I always like to play it out. Sometimes the dice favour you and don't deliver the expected value. I used to play long shots just because people don't expect anyone to do anything irrational.
On a similar note there was a "drama" tournament ending I think a year or two ago now, I forget the tourney but it was the one where the final round, that was being live streamed I might add, a guy conceded because his opponent won the roll to go first and he wasn't able to seize. He immediately conceded the game (without playing a single round) and they spent a while talking about how the game would have turned out using mathhammer. No game was actually played, it was essentially two guys talking about a simulation of what would have absolutely (it's not like we're using dice, right?) happened and they both came to the conclusion that the guy who conceded would have lost anyway.
I think that says it all right there. That basically happened, albeit not with an app, in the final round of a major GT.
Was that in 8th or 7th? I seem to recall the latter.
While, I'm not a huge proponent of 40k as a tournament game, I will say that its matured rather dramatically in the last year. I don't feel like that would happen currently.
On a similar note there was a "drama" tournament ending I think a year or two ago now, I forget the tourney but it was the one where the final round, that was being live streamed I might add, a guy conceded because his opponent won the roll to go first and he wasn't able to seize. He immediately conceded the game (without playing a single round) and they spent a while talking about how the game would have turned out using mathhammer. No game was actually played, it was essentially two guys talking about a simulation of what would have absolutely (it's not like we're using dice, right?) happened and they both came to the conclusion that the guy who conceded would have lost anyway.
I think that says it all right there. That basically happened, albeit not with an app, in the final round of a major GT.
Was that in 8th or 7th? I seem to recall the latter.
While, I'm not a huge proponent of 40k as a tournament game, I will say that its matured rather dramatically in the last year. I don't feel like that would happen currently.
It was the first nova after 8th dropped. That player has been... uh... censured for such things.
Like, this is just an excuse to hate tourney players though. "See, look, one's a gak, so they are ALL gaks!"
I mean, I can see it happening. I still wouldn't do it though. Like, I play a 3 Crusader list in tournaments. If I fight against Tau, unless I go first, I'm going to lose. If I go first, I'm probably still going to lose, but there's a chance at least.
Still wouldn't just quit, it's entirely possible my opponent just rolls like garbage.
It was the first nova after 8th dropped. That player has been... uh... censured for such things.
One of the big pitfalls in edition changes is people taking the results of the first 6 months or so worth of tournaments as definitive. Any time the whole game changes like it did in 8th, the first tournaments are more about discovery what the meta is and what issues need to be patched. Honestly, I don't think there's much value in the first year or so, assuming the company behind it is looking to correct their early mistakes.
I think it wasn't that early, IIRC it was eldar soup vs. Castellan and friends. But it did leave a sour taste as far as making 40k into some sort of e-sport with paid sponsorships and "livable wages" from playing the game (which I don't think should be a thing anyways)
Wayniac wrote: I think it wasn't that early, IIRC it was eldar soup vs. Castellan and friends. But it did leave a sour taste as far as making 40k into some sort of e-sport with paid sponsorships and "livable wages" from playing the game (which I don't think should be a thing anyways)
Is anyone ACTUALLY pushing for that, or is it just a boogyman you made up? I've never heard of anyone pushing for "livable wages" for 40k tournament players....
40k content creators though can absolutely get a livable wage from this game, but that's more because of the whole youtube / crowdfunding thing going on currently. A 40k content creator who happens to play tournaments could obviously make a living wage on that, but it's not nearly the same as an "e-sport" where you're on a team and the team pays you.
There's definitely people that would like to see it happen, but I think the streams themselves need to be willing to invest a lot more into their production values to make it really happen.
s anyone ACTUALLY pushing for that, or is it just a boogyman you made up? I've never heard of anyone pushing for "livable wages" for 40k tournament players....
I see it a few times a week in some form or fashion. It might not be a majority of the playerbase but its a very loud sub section.
Wayniac wrote: I think it wasn't that early, IIRC it was eldar soup vs. Castellan and friends. But it did leave a sour taste as far as making 40k into some sort of e-sport with paid sponsorships and "livable wages" from playing the game (which I don't think should be a thing anyways)
Is anyone ACTUALLY pushing for that, or is it just a boogyman you made up? I've never heard of anyone pushing for "livable wages" for 40k tournament players....
40k content creators though can absolutely get a livable wage from this game, but that's more because of the whole youtube / crowdfunding thing going on currently. A 40k content creator who happens to play tournaments could obviously make a living wage on that, but it's not nearly the same as an "e-sport" where you're on a team and the team pays you.
I've heard a good number of people pushing for it. On the AOS side, there's The Honest Wargamer, probably Ben curry and others. I haven't heard a lot on the 40k side but the latest Long War talks about how it's time to make that a reality and make 40k into a legit e-sport type phenomenon. I'm pretty sure Reecius would push for it as well but I haven't heard him specifically say it.
so I mean, there are people who want to push it. They want paid sponsorships for 40k, and like you find in other e-sports where people are able to make amazing money just by playing games.
I think there's potential in the direction, but it needs investment to actually turn into something profitable. Smaller points would help bring the runtime to something that people will watch for the duration and the presentation requires charismatic announcers filling the downtime. I can see it happening, though there will definitely be some controversy the first time you see an army with a Nascar style paint scheme.
LunarSol wrote: I think there's potential in the direction, but it needs investment to actually turn into something profitable. Smaller points would help bring the runtime to something that people will watch for the duration and the presentation requires charismatic announcers filling the downtime. I can see it happening, though there will definitely be some controversy the first time you see an army with a Nascar style paint scheme.
Or fluid rules interpretation, but much like MtG cheating on camera is fine if you're a 'name' or a favored GW shill
LunarSol wrote: I think there's potential in the direction, but it needs investment to actually turn into something profitable. Smaller points would help bring the runtime to something that people will watch for the duration and the presentation requires charismatic announcers filling the downtime. I can see it happening, though there will definitely be some controversy the first time you see an army with a Nascar style paint scheme.
Or fluid rules interpretation, but much like MtG cheating on camera is fine if you're a 'name' or a favored GW shill
Any cheating caught on camera has pretty hardcore fethed the cheaters.
auticus wrote: I think its inevitable that it will happen. The competitive direction has exploded over the past decade and its only getting bigger.
I doubt it. The current state of competitive play is nowhere near enough to finance professional play, where professional play means making a salary of $50-75k a year minimum and not just making enough to fund your 40k hobby while living in your parents' basement. Even if you assume the best players will play in a tournament every week and win all of them you'd have to have multiple weekly events with cash prizes of $1500-2000 or more (remember, you have to pay your salary after covering hotel/travel/etc). Make more realistic assumptions about travel ability and how often "professional" players will win and you're looking at more like $10,000 or more as the minimum tournament prizes required. Right now we're still at the point where $100 store credit and a box of space marines is a pretty good prize.
auticus wrote: I think its inevitable that it will happen. The competitive direction has exploded over the past decade and its only getting bigger.
Totally unlikely. Professional 40kers make negative dollars when you factor in actual costs. We are no closer than we were a decade ago. Some people make money because of their personality and web presence not because of tournaments.
auticus wrote: I think its inevitable that it will happen. The competitive direction has exploded over the past decade and its only getting bigger.
Totally unlikely. Professional 40kers make negative dollars when you factor in actual costs. We are no closer than we were a decade ago. Some people make money because of their personality and web presence not because of tournaments.
I think professional 40k would be more than just getting paid for winning tournaments. I think its a combination of things, as you note... personality and web presence and advertisement dollars.
There is a huge pool of people trying to be web celebrities these days for that very reason.
I mean, Nick Nanavanti is (was?) "sponsored" by the guy who runs Nights at the Game Table (Adam something, some independently wealthy dude), so there's that. Granted that's just one guy but it's along the lines of what people seem to want 40k to become; endorsements and sponsorships and people being paid to play.
Wayniac wrote: I mean, Nick Nanavanti is (was?) "sponsored" by the guy who runs Nights at the Game Table (Adam something, some independently wealthy dude), so there's that. Granted that's just one guy but it's along the lines of what people seem to want 40k to become; endorsements and sponsorships and people being paid to play.
"sponsored" in 40k I think means people just pay your admission to tournaments. Jim Vesal and TJ Lannigan are "sponsored" similarly... I doubt they're making money enough to live on. They basically get to go to tournaments for free, because they promote their sponsor at the event. This is nothing like the esport thing, where people are paid potentially hundreds of thousands of dollars. 40k will never have that... there's just way too few people who actually are interested in watching a game of 40k.
Nobody is going to get paid to play Warhammer 40k because Warhammer 40k is, like, the most boring thing to watch in the world. It's like the whole experience is waiting through your opponent's turn without having your own models.
They could jazz it up, to some degree, but competitive players are not about the spectacle and pageantry of the game. It might be possible to become a professional Golden Demon painter, because "look at this cool thing this very talented person did" is going to bring in a bigger audience than "this guy moved a bunch of models around on the table slightly better than the other guy".
You want to make 40k a professional thing - you do teams. A hobby guy and a player guy. Then you put the camera on the fething table rather than hovering 3 feet above it. Get some action angles that put you in the game. You overlay the dice rolls and game state changes on top of the screen, like how televised poker puts each player's hand up and the odds of drawing specific cards.
Then you find some players that aren't a bunch of mathhamer neckbeards. Ever hear GW staff on Voxcast talk about their models? They give them names and back stories. You want to see Sqorin Hammerfarf succeed, not generic Dwarven Skirmisher #3 of 8. You want to know how many battles that guy has been in, how many near deaths he faced, and how many times he's made the winning kill. You want to see when that model is finally retired and given a hero's send off. Give them some stats to follow. Make it about the army rather than just about the player.
You can play competitively all you want, but if you want to sell 40k as a spectator sport, you have to have something that people want to spectate. No spectators, no sponsors, no money.
