I can't just get my head around.
Non tournament games are usually played among friends or local players you hope to play again in the future. They are governed by the single most powerful rule: Don't be an a-hole. If you are, you will be excommunicated. Play for fun with your buddy, even if their army sucks. It's actually a fairly simple and effective concept if you are, like, a social person.
Ok this maybe a language barrier, but play for fun even when it your army sucks, sounds in my langue like someone saying eat your hot meal even when it is cold. Plus it sounds as if tournament players are doing the stuff they do not for fun. I from little expiriance I have, most of them seem to have a lot more fun, then casual players. The only ones that are not feeling fun are those caught cheating with a life long ban or whose army got nerfed.
I just don't see where the fun part of playing the game is suppose to be when you get dominated, even when your opponents try to pull punchs. It is rather deaming to be honest. Am not sure it is very fun, although here I don't have expiriance, to the other side either. Plus how does it work, you don't play with the units your bought and use 1600 something points vs a 2000pts list. what if your army is based around combos, which part of it do you drop, the farseer that cast doom, the jetbikes that haywire stuff.
The only solution seem to be buying way over 2000pts of stuff, and making a new army from scratch pre every game.
And even then am not sure if it would work. Against someone who is a skilled player and learned how to properly roll his dice, one army could be a hard match up, but still within the range of an actual gaming expiriance. VS someone else the same army could be super OP, even if they have the same kind of army.
That is why I was saying that non tournament play seems to me like a multi thousand dollar investment, if it is suppose to be played with more then one other person.
You do realize that the common way to field the Castellan is in a aux detachment. So it doesn't get House Raven traits?
So the idea that Chaos doesn't field it as it gets no house traits, when the Imperium one, in general also goesn't get any house traits is just silly right?
Chaos doesn't field it because they don't have access to Cawl's Wrath, and Order of Companions. That is all. And I expect Cawl's to get nerfed, eventually.
Karol idk if you have a dedicated gaming group or not but yea what you described is pretty much how most players in my area play. Most people don't run out and buy thousands of dollars of models in one go. You acquire more and more models over time and that allows you to have a wide range of options and units. Over time the group will come to a consensus of what they are cool with and what will get groans and eye rolls.
I've been playing for over 10 years and even when not actively playing I still bought models cause I thought they were cool. I would recommend playing either at a lower point level so you have more flexibility, find players who recognize that Grey Knights are not in a great spot and are willing to tone their list down to help compensate for that and slowly start collecting another army.
A final warning to all participants, a reminder that rule #1, to be polite, is not optional. Kindly keep this in mind or there will be warnings and suspensions for those who can't be bothered.
Sure the eldar player may not have 7 flyers, but he has 4. the IG player does have all the super optimised FW artilery, but just more mortars. But both lists have a swarm of dudes and a castellan.
It is the non tournament way of playing the game that I can't just get my head around.
Ok, so how is w40k suppose to work outside of tournaments. Two guys decide to play, both put their models down. And one says m8 your army is too strong, your going to beat me no matter what I do. And then what do they do, invent special scenarios that both agree on that balnce the two armies somehow, but don't make the dude with the better army feel like someone is forcing him to play the wrong way? Plus what does stop the dude with the better army from saying that his opponent should just have bought a good army instead of the one he has now?
Hi Karol,
You put it the wrong way round. You have the talk first about what you have, what kind of game your into, and you collaborate from there. It takes a bit of game building, accommodation and a like minded approach. Special scenarios can be invented, or specific scenarious from about fifty years of wargaming can be used too.
Nothing is stopping the guy with the better army picking up and walking away, but this scenario also assumes both players are like minded and willing to accommodate and more importantly, interested in a fair game. Similarly, no one I see trying to make him feel like he is playing the wrong way either.
I have played competitive wargames for a long time, and for the past five years, have been heavily involved in playing Narrative and non tournament/less-than maxed out games (I'll use the term 'casual' from now on, but really, have issues with using this term in this context. To me, 'casual' better refers to other things). I tend to see myself as more narrative/casual player these days than 'competitive/tournament' but really, I have no bone to pick with either style, and frankly, see both as bringing something's necessary to the greater hobby.
From a narrative/casual players point of view, in some ways, we are no different to 'competitive' players (and when I use that term. I tend to think of more or less the game you probably play, and how you probably see it - i.e. maxed-out lists, independent list-building, tournaments and pink-up-game culture). The thing is, similarly to you, us narrative/casual players also would like to win. We also want a good game. Nor do we play to lose. Funnily enough, I would also argue that from a narrative/casual players point of view, list-building is also a crucial aspect of the game. That said, it differs from competitive play, which focuses on list-building-for-advantage.
You are obviously approaching this game from somewhere on the competitive spectrum. For me, this spectrum ranges from 'not-competitive' all the way out to 'competitive-at-all-costs'. You are approaching this with the mindset that your listbuilding is a function of your strategic/tactical play. In the same way that 'no race begins on the starting line', you approach this with the POV that building the best list possible (like training to be the best athlete possible) is an important, if not crucial component of playing the game. This is often also tied up with independent-list-building as an aspect of playing a game - i.e. You build a list independent of your opponent, he builds a list independent of you, you select a scenario, deploy and GO! You are not wrong in doing this. Let's be clear. This is fine.
From a narrative players point of view however, things differ here. The difference though is that list-building is generally not seen as a function of strategic/tactical play, but rather as a function of the scenario (and for a narrative game scenario, I personally define 'scenario' as a combination the mission(s) in play, the terrain/board set-up and the opposing forces) or for variety. Similarly, you don't tend to play narrative with 'independent-list-building' as you do in competitive, it tends to be a mutual, collaborative approach (I personally dislike the use of the term 'co-operative' here, that's for a different type/genre of games) with a focus on what fits the 'theme' of the scenario and building forces that 'match' each other, rather than building a 'gotcha!' army. Casual Games, in my experience would probably lean more towards independent list building etc etc, but with more of a focus on B or C grade units and variety, rather than cutthroat competitive play. They still need a bit of collaboration to ensure things roughly match up. As I said earlier though, list-building for narrative/casual is also crucial. If that means points values/power levels get thrown out the window to put down two 'matching' armies, then there's what happens. Generally speaking, the social contract and your mutual enjoyment of the game tends to take precedence over 'competitive-at-all-costs'. Considering this, ttaking obvious choices that are clearly superior would be 'simply what's done'in tournament circles, it gets much less traction in narrative/casual circles. Because it's not the point of the game. Once you have the scenario set, then you have a go and then play the best game you can and play your hardest for the win. That's a given.
Essentially, it's just that amongst narrative and casual players, list-building manifests differently and it occupies a different space in game-building than in competitive/tournament play.
An for what it's worth as well, narrative and casual players do tend to consider the effectiveness of models before buying/painting them as well. It's just we tend to have different conversations with ourselves as we do this. Rather than thinking 'it's not point-optimised or overpowered, and can't one-shot a knight on turn 1 while generating 800 CPs, so therefore it's useless and not worth buying/painting in the first place, the thought process tends to be along the lines of 'ok, what kind of scenarios could I build, and fit this into, and what would be good match ups and scenarios for it'. Or simply 'yes, I adore this model!' For narrative players, scenario-building (and please see above for how I view 'scenario' In the context of narrative games) and game-buildings is the prime-motivator, rather than competitive at all costs 'going-for-the-win'. For more casual players, the focus is enjoyment of the game, more so than utterly ruthless, utterly cutthroat play.
In tournaments I get how w40k works. there are specific armies that work best. Some are best in a specific setting like ETC or ITC, or what ever GW plays in their events. Some armies like eldar flyer builds seem to be doing great under any setting. The rules are there, everybody knows them. You pick a bad army you are going to have a less fun day. Clear and easy to understand.
Indeed. Tournaments and pick-up-games have a viable niche. The thing is, only some things work, and while they're 'clear and easy to understand', a lot of things get sacrificed on the altar to make that happen. That's not always worth it.
The non tournament games to work, seem to require owning multiple points of armies, maybe even mulitple armies, and transporting them all the time, in case this time your friendly game doesn't happen to be vs a knight army player, but a guy with an eldar soup.
As a hobbyist, and a Wargame's for 15+ years, I would argue the whole hobby requires owning multiple points of armies, multiple armies etc. As to needing to transport then all the time, that's not true either. There's this wonderfully thing called 'social media' these days, and also, if you're a Luddite like me, phones that you can use to call or text. It's easy to organise ahead of time in terms of what you're gonna bring, and to match up for a good game. Heck, even easier if you play at home, rather than in store.
It more less drives the starting cost of an army in to thousands of dollars. That is we assume the play what you want and your opponent has to adjust to your armies power, being true.
The hobby is an expensive one as a whole. But you start small, and build up from there. Like any hobby really. I'm starting crossfit with my wife this week. Do you honestly think I'll be smashing the heavy weights straight off? There will always be limits, on both sides with what everyone can do. There will always be someone just starting out.
Because the lists that are not ment for tournament and I see posted even on this forum, seem to be very much like the tournament lists. Sure the eldar player may not have 7 flyers, but he has 4. the IG player does have all the super optimised FW artilery, but just more mortars. But both lists have a swarm of dudes and a castellan.
What you see on dakka may not necessarily be indicative of the general community. With forums, there is only a limited amount of ways to interact, and they tend to self select for a certain type of positing as lists are easier to talk about in an abstract sense than the far more nebulous game building. The focus on list building do really advantage you typically see here is certainly not indicative of how we play our games for example.
It is the non tournament way of playing the game that I can't just get my head around.
I don't think you've ever been exposed to a community, or players that plays this way though. Your community, from what I read from you is a hypercompetitive one where it seems unlike your you'll ever get this. It's hard to get your head around something, if you've never been exposed to it.
Karol wrote: Ok this maybe a language barrier, but play for fun even when it your army sucks, sounds in my langue like someone saying eat your hot meal even when it is cold. Plus it sounds as if tournament players are doing the stuff they do not for fun. I from little expiriance I have, most of them seem to have a lot more fun, then casual players. The only ones that are not feeling fun are those caught cheating with a life long ban or whose army got nerfed.
Tournament players are probably having a great time, if they're doing one thing they enjoy. There's nothing wrong with it. Thing is, as a casual/narrative player, who plays more for casual fun than ruthless efficiency and curbstomping, who plays with folks that play for the same reason, We also have fun.vtournament players don't have a monopoly on 'enjoyment of the game'. A large part of The issue comes when different people with different desires end up clsshing because they want different games. Neither is necessarily wrong.
I just don't see where the fun part of playing the game is suppose to be when you get dominated, even when your opponents try to pull punchs. It is rather deaming to be honest. Am not sure it is very fun, although here I don't have expiriance, to the other side either. Plus how does it work, you don't play with the units your bought and use 1600 something points vs a 2000pts list. what if your army is based around combos, which part of it do you drop, the farseer that cast doom, the jetbikes that haywire stuff.
The only solution seem to be buying way over 2000pts of stuff, and making a new army from scratch pre every game.
No one wants to be dominated. But I don't see it a second 'pulling punches' either. Not everything has to be 'competitive at all costs', and while there are times where it's fun to push yourself to your absolute limits, there's also times where it's fun to just go for a gentle stroll in the park with the dog. Wargaming is no different.
How does it work. You play what's suitable. Or what fits the context of the scenario/mission. Or what you think is a 'good match'. If all you want is to buy ome army, and have that be all you ever play, in all contexts, without any desire to take less/more or expand, I consider that to be disappointing, personally. But ymmv.
The only solution seem to be buying way over 2000pts of stuff, and making a new army from scratch pre every game.
Personally I don't see any issue with that. Sometimes it makes sense to run a tank-based battle, sometimes it makes sense to make a scenario where it's skirmishing units, behind enemy lines making a smash and grab or sabotage. Variety is good.
And even then am not sure if it would work. Against someone who is a skilled player and learned how to properly roll his dice, one army could be a hard match up, but still within the range of an actual gaming expiriance. VS someone else the same army could be super OP, even if they have the same kind of army.
How is that any different to now? Rock/paper/scissors is an element of 40k as much as other games.
That is why I was saying that non tournament play seems to me like a multi thousand dollar investment, if it is suppose to be played with more then one other person.
Lol, no different to tournament play then.
The top lists ten years ago are totally different to those from 5 years ago, which are totally different from now, which will be totally different to lists in 5 years time. Staying on top of the tournament meta is 'chasing the dragon' and costs a lot to maintain your lists at that level.
To build off what Deadnight said, when my nephew got in to the game, I supported his Guard with my Blood Angels in 2v1 (500+500 vs 1000, then 750+750 vs 1500, then 1k+1k vs 2k) games as he built his army up. If someone has a small collection, it might be nice of you to offer to play alongside them like that.
Sure the eldar player may not have 7 flyers, but he has 4. the IG player does have all the super optimised FW artilery, but just more mortars. But both lists have a swarm of dudes and a castellan.
It is the non tournament way of playing the game that I can't just get my head around.
FW artillery optimized?
Well a guy here is running basilisks, but they are smaller the normal basiliks, easier for him to fit them in to cover. Aside of that they seem to have the same rules.
Sure the eldar player may not have 7 flyers, but he has 4. the IG player does have all the super optimised FW artilery, but just more mortars. But both lists have a swarm of dudes and a castellan.
It is the non tournament way of playing the game that I can't just get my head around.
FW artillery optimized?
Well a guy here is running basilisks, but they are smaller the normal basiliks, easier for him to fit them in to cover. Aside of that they seem to have the same rules.
IIRC, none of the actual FW artillery models are any dimensionally smaller than the GW artillery models (in fact, they should be larger, either having en enclosed crew compartment or built on a Leman Russ hull instead of a Chimera hull), with the exception of the Platforms/carriage units, which have been nerfed into oblivion rules-wise and are completely immobile and lack a secondary heavy weapon.
"Eldar players. Eldar players are really ok with broken units. Some of them for real get grumpy if you kill one of their models, because "Eldar should not be losing to X army, they have been training for millennia etc etc.""
Hi, I'm an Eldar player.
I want Alaitoc nerfed.
I welcomed the Serpent nerf.
I don't want the WK buffed to IK levels.
I'd like to see Spears go up a *few* more points, maybe.
Point the average Eldar player at Ynnari Deathstars, ScatterBikes, or DAVU, and they'll say "That is/was OP".
Sure the eldar player may not have 7 flyers, but he has 4. the IG player does have all the super optimised FW artilery, but just more mortars. But both lists have a swarm of dudes and a castellan.
It is the non tournament way of playing the game that I can't just get my head around.
FW artillery optimized?
Well a guy here is running basilisks, but they are smaller the normal basiliks, easier for him to fit them in to cover. Aside of that they seem to have the same rules.
IIRC, none of the actual FW artillery models are any dimensionally smaller than the GW artillery models (in fact, they should be larger, either having en enclosed crew compartment or built on a Leman Russ hull instead of a Chimera hull), with the exception of the Platforms/carriage units, which have been nerfed into oblivion rules-wise and are completely immobile and lack a secondary heavy weapon.
Also they are both (the FW artillery units) are significantly more pts then a Basilisk.
In fact they have not the same rules.
I do think a big part of the way GW envisions Warhammer is sort of how Deadnight described. Like-minded people who probably are friendly with each other (as opposed to some random stranger who you could care less about) and want an enjoyable game.
The "proper" way to play, at least judging from how GW themselves approaches things, is to decide what sort of game you want and go from there, rather than the all-too-common pickup game with a random person down at the shop. If anything, that mindset (as common as it might be) is the outlier; the idea that you barely know the person you're playing against (maybe you saw them a few times at the game store or asked them once about a paint scheme you liked) and you are more interested in getting a game than having a fun game with a like-minded person.
See this is something no one explained to me. I thought that casual ment, not playing at tournaments. If there is no prize you just play. I also didn't understand the argument of me having a compatitive view point on the game, which to me with a GK army seemed bogus to say the least. Thank you for explaining it to me. I casual means narrative, then all of this makes sense. People here only play matched. No one plays narrative. Pick up games also seem to be played different. there are three ways people play at the store here. there is people play as prep for tournaments, there is people playing game for store events and there is people playing games by asking someone at the store, if they want to play if a table is free. Event games have priority for people like me, who don't play them, those pick up games make up almost all of the game. People that set up games online are those who prep for tournaments or that play event games at the store.
Personally I don't see any issue with that. Sometimes it makes sense to run a tank-based battle, sometimes it makes sense to make a scenario where it's skirmishing units, behind enemy lines making a smash and grab or sabotage. Variety is good.
most people here own 2000pts, as this is what is being played. People that do have more points more often then not don't have 3000pts in the same army, but 2000pts times two in two different armies. Eldar players for example often have a dark eldar and eldar army, maybe 300-400pts of other ally. all IG players have a castellan, a lot have jetbike captins or BA jump pack stuff with scouts, they often don't even have 2000pts of IG. Again am not saying variaty is bad. I agree that is bad, but if for example someone here told every players that owns a castellan, they don't want to play against it, because it is unfun, then the game just won't happen, because they don't have 2000pts of army without the castellan. And am using the castellan just as an example here.
How is that any different to now? Rock/paper/scissors is an element of 40k as much as other games.
No one told me that when I was starting. I always thought that the goal of 8th ed was to have armies at the same level. That is why I kind of a didn't understand the whole w40k is in good place. But I don't understand a lot of things, so am not blaming it on other people.
No one wants to be dominated. But I don't see it a second 'pulling punches' either. Not everything has to be 'competitive at all costs', and while there are times where it's fun to push yourself to your absolute limits, there's also times where it's fun to just go for a gentle stroll in the park with the dog. Wargaming is no different.
How does it work. You play what's suitable. Or what fits the context of the scenario/mission. Or what you think is a 'good match'. If all you want is to buy ome army, and have that be all you ever play, in all contexts, without any desire to take less/more or expand, I consider that to be disappointing, personall
Ok, but from what I have been told the only way to play my faction is to build a tournament list, take as much ally as possible and hope the opponent plays a non tournament list. I don't think any units my faction has is suitable for 8th ed. 8th seems to be a lot about high inv saves, swarms, stacking of extra wounds or MW spam. Elite power armored melee armies that walk across the table or terminators don't seem to have a niche of their own.
I don't think I understand what dogs, have to do with fun. They bite people. But in general I have problems understanding most of the social aspects of stuff. Does having dogs somehow help with w40k? So people are scared you will sick the dog on them and let you win?
Well a guy here is running basilisks, but they are smaller the normal basiliks, easier for him to fit them in to cover. Aside of that they seem to have the same rules.
IIRC, none of the actual FW artillery models are any dimensionally smaller than the GW artillery models (in fact, they should be larger, either having en enclosed crew compartment or built on a Leman Russ hull instead of a Chimera hull), with the exception of the Platforms/carriage units, which have been nerfed into oblivion rules-wise and are completely immobile and lack a secondary heavy weapon.
They look like a trip pod with a basilisk gun mounted on it. I don't know much about FW units, but I do know that in the building he normal sets up, two chimeras can fit in and he can fit 3 of the basilisk trip pods in it. He doesn't use the FW rules for them tough, as FW is not allowed at the store.
The good thing with the "recent" advent of social media is that it is ridiculously easy to setup a game with someone associated with the FLGS and have that talk ahead of time if needed.
Yeah, needing that little talk could be a failing of the game system but with my group of friends I have never seen a rule system remain unchanged past the enforced "3 games play as is" house rule we have.
For pickup games just rolling with whatever shows up, if you want to play that person again you usually dig into what you both prefer for next time.
This is a VERY social game and may require a bit of talk since all the variables are not controlled by a game menu.
Talizvar wrote: The good thing with the "recent" advent of social media is that it is ridiculously easy to setup a game with someone associated with the FLGS and have that talk ahead of time if needed.
Yeah, needing that little talk could be a failing of the game system but with my group of friends I have never seen a rule system remain unchanged past the enforced "3 games play as is" house rule we have.
For pickup games just rolling with whatever shows up, if you want to play that person again you usually dig into what you both prefer for next time.
This is a VERY social game and may require a bit of talk since all the variables are not controlled by a game menu.
I've found it much harder to get casual games on social media, like I'll post that I'm looking for a competitive game at 2k points, and I won't get much response... but it has made it much easier to find tournaments. unfortunately I have to drive like an hour to get to one, but I've been to 3 in the past month so far, and am having a lot of fun with it. Social media has made it much easier to find the types of games you're looking for, and since I'm able to find so many tournaments (got 3 more lined up in the next month too) I think the game is in a pretty good place.