Those are great things, if you assume that the market is non-competitive players and ignore the fact that these people are targeting a competitive audience that cares more about math than fancy character names. The real issues with 40k content being profitable have nothing to do with competitive vs. non-competitive preferences:
1) A game takes way too long. When a single game takes 2-3 hours you're going to really struggle to find anyone willing to sit down and commit to watching it. There's no short-format option where you can have a 15-30 minute broadcast and still have people get something out of it. This alone rules out everyone but the most dedicated fans as a potential audience and guarantees a lack of funding.
2) There's too much free content already available. What exactly is a "professional" content creator going to do that isn't already out there for free? How are they going to convince people to hand over their wallets? How do you deal with the fact that GW treats their content as advertising for the game and eagerly gives it away for free in an attempt to convince people to buy the real product? How do you compete with the people who have conventional jobs, can afford to treat 40k as a hobby, and give away free content because they don't care enough to try to monetize it?
1) A game takes way too long. When a single game takes 2-3 hours you're going to really struggle to find anyone willing to sit down and commit to watching it. There's no short-format option where you can have a 15-30 minute broadcast and still have people get something out of it. This alone rules out everyone but the most dedicated fans as a potential audience and guarantees a lack of funding.
Sure there is. Just staying with in the GW product catalog, simply switch to Warhammer Underworlds, or maybe Kill Team, or whatever.
Underworlds matches are quick 10-20 minute things, on a much smaller board that is easily streamable and the game is actually designed for competitive style gaming (which 40K is not). Using hexes and cards also removes the imprecisions of tape-measure movement and ranges, etc..
You have all the ingredients there. And if you go beyond GW, I am sure there are even more good, possibly better options.
That´s the main problem IMO. These people want to make a "miniature wargaming e-sport", great!! But why insist on using the game least suitable for it? A game in no way, shape or form designed or intended for competitive e-sport style gaming?
There's no way I can see 40k becoming an e-sport or professional in the same way as something like StarCraft or even MtG. Peregrine's exactly correct, especially with point 1, which I see as the major barrier to making the game attractive to a wider audience.
Look at successful e-sports or MtG and you'll notice they generally have fairly short games. Sure, a StarCraft game might last for a relatively long time in some cases but they're generally over quickly enough to be within the attention span of even semi-interested viewers. If I'm sort of interested in 40k and check out a video of a "pro event" one of the main things I'm going to be turned off by is the length of the video. 2.5-3 hours for a single game is unworkable. That's before we get into the fact that streamed 40k right now looks terrible.
I think that's a partially solvable problem. WotC, for example, put a lot of effort into their MtG coverage to make things easier for the casual player. they've got decent camera angles set up beforehand, they've got graphics for displaying hands and individual cards and they've got knowledgeable commentators. Watching a tournament stream of a 40k game is painful at times. There's a lot of downtime and the commentators are often completely unsure about what's happening because it's difficult to keep track of a game as an outside observer not standing right next to the table. Even if you solve these issues the time investment to watch a game is too great, I think.
The only reason YouTube battle reports work, IMO, are because you can get a camera right up into the action and actually see what's going on. You can also edit out things like the movement phase which are incredibly dull to watch. Also, you get to hear from the players themselves rather than remote commentators.
There may well be GW games that are better suited to an e-sports format. The question then becomes do they have the pulling power to generate interest in a wider audience?
Those are valid points....today. GW has been pushing more and more killy games that get over faster and faster. I don't think its beyond the capacity for them to do a new edition with the goal being even faster games to get standard tournament games down to an hour or less. For the hardcore tournament organizers trying to create the world championships that is something else that they have to consider. For today that would mean moving formats down to lesser points to get the timeframe of games down so that you can stream the game and keep peoples' attention.
I think you're right. But I also think if GW are trying to get the average game time down a more satisfying way would be to reduce the model count rather than their current approach of increasing lethality to ridiculous levels. I don't think the time is the only issue, though. At the moment the visual spectacle of the game really doesn't transfer well to streaming, usually because camera angles are too wide and (in some cases) the armies on the table are unpainted or very badly painted. That may be solvable but it will need a lot of effort and set-up time from the streamers to fix.
From a company standpoint, reducing model count is a direction they'd avoid at all costs. Instead, increasing the lethality means tournament legal armies are still high model count (high $$$). Its in their best interest that way.
An overhead camera angle combined with a wide angle works well.
Typically the detail of models is not high enough on the stream for the paint job to matter, but tournaments enforcing painting solves unpainted models on their stream.
For me, the main barrier to miniature wargaming, board gaming or card gaming is the lack of anything interesting happening onscreen. In real sports, there's the action on the pitch/court/whatever. In e-sports, you're watching the screen(s) not the players. In televised 40k, you're watching an image where most of the time not much happens.
auticus wrote: From a company standpoint, reducing model count is a direction they'd avoid at all costs. Instead, increasing the lethality means tournament legal armies are still high model count (high $$$). Its in their best interest that way.
An overhead camera angle combined with a wide angle works well.
Typically the detail of models is not high enough on the stream for the paint job to matter, but tournaments enforcing painting solves unpainted models on their stream.
That lack of detail on stream is a problem, IMO. I don't think the overhead view works very well at all because it often makes it almost impossible to actually tell what you're looking at. At times you can't even tell where infantry-sized models are from that sort of view. Something that highlights unit positions in an overhead view would be good and this is the sort of thing I mean when I say there needs to be more work put into the streaming side of 40k if it's going to get more popular. Even the commentators often seem confused about what's happening because identifying units on the stream is such a problem.
Peregrine wrote: Those are great things, if you assume that the market is non-competitive players and ignore the fact that these people are targeting a competitive audience that cares more about math than fancy character names. The real issues with 40k content being profitable have nothing to do with competitive vs. non-competitive preferences:
1) A game takes way too long. When a single game takes 2-3 hours you're going to really struggle to find anyone willing to sit down and commit to watching it. There's no short-format option where you can have a 15-30 minute broadcast and still have people get something out of it. This alone rules out everyone but the most dedicated fans as a potential audience and guarantees a lack of funding.
2) There's too much free content already available. What exactly is a "professional" content creator going to do that isn't already out there for free? How are they going to convince people to hand over their wallets? How do you deal with the fact that GW treats their content as advertising for the game and eagerly gives it away for free in an attempt to convince people to buy the real product? How do you compete with the people who have conventional jobs, can afford to treat 40k as a hobby, and give away free content because they don't care enough to try to monetize it?
I mean, the GSL (Global StarCraft League) already answers your questions.
1. One night of GSL competitions generally lasts about 3 hours. They do player interviews, post stats, e.t.c.
2. GSL hosts it's videos for free and survives the same way other major internet sources do: advertisement dollars. In case you're curious, you can see it right here:
You've absolutely got to attract people, but there's no question 40k is trying to go this way. It's a lot similar to StarCraft: BroodWar's Western scene in the early 1990's/early 2000's. Probably will take the same amount of time to develop too.
auticus wrote: I think its inevitable that it will happen. The competitive direction has exploded over the past decade and its only getting bigger.
I doubt it. The current state of competitive play is nowhere near enough to finance professional play, where professional play means making a salary of $50-75k a year minimum and not just making enough to fund your 40k hobby while living in your parents' basement. Even if you assume the best players will play in a tournament every week and win all of them you'd have to have multiple weekly events with cash prizes of $1500-2000 or more (remember, you have to pay your salary after covering hotel/travel/etc). Make more realistic assumptions about travel ability and how often "professional" players will win and you're looking at more like $10,000 or more as the minimum tournament prizes required. Right now we're still at the point where $100 store credit and a box of space marines is a pretty good prize.
Why do people keep insisting that you only actually ever make money off of prize pools. No competitive enterprise works like this. Not a single one. It's dumb, and you say it out of extreme ignorance or just a need to sneer at 'basement dwelling' neckbeards because the idea of people not like you being successful is simply the worst. Only people exactly like you in every way are allowed success right?
You have to give the ITC crew a lot of credit for figuring out how to market, package and monetize 40K tournaments. They've taken it remarkably far.
However, I find it hard to believe that anyone with a brain could think that 40K has big-time e-sport potential. Perhaps a different game from a GW with a different mindset and approach. Not 40K, and not this GW.
gorgon wrote: You have to give the ITC crew a lot of credit for figuring out how to market, package and monetize 40K tournaments. They've taken it remarkably far.
However, I find it hard to believe that anyone with a brain could think that 40K has big-time e-sport potential. Perhaps a different game from a GW with a different mindset and approach. Not 40K, and not this GW.
GW certainly wants to try, but I think it's important to remember that esports as we know them today were built without developer participation. StarCraft: Broodwar basically created the entire backbone of modern day esports and Blizzard was totally absent until after it took off. Nowadays, developers are active hands, but it wasn't necessary in the beginning. All you need are people who really want to play the game and a larger amount of people who want to watch it.
Which is honestly the big hurdle of any boardgame. It's very static. It's not dynamic. Models just sit there. Shooting/fighting is imagined. Esports offer a graphical spectacle. It remains to be seen how big viewer demand will be without that.
Peregrine wrote: Those are great things, if you assume that the market is non-competitive players and ignore the fact that these people are targeting a competitive audience that cares more about math than fancy character names. The real issues with 40k content being profitable have nothing to do with competitive vs. non-competitive preferences:
1) A game takes way too long. When a single game takes 2-3 hours you're going to really struggle to find anyone willing to sit down and commit to watching it. There's no short-format option where you can have a 15-30 minute broadcast and still have people get something out of it. This alone rules out everyone but the most dedicated fans as a potential audience and guarantees a lack of funding.
2) There's too much free content already available. What exactly is a "professional" content creator going to do that isn't already out there for free? How are they going to convince people to hand over their wallets? How do you deal with the fact that GW treats their content as advertising for the game and eagerly gives it away for free in an attempt to convince people to buy the real product? How do you compete with the people who have conventional jobs, can afford to treat 40k as a hobby, and give away free content because they don't care enough to try to monetize it?