Ok, so how is w40k suppose to work outside of tournaments. Two guys decide to play, both put their models down. And one says m8 your army is too strong, your going to beat me no matter what I do. And then what do they do, invent special scenarios that both agree on that balnce the two armies somehow, but don't make the dude with the better army feel like someone is forcing him to play the wrong way? Plus what does stop the dude with the better army from saying that his opponent should just have bought a good army instead of the one he has now?
Hi Karol,
You put it the wrong way round. You have the talk first about what you have, what kind of game your into, and you collaborate from there. It takes a bit of game building, accommodation and a like minded approach. Special scenarios can be invented, or specific scenarious from about fifty years of wargaming can be used too.
Nothing is stopping the guy with the better army picking up and walking away, but this scenario also assumes both players are like minded and willing to accommodate and more importantly, interested in a fair game. Similarly, no one I see trying to make him feel like he is playing the wrong way either.
I have played competitive wargames for a long time, and for the past five years, have been heavily involved in playing Narrative and non tournament/less-than maxed out games (I'll use the term 'casual' from now on, but really, have issues with using this term in this context. To me, 'casual' better refers to other things). I tend to see myself as more narrative/casual player these days than 'competitive/tournament' but really, I have no bone to pick with either style, and frankly, see both as bringing something's necessary to the greater hobby.
From a narrative/casual players point of view, in some ways, we are no different to 'competitive' players (and when I use that term. I tend to think of more or less the game you probably play, and how you probably see it - i.e. maxed-out lists, independent list-building, tournaments and pink-up-game culture). The thing is, similarly to you, us narrative/casual players also would like to win. We also want a good game. Nor do we play to lose. Funnily enough, I would also argue that from a narrative/casual players point of view, list-building is also a crucial aspect of the game. That said, it differs from competitive play, which focuses on list-building-for-advantage.
You are obviously approaching this game from somewhere on the competitive spectrum. For me, this spectrum ranges from 'not-competitive' all the way out to 'competitive-at-all-costs'. You are approaching this with the mindset that your listbuilding is a function of your strategic/tactical play. In the same way that 'no race begins on the starting line', you approach this with the POV that building the best list possible (like training to be the best athlete possible) is an important, if not crucial component of playing the game. This is often also tied up with independent-list-building as an aspect of playing a game - i.e. You build a list independent of your opponent, he builds a list independent of you, you select a scenario, deploy and GO! You are not wrong in doing this. Let's be clear. This is fine.
From a narrative players point of view however, things differ here. The difference though is that list-building is generally not seen as a function of strategic/tactical play, but rather as a function of the scenario (and for a narrative game scenario, I personally define 'scenario' as a combination the mission(s) in play, the terrain/board set-up and the opposing forces) or for variety. Similarly, you don't tend to play narrative with 'independent-list-building' as you do in competitive, it tends to be a mutual, collaborative approach (I personally dislike the use of the term 'co-operative' here, that's for a different type/genre of games) with a focus on what fits the 'theme' of the scenario and building forces that 'match' each other, rather than building a 'gotcha!' army. Casual Games, in my experience would probably lean more towards independent list building etc etc, but with more of a focus on B or C grade units and variety, rather than cutthroat competitive play. They still need a bit of collaboration to ensure things roughly match up. As I said earlier though, list-building for narrative/casual is also crucial. If that means points values/power levels get thrown out the window to put down two 'matching' armies, then there's what happens. Generally speaking, the social contract and your mutual enjoyment of the game tends to take precedence over 'competitive-at-all-costs'. Considering this, ttaking obvious choices that are clearly superior would be 'simply what's done'in tournament circles, it gets much less traction in narrative/casual circles. Because it's not the point of the game. Once you have the scenario set, then you have a go and then play the best game you can and play your hardest for the win. That's a given.
Essentially, it's just that amongst narrative and casual players, list-building manifests differently and it occupies a different space in game-building than in competitive/tournament play.
An for what it's worth as well, narrative and casual players do tend to consider the effectiveness of models before buying/painting them as well. It's just we tend to have different conversations with ourselves as we do this. Rather than thinking 'it's not point-optimised or overpowered, and can't one-shot a knight on turn 1 while generating 800 CPs, so therefore it's useless and not worth buying/painting in the first place, the thought process tends to be along the lines of 'ok, what kind of scenarios could I build, and fit this into, and what would be good match ups and scenarios for it'. Or simply 'yes, I adore this model!' For narrative players, scenario-building (and please see above for how I view 'scenario' In the context of narrative games) and game-buildings is the prime-motivator, rather than competitive at all costs 'going-for-the-win'. For more casual players, the focus is enjoyment of the game, more so than utterly ruthless, utterly cutthroat play.
In tournaments I get how w40k works. there are specific armies that work best. Some are best in a specific setting like ETC or ITC, or what ever GW plays in their events. Some armies like eldar flyer builds seem to be doing great under any setting. The rules are there, everybody knows them. You pick a bad army you are going to have a less fun day. Clear and easy to understand.
Indeed. Tournaments and pick-up-games have a viable niche. The thing is, only some things work, and while they're 'clear and easy to understand', a lot of things get sacrificed on the altar to make that happen. That's not always worth it.
The non tournament games to work, seem to require owning multiple points of armies, maybe even mulitple armies, and transporting them all the time, in case this time your friendly game doesn't happen to be vs a knight army player, but a guy with an eldar soup.
As a hobbyist, and a Wargame's for 15+ years, I would argue the whole hobby requires owning multiple points of armies, multiple armies etc. As to needing to transport then all the time, that's not true either. There's this wonderfully thing called 'social media' these days, and also, if you're a Luddite like me, phones that you can use to call or text. It's easy to organise ahead of time in terms of what you're gonna bring, and to match up for a good game. Heck, even easier if you play at home, rather than in store.
It more less drives the starting cost of an army in to thousands of dollars. That is we assume the play what you want and your opponent has to adjust to your armies power, being true.
The hobby is an expensive one as a whole. But you start small, and build up from there. Like any hobby really. I'm starting crossfit with my wife this week. Do you honestly think I'll be smashing the heavy weights straight off? There will always be limits, on both sides with what everyone can do. There will always be someone just starting out.
Because the lists that are not ment for tournament and I see posted even on this forum, seem to be very much like the tournament lists. Sure the eldar player may not have 7 flyers, but he has 4. the IG player does have all the super optimised FW artilery, but just more mortars. But both lists have a swarm of dudes and a castellan.
What you see on dakka may not necessarily be indicative of the general community. With forums, there is only a limited amount of ways to interact, and they tend to self select for a certain type of positing as lists are easier to talk about in an abstract sense than the far more nebulous game building. The focus on list building do really advantage you typically see here is certainly not indicative of how we play our games for example.
It is the non tournament way of playing the game that I can't just get my head around.
I don't think you've ever been exposed to a community, or players that plays this way though. Your community, from what I read from you is a hypercompetitive one where it seems unlike your you'll ever get this. It's hard to get your head around something, if you've never been exposed to it.
Karol wrote: Ok this maybe a language barrier, but play for fun even when it your army sucks, sounds in my langue like someone saying eat your hot meal even when it is cold. Plus it sounds as if tournament players are doing the stuff they do not for fun. I from little expiriance I have, most of them seem to have a lot more fun, then casual players. The only ones that are not feeling fun are those caught cheating with a life long ban or whose army got nerfed.
Tournament players are probably having a great time, if they're doing one thing they enjoy. There's nothing wrong with it. Thing is, as a casual/narrative player, who plays more for casual fun than ruthless efficiency and curbstomping, who plays with folks that play for the same reason, We also have fun.vtournament players don't have a monopoly on 'enjoyment of the game'. A large part of The issue comes when different people with different desires end up clsshing because they want different games. Neither is necessarily wrong.
I just don't see where the fun part of playing the game is suppose to be when you get dominated, even when your opponents try to pull punchs. It is rather deaming to be honest. Am not sure it is very fun, although here I don't have expiriance, to the other side either. Plus how does it work, you don't play with the units your bought and use 1600 something points vs a 2000pts list. what if your army is based around combos, which part of it do you drop, the farseer that cast doom, the jetbikes that haywire stuff.
The only solution seem to be buying way over 2000pts of stuff, and making a new army from scratch pre every game.
No one wants to be dominated. But I don't see it a second 'pulling punches' either. Not everything has to be 'competitive at all costs', and while there are times where it's fun to push yourself to your absolute limits, there's also times where it's fun to just go for a gentle stroll in the park with the dog. Wargaming is no different.
How does it work. You play what's suitable. Or what fits the context of the scenario/mission. Or what you think is a 'good match'. If all you want is to buy ome army, and have that be all you ever play, in all contexts, without any desire to take less/more or expand, I consider that to be disappointing, personally. But ymmv.
The only solution seem to be buying way over 2000pts of stuff, and making a new army from scratch pre every game.
Personally I don't see any issue with that. Sometimes it makes sense to run a tank-based battle, sometimes it makes sense to make a scenario where it's skirmishing units, behind enemy lines making a smash and grab or sabotage. Variety is good.
And even then am not sure if it would work. Against someone who is a skilled player and learned how to properly roll his dice, one army could be a hard match up, but still within the range of an actual gaming expiriance. VS someone else the same army could be super OP, even if they have the same kind of army.
How is that any different to now? Rock/paper/scissors is an element of 40k as much as other games.
That is why I was saying that non tournament play seems to me like a multi thousand dollar investment, if it is suppose to be played with more then one other person.
Lol, no different to tournament play then.
The top lists ten years ago are totally different to those from 5 years ago, which are totally different from now, which will be totally different to lists in 5 years time. Staying on top of the tournament meta is 'chasing the dragon' and costs a lot to maintain your lists at that level.
@Deadnight: as usual, great summary of play mode that still seems utterly exotic to dakkanuts, despite showing up repeatedly in various threads and discussions...