I mean, the GSL (Global StarCraft League) already answers your questions.
1. One night of GSL competitions generally lasts about 3 hours. They do player interviews, post stats, e.t.c.
2. GSL hosts it's videos for free and survives the same way other major internet sources do: advertisement dollars. In case you're curious, you can see it right here:
You've absolutely got to attract people, but there's no question 40k is trying to go this way. It's a lot similar to StarCraft: BroodWar's Western scene in the early 1990's/early 2000's. Probably will take the same amount of time to develop too.
I think the difference here is that an entire night of competition encompasses multiple games in that same time period. 40k's big problem is that in that same 3 hour period they've played a single game and that's it. I agree that player interviews, stat analysis and other supplemental activities can help enhance the experience for the viewer, but when the thing you're using to draw people in is 3 hours long without any of that other stuff you have problems.
That lack of detail on stream is a problem, IMO. I don't think the overhead view works very well at all because it often makes it almost impossible to actually tell what you're looking at. At times you can't even tell where infantry-sized models are from that sort of view. Something that highlights unit positions in an overhead view would be good and this is the sort of thing I mean when I say there needs to be more work put into the streaming side of 40k if it's going to get more popular. Even the commentators often seem confused about what's happening because identifying units on the stream is such a problem.
Production values are the big thing. Multiple camera angles and commentators can fill a lot of the void but take a lot more work.
In terms of making money off of it, it just needs to be popular enough to get advertiser interests. Marketing will put in ridiculous sums of money if the viewership is high enough to warrant it and often that's also where the extravagant prizes come from as well (big stakes tourney draws a lot of viewers). I don't find this a particularly desirable way forward, but I don't really resent it either. Like any professional sports angle, it would be fun to watch even if its not a great representation of local play.
Warmachine saw some pretty fantastic productions at some major events but never quite cracked into sponsorship levels of attention. 40k's larger base demographic could perhaps pull it off, but someone has to lose some money showing off what can be done first.
I think the difference here is that an entire night of competition encompasses multiple games in that same time period. 40k's big problem is that in that same 3 hour period they've played a single game and that's it. I agree that player interviews, stat analysis and other supplemental activities can help enhance the experience for the viewer, but when the thing you're using to draw people in is 3 hours long without any of that other stuff you have problems.
One of the better tricks I've seen is focusing on team tournaments so the viewer can focus on the team vs team aspect a little more. This lets the producer cut to different games on the fly to keep things interesting over the 3 hour period.
Peregrine wrote: Those are great things, if you assume that the market is non-competitive players and ignore the fact that these people are targeting a competitive audience that cares more about math than fancy character names. The real issues with 40k content being profitable have nothing to do with competitive vs. non-competitive preferences:
1) A game takes way too long. When a single game takes 2-3 hours you're going to really struggle to find anyone willing to sit down and commit to watching it. There's no short-format option where you can have a 15-30 minute broadcast and still have people get something out of it. This alone rules out everyone but the most dedicated fans as a potential audience and guarantees a lack of funding.
2) There's too much free content already available. What exactly is a "professional" content creator going to do that isn't already out there for free? How are they going to convince people to hand over their wallets? How do you deal with the fact that GW treats their content as advertising for the game and eagerly gives it away for free in an attempt to convince people to buy the real product? How do you compete with the people who have conventional jobs, can afford to treat 40k as a hobby, and give away free content because they don't care enough to try to monetize it?
I mean, the GSL (Global StarCraft League) already answers your questions.
1. One night of GSL competitions generally lasts about 3 hours. They do player interviews, post stats, e.t.c.
2. GSL hosts it's videos for free and survives the same way other major internet sources do: advertisement dollars. In case you're curious, you can see it right here:
You've absolutely got to attract people, but there's no question 40k is trying to go this way. It's a lot similar to StarCraft: BroodWar's Western scene in the early 1990's/early 2000's. Probably will take the same amount of time to develop too.
I think the difference here is that an entire night of competition encompasses multiple games in that same time period. 40k's big problem is that in that same 3 hour period they've played a single game and that's it. I agree that player interviews, stat analysis and other supplemental activities can help enhance the experience for the viewer, but when the thing you're using to draw people in is 3 hours long without any of that other stuff you have problems.
I think that's just going to attract different audiences rather than prevent an audience at all. One baseball or one football game is quite long too, but you still get tons of viewers for that single game.
Nurglitch wrote: I'm not sure if we know the rules are 'wobblier' and they seem to be modeled after Epic Armageddon rules which are fantastic.
and dont forgot the fun of swingy 'make loads more dakka cos reasons' fun of the command cards
which doesnt matter at all for an all-day all the mini's what you done own throw down with likeminded sorts but as something anybody would want to watch, naahhh
*also if anyone can explain the point of the Eldar scatter laser over any other weapon in Apoc that would help (shock horror GW naysayer reads GW rules )
auticus wrote: Length of game isn't the issue moreso as not much happening on the table is the issue.
Watching two guys stand there staring at the table for minutes at a time is not a fun thing to watch.
Agreed, there are few things more boring than watching a table top game on a live stream. The decent streams have commentary, lore discussion, fan interaction, reviews, pictures.. literally anything to distract from the fact that models haven’t moved in 20 minutes.
gorgon wrote: You have to give the ITC crew a lot of credit for figuring out how to market, package and monetize 40K tournaments. They've taken it remarkably far.
However, I find it hard to believe that anyone with a brain could think that 40K has big-time e-sport potential. Perhaps a different game from a GW with a different mindset and approach. Not 40K, and not this GW.
Why not this GW?
GW has produced plenty of games that check all the theoretical boxes for an e-sport style approach to miniature gaming (e.g. Underworlds, Kill Team Arena).
Just because they also make a game like 40K that has a completely different design aim compared to what competitive and/or e-sport games would be looking for shouldnt really change that.
Nurglitch wrote: I'm not sure if we know the rules are 'wobblier' and they seem to be modeled after Epic Armageddon rules which are fantastic.
and dont forgot the fun of swingy 'make loads more dakka cos reasons' fun of the command cards
which doesnt matter at all for an all-day all the mini's what you done own throw down with likeminded sorts but as something anybody would want to watch, naahhh
*also if anyone can explain the point of the Eldar scatter laser over any other weapon in Apoc that would help (shock horror GW naysayer reads GW rules )
kodos wrote: The tournament scene going crazy at the end of an edition is nothing new nor something to worry about.
Now we are at a point were the Edition is mostly done and we are just waiting for 9th to hit and shake the game up again bringing the competitive scene down (as everything is new and "balanced")
This is also usually the time when 40k competitive people find their way into Fantasy and start playing there.
Each edition of WH/AoS and 40k had the point were the other one was the better game but now AoS still get so much hate from people because of what was done that this option is not for the majority, so instead of switching and we get more hate towards the game than in the past.
I was not at all aware of that, ...
but if they make this dumpster fire of 8th into Apoc,
and make 9th into soft-core 2nd ed. with optional rules sets
with different rules for enhanced realism in terrain/cover,
weapons/targeting, armor/vehicles, psych dynamics/human element stuff,
and optional rules kits for tourney types all deck-buildy, card-gamey and gotcha proper MTG style,
all on its own,
then I would def be in for the original box plus the expansions esp if they came with cool terrain,
maybe rulebook covering vehicle expansions coming in select vehicle kits, and yada.... so down.
Peregrine wrote: Those are great things, if you assume that the market is non-competitive players and ignore the fact that these people are targeting a competitive audience that cares more about math than fancy character names. The real issues with 40k content being profitable have nothing to do with competitive vs. non-competitive preferences:
1) A game takes way too long. When a single game takes 2-3 hours you're going to really struggle to find anyone willing to sit down and commit to watching it. There's no short-format option where you can have a 15-30 minute broadcast and still have people get something out of it. This alone rules out everyone but the most dedicated fans as a potential audience and guarantees a lack of funding.
2) There's too much free content already available. What exactly is a "professional" content creator going to do that isn't already out there for free? How are they going to convince people to hand over their wallets? How do you deal with the fact that GW treats their content as advertising for the game and eagerly gives it away for free in an attempt to convince people to buy the real product? How do you compete with the people who have conventional jobs, can afford to treat 40k as a hobby, and give away free content because they don't care enough to try to monetize it?
I mean, the GSL (Global StarCraft League) already answers your questions.
1. One night of GSL competitions generally lasts about 3 hours. They do player interviews, post stats, e.t.c.
2. GSL hosts it's videos for free and survives the same way other major internet sources do: advertisement dollars. In case you're curious, you can see it right here:
You've absolutely got to attract people, but there's no question 40k is trying to go this way. It's a lot similar to StarCraft: BroodWar's Western scene in the early 1990's/early 2000's. Probably will take the same amount of time to develop too.
I think the difference here is that an entire night of competition encompasses multiple games in that same time period. 40k's big problem is that in that same 3 hour period they've played a single game and that's it. I agree that player interviews, stat analysis and other supplemental activities can help enhance the experience for the viewer, but when the thing you're using to draw people in is 3 hours long without any of that other stuff you have problems.
I think that's just going to attract different audiences rather than prevent an audience at all. One baseball or one football game is quite long too, but you still get tons of viewers for that single game.
I'm British so I couldn't possibly explain what people find so attractive about watching baseball either
Assuming by football you mean American Football (though this applies to soccer and other sports too), I think the difference is the possibility of something exciting happening is still there. You could be watching a dull, defensive game with no scoring but there's always the chance of an exciting scoring play from nothing, or the commentators can analyse why the defence of each team is on top, or analyse what the teams need to do to break the status quo. Some of these things are possible in 40k too, but I don't think the commentators are quite at that level yet and I think the game lacks the depth needed to allow for interesting analysis at that level in-game. I'm also not sure what the 40k equivalent of a 90-yard touchdown pass is, or a well-worked team goal in soccer, or a home run. Does it have that exciting moment that will get people out of their seats (figuratively speaking)? So much of high level tournament play is about stacking the odds in your favour with re-rolls and other buffs I'm not sure there's actually much scope for these sort of moments to occur. You also don't have that team association that keeps so many sports teams in business and keeps viewing figures high even through terrible game.