@Karol: owning more models than a single list is the norm for narrative and competetive players alike, the collections and unit choices differ, but in the scope of thing greater than your FLGS people rarely own/buy only single build and stick to it no matter what. Competitive folks may trade on ebay/allegro to constantly shift their list while most narrative players will build up their collection as there is no real incentive to get rid of your models, but both ends of the spectrum rarely have collections set in stone. That is a straightforward function of a living game system and GW constantly releasing new stuff and shuffling/shaking rock/paper/scissors/lizard/spock nature of 40K. Expecting to only ever owning/buying 2000pts and being able to play this game to desired outcome is, well, naive. As to giving you practical advice - go and try finding a group that play historicals even if you're not into aesthetics/seting, they usually own "guest armies" for you to play with them. The more obsure system and the more "seasoned" players the more they will show you how the mode of playing wargames which Deadnight described works in practice, how extensive pre-game preparations can be and what exact and how many aspects of the general wargaming hobby pick-up 40K culture lacks - narrative/reenactment approach is much, much more prevalent outside of 40K. Then, if such experience suits you, you could try to find other 40K players that are dissatisfied as you are in pick-up 40K culture and nurture your own group of narrative players. However, if neither pick-up 40k culture nor narrative experience similar to the one in historicals suit you, then you should probably shelve your models and change the hobby entirely to end your frustration.
They look like a trip pod with a basilisk gun mounted on it. I don't know much about FW units, but I do know that in the building he normal sets up, two chimeras can fit in and he can fit 3 of the basilisk trip pods in it. He doesn't use the FW rules for them tough, as FW is not allowed at the store.
Then I suspect that player is using a 3rd party "counts as" model, as none of the FW kits are built like a tripod. The old Earthshaker Platforms were on a cruciform mount like WW2 88mm Flak guns, the Carriages on big long old school heavy artillery mounts with huge struts and large tow wheels, the Armageddon pattern is a normal basilisk with an enclosed crew compartment, while the Solar Auxilia Earthshaker uses a Leman Russ hull.
See this is something no one explained to me. I thought that casual ment, not playing at tournaments. If there is no prize you just play. I also didn't understand the argument of me having a compatitive view point on the game, which to me with a GK army seemed bogus to say the least. Thank you for explaining it to me. I casual means narrative, then all of this makes sense. People here only play matched. No one plays narrative. Pick up games also seem to be played different. there are three ways people play at the store here. there is people play as prep for tournaments, there is people playing game for store events and there is people playing games by asking someone at the store, if they want to play if a table is free. Event games have priority for people like me, who don't play them, those pick up games make up almost all of the game. People that set up games online are those who prep for tournaments or that play event games at the store.
Like I said, I used the term casual/narrative above, but stated I was not entirely happy with using the term 'casual'. Here on dakka at least, and amongst a lot of gamers casual usually infers as 'not tournament'. And 'casual' and 'narrative' are often disparaged by being lumped together at the other end of the spectrum to 'competitive', hence the 'competitive/casual' distinction. In that sense, yes, I did use 'casual' to denote 'not tournament', but be careful in your distinctions as casual and narrative are not necessarily the same. They share some relevant similarities here, when compared to tournament gaming but they are different beasts.
While my previous post was fine in the sense that I used the term casual as 'not tournament', To me, I personally prefer to use casual to denote 'not serious'. A 'casual' sports fan, for example will claim to follow a team. But won't necessarily have a season ticket, or go to/even watch all the games, and may or may not even follow the weekly scores, but will, for example take an interest in the 'big' games, totally fair. I'm a casual rugby fan - Munster rugby club. To me, casual indicates someone who isn't necessarily serious about the hobby. And narrative games tend to lean towards being 'serious' games. I'd pernally regard open war as a casual format. Narrative games take a lot of work. It takes a mature approach to gaming, a good knowledge of the game with emphasis on 'relative' list building (as opposed to 'absolute' list building), an ability and willingness to collaborate and compromise and translate an idea into an on board scenario, with appropriate 'matching' (or not! Depending on scenario) of opposing forces. There's nothing 'casual' about that approach, if it's done right.
most people here own 2000pts, as this is what is being played. People that do have more points more often then not don't have 3000pts in the same army, but 2000pts times two in two different armies. Eldar players for example often have a dark eldar and eldar army, maybe 300-400pts of other ally. all IG players have a castellan, a lot have jetbike captins or BA jump pack stuff with scouts, they often don't even have 2000pts of IG. Again am not saying variaty is bad. I agree that is bad, but if for example someone here told every players that owns a castellan, they don't want to play against it, because it is unfun, then the game just won't happen, because they don't have 2000pts of army without the castellan. And am using the castellan just as an example here.
Folks elsewhere build collections and armies, rather than specific sized 'lists'.
My warmachine/hordes khador army has all the warcasters, over a dozen jacks, and pretty much most unit and solos. I have over 180 models. I can make a hell of a lot of 'lists' from that. With 40k, I'm no that's building a set sized list, and am not alone in this approach. I'm building a primaris company/strike force for the Raptors chapter. I have no end goal for any specific size or list. But love the models, love the lore and will continue to build what is essentially a collection from which I can draw for games.
Your group is not wrong in their approach, but if you ask me, it's a very narrow minded view of building armies and playing the game. There is so much more to 40k that they will never experience or appreciate with that approach.
No one told me that when I was starting. I always thought that the goal of 8th ed was to have armies at the same level. That is why I kind of a didn't understand the whole w40k is in good place. But I don't understand a lot of things, so am not blaming it on other people.
I'm not surprised to be fair, your group has a very single minded approach to the game that allows no deviation. It's not surprising you won't see other viewpoints.
40k is in a generally good place, but it requires work at your end too. It works best with like minded folks who collaborate on building interesting scenarios and 'matching' the rosters. It's like Lego, or a kit car. This is how gw have always seen their game. It hasn't never been like video games where you plug it in, and it's ready to go without any 'set-up' on your end. And personally, I think it's fair. Everybody wants something different out of a game. Having a 'no variation allowed bare bones default' way of play can end up being stifling. It works, but a lot gets sacrificed on the altar to make it work, and that's not always a good thing.
Ok, but from what I have been told the only way to play my faction is to build a tournament list, take as much ally as possible and hope the opponent plays a non tournament list. I don't think any units my faction has is suitable for 8th ed. 8th seems to be a lot about high inv saves, swarms, stacking of extra wounds or MW spam. Elite power armored melee armies that walk across the table or terminators don't seem to have a niche of their own.
The competitive scene may be that. But the competitive scene doesn't necessarily define the game. For some. They insist it does, and their entitled to their view, and to play how they wish, but again, that approach is very narrow and leaves a lot behind. To me, it's not worth it - and I'm not alone in this view.
I don't think I understand what dogs, have to do with fun. They bite people. But in general I have problems understanding most of the social aspects of stuff. Does having dogs somehow help with w40k? So people are scared you will sick the dog on them and let you win?
My dog never bit anyone.
But the dog analogy was to illustrate that not everything has to be either 'competitive' or 'pushing yourself to the absolute limit'. There's a time and a place to put every ounce of effort into what you're doing - if you are pushing yourself for that 'personal best' time in a marathon, or aiming for the 'one rep max' for weight lifting, or take any other example you wish. There is also a time where it's not necessary to be competitive or to push yourself to the limit. When I took my dog for a walk, or a jog, I wasn't aiming to beat my personal best time. I wasn't aiming to walk our route in the quickest time ever, or quicker than the last time time I did it. I wasn't trying to walk the route faster than some other guy/girl with a dog. And even if I wanted to do these things, if I was walking with someone else, like my mum or dad, or my wife or a friend, who didn't want to do 'competitive dog walking', and rush around the forest, it's not fair on them either, is it? I was just happy to walk in a nice forest with my dog, and enjoy the scenery and the day and enjoy a nice relaxing.hour or two out and take my time. There's a time and a place for everything. Competitive wargaming has its niche, and I value it. But it does not define the hobby.
Melissia wrote: To build off what Deadnight said, when my nephew got in to the game, I supported his Guard with my Blood Angels in 2v1 (500+500 vs 1000, then 750+750 vs 1500, then 1k+1k vs 2k) games as he built his army up. If someone has a small collection, it might be nice of you to offer to play alongside them like that.
Almost missed this, seems obvious now reading it but a really good idea to help the new players.
I will remember and promote that where possible.
So I will say this as politely and reasonably chill as possible, but I'm going to do it in a sort of fun metaphor because it's a point I wanna make and I'll do it my way and have a little fun with it.
KNIGHT: "Potion merchant! You are a foul rapscallion, scallywag, and rapacious scoundrel! You have sold a potion to the evil Wizard that transforms him into a monstrous dragon! He is the enemy of our kingdom, and you have given him power which no mortal man should have! He will burn our fields, our homes, and our brave warriors to naught but ash!"
MERCHANT: "Sounds awful, want a potion that will let you turn into a dragon so you can fight him?"
KNIGHT: "I scoff and guffaw at such a preposterous and offensive proposition! I am a noble knight, and shall not resort to such foul trickery and dishonorable sorcery!"
MERCHANT: "Well, then he's gonna kill you and your dudes."
KNIGHT: "Ah-ha! Sinister potion-monger, he shall not! Not, I say! For I am a knight of honor, I shall meet him with my sword and shield! Therefore, to do so- I will purchase a score of potions that make us immune to flames!"
MERCHANT: "Oh, that will work. One hundred gold pieces. And here you go, pleasure doing business with you."
KNIGHT: "Very well, and upon my return, there shall be no dragon! And you shall lament the day you have peddled your dragon potions!"
[The KNIGHT rides away with his potions]
MERCHANT: "Dragon potions, 20 gold pieces! Potions of fire immunity, five gold pieces! Come and get 'em!"
In other words- if the game is broken in favor of someone's faction, and you're competitive- it's not enough that you're simply refusing to switch factions or buy that OP model. If you're spending money to counter the problem, you're just as much supporting the imbalance as the people buying it- maybe even more so when you're chasing the meta. The only way to beat that is not to play, not to buy, not to participate- I mean, do you honestly think GW isn't aware of the units that are really good at countering the ones everyone says is broken?
Stop going to tournaments that allow it, stop doing leagues that allow it, and just let those things turn into a bunch of people using the exact same thing- they might eventually get bored of mirror matches and stop, too- then GW might have to address balance in the rules. But as long as you keep making it profitable for them to make something that's OP, they've got no reason in the world to change it.
If you pet your dog and give him a treat when he bites you, he's gonna keep biting you.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Karol wrote: He doesn't use the FW rules for them tough, as FW is not allowed at the store.
Unless this store has banned Sisters of Battle and literally every single discontinued model, there is absolutely no reason whatsoever that Forge World should be banned. If people want to play Necromunda at the store, then about half of every gang's weapon lists are banned- as are the hired guns, brutes, and hangers-on. Your shop owner has very likely listened to the wrong people about Forge World or is very, very inconsistent with his rules. Maybe a personal bias.
Oh, yeah- there's that. If someone emails GW and tells them "This FLGS carries your products but refused to allow me to play with my models because they have Forge World upgrade kits", rumor has it that GW will send them a very unpleasant email. And as I understand, that unpleasant email clarifies the terms of them carrying GW products in their store.
Any time I go to a new store with tables where I want to play, I will go and make a purchase- anywhere from $50-$100. Then I go to the tables and take out my Forge World models, and ask if it's okay to use them in the store. If an employee says no, I pack them up- then take my purchase and receipt back to the counter and ask for a refund.
Sometimes, out of sheer spite I will go to the shop that DOES allow Forge World and make the exact same purchase, take a picture of the products and receipt. I will then go and do a Google Maps review on the shop that didn't allow Forge World, with a picture of my receipt from their more sensible competitor.
Considering your friend very obviously using unofficial third-party models for the game that give a distinct advantage, that makes this store look even more screwed up.
Never said they were exclusive. I was merely pointing out that competitive play is not Warhammer's focus and never has been. Warhammer probably succeeds because of its lack of competitive focus and I gave a pertinent example as to why. Please actually read the paragraph before responding.
Ok, so how is w40k suppose to work outside of tournaments. Two guys decide to play, both put their models down. And one says m8 your army is too strong, your going to beat me no matter what I do. And then what do they do, invent special scenarios that both agree on that balnce the two armies somehow, but don't make the dude with the better army feel like someone is forcing him to play the wrong way?
That is one way. Another is to find a middle ground that works for them. Army building in Warhammer has never been balanced, just some times where it is closer than others (and then the codices/army books/battletomes start rolling out). Most I have seen say, "I brought this much," the other says, "I have this much," and they say, "cool, let's find a table".
Karol wrote:Plus what does stop the dude with the better army from saying that his opponent should just have bought a good army instead of the one he has now?
Sportsmanship is one reason that works rather well. A lot depends on the interactions they have, and some people recognize that ULTIMATE POWAH is not always the reason to play an army. Orks fill this role quite well, in fact.
Karol wrote:In tournaments I get how w40k works. there are specific armies that work best. Some are best in a specific setting like ETC or ITC, or what ever GW plays in their events. Some armies like eldar flyer builds seem to be doing great under any setting. The rules are there, everybody knows them. You pick a bad army you are going to have a less fun day. Clear and easy to understand.
And so what does that have to do with Warhammer not being built for competitive play? Warmachine/Hordes is a much better game for competitive play, yet it is hemorrhaging players where the Extremerollers (extreme Steamroller players who play nothing but tournament-style games) have driven everyone else out of it in the meta. Warhammers are known for not being a competitive game, on the other hand, yet they have been dominating the markets where X-Wing isn't, and close behind them where X-Wing is the dominate.
Karol wrote:The non tournament games to work, seem to require owning multiple points of armies, maybe even mulitple armies, and transporting them all the time, in case this time your friendly game doesn't happen to be vs a knight army player, but a guy with an eldar soup. The next day it maybe someone playing a primaris army. It more less drives the starting cost of an army in to thousands of dollars. That is we assume the play what you want and your opponent has to adjust to your armies power, being true. Because the lists that are not ment for tournament and I see posted even on this forum, seem to be very much like the tournament lists. Sure the eldar player may not have 7 flyers, but he has 4. the IG player does have all the super optimised FW artilery, but just more mortars. But both lists have a swarm of dudes and a castellan.
It is the non tournament way of playing the game that I can't just get my head around.
Sorry, but tournament players also own multiple points of armies and even multiple armies. It is almost impossible to find a tournament level army you can't pare down for a less competitively focused game. Heck, those are the only times I played 40K (never did build up a tournament-scale army).
And just because you can't get your head around playing a non-tournament game, has no bearing on how the game was originally designed. Warhammer is not a competitive gaming set. People are trying to fit it in to it because they like the models and they want to have big gaming circuses with them so they can show off. And half the reason I have played few games of 40K is because of those tournament-minded people who would only play with eyes towards the next major tournament would not play with someone who didn't have a tournament army ready.
And to make one final point, in 6th and 7th Edition, my old LGS would have 2 40K tournaments a month. One was the standard 1850 amount you could expect to see at Conventions. The other was very unconventional (pun semi-intended). This one could be set up as 1500 points, but you were required to have 3 Elites/Heavies/Fast Attacks instead of the 2 Troops. There was another that was a team tournament for 2000 points, but you split them how you wanted between you and your partner. Another was a team tournament with each player having 1000 points. Heck, every Halloween for years we had a zombie jamboree where everyone brought a single HQ to face off against a horde of zombies and Typhus (no Primarchs at this time), and if you died, your character became a zombie with all their equipment (Crisis Suit Zombies were nasty).
So, a lot only depends on the imagination your meta is willing to have when setting up their games. There are plenty of suggestions on how to change up your game from ones I've mentioned above, to events in White Dwarf, to old scenario packs like Battle Missions. One just has to look.
Karol wrote: Ok this maybe a language barrier, but play for fun even when it your army sucks, sounds in my langue like someone saying eat your hot meal even when it is cold. Plus it sounds as if tournament players are doing the stuff they do not for fun. I from little expiriance I have, most of them seem to have a lot more fun, then casual players. The only ones that are not feeling fun are those caught cheating with a life long ban or whose army got nerfed.
I just don't see where the fun part of playing the game is suppose to be when you get dominated, even when your opponents try to pull punchs. It is rather deaming to be honest. Am not sure it is very fun, although here I don't have expiriance, to the other side either. Plus how does it work, you don't play with the units your bought and use 1600 something points vs a 2000pts list. what if your army is based around combos, which part of it do you drop, the farseer that cast doom, the jetbikes that haywire stuff.
The only solution seem to be buying way over 2000pts of stuff, and making a new army from scratch pre every game.
And even then am not sure if it would work. Against someone who is a skilled player and learned how to properly roll his dice, one army could be a hard match up, but still within the range of an actual gaming expiriance. VS someone else the same army could be super OP, even if they have the same kind of army.
That is why I was saying that non tournament play seems to me like a multi thousand dollar investment, if it is suppose to be played with more then one other person.
Translation: If your friends army sucks, leave your castellans at home and bring your razorbacks and have a nice evening with your friend. I never said that tournament players don't have fun. But as you said, there is no fun in the game when you are being dominated. It's also not fun if you destroy everything your opponent has in one turn. So if they bring a knife to a gunfight, leave your own gun down and grab a knife too. When you do that, you will find out that it doesn't matter what the meta is or who's the top dog in the tournaments. Because your friend does not have ynnari alaitoc dark reapers and shining spears, he has ulthwe wraithlords and storm guardians. And that's ok.
Karol wrote: Ok this maybe a language barrier, but play for fun even when it your army sucks, sounds in my langue like someone saying eat your hot meal even when it is cold. Plus it sounds as if tournament players are doing the stuff they do not for fun. I from little expiriance I have, most of them seem to have a lot more fun, then casual players. The only ones that are not feeling fun are those caught cheating with a life long ban or whose army got nerfed.
I just don't see where the fun part of playing the game is suppose to be when you get dominated, even when your opponents try to pull punchs. It is rather deaming to be honest. Am not sure it is very fun, although here I don't have expiriance, to the other side either. Plus how does it work, you don't play with the units your bought and use 1600 something points vs a 2000pts list. what if your army is based around combos, which part of it do you drop, the farseer that cast doom, the jetbikes that haywire stuff.
The only solution seem to be buying way over 2000pts of stuff, and making a new army from scratch pre every game.
And even then am not sure if it would work. Against someone who is a skilled player and learned how to properly roll his dice, one army could be a hard match up, but still within the range of an actual gaming expiriance. VS someone else the same army could be super OP, even if they have the same kind of army.
That is why I was saying that non tournament play seems to me like a multi thousand dollar investment, if it is suppose to be played with more then one other person.
Translation: If your friends army sucks, leave your castellans at home and bring your razorbacks and have a nice evening with your friend. I never said that tournament players don't have fun. But as you said, there is no fun in the game when you are being dominated. It's also not fun if you destroy everything your opponent has in one turn. So if they bring a knife to a gunfight, leave your own gun down and grab a knife too. When you do that, you will find out that it doesn't matter what the meta is or who's the top dog in the tournaments. Because your friend does not have ynnari alaitoc dark reapers and shining spears, he has ulthwe wraithlords and storm guardians. And that's ok.
Yet according to some people, your friend should "git gud" and not ask you to not bring your Castellan, they should play a better list that can deal with it...
Imo you are looking at this all backwards. And maybe it's just because of a toxic environment in your local store or something like that, but what you're describing is not my experience at all of how games in non tournament settings work.
The fun itself does not come from inside the game. That is a myth. The fun comes from spending time with like-minded people in a light hearted setting. The game just facilitates that.
To enjoy the game in this way, you have to enjoy the company of the opponent. If you don't enjoy the company of your opponent, all this advice about how to approach the game is meaningless.
Imo you are looking at this all backwards. And maybe it's just because of a toxic environment in your local store or something like that, but what you're describing is not my experience at all of how games in non tournament settings work.
The fun itself does not come from inside the game. That is a myth. The fun comes from spending time with like-minded people in a light hearted setting. The game just facilitates that.
To enjoy the game in this way, you have to enjoy the company of the opponent. If you don't enjoy the company of your opponent, all this advice about how to approach the game is meaningless.
This 100%. GW intends the game to be a fun social thing. That doesn't mean you can't be competitive, but you are supposed to be friends with, or at least friendly with, the people you play against. If you're playing against strangers who don't know you from Adam, or worse people who don't care about you having fun, you're probably playing with the wrong people and they need to learn what a social game actually means.
The fun itself does not come from inside the game. That is a myth. The fun comes from spending time with like-minded people in a light hearted setting. The game just facilitates that.
To enjoy the game in this way, you have to enjoy the company of the opponent. If you don't enjoy the company of your opponent, all this advice about how to approach the game is meaningless.