To highlight the problems of streamed tournament 40k, I remember watching a game at the most recent LVO. It had Grey Knights, run by a player who was apparently pretty good with them. I was intrigued so thought I'd check out the stream to see how he was ablet o be successful with them. I joined midway through turn 1. I had no idea what was happening. Nor did the commentators. I couldn't even figure out which side was which initially. Much of the commentary was along the lines of "is that a Strike Squad?", "where's Draigo?" etc. The "action" consisted of a whole bunch of watching the top of someone's head as they leaned over the table and carefully measured everything, then rolling a bucket of dice into a dice tray while the commentators attempted to figure out what was shooting at what. The psychic phase was a rapid-fire series of dice rolls, none of which were explained. The damage on various models wasn't tracked and the whole thing was basically a confusing mess. I don't blame the commentators for this. I think they actually did a pretty good job of keeping a conversation going and trying to keep up with the action, but it proved impossible. Some of these problems could be solved with improved production values and better preparation but some are intrinsic to the game. I managed to stick with the stream for about 15 minutes, then another 10 or so with it on in the background, but I eventually had to switch it off as it seemed rather pointless to try to continue.
gorgon wrote: You have to give the ITC crew a lot of credit for figuring out how to market, package and monetize 40K tournaments. They've taken it remarkably far.
However, I find it hard to believe that anyone with a brain could think that 40K has big-time e-sport potential. Perhaps a different game from a GW with a different mindset and approach. Not 40K, and not this GW.
Why not this GW?
GW has produced plenty of games that check all the theoretical boxes for an e-sport style approach to miniature gaming (e.g. Underworlds, Kill Team Arena).
Just because they also make a game like 40K that has a completely different design aim compared to what competitive and/or e-sport games would be looking for shouldnt really change that.
It'd be Underworlds if it was anything, but this GW isn't about to start sponsoring a 'pro tour' with cash prizes.
gorgon wrote: Perhaps a different game from a GW with a different mindset and approach. Not 40K, and not this GW.
I don't know. I think I'd probably watch a season of Necromunda. Get some high quality tables with close-to-the-action camera angles (sector mechanicus is a joy to look at with all the catwalks), follow the dramatic stories of different gangs as they grow, get injured, or die. But I'm not really a sports guy, so seeing two players trying to get points doesn't really do anything for me. Pageantry and drama is what works for me.
For the record, Corvus Belli has put together some really high production value battle reports with lots of overlays and info, dramatic camera angles, and even animations that really make them fun to watch. That's what needs to happen to make 40k a spectator sport, but putting out something of this quality during a live game would be a logistical challenge, to be sure.
It'd be Underworlds if it was anything, but this GW isn't about to start sponsoring a 'pro tour' with cash prizes.
No, probably not.
But the question wasn´t about GW starting a pro tour, but Frontline Gaming or whoever wanting to start some pro tour / e-sports stuff. If they´d be serious about it, they should probably drop games like 40K and AoS which aren´t really meant for tournament / competitive stuff from the ITC, etc.. and focus on stuff like Underworlds, perhaps X-Wing, Infinity, etc..
It`s kinda stupid trying to shoehorn 40K into that, when that happens to arguably be the game in GW´s catalog least suited for that.
It'd be Underworlds if it was anything, but this GW isn't about to start sponsoring a 'pro tour' with cash prizes.
No, probably not.
But the question wasn´t about GW starting a pro tour, but Frontline Gaming or whoever wanting to start some pro tour / e-sports stuff. If they´d be serious about it, they should probably drop games like 40K and AoS which aren´t really meant for tournament / competitive stuff from the ITC, etc.. and focus on stuff like Underworlds, perhaps X-Wing, Infinity, etc..
It`s kinda stupid trying to shoehorn 40K into that, when that happens to arguably be the game in GW´s catalog least suited for that.
A large chunk of competitive players really like the 40k lore and aesthetic. I play a ton of ITC tournaments, and I have no interest really in playing games other than 40k really... because I'm super invested in 40k through lore, video games, and lots of miniatures.
It'd be Underworlds if it was anything, but this GW isn't about to start sponsoring a 'pro tour' with cash prizes.
No, probably not.
But the question wasn´t about GW starting a pro tour, but Frontline Gaming or whoever wanting to start some pro tour / e-sports stuff. If they´d be serious about it, they should probably drop games like 40K and AoS which aren´t really meant for tournament / competitive stuff from the ITC, etc.. and focus on stuff like Underworlds, perhaps X-Wing, Infinity, etc..
It`s kinda stupid trying to shoehorn 40K into that, when that happens to arguably be the game in GW´s catalog least suited for that.
A large chunk of competitive players really like the 40k lore and aesthetic. I play a ton of ITC tournaments, and I have no interest really in playing games other than 40k really... because I'm super invested in 40k through lore, video games, and lots of miniatures.
That still doesn't change the fact that 40k is one of the worst games for serious competitive play due to how crazy the balance is. Used to be that comp players wanted to have balanced games and armies so they could show their mastery of the game in tactics, rather than in being able to stack combos better than their opponent.
Hell will freeze over before I *pay* to watch miniatures, directly or indirectly. Dear god. I don't even watch free youtube video reports - made it through about 5 minutes of one once.
Audustum wrote: 1. One night of GSL competitions generally lasts about 3 hours. They do player interviews, post stats, e.t.c.
Sure, but how many individual matches are you getting in that time? I bet the overall pace of play is much better and you're not slogging through 2-3 hours of tedious dice rolling for a single game.
2. GSL hosts it's videos for free and survives the same way other major internet sources do: advertisement dollars.
But who is going to advertise? GW (or whatever other company you might suggest) sure as hell isn't advertising, and why should they when anyone interested in watching a 40k e-sport thing is already a customer? Stores might do it, but how many of them are going to pay enough for the advertising slots that the e-sport company can afford to pay multiple players/video editors/etc $50-100k per year? I am extremely skeptical that miniatures gaming has enough money involved to come anywhere near the financial needs of that kind of project.
A large chunk of competitive players really like the 40k lore and aesthetic. I play a ton of ITC tournaments, and I have no interest really in playing games other than 40k really... because I'm super invested in 40k through lore, video games, and lots of miniatures.
That still doesn't change the fact that 40k is one of the worst games for serious competitive play due to how crazy the balance is. Used to be that comp players wanted to have balanced games and armies so they could show their mastery of the game in tactics, rather than in being able to stack combos better than their opponent.
Well, that´s because 40K isn´t meant for competitive play. That´s like saying VW Microbuses are the worst for competitive racing. That`s because they aren´t meant for that. They are built for surfers and hippies bumming on a beach, living off weed and having a vehicle to crash in.
If you wanna play competitive .... don´t play Warhammer 40K. Simple enough. Used to be, don`t play Games Workshop games, but at least Games Workshop tried to make games that cater to the competitive scene, e.g. Underworlds or Kill Team Arena. But Warhammer 40K isn´t one of those games.
See, here's the thing. Lots of people have previously and currently do play 40k competitively, AND have fun with it. Lecturing them on how they're doing it wrong and having wrongbadfun helps no one, and makes the people doing the lecturing seem like jerks.
'Why the hate?' circles back around quickly as to why actual people in this thread are insisting other people not have fun.
Its a two way street that feeds itself. Much like politics and the two party system where each party blames the other for all the problems while at the same time disparaging them and feeding the fire.
Voss wrote: See, here's the thing. Lots of people have previously and currently do play 40k competitively, AND have fun with it. Lecturing them on how they're doing it wrong and having wrongbadfun helps no one, and makes the people doing the lecturing seem like jerks.
'Why the hate?' circles back around quickly as to why actual people in this thread are insisting other people not have fun.
That is true to an extent. Though there are two differences
A) Language. While there are man opinions here from the „casual side“ criticizing the „competitive side“, the language is far, far more reasonable than those by the „competitive side“, which featured genocidal fantasies, curse words of the most horrid variant and more, which had to be removed for that very reason. A „both sides are the same argument“ is a false equivalence for that reason alone.
B) The „competitive side“ wants to change the game (ultimately at the expense of the casual side, many of whichlove the game as it is, which is why they play it to begin with). If the „competitive side“ can simply enjoy the game, as, you said, without constantly demanding it be changed into something it wasn’t meant to be, there‘d be no need for people who just like the game the way it is and play 40K precisely for the qualities that differentiate it from more competitive miniatures games like Warmachine, X-Wing, Infinity, Underworlds, whatever, to just repeat the fact that they chose 40K over other games precisely because it is the best game on the market for their preferences.
B is not a point against competitive players enjoying the game if they want to. It‘s a point against competitive players claiming the game is bad. It is not. It‘s just (unlike plenty alternatives on the market) not made with competitive gaming in mind.
Audustum wrote: 1. One night of GSL competitions generally lasts about 3 hours. They do player interviews, post stats, e.t.c.
Sure, but how many individual matches are you getting in that time? I bet the overall pace of play is much better and you're not slogging through 2-3 hours of tedious dice rolling for a single game.
2. GSL hosts it's videos for free and survives the same way other major internet sources do: advertisement dollars.
But who is going to advertise? GW (or whatever other company you might suggest) sure as hell isn't advertising, and why should they when anyone interested in watching a 40k e-sport thing is already a customer? Stores might do it, but how many of them are going to pay enough for the advertising slots that the e-sport company can afford to pay multiple players/video editors/etc $50-100k per year? I am extremely skeptical that miniatures gaming has enough money involved to come anywhere near the financial needs of that kind of project.
1. Yeah, I think that's just a different type of audience (see the baseball discussion). You do need to do lots of stuff to help with downtime though.