I can get behind this. Have gotten to know a lot of amazing people through the hobby that I play regularly with. Sure, I play randoms during tournaments, but outside of tournaments I am playing with like-minded people, and what we get out of each game is entirely dependent on pre-game agreements. Some want to be very competitive, others want to have silly fun, and all agreed upon before a model touches the table, or even a model is ready for transport.
The fun itself does not come from inside the game. That is a myth. The fun comes from spending time with like-minded people in a light hearted setting. The game just facilitates that.
To enjoy the game in this way, you have to enjoy the company of the opponent. If you don't enjoy the company of your opponent, all this advice about how to approach the game is meaningless.
I can get behind this. Have gotten to know a lot of amazing people through the hobby that I play regularly with. Sure, I play randoms during tournaments, but outside of tournaments I am playing with like-minded people, and what we get out of each game is entirely dependent on pre-game agreements. Some want to be very competitive, others want to have silly fun, and all agreed upon before a model touches the table, or even a model is ready for transport.
Agreed. I've met some amazing people through this hobby, I met my boyfriend through this hobby.
pre-game agreements make the game entirely more enjoyable and we often are talking about it days before we actually intend to play, Warhammer is 100% better as a social game, there's so much enjoyment to be had.
It is the non tournament way of playing the game that I can't just get my head around.
From my experience tournie play has two parts, list building and actual play. 40k being what it is (on table tactics relatively limited compared to some other systems, but massive granularity and options in the gestalt of lists) emphasizes list building. This has the advantage that if you don't play much you can enjoy listbuilding in and of itself, as some do.
Non tournie games can be identical, where it diverges is when you have people who want to win, but don't want to obsess over army lists. At one end you have guys who take the things that look cool or are painted to equal levels of points, with a few tricks and boosts from wargear and the like, at the other people who take out the toys, then tailor the forces to what should be a fair battle and then in both cases get on with focusing on that part of the game (the playing, not the listbuilding).
So for example last year I did a game for three players (myself and two others) for Imperial Guard arriving to take back the capitol from Chaos forces. What had happened was the Chaos force had made planetfall to link up with cultists who had started to rise up and the Guard had eventually responded. By this point they had lost the major cities with the PDF laying siege. The Guard landed and linked up with the PDF and pushed the Chaos forces back. Of course to make it more fun a bunch of the cultists and PDF had these odd worm like symbols on them. The game was set up, Imperial Guard vs Chaos with the cultist force commanded by the third player, two of the players were in on the secret of what would happen if at the end of the turn if the Chaos player rolled a 7 (D6+ turn number).
To pick the forces we each had a certain power level, then eyeballing the board added in stuff to counter the defences the Chaos player had been given and the disposition of the cultists (decided by the chaos player). The game then commenced the Guard player having certain fortifications and guns to recapture and the Chaos player wanting to hold onto them.
This type of game can be a lot more fun than fighting a standard book of tournie pack mission. It has a narrative, a twist, suitable terrain, etc. etc. (If you want to know what happened, it all went wrong as the Chaos player rolled a 6 at the end of the first turn, had the cultists manning all the emplaced weapons and once their infighting ended the Genestealer cultists came out on top and started shooting up his rear units, whilst the Guard had their advance halted by the turncoat PDF 'russ and chaos vanguard - decisive win for the Genestealer cult!)
Bharring wrote: @Karol,
Have you ever played d&d (I mean a tabletop RPG, not necessarily WotC D&D)?
Take a look at the people who play it and how they play it. And not a dungeon hack, but an actual roleplaying campaign.
A lot of games are played for a variety of reasons not solely based on "winning" the "game".
To be fair though, a tabletop RPG is not a good analogy for a wargame because by its nature a wargame is Player vs. Player, not Players vs. DM (not that an RPG should *really* be antagonistic like that). The mere fact of it being one person playing against another means that there is an intrinsic "winning the game" attached.
Certainly. But if someone is having trouble getting the non-competitive side of the hobby at all, showing them people getting into d&d might help show them that side of this hobby, too.
Bharring wrote: @Karol,
Have you ever played d&d (I mean a tabletop RPG, not necessarily WotC D&D)?
Take a look at the people who play it and how they play it. And not a dungeon hack, but an actual roleplaying campaign.
A lot of games are played for a variety of reasons not solely based on "winning" the "game".
Tabletop RPGs have a very weak playerbase in Poland - RPG is a synonym of pen&paper here, with some dungeon crawlers being played by board gamers, not miniature gamers (generally speaking). Just to put things in scale: in a month we have our biggest con (Pyrkon) and there is a crapload of RPG/LARP talks/panels/events there (more than 200 combined, with an entire section of programme dedicated to this kind of entertainment), but only a single talk about D&D among about 900 events that will be held on Pyrkon.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Or it's broken but not broken enough to stand up to Imperial Castellans.
So it is broken in chaos, but not enough to showup on the table, so your basing brokenness off what again?
I'm not making an argument, I'm rebutting your rebuttal.
A rebuttal is in itself an argument.
True, let me rephrase:
I'm not making an argument about the brokenness, or lack thereof, of Chaos Castellans, I'm pointing out a flaw in Reemule's reasoning.
Fair.
I've not really seen any reasoned argument for naked Castellans being broken. Just people stating they are.
This, coupled with the fact that Chaos basically never runs them, leads me firmly to the conclusion that Castellans as is are most likely totally fine, and that it's their Ion Bulwark, Cawl's Wrath, and the Strats that are the problem.
The strats and relics are strong, but without Imperial Guard producing insane CP it isn't viable to stack a Knight. It costs 3 to rotate, 2 to reroll 1s, and 2 for the strat + the relic. That's 7 CP on the knight alone in turn 1/pregame.
No one else in the Imperium can pay that bill and be effective.
Bharring wrote: @Karol,
Have you ever played d&d (I mean a tabletop RPG, not necessarily WotC D&D)?
Take a look at the people who play it and how they play it. And not a dungeon hack, but an actual roleplaying campaign.
A lot of games are played for a variety of reasons not solely based on "winning" the "game".
To be fair though, a tabletop RPG is not a good analogy for a wargame because by its nature a wargame is Player vs. Player, not Players vs. DM (not that an RPG should *really* be antagonistic like that). The mere fact of it being one person playing against another means that there is an intrinsic "winning the game" attached.
Exactly. The intended experience of an RPG is one of cooperation, exploration, adventure, and some acting and general goofing off. Tweaking the rules to suit the world and the characters the players want to create is fine, because RPGs are played within a consistent group of people- not between various parties and their DMs.. The intention of a war-game is two or more players engaging in a battle to determine the victor. Whether it is a war-game or an RPG, there is a reasonable expectation that said game will function correctly (and well) in the state in which it was sold.
If I buy a new car, and the brakes aren't working properly, I then return it to the dealer and demand that they repair it, or return my money. But when the product in question is a game made by Games Workshop Plc, somehow the double-standards and excuses come pouring forth, as it is apparently the player and customer's responsibility to fix a product that is defective.
The inevitable discussions on pre-game talk are just distractions. No one thinks that they should be able to walk into a store, lock eyes with an opponent, and know exactly what format, points level, or mission they will be playing. The expectation is that asking your opponent (or being asked) how "competitive" or "casual" the game will be to compensate for the failures of the people who are paid to write these rules is entirely unnecessary to have an enjoyable game.
Marmatag wrote: The strats and relics are strong, but without Imperial Guard producing insane CP it isn't viable to stack a Knight. It costs 3 to rotate, 2 to reroll 1s, and 2 for the strat + the relic. That's 7 CP on the knight alone in turn 1/pregame.
No one else in the Imperium can pay that bill and be effective.
I'd argue that Ion Bulwark and Cawl's Wrath alone make the Castellan significantly more scary though. And that's just 2CP. In fact, get rid of those two and everything would probably be fairly manageable.
No flaw shown. No corollary between them. Whataboutism at its best.
I'd say the real issue is that the House Raven-Ion bulwork-Cawl's-Castellan has become so ubiquitous that people aren't even looking at its separate elements. The wargaming equivalent of people calling generic face tissue Kleenex.
Like most problematic game pieces, in general if you trace it back to the game mechanic with the flaw, and fix it there, you will see a much better return on your effort.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Marmatag wrote: The strats and relics are strong, but without Imperial Guard producing insane CP it isn't viable to stack a Knight. It costs 3 to rotate, 2 to reroll 1s, and 2 for the strat + the relic. That's 7 CP on the knight alone in turn 1/pregame.
No one else in the Imperium can pay that bill and be effective.
It cost 3 to play Order of Companions. So 8 total by the end of Turn1 for the Castellan player.
And I'll point out, that is why you don't see the Castellan that often in pure knight forces. When you should up with 9 CP.. spending 6 or even 8, turn 1 isn't conductive to a good game.
Marmatag wrote: The strats and relics are strong, but without Imperial Guard producing insane CP it isn't viable to stack a Knight. It costs 3 to rotate, 2 to reroll 1s, and 2 for the strat + the relic. That's 7 CP on the knight alone in turn 1/pregame.
No one else in the Imperium can pay that bill and be effective.
I'd argue that Ion Bulwark and Cawl's Wrath alone make the Castellan significantly more scary though. And that's just 2CP. In fact, get rid of those two and everything would probably be fairly manageable.
Lets clear up a issue. Removing Ionbulwork doesn't remove 3++ against range from Knight... Your all aware of that right? These have other knights that have it built in. Ones that are better cause they RIS for one CP?
Marmatag wrote: The strats and relics are strong, but without Imperial Guard producing insane CP it isn't viable to stack a Knight. It costs 3 to rotate, 2 to reroll 1s, and 2 for the strat + the relic. That's 7 CP on the knight alone in turn 1/pregame.
No one else in the Imperium can pay that bill and be effective.
Exactly. The intended experience of an RPG is one of cooperation, exploration, adventure, and some acting and general goofing off. Tweaking the rules to suit the world and the characters the players want to create is fine, because RPGs are played within a consistent group of people- not between various parties and their DMs.
And yet, Historically, wargames have also been played this way for decades' and outside of 40k, and especially within the sphere of historical gaming, this is still often the go-to mode of play. Heck, 40k's origins are strongly rooted in this sphere - rogue trader had a third party umpire involved.
Tweaking the rules to suit the world/game/opposing forces is fine, because often wargames are also played within a consistent group of people. A lot of the things you state as the 'intended experience' of RPGs are in many ways, equally applicable to wargames.
Also, I don't think it would take much work to google something like 'rpgtfg' and find examples of people trying to 'win' an rpg and/or 'beat/abuse the system'.
The intention of a war-game is two or more players engaging in a battle to determine the victor. Whether it is a war-game or an RPG, there is a reasonable expectation that said game will function correctly (and well) in the state in which it was sold.
If I buy a new car, and the brakes aren't working properly, I then return it to the dealer and demand that they repair it, or return my money. But when the product in question is a game made by Games Workshop Plc, somehow the double-standards and excuses come pouring forth, as it is apparently the player and customer's responsibility to fix a product that is defective.
Your analogy also refuses the existence of things like kit cars, games/products that are intended more as an open ended sandbox than something pre-built out of the box, or else things with an 'assembly required'. I mean, if anything comes with a tag of 'you've got work to do at your end', it's wargames- with all the modelling, painting and assembling my we do, is it too much is it too much of a stretch to argue what you do with them also requires a bit of work at your end too?
RPGs are extremely modular and open ended, and let's be fair, most of them, technically, are terribly written and extremely easy (probably even easier than 40k) to abuse. If we were to rate RPGstechnically, and hold them to the same standards that we do for wargames, then there is no way they would be regarded as anything other than terribly written, utterly broken and easy to abuse trash designed by barely literate incompetents. the In so many cases, they rely on the gm and the group co-ordinating what they all want and compromising to make any sense of headway. Such is their nature, so much of an rpg relies on a good games master, and their ability to 'match' the players appropriately because they're all but unplayably broken otherwise.
If you buy a new car, and the brakes aren't working properly, of course you'll bring it back. If half the pages out of my rulebook, or a sprue from a box of intercessors is missing, I'll bring it back and get it replaced as well. The rules themselves are functional, the game both modular and open ended. And if it's not the product you want, go play More competitively oriented game like warmachine.
The inevitable discussions on pre-game talk are just distractions. No one thinks that they should be able to walk into a store, lock eyes with an opponent, and know exactly what format, points level, or mission they will be playing. The expectation is that asking your opponent (or being asked) how "competitive" or "casual" the game will be to compensate for the failures of the people who are paid to write these rules is entirely unnecessary to have an enjoyable game.
You might be surprised. In my experience, plenty people do think that though. I've seen, and heard a lot of folks insisting that there is, or should be some kind of 'default' from which there is no deviation. To be fair, from a pick-up-play and tournament POV, I can see some merit in that stance. From a casual/narrative one, it's a nightmare.
The issue that I see here I see that your expectation is that everyone should want to play the same game. I don't see anything wrong with there being an expectation to ask the other person what they want to do. I ask my wife and my friends this every day. There will always be competitive, and casual people. There will always be better and worse options in any wargame. This is not a 'failure' of writers. This is simply a consequence of Table top Wargames being an extremely limited medium - there is only so much they can do, only so much 'weight' that they can carry.
There is no table top wargame that has ever been made that has somehow negated this. And I would confidently put money on there never will be one either. There is no magic solution of points ratios that will ever entirely solve this. Anything that can help, comes with a cost. and a little bit of interpersonal communication goes a long way towards resolving any potential issues. Kind of like real life, really.
I honestly feel that part of the charm of 40k (Warhammer in general) is the fact it enforces/encourages the social contract. You can't just roll up to a complete stranger, grunt out "Hey want to play 40k?" and then start unpacking (people do this, but I find it wrong).
Warhammer's root is in historical gaming, not Magic. In the historical setting it is commonplace to discuss what you want to do, and how you want to do it (force dispositions, period, etc.) and it's just accepted as part of the game. Warhammer took this and it's only relatively recently (relatively speaking) that it attracted people who came from magic and other competitive games and want to minimize interaction other than playing the game, and be able to turn up anywhere for a game against strangers and not have to talk to them about the sort of game they want to have.
Even when you do this, you have to set down some basics. Perhaps in some locales the basics are unquestioned and unstated, but you have to ask stuff like "Matched play? Two thousand points? Use the most up to date errata? Use Forgeworld and other supplements? How should we set up terrain?" and so on.
If you start putting down 2k of force but your opponent only brought 1k because they haven't finished assembling the rest of their force for example, you might have problems.
Bharring wrote: @Karol,
Have you ever played d&d (I mean a tabletop RPG, not necessarily WotC D&D)?
Take a look at the people who play it and how they play it. And not a dungeon hack, but an actual roleplaying campaign.
A lot of games are played for a variety of reasons not solely based on "winning" the "game".
To be fair though, a tabletop RPG is not a good analogy for a wargame because by its nature a wargame is Player vs. Player, not Players vs. DM (not that an RPG should *really* be antagonistic like that). The mere fact of it being one person playing against another means that there is an intrinsic "winning the game" attached.
I actually think it is for Narrative play. For instance myself and a friend are currently playing a homebrew campaign in 40k, that is representing a deathguard/nurgle daemons invasion of a forgeworld and Grey Knights defending it. So we played our very first game as a planetstrike game. Then after the game we discussed what would make sense for the next scenario given the results of the first game. For instance my GMDK died in the game, but I had a Brother Captain go on a killing spree and survive the game. So we decided that the Deathguard got a foothold, and the GK nights were on the back foot. So now the next scenario was a Stealth scenario to try and send a distress call to get more troops to the planet.
After the battle we each right up fluff reports from each armies perspective. So winning isn't so much the goal (however in game we play as normal and try to win) but setting up cool scenarios to allow the story to progress. We evens et up an obsidian portal (which hasn't been updated in a few months due to life getting in the way but we are planning on starting it up again.)
Wayniac wrote: I honestly feel that part of the charm of 40k (Warhammer in general) is the fact it enforces/encourages the social contract. You can't just roll up to a complete stranger, grunt out "Hey want to play 40k?" and then start unpacking (people do this, but I find it wrong).
Warhammer's root is in historical gaming, not Magic. In the historical setting it is commonplace to discuss what you want to do, and how you want to do it (force dispositions, period, etc.) and it's just accepted as part of the game. Warhammer took this and it's only relatively recently (relatively speaking) that it attracted people who came from magic and other competitive games and want to minimize interaction other than playing the game, and be able to turn up anywhere for a game against strangers and not have to talk to them about the sort of game they want to have.
Or, perhaps it is that only recently, in the age of the internet and generations of people who have been playing a wide variety of games since they were little, the flaws in warhammer have become more apparent. I understand the roots of the game and the culture of historicals. If the parties involved enjoy that approach that's fine; I would think we all play that way from time to time. Gaming is best when you have a gaming community, whether your friends, a club, an LGS, a guild - whatever. But I do not want to need to ask my opponent to adjust their list because mine is too weak or too strong, or vice versa. This applies to when I play Magic as well, which is horribly balanced by design. (and is deteriorating in quality with every release, so I do not play too often anymore) This is not a concern we should have in the first place, because it gets in the way of enjoying the game.
Magic does not have the same hobby component a game like 40k does. It takes hours of assembling and painting my game pieces before they are ready to be used. Yes, I enjoy those things very much, but If I am going to make that kind of investment in a game, I want more out of it than "discuss it with your opponent and hope you can agree." I want to be able to create a list, play, and have a good time without worrying about "bad units" and "good units" because they all serve a purpose other than making money for GW. There are many minis, like terminators, that look cool and have cool lore, but suck in games, and instead of expecting or demanding better we accept our choices of:
A: Don't use terminators.
B: Accept terminators suck and use them anyway.
C: Ask your opponent to use an equally weak list and hope they will oblige.
This state of affairs simply is not fun. And games should be fun, for everyone involved.
Wayniac wrote: I honestly feel that part of the charm of 40k (Warhammer in general) is the fact it enforces/encourages the social contract. You can't just roll up to a complete stranger, grunt out "Hey want to play 40k?" and then start unpacking (people do this, but I find it wrong).
But why is this considered charm instead of failure by GW? If, by some miracle, GW produced a well balanced game with no rules ambiguity such that you could just show up for a pickup game against a random stranger and start playing would you want GW to deliberately errata some stuff to be less balanced so that you have to have pre-game negotiation again?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Deadnight wrote: Your analogy also refuses the existence of things like kit cars, games/products that are intended more as an open ended sandbox than something pre-built out of the box, or else things with an 'assembly required'. I mean, if anything comes with a tag of 'you've got work to do at your end', it's wargames- with all the modelling, painting and assembling my we do, is it too much is it too much of a stretch to argue what you do with them also requires a bit of work at your end too?
RPGs are extremely modular and open ended, and let's be fair, most of them, technically, are terribly written and extremely easy (probably even easier than 40k) to abuse. If we were to rate RPGstechnically, and hold them to the same standards that we do for wargames, then there is no way they would be regarded as anything other than terribly written, utterly broken and easy to abuse trash designed by barely literate incompetents. the In so many cases, they rely on the gm and the group co-ordinating what they all want and compromising to make any sense of headway. Such is their nature, so much of an rpg relies on a good games master, and their ability to 'match' the players appropriately because they're all but unplayably broken otherwise.
If you buy a new car, and the brakes aren't working properly, of course you'll bring it back. If half the pages out of my rulebook, or a sprue from a box of intercessors is missing, I'll bring it back and get it replaced as well. The rules themselves are functional, the game both modular and open ended. And if it's not the product you want, go play More competitively oriented game like warmachine.
The flaw in your argument is that 40k's problems are not an inevitable result of having customization, like a kit car where selling in pieces is necessary to allow the owner to make individual choices about its design that could not happen with a standard production model. Things like "castellans are broken as hell" are purely failures of game design with nothing positive to justify them. You could have all of the unit's fluff and aesthetics while also assigning a balanced point cost and the game would be better for everyone. And TBH, 40k's open-endedness is severely overstated. You can choose your units, sure, but in the end you're still dealing with armies that share very similar structures and units that have fairly narrow limits on how they can be equipped. This isn't an RPG where virtually anything you can think of your character doing or any setting/NPC/etc you can imagine can be turned into rules. That sort of limited customization should be much easier to balance than any RPG, and we shouldn't excuse GW's persistent failures to do so.
And yes, a great many RPGs are badly written and it would be good for the industry if the customers would demand better quality instead of excusing half-finished garbage with "the DM will fix it". Far too often the rules flaws in RPGs are the result of authors who don't bother to playtest or proofread or generally put out a polished work because spending 15 minutes throwing together some half-finished garbage means better profit margins. RPGs as a whole could be much better without sacrificing any of the story or customization that makes them fun.