2. That'll depend on how many views it gets. Right now, I think GSL is being sponsored by Mountain Dew. Intel was doing it before that (and, of course, Blizzard stepped in).
Peregrine wrote: Those are great things, if you assume that the market is non-competitive players and ignore the fact that these people are targeting a competitive audience that cares more about math than fancy character names. The real issues with 40k content being profitable have nothing to do with competitive vs. non-competitive preferences:
1) A game takes way too long. When a single game takes 2-3 hours you're going to really struggle to find anyone willing to sit down and commit to watching it. There's no short-format option where you can have a 15-30 minute broadcast and still have people get something out of it. This alone rules out everyone but the most dedicated fans as a potential audience and guarantees a lack of funding.
2) There's too much free content already available. What exactly is a "professional" content creator going to do that isn't already out there for free? How are they going to convince people to hand over their wallets? How do you deal with the fact that GW treats their content as advertising for the game and eagerly gives it away for free in an attempt to convince people to buy the real product? How do you compete with the people who have conventional jobs, can afford to treat 40k as a hobby, and give away free content because they don't care enough to try to monetize it?
I mean, the GSL (Global StarCraft League) already answers your questions.
1. One night of GSL competitions generally lasts about 3 hours. They do player interviews, post stats, e.t.c.
2. GSL hosts it's videos for free and survives the same way other major internet sources do: advertisement dollars. In case you're curious, you can see it right here:
You've absolutely got to attract people, but there's no question 40k is trying to go this way. It's a lot similar to StarCraft: BroodWar's Western scene in the early 1990's/early 2000's. Probably will take the same amount of time to develop too.
I think the difference here is that an entire night of competition encompasses multiple games in that same time period. 40k's big problem is that in that same 3 hour period they've played a single game and that's it. I agree that player interviews, stat analysis and other supplemental activities can help enhance the experience for the viewer, but when the thing you're using to draw people in is 3 hours long without any of that other stuff you have problems.
I think that's just going to attract different audiences rather than prevent an audience at all. One baseball or one football game is quite long too, but you still get tons of viewers for that single game.
I'm British so I couldn't possibly explain what people find so attractive about watching baseball either
Assuming by football you mean American Football (though this applies to soccer and other sports too), I think the difference is the possibility of something exciting happening is still there. You could be watching a dull, defensive game with no scoring but there's always the chance of an exciting scoring play from nothing, or the commentators can analyse why the defence of each team is on top, or analyse what the teams need to do to break the status quo. Some of these things are possible in 40k too, but I don't think the commentators are quite at that level yet and I think the game lacks the depth needed to allow for interesting analysis at that level in-game. I'm also not sure what the 40k equivalent of a 90-yard touchdown pass is, or a well-worked team goal in soccer, or a home run. Does it have that exciting moment that will get people out of their seats (figuratively speaking)? So much of high level tournament play is about stacking the odds in your favour with re-rolls and other buffs I'm not sure there's actually much scope for these sort of moments to occur. You also don't have that team association that keeps so many sports teams in business and keeps viewing figures high even through terrible game.
To highlight the problems of streamed tournament 40k, I remember watching a game at the most recent LVO. It had Grey Knights, run by a player who was apparently pretty good with them. I was intrigued so thought I'd check out the stream to see how he was ablet o be successful with them. I joined midway through turn 1. I had no idea what was happening. Nor did the commentators. I couldn't even figure out which side was which initially. Much of the commentary was along the lines of "is that a Strike Squad?", "where's Draigo?" etc. The "action" consisted of a whole bunch of watching the top of someone's head as they leaned over the table and carefully measured everything, then rolling a bucket of dice into a dice tray while the commentators attempted to figure out what was shooting at what. The psychic phase was a rapid-fire series of dice rolls, none of which were explained. The damage on various models wasn't tracked and the whole thing was basically a confusing mess. I don't blame the commentators for this. I think they actually did a pretty good job of keeping a conversation going and trying to keep up with the action, but it proved impossible. Some of these problems could be solved with improved production values and better preparation but some are intrinsic to the game. I managed to stick with the stream for about 15 minutes, then another 10 or so with it on in the background, but I eventually had to switch it off as it seemed rather pointless to try to continue.
Oh absolutely, they'll need to work on production quite a bit. NOVA, for instance, had way too much downtime for its casters to fill. As for exciting moments, everybody is different. Only way to really find out is to throw it out there and see if it sticks.
Voss wrote: See, here's the thing. Lots of people have previously and currently do play 40k competitively, AND have fun with it. Lecturing them on how they're doing it wrong and having wrongbadfun helps no one, and makes the people doing the lecturing seem like jerks.
'Why the hate?' circles back around quickly as to why actual people in this thread are insisting other people not have fun.
That is true to an extent. Though there are two differences
A) Language. While there are man opinions here from the „casual side“ criticizing the „competitive side“, the language is far, far more reasonable than those by the „competitive side“, which featured genocidal fantasies, curse words of the most horrid variant and more, which had to be removed for that very reason. A „both sides are the same argument“ is a false equivalence for that reason alone.
B) The „competitive side“ wants to change the game (ultimately at the expense of the casual side, many of whichlove the game as it is, which is why they play it to begin with). If the „competitive side“ can simply enjoy the game, as, you said, without constantly demanding it be changed into something it wasn’t meant to be, there‘d be no need for people who just like the game the way it is and play 40K precisely for the qualities that differentiate it from more competitive miniatures games like Warmachine, X-Wing, Infinity, Underworlds, whatever, to just repeat the fact that they chose 40K over other games precisely because it is the best game on the market for their preferences.
B is not a point against competitive players enjoying the game if they want to. It‘s a point against competitive players claiming the game is bad. It is not. It‘s just (unlike plenty alternatives on the market) not made with competitive gaming in mind.
I'm not making a 'both sides' argument. I don't care what theoretical people posted on Facebook. Some of the posters -here- in -this thread- are actively insulting for no reason. And even most of those who aren't, are taking the stance that playing competitively is 'doing it wrong.' This quickly turned into 12 pages of diatribe against other people who don't play like they do. Especially since this a thread in the tournament section on the basis that a few Facebook posts means competitive players in general are hateful.
The people making the claim that the game is bad here clearly aren't the competitive ones- it's the ones claiming that it can't or isn't meant to be played competitively, despite people happily doing that for years.
As for what the game is 'meant to be,' that's honestly nothing to me. It's been a point based game where one wins and one loses for over three decades now.
Becoming an esport would be the death of the game. Reaching a large enough audience is opening it up for people to get offended by everything like with the cawdor hood.
Irkjoe wrote: Becoming an esport would be the death of the game. Reaching a large enough audience is opening it up for people to get offended by everything like with the cawdor hood.
yes, a minor alteration to a single model certainly ruined everything. Having more people to game with certainly would be awful.
No, wait- that chain of logic isn't right. No, the model change made no difference whatsoever, and having more people in the game would be good.
I could see reasons to reject 'esports 40k,' but 'it might grow the fanbase/customerbase' is a terrible one.
Irkjoe wrote: Becoming an esport would be the death of the game. Reaching a large enough audience is opening it up for people to get offended by everything like with the cawdor hood.
Exactly, people who think the Imperium is good guys didn't spend so much time making 40k theirs only to throw it away by inviting normies who might consider genocide a bad thing.
Irkjoe wrote: Becoming an esport would be the death of the game. Reaching a large enough audience is opening it up for people to get offended by everything like with the cawdor hood.
yes, a minor alteration to a single model certainly ruined everything. Having more people to game with certainly would be awful.
No, wait- that chain of logic isn't right. No, the model change made no difference whatsoever, and having more people in the game would be good.
I could see reasons to reject 'esports 40k,' but 'it might grow the fanbase/customerbase' is a terrible one.
The people complaining aren't necessarily players and it was only a hood this time. There's no reason to assume it stops with minor alterations. Nobody is going to be happy when PETA resurfaces with petitions and letters to GW demanding the space wolves wear synthetic pelts...
The people making the claim that the game is bad here clearly aren't the competitive ones- it's the ones claiming that it can't or isn't meant to be played competitively, despite people happily doing that for years.
Again, if people play it competitively happily .. more power to them.
It just seems most of the competitive types are not happy with the game as it is. It´s when people start a) demanding change to the detriment of other people enjoying the game as it is and b) blaming other people enjoying the game as it is for things in the game they don´t like, that it get´s complicated.
Peregrine wrote: All of the changes competitive players want are also good for everyone else.
No, they are not. Just as changes casual people might want don´t necessarily benefit everyone.
If we´re to mutually respect people enjoying the game without prejudice, lets first settle on changing nothing for a start. After that, there might be a way forward to find a process for agreeing to a consensus of changes among all the people that play this game.
Sunny Side Up wrote: No, they are not. Just as changes casual people might want don´t necessarily benefit everyone.
Improving balance benefits everyone. Clear and functional rules benefit everyone. The only people who don't benefit from competitive play improvements are a tiny but loud minority of CAAC players who use poor rules as a means of virtue signalling, since if you embrace bad game design and poor balance it shows off how far you are from competitive play.
Sunny Side Up wrote: No, they are not. Just as changes casual people might want don´t necessarily benefit everyone.
Improving balance benefits everyone. Clear and functional rules benefit everyone. The only people who don't benefit from competitive play improvements are a tiny but loud minority of CAAC players who use poor rules as a means of virtue signalling, since if you embrace bad game design and poor balance it shows off how far you are from competitive play.
I've had CAAC players get mad at me for using RAW rules before... like pre-April FAQ, when I would roll for CP spent during deployment on outflanking when my Warlord with CP farming was on the table. They'd come over from other tables, completely un-asked, and tell me how wrong I was.
Or when I point out how to 'wrap and trap' units... like you only move 1 model into combat to avoid killing much of the enemy, then wrap around it and trap them so you can't be shot. I've had several unpleasant discussions where people are angry at me for "bending the rules" when it's clear I should be trying to kill as many models as possible, because this is obviously not what the rules intended to be used for.
The people making the claim that the game is bad here clearly aren't the competitive ones- it's the ones claiming that it can't or isn't meant to be played competitively, despite people happily doing that for years.
Again, if people play it competitively happily .. more power to them.
I'm not saying 'if,' I'm stating a fact. People do in fact play happily...
It just seems most of the competitive types are not happy with the game as it is. It´s when people start a) demanding change to the detriment of other people enjoying the game as it is and b) blaming other people enjoying the game as it is for things in the game they don´t like, that it get´s complicated.
I'm seeing a lot of A& B in this thread, from people making an effort to claim the non-competitive tag. As for the former... I guess this is the disconnect. Your feeling on how 'it just seems' doesn't connect to my experience playing in any period or with other people who play. I'm not sure how 'competitive types' (or anyone else) benefit from your assumptions about what would make them happy (and it would be really difficult to, because despite the grouping people as a unified 'type,' that isn't really how people work). Best to let them sort out their own happiness, and focus on your own if there isn't much overlap.
What you are describing is a gamist gamer using a gamey gamey game mechanic vs a simulationist gamer whose head explodes because that would never happen on a real battlefield butting heads. I don't think casual has anything to do with that scenario.
With the millennial snowflakes being what they are... I hope W40K and AoS never reach high levels of popularity. To be in the spotlight at that level would absolutely destroy the game and likely GW.
oni wrote: With the millennial snowflakes being what they are... I hope W40K and AoS never reach high levels of popularity. To be in the spotlight at that level would absolutely destroy the game and likely GW.
You have absolutely nothing to worry about. Esports barely functions for the MOST popular games (which are all shooters or RTS/MOBA games) and Fortnite last quarter clocked in at 300 million hours of viewing on Twitch. People who watch warhammer games on Twitch is atleast 300 times less than that, and I'd wager more so. If games with 300 MILLION hours cant have stable esports leagues then we dont even have to fathom 40k with its extremely tiny fan base (compared to actual video games)
Sunny Side Up wrote: No, they are not. Just as changes casual people might want don´t necessarily benefit everyone.
Improving balance benefits everyone. Clear and functional rules benefit everyone. The only people who don't benefit from competitive play improvements are a tiny but loud minority of CAAC players who use poor rules as a means of virtue signalling, since if you embrace bad game design and poor balance it shows off how far you are from competitive play.
I've had CAAC players get mad at me for using RAW rules before... like pre-April FAQ, when I would roll for CP spent during deployment on outflanking when my Warlord with CP farming was on the table. They'd come over from other tables, completely un-asked, and tell me how wrong I was.
Or when I point out how to 'wrap and trap' units... like you only move 1 model into combat to avoid killing much of the enemy, then wrap around it and trap them so you can't be shot. I've had several unpleasant discussions where people are angry at me for "bending the rules" when it's clear I should be trying to kill as many models as possible, because this is obviously not what the rules intended to be used for.
Casuals can be quite unpleasant to deal with :(
But that's all perspective. What you consider a high skill level move, others are considering gamesmanship and opposed to intent.
For example, assaulting with a flying unit off a higher level for a 0" charge was considered high level play by "competitive" types, but GW clearly didn't intend for that interaction, and their solution actually made the game worse for several months. Another example was folks assaulting with a transport in order to lose the vehicle in order to game the unit inside into an earlier assault then the rules normally allow. GW had to slap that down as well, because it wasn't intended, and mind you it was pretty clearly not intended.
So those "casuals" are more often proven right by these past rulings then not, which means they are going to feel more validated in their opinions in these scenarios. Wrap in trap is fairly obviously something not intended, there is a reason you are required to fight in combat. In other editions you had to base models if you could moving toward the closest enemy, and had to pile in as well as fight. This edition left that out for the sake of making multi assaulting easier, throwing combat armies a bone in a shooting edition, but how long until that bone gets removed because of "high level" play?
As an aside, how pathetic is game balance when your game provides two ways of killing the enemy, close Quarter and shooting, and one of those provokes you into skirting the rules as written to the point where you are AVOIDING killing the enemy when you finally make it into assault lol.
"Now fellas, remember, once we clear the gap and actually make it in with the enemy none of you are allowed to hit them. Instead grab them desperately so their friends don't shoot us to death. After a minute or so we will actually fight them." I don't really mind the tactic personally, I am usually happy to see assaulter in 8th, but I absolutely can see how someone would think this was destructive to their immersion and not like it.
Not Online!!! wrote: Well PETA allready is annoyed and i feel like slaanesh or SoB would be prime targets for such groupes.
Which is why dnd died and rpgs have all been outlawed. Wait
Automatically Appended Next Post:
oni wrote: With the millennial snowflakes being what they are... I hope W40K and AoS never reach high levels of popularity. To be in the spotlight at that level would absolutely destroy the game and likely GW.
Do you think the imperium are the unironic good guys and should be inspirations for real politics?
oni wrote: With the millennial snowflakes being what they are... I hope W40K and AoS never reach high levels of popularity. To be in the spotlight at that level would absolutely destroy the game and likely GW.
You have absolutely nothing to worry about. Esports barely functions for the MOST popular games (which are all shooters or RTS/MOBA games) and Fortnite last quarter clocked in at 300 million hours of viewing on Twitch. People who watch warhammer games on Twitch is atleast 300 times less than that, and I'd wager more so. If games with 300 MILLION hours cant have stable esports leagues then we dont even have to fathom 40k with its extremely tiny fan base (compared to actual video games)
I agree, it will never be an Esport because advertisers care about view time. There is a reason successful YouTubers keep their videos under 10 minutes, anything longer and folks lose interest and leave, and an advertiser doesn't want that. 40k content creators rely on patreon generally, which is basically donations like public access. In a 3+ hour game how on earth do you get multiple advertisers on board, they would never be guaranteed to be seen over another advert before the viewer leaves, so your looking at a single sponsor per game, yikes. Then there's the Elephant in the room of GW supporting it and being OK with outside advertising. They already want tables to be 100% GW product now. I couldn't imagine them being OK with an event stream with Kromlech adds for example. Hell, you couldn't even get army painter or exacto. Why would GW pay some stream when they already have streaming capability and full control over pushing their own product? If they did they would impose on it.
Watching 40k on stream is excruciatingly boring and that isn't even the biggest hurdle.
Not Online!!! wrote: Well PETA allready is annoyed and i feel like slaanesh or SoB would be prime targets for such groupes.
Which is why dnd died and rpgs have all been outlawed. Wait
Automatically Appended Next Post:
oni wrote: With the millennial snowflakes being what they are... I hope W40K and AoS never reach high levels of popularity. To be in the spotlight at that level would absolutely destroy the game and likely GW.
Do you think the imperium are the unironic good guys and should be inspirations for real politics?
I think your missing their points pretty badly.
The game has no good guy. The closest you get to good guys are the Tyranids mostly because they are amoral. I think the fear is that real world politics start influencing the game and setting not the other way around.
Nurglitch wrote: I'm not sure if we know the rules are 'wobblier' and they seem to be modeled after Epic Armageddon rules which are fantastic.
and dont forgot the fun of swingy 'make loads more dakka cos reasons' fun of the command cards
which doesnt matter at all for an all-day all the mini's what you done own throw down with likeminded sorts but as something anybody would want to watch, naahhh
*also if anyone can explain the point of the Eldar scatter laser over any other weapon in Apoc that would help (shock horror GW naysayer reads GW rules )
If you say so.
The Eldar scatter laser is balanced against the Shuriken Cannon and Twin Shuriken Catapult on the Windriders, but poorly balanced against the rest of the Eldar weapon list on units that have access to that (because of the EML, which is just a purely better version of it).
Looking at Windriders I can see the pros and cons of all three weapons, but yeah, it definitely seems silly when you look at the instances where it exists alongside the EML.
Irkjoe wrote: Becoming an esport would be the death of the game. Reaching a large enough audience is opening it up for people to get offended by everything like with the cawdor hood.
yes, a minor alteration to a single model certainly ruined everything. Having more people to game with certainly would be awful.
No, wait- that chain of logic isn't right. No, the model change made no difference whatsoever, and having more people in the game would be good.
I could see reasons to reject 'esports 40k,' but 'it might grow the fanbase/customerbase' is a terrible one.
The people complaining aren't necessarily players and it was only a hood this time. There's no reason to assume it stops with minor alterations. Nobody is going to be happy when PETA resurfaces with petitions and letters to GW demanding the space wolves wear synthetic pelts...
I hate to point this out, but Space Wolves' pelts are in fact made of plastic. They're fully synthetic.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Whst I'd do if I were a snowflake millenial sjw trying to change the setting of 40k is start some new fiction to advance the story.
I'd start by ret conning the imperiums past, "clone wars" style so rather than everyone believing they're playing villains, they can all see their factions as misunderstood heroes or at least caught in bad circumstances outside their control to soften their evil acts.
Then, I'd make sure to tie that new past into every development in the presenr, putting in tons of references to that past setting to change the hazy mist of a backstory it used to be into something that feels like last Tuesday.
I'd also make people more attached to the sleeker, more technologically advanced imperium, knowing my diehard fans most likely identify with super smart atheists than ignorant religious zealots. I'd steadily increase the number of fancy advanced units in the imperial factions and phase out the old fashioned stuff. Get it all to start looking more like the idealized fancy past I'd put into place.
Then it'd be real easy for people to accept fundamental changes to the setting. Heck, the fans who'd ordinarily be mad would probably endlessly speculate which of my new characters would appear to change the setting next!
oni wrote: With the millennial snowflakes being what they are... I hope W40K and AoS never reach high levels of popularity. To be in the spotlight at that level would absolutely destroy the game and likely GW.
Your profile says you're 36. I've got some bad news bud, you're a millennial too.
Improving balance benefits everyone. Clear and functional rules benefit everyone. The only people who don't benefit from competitive play improvements are a tiny but loud minority of CAAC players who use poor rules as a means of virtue signalling, since if you embrace bad game design and poor balance it shows off how far you are from competitive play.