Wayniac wrote: I honestly feel that part of the charm of 40k (Warhammer in general) is the fact it enforces/encourages the social contract. You can't just roll up to a complete stranger, grunt out "Hey want to play 40k?" and then start unpacking (people do this, but I find it wrong).
But why is this considered charm instead of failure by GW? If, by some miracle, GW produced a well balanced game with no rules ambiguity such that you could just show up for a pickup game against a random stranger and start playing would you want GW to deliberately errata some stuff to be less balanced so that you have to have pre-game negotiation again?
That's a bizarre criterion for determining failure. How would that even be possible without standardizing both the number of points required for each game and reducing the number of available missions to one? As others have said, there's no rational way to completely eliminate all forms of pre-game negotiation, and what kind of sane person would even want that?
I really Don't like the fact that GW will only make rules for things that have models, it really stifles customization and greatly limits modeling. Strangely, i don't see many people bothered by this or ever even bring it up. I really hate the whole chapter house fiasco it ruined so much, I mean what the hell is an "orruck" or an "ogor"? Dose the extreme copy writing and other post chapter house BS really benefit GW in anyway?
Yeah these names suck a whole bunch. I hate the guard being Astra Miliarum or Tempestus Scions, or etc, etc, etc. Makes me feel like I'm talking of some crazy ass madness in passing conversation. Kinda feel like my army lives in the universe of Flash Gordon..battling the chaos forces of Ming.
Wayniac wrote: I honestly feel that part of the charm of 40k (Warhammer in general) is the fact it enforces/encourages the social contract. You can't just roll up to a complete stranger, grunt out "Hey want to play 40k?" and then start unpacking (people do this, but I find it wrong).
But why is this considered charm instead of failure by GW? If, by some miracle, GW produced a well balanced game with no rules ambiguity such that you could just show up for a pickup game against a random stranger and start playing would you want GW to deliberately errata some stuff to be less balanced so that you have to have pre-game negotiation again?
That's a bizarre criterion for determining failure. How would that even be possible without standardizing both the number of points required for each game and reducing the number of available missions to one? As others have said, there's no rational way to completely eliminate all forms of pre-game negotiation, and what kind of sane person would even want that?
Of course there is. Plenty of games companies manage to produce a standardised set of rules which includes the standard points values and rules for mission set-up. All of FFG's games do this, for example. Whether it's the 1-mission approach of X-Wing or the more varied way missions work in Armada or Legion, there's no negotiation required at all. Other games have done the same. All it needs is the points limit to be set by the designers and the missions to be included in the rules, and for the game to be balanced enough that players don't feel the need to do the designers' jobs for them. Attitudes like this are exactly why GW seems to be able to get away with doing barely any balancing at all.
Note that in these other games it's still possible to adapt them and play something different if you want, but they have an agreed upon standard for what a game looks like so that if you turn up at a FLGS/club and ask for a game everyone instantly knows what that means without having to negotiate anything.
GW writes chaos warbands kinda funny, now that I think about it. It's like out of about 9 different Legions- one of them is significantly under-performing compared to the others, to a pretty significant degree.
I mean, it's like they're the cast of an early 90's weekday afternoon teen comedy drama, and every cast member has their 'thing', but that one guy is a little..."special"
Donnie is the ladies' man!
Shelly is the school hottie!
Greg is the sports star!
Tina is the bookworm!
Brad is the class clown!
Omar is the musician!
Amanda is the artist!
James is the bad boy!
eLbErT dOeS aRmPiT nOiSeS
Adeptus Doritos wrote: GW writes chaos warbands kinda funny, now that I think about it. It's like out of about 9 different Legions- one of them is significantly under-performing compared to the others, to a pretty significant degree.
I mean, it's like they're the cast of an early 90's weekday afternoon teen comedy drama, and every cast member has their 'thing', but that one guy is a little..."special"
Donnie is the ladies' man!
Shelly is the school hottie!
Greg is the sports star!
Tina is the bookworm!
Brad is the class clown!
Omar is the musician!
Amanda is the artist!
James is the bad boy!
eLbErT dOeS aRmPiT nOiSeS
Hahaha, that made me laugh out loud at work! Although I don't agree with your name-choice of the special guy
Imo you are looking at this all backwards. And maybe it's just because of a toxic environment in your local store or something like that, but what you're describing is not my experience at all of how games in non tournament settings work.
The fun itself does not come from inside the game. That is a myth. The fun comes from spending time with like-minded people in a light hearted setting. The game just facilitates that.
To enjoy the game in this way, you have to enjoy the company of the opponent. If you don't enjoy the company of your opponent, all this advice about how to approach the game is meaningless.
Never looked at this from that perspective. I like rules, and patterns, when stuff is flat and stable. It is hard for me to describe it in english. I generaly don't like social interaction, as most of the time I just don't understand why stuff is or isn't happening. It would make sense though for GW to say that w40k is doing great then. If people are buying stuff more then they did before, then they have to be happy about something. If it isn't always rules, then it has to be something else. And I kind of a have my doubts if the rise in sells is because of legions of painters. So if the people that play w40k are happy around other people playing w40k, by an large of course. Then the game could be doing good because they are happy, irrelevant of the rules. As strange as it may sound to me. Very interesting.
If you're playing against strangers who don't know you from Adam, or worse people who don't care about you having fun, you're probably playing with the wrong people and they need to learn what a social game actually means.
Where I do play against people from my school here. I was convinced to start playing by guys from my class. I wouldn't call anyone friends though, for example the guys that did convince me did it because the store gave a 25% discount to people that bring in someone new.
That is one way. Another is to find a middle ground that works for them. Army building in Warhammer has never been balanced, just some times where it is closer than others (and then the codices/army books/battletomes start rolling out). Most I have seen say, "I brought this much," the other says, "I have this much," and they say, "cool, let's find a table".
I think that most lists are build a bit like that here. It is the buying of stuff that is different'. Sure maybe not every eldar player is going to have this super optimised 7 flyer list, only the old time players will. And those generaly don't play against new players, unless they are family of their friends. But the new players adjust very fast. For example, 5-6 months ago I had like 3 fun games, vs a guy who started a primaris army. Lost, but it was fun, his army was two starter sets mashed in to one list. But within a span of 2 weeks his list went from that, to being DW, to adding a castellan and 3 jetbike custodes and the fun was gone after that. Now he plays a DW/DA soup list of some sort, blows my dudes sky high turn one as we don't use ITC terrain rules, and GW terrain doesn't really block much LoS.
Sportsmanship is one reason that works rather well. A lot depends on the interactions they have, and some people recognize that ULTIMATE POWAH is not always the reason to play an army. Orks fill this role quite well, in fact.
See I go to a sports school, so I learned to ask this question from expiriance. By sportsman ship you mean acting like a sportsman or acting nice. Because those two are kind of a exclusive. Real sportsman only do nice stuff for show. while nice people do nice stuff, because they seem to be generally nice.
Unless this store has banned Sisters of Battle and literally every single discontinued model, there is absolutely no reason whatsoever that Forge World should be banned. If people want to play Necromunda at the store, then about half of every gang's weapon lists are banned- as are the hired guns, brutes, and hangers-on. Your shop owner has very likely listened to the wrong people about Forge World or is very, very inconsistent with his rules. Maybe a personal bias.
See this is a question I can not anwser correctly as no one plays SoBs here, nor is necromunda being played by anyone. Now is this because people just don't play those armies, or because the store doesn't let them play, I don't know. Never asked. I general I stoped asking stuff at the store, after the store owner told me to stop.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bharring wrote: @Karol,
Have you ever played d&d (I mean a tabletop RPG, not necessarily WotC D&D)?
Take a look at the people who play it and how they play it. And not a dungeon hack, but an actual roleplaying campaign.
A lot of games are played for a variety of reasons not solely based on "winning" the "game".
I did not have the pleasure. I don't think RPGs of the non digital WoW or PoE kind are very popular around here. Hard to get the books, for it too, as stores don't sell them.
Board games seem to be popular in some cities. I was visting my aunt this christmas, and she and her husband had a load of them, but we couldn't play them since january is christmas, and grandparents were there etc.
Karol wrote: See this is a question I can not anwser correctly as no one plays SoBs here, nor is necromunda being played by anyone. Now is this because people just don't play those armies, or because the store doesn't let them play, I don't know. Never asked. I general I stoped asking stuff at the store, after the store owner told me to stop.
... the store owner told you to stop asking questions.
You, a paying customer, he essentially told you to STFU.
...I'm not being insulting when I ask this question, please understand where I'm coming from here- but... are you very young? Like, teens, maybe? Like, early teens? Small guy?
Because if you are, I'm honestly thinking it might be a good idea to sit down and talk to your dad or an older brother, or find someone older and somewhat more aggressive and imposing to talk to this shop owner. Maybe an older 40k player from another shop or something. Because it sounds like this dude is a jerk, and I don't know what's going on over there in Poland but places like this in the US tend to end up becoming Nail Salons in a few weeks.
Of course there is. Plenty of games companies manage to produce a standardised set of rules which includes the standard points values and rules for mission set-up. All of FFG's games do this, for example. Whether it's the 1-mission approach of X-Wing or the more varied way missions work in Armada or Legion, there's no negotiation required at all. Other games have done the same. All it needs is the points limit to be set by the designers and the missions to be included in the rules,
That's awfully restrictive, and the reason why I find X-Wing dull. Since a major part of 40k is the narrative approach (remember, even with the "three ways to play", straight-up competitive play is only one of those ) saying you can only play these three missions at one single points limit rather defeats the point.
And really, if "fancy a game of 40k?" "sure, 1500 points? I've got Orks" "OK, cool. I'll bring Marines. Fancy trying this mission here?" "Yeah, cool" is a chore, then I worry about the future of society.
Well I do ask a lot of questions. My parents tell me to not do it, well my dad doesn't, but he lives in a differnt city, and I see him only once a month.
Karol wrote: Well I do ask a lot of questions. My parents tell me to not do it, well my dad doesn't, but he lives in a differnt city, and I see him only once a month.
...in my store, asking questions is good. If I can answer your questions, I can probably get you more interested in the things we sell. On top of that, I want to ensure you know as much as you'd like to know before you spend money on something, that way you don't feel like you've wasted time and money on something.