Well, assuming you are right. What´s the problem?
If competitive balance is truly the great universal truth that will usher in the ultimate gaming-utopia for everyone, I am sure people will soon see it as the self-evident truth you claim it is, especially if non-competitive´s don´t feel pushed or patronised, but instead are given the time to come see this great and universal insight that you as the chosen one have discovered so far ahead of all those casual plebs out there.
oni wrote: With the millennial snowflakes being what they are... I hope W40K and AoS never reach high levels of popularity. To be in the spotlight at that level would absolutely destroy the game and likely GW.
You have absolutely nothing to worry about. Esports barely functions for the MOST popular games (which are all shooters or RTS/MOBA games) and Fortnite last quarter clocked in at 300 million hours of viewing on Twitch. People who watch warhammer games on Twitch is atleast 300 times less than that, and I'd wager more so. If games with 300 MILLION hours cant have stable esports leagues then we dont even have to fathom 40k with its extremely tiny fan base (compared to actual video games)
I agree, it will never be an Esport because advertisers care about view time. There is a reason successful YouTubers keep their videos under 10 minutes, anything longer and folks lose interest and leave, and an advertiser doesn't want that. 40k content creators rely on patreon generally, which is basically donations like public access. In a 3+ hour game how on earth do you get multiple advertisers on board, they would never be guaranteed to be seen over another advert before the viewer leaves, so your looking at a single sponsor per game, yikes. Then there's the Elephant in the room of GW supporting it and being OK with outside advertising. They already want tables to be 100% GW product now. I couldn't imagine them being OK with an event stream with Kromlech adds for example. Hell, you couldn't even get army painter or exacto. Why would GW pay some stream when they already have streaming capability and full control over pushing their own product? If they did they would impose on it.
Watching 40k on stream is excruciatingly boring and that isn't even the biggest hurdle.
GW and other table top games want shows that *are* advertisements with charismatic actors, high production and a well entrenched viewer base. There is a reason why Geek & Sundry do board game Lets Play (They’re paid by the creators of the board game). I could totally see GW reach a deal with Geek & Sundry to have pretty actresses play 40k in 1 hour formats with all well painted GW studio models. Or they simply contract out the actual hosts of G&S (Like Becca Scott) to do the same thing on their own media channels (which they already do).
That, IMO, is the only option where 40k is actually watched in any meaningful manner. As you said, 40k is super boring to watch and even more so when its a streamer using bad lighting/sound/video and having no crew to provide commentary. Personality matters and most gamers aren’t exactly what I’d call photogenic for videos :p
I personally enjoy watching Tabletop Tactics games, but those aren't live streamed either, they're edited down to 2-3 hours, and are a lot of fun. I've seen live streamed 40k games, and it's just impossible to tell what's going on in them. The only way to watch a 40k battle report is if it's filmed with commentary from the players, and that's just not gonna happen in a competitive setting.
So yea, 40k will never be anything resembling a "sport", tournaments are just a hobby, and while you can absolutely make a living off of producing youtube content about your hobby, you cannot make a living just by participating.
I honestly find super easy fallback and random charge rolls more "gamey" that tri-pointing or assaulting from a higher ledge with jump units, since at least the latter other two make positioning important.
oni wrote: With the millennial snowflakes being what they are... I hope W40K and AoS never reach high levels of popularity. To be in the spotlight at that level would absolutely destroy the game and likely GW.
You have absolutely nothing to worry about. Esports barely functions for the MOST popular games (which are all shooters or RTS/MOBA games) and Fortnite last quarter clocked in at 300 million hours of viewing on Twitch. People who watch warhammer games on Twitch is atleast 300 times less than that, and I'd wager more so. If games with 300 MILLION hours cant have stable esports leagues then we dont even have to fathom 40k with its extremely tiny fan base (compared to actual video games)
I agree, it will never be an Esport because advertisers care about view time. There is a reason successful YouTubers keep their videos under 10 minutes, anything longer and folks lose interest and leave, and an advertiser doesn't want that. 40k content creators rely on patreon generally, which is basically donations like public access. In a 3+ hour game how on earth do you get multiple advertisers on board, they would never be guaranteed to be seen over another advert before the viewer leaves, so your looking at a single sponsor per game, yikes. Then there's the Elephant in the room of GW supporting it and being OK with outside advertising. They already want tables to be 100% GW product now. I couldn't imagine them being OK with an event stream with Kromlech adds for example. Hell, you couldn't even get army painter or exacto. Why would GW pay some stream when they already have streaming capability and full control over pushing their own product? If they did they would impose on it.
Watching 40k on stream is excruciatingly boring and that isn't even the biggest hurdle.
Not Online!!! wrote: Well PETA allready is annoyed and i feel like slaanesh or SoB would be prime targets for such groupes.
Which is why dnd died and rpgs have all been outlawed. Wait
Automatically Appended Next Post:
oni wrote: With the millennial snowflakes being what they are... I hope W40K and AoS never reach high levels of popularity. To be in the spotlight at that level would absolutely destroy the game and likely GW.
Do you think the imperium are the unironic good guys and should be inspirations for real politics?
I think your missing their points pretty badly.
The game has no good guy. The closest you get to good guys are the Tyranids mostly because they are amoral. I think the fear is that real world politics start influencing the game and setting not the other way around.
Real world politics has always influenced the game though. Like, what do you think rogue trader 1st ed was a satire of?
There's a reason GW novels have to stress "No guys, really, the imperium is a giant mess and could do everything better with less mass murder."
There's a problem with some people though because for them, satire is dead. The imperium is to be taken as is the best you can do and all their baddies have wonderful real world standins you can hate.
oni wrote: With the millennial snowflakes being what they are... I hope W40K and AoS never reach high levels of popularity. To be in the spotlight at that level would absolutely destroy the game and likely GW.
You have absolutely nothing to worry about. Esports barely functions for the MOST popular games (which are all shooters or RTS/MOBA games) and Fortnite last quarter clocked in at 300 million hours of viewing on Twitch. People who watch warhammer games on Twitch is atleast 300 times less than that, and I'd wager more so. If games with 300 MILLION hours cant have stable esports leagues then we dont even have to fathom 40k with its extremely tiny fan base (compared to actual video games)
I agree, it will never be an Esport because advertisers care about view time. There is a reason successful YouTubers keep their videos under 10 minutes, anything longer and folks lose interest and leave, and an advertiser doesn't want that. 40k content creators rely on patreon generally, which is basically donations like public access. In a 3+ hour game how on earth do you get multiple advertisers on board, they would never be guaranteed to be seen over another advert before the viewer leaves, so your looking at a single sponsor per game, yikes. Then there's the Elephant in the room of GW supporting it and being OK with outside advertising. They already want tables to be 100% GW product now. I couldn't imagine them being OK with an event stream with Kromlech adds for example. Hell, you couldn't even get army painter or exacto. Why would GW pay some stream when they already have streaming capability and full control over pushing their own product? If they did they would impose on it.
Watching 40k on stream is excruciatingly boring and that isn't even the biggest hurdle.
Not Online!!! wrote: Well PETA allready is annoyed and i feel like slaanesh or SoB would be prime targets for such groupes.
Which is why dnd died and rpgs have all been outlawed. Wait
Automatically Appended Next Post:
oni wrote: With the millennial snowflakes being what they are... I hope W40K and AoS never reach high levels of popularity. To be in the spotlight at that level would absolutely destroy the game and likely GW.
Do you think the imperium are the unironic good guys and should be inspirations for real politics?
I think your missing their points pretty badly.
The game has no good guy. The closest you get to good guys are the Tyranids mostly because they are amoral. I think the fear is that real world politics start influencing the game and setting not the other way around.
Real world politics has always influenced the game though. Like, what do you think rogue trader 1st ed was a satire of?
There's a reason GW novels have to stress "No guys, really, the imperium is a giant mess and could do everything better with less mass murder."
There's a problem with some people though because for them, satire is dead. The imperium is to be taken as is the best you can do and all their baddies have wonderful real world standins you can hate.
I think you're misunderstanding, I don't care about that. The point was that 40k becomes an esport, whole bunch of crazies are suddenly exposed to it, and they find stuff to freak out about. The advertisers paying for it suddenly become a target and in turn pressure gw to remove stuff like the cawdor hood. The next day you have ten spikeybits articles about gw being racist or whatever they come up with...
Obviously I'm being hyperbolic but the point still stands.
Some of the Privateer Produced live battle reports are, I think, a good indication of what you have to be willing to do as a game commentator. :-/
And every time I hear about people complaining about game balance, I remember what I first heard about historical gaming tournaments. If the sides aren't (or can't, reasonably be) balanced, every game gets played twice with each player having a go with each side.
Naturally, the problem with that when you're dealing with player created lists is:
1. So now you're going to a tournament and handing over your models to someone else.
2. So now you're being handed some bizarre list at a tournament, some bizarre collection of models, and now you've got to play that.
I mean, it's bad enough now when you've got to deal with the other player explaining the completely obvious (to them) but completely invisible (to you) squad markingings or "The las cannon in this squad is a plasma cannon because plasma cannons are ugly" models. You can just shrug your shoulders and expect the other player to keep their models straight now. But when they're handing you their army...
You end up with a tournament that either has to be twice as long (chronologically) or contain half as many rounds. But if you want to argue about demonstrating who the better player is, how else do you achieve "all other factors being equal" without telling the players what models they're going to using.
You have set army lists for each race. That is exactly how the historical tournaments I went to in the late 80s and early 90s ran as well as Battletech.
oni wrote: With the millennial snowflakes being what they are... I hope W40K and AoS never reach high levels of popularity. To be in the spotlight at that level would absolutely destroy the game and likely GW.
You have absolutely nothing to worry about. Esports barely functions for the MOST popular games (which are all shooters or RTS/MOBA games) and Fortnite last quarter clocked in at 300 million hours of viewing on Twitch. People who watch warhammer games on Twitch is atleast 300 times less than that, and I'd wager more so. If games with 300 MILLION hours cant have stable esports leagues then we dont even have to fathom 40k with its extremely tiny fan base (compared to actual video games)
I agree, it will never be an Esport because advertisers care about view time. There is a reason successful YouTubers keep their videos under 10 minutes, anything longer and folks lose interest and leave, and an advertiser doesn't want that. 40k content creators rely on patreon generally, which is basically donations like public access. In a 3+ hour game how on earth do you get multiple advertisers on board, they would never be guaranteed to be seen over another advert before the viewer leaves, so your looking at a single sponsor per game, yikes. Then there's the Elephant in the room of GW supporting it and being OK with outside advertising. They already want tables to be 100% GW product now. I couldn't imagine them being OK with an event stream with Kromlech adds for example. Hell, you couldn't even get army painter or exacto. Why would GW pay some stream when they already have streaming capability and full control over pushing their own product? If they did they would impose on it.
Watching 40k on stream is excruciatingly boring and that isn't even the biggest hurdle.
Not Online!!! wrote: Well PETA allready is annoyed and i feel like slaanesh or SoB would be prime targets for such groupes.
Which is why dnd died and rpgs have all been outlawed. Wait
Automatically Appended Next Post:
oni wrote: With the millennial snowflakes being what they are... I hope W40K and AoS never reach high levels of popularity. To be in the spotlight at that level would absolutely destroy the game and likely GW.
Do you think the imperium are the unironic good guys and should be inspirations for real politics?
I think your missing their points pretty badly.
The game has no good guy. The closest you get to good guys are the Tyranids mostly because they are amoral. I think the fear is that real world politics start influencing the game and setting not the other way around.
Real world politics has always influenced the game though. Like, what do you think rogue trader 1st ed was a satire of?
There's a reason GW novels have to stress "No guys, really, the imperium is a giant mess and could do everything better with less mass murder."
There's a problem with some people though because for them, satire is dead. The imperium is to be taken as is the best you can do and all their baddies have wonderful real world standins you can hate.
I think you're misunderstanding, I don't care about that. The point was that 40k becomes an esport, whole bunch of crazies are suddenly exposed to it, and they find stuff to freak out about. The advertisers paying for it suddenly become a target and in turn pressure gw to remove stuff like the cawdor hood. The next day you have ten spikeybits articles about gw being racist or whatever they come up with...
Obviously I'm being hyperbolic but the point still stands.
No one cares about the crazies. GW isn't the bastion of... I dunno, the own the libs right? The nazis? That some people claim it as. They already have an eye to not looking like, well, fascist enablers. No one is going to force them to do anything. No one in GW wants to do the things some people imagine they do, and they very much don't. No one is actually talking about the cawdor hood except people who want to play up some people mentioning it in the past. The imagined SJW conspiracy crouching there ready to pounce on ALL YOUR MEDIA! ANY SECOND NOW! And, like, we all know how much certain right wing groups love their shadowy conspiracies.
auticus wrote: You have set army lists for each race. That is exactly how the historical tournaments I went to in the late 80s and early 90s ran as well as Battletech.
If someone wanted to write an essay “What’s the difference between how people play Battletech and how people play 40k...”.
The only thing more disasterous than trying to suggest army lists for each 40k faction, would be watching someone attempt to defend their choices and then wonder why no one came to play.
“We chose Chapter X out of the Space Marine book, Legion Y out of the Chaos Space Marine book, God Z out of Chaos Demons.”
Or, for that matter, the difference in cost between “Buy this arbitrary lance of mechs” vs. “Buy this arbitrary 40k army”.
oni wrote: With the millennial snowflakes being what they are... I hope W40K and AoS never reach high levels of popularity. To be in the spotlight at that level would absolutely destroy the game and likely GW.
You have absolutely nothing to worry about. Esports barely functions for the MOST popular games (which are all shooters or RTS/MOBA games) and Fortnite last quarter clocked in at 300 million hours of viewing on Twitch. People who watch warhammer games on Twitch is atleast 300 times less than that, and I'd wager more so. If games with 300 MILLION hours cant have stable esports leagues then we dont even have to fathom 40k with its extremely tiny fan base (compared to actual video games)
I agree, it will never be an Esport because advertisers care about view time. There is a reason successful YouTubers keep their videos under 10 minutes, anything longer and folks lose interest and leave, and an advertiser doesn't want that. 40k content creators rely on patreon generally, which is basically donations like public access. In a 3+ hour game how on earth do you get multiple advertisers on board, they would never be guaranteed to be seen over another advert before the viewer leaves, so your looking at a single sponsor per game, yikes. Then there's the Elephant in the room of GW supporting it and being OK with outside advertising. They already want tables to be 100% GW product now. I couldn't imagine them being OK with an event stream with Kromlech adds for example. Hell, you couldn't even get army painter or exacto. Why would GW pay some stream when they already have streaming capability and full control over pushing their own product? If they did they would impose on it.
Watching 40k on stream is excruciatingly boring and that isn't even the biggest hurdle.
Not Online!!! wrote: Well PETA allready is annoyed and i feel like slaanesh or SoB would be prime targets for such groupes.
Which is why dnd died and rpgs have all been outlawed. Wait
Automatically Appended Next Post:
oni wrote: With the millennial snowflakes being what they are... I hope W40K and AoS never reach high levels of popularity. To be in the spotlight at that level would absolutely destroy the game and likely GW.
Do you think the imperium are the unironic good guys and should be inspirations for real politics?
I think your missing their points pretty badly.
The game has no good guy. The closest you get to good guys are the Tyranids mostly because they are amoral. I think the fear is that real world politics start influencing the game and setting not the other way around.
Real world politics has always influenced the game though. Like, what do you think rogue trader 1st ed was a satire of?
There's a reason GW novels have to stress "No guys, really, the imperium is a giant mess and could do everything better with less mass murder."
There's a problem with some people though because for them, satire is dead. The imperium is to be taken as is the best you can do and all their baddies have wonderful real world standins you can hate.
I think you're misunderstanding, I don't care about that. The point was that 40k becomes an esport, whole bunch of crazies are suddenly exposed to it, and they find stuff to freak out about. The advertisers paying for it suddenly become a target and in turn pressure gw to remove stuff like the cawdor hood. The next day you have ten spikeybits articles about gw being racist or whatever they come up with...
Obviously I'm being hyperbolic but the point still stands.
No one cares about the crazies. GW isn't the bastion of... I dunno, the own the libs right? The nazis? That some people claim it as. They already have an eye to not looking like, well, fascist enablers. No one is going to force them to do anything. No one in GW wants to do the things some people imagine they do, and they very much don't. No one is actually talking about the cawdor hood except people who want to play up some people mentioning it in the past. The imagined SJW conspiracy crouching there ready to pounce on ALL YOUR MEDIA! ANY SECOND NOW! And, like, we all know how much certain right wing groups love their shadowy conspiracies.
That is going way beyond anything I said. A fictitious 40k esport is an entirely different beast with new incentives and exposed to more risks without all the malarkey you listed. A bunch of moms losing it over slaanesh bits appearing on the stream their kids are watching isn't political. The pointy hood just happens to be the first example of something like this.
auticus wrote: You have set army lists for each race. That is exactly how the historical tournaments I went to in the late 80s and early 90s ran as well as Battletech.
If someone wanted to write an essay “What’s the difference between how people play Battletech and how people play 40k...”.
The only thing more disasterous than trying to suggest army lists for each 40k faction, would be watching someone attempt to defend their choices and then wonder why no one came to play.
“We chose Chapter X out of the Space Marine book, Legion Y out of the Chaos Space Marine book, God Z out of Chaos Demons.”
Or, for that matter, the difference in cost between “Buy this arbitrary lance of mechs” vs. “Buy this arbitrary 40k army”.
An idea I've played around with and have, entirely without success, attempted to try out in my own !casual! gaming group was to randomly 'break' everyone's list before the game begins. Everybody builds their list, but the mission being played would during deployment force both players to leave behind all of their, say, Fast Attack choices. Or a single Heavy Support choice. Not knowing what part of your list is going to get shafted, you'd be forced to build a far more balanced list that relies less on comboing.
But I'm also a big fan of asymmetric armies and love the idea of chucking points out of the window entirely, so nobody takes my game ideas seriously unless I'm DMing custom missions
auticus wrote: You have set army lists for each race. That is exactly how the historical tournaments I went to in the late 80s and early 90s ran as well as Battletech.
If someone wanted to write an essay “What’s the difference between how people play Battletech and how people play 40k...”.
The only thing more disasterous than trying to suggest army lists for each 40k faction, would be watching someone attempt to defend their choices and then wonder why no one came to play.
“We chose Chapter X out of the Space Marine book, Legion Y out of the Chaos Space Marine book, God Z out of Chaos Demons.”
Or, for that matter, the difference in cost between “Buy this arbitrary lance of mechs” vs. “Buy this arbitrary 40k army”.
Or, encourage people to not 'buy this XYZ to win'.
This attitude I saw with CCG players in the early 90s while working at a comics/game shop.
That is NOT how and why people bought armies in 40k or Warhammer.
Then, it was fantasy sci fi RPG nerds who liked hobby and chess, with beer bongs and sure, pretzels.
It was simulation, very first personal.
Now, everything is 'meta' this or 'that 'meta that... e.g. the knight meta.
This is the difference here.
oni wrote: With the millennial snowflakes being what they are... I hope W40K and AoS never reach high levels of popularity. To be in the spotlight at that level would absolutely destroy the game and likely GW.
Yes, millennials, obviously, but these are cognitive styles due affordance environments during development,
and not every millennial grew up in the same affordance environment.
So, sure, this cognitive style is dominant now, due CCG and vid game magic combo malarkey,
and this explains why realism and all the RPG elements have gone out the window for plastic crack.
You wanna win against v3.0 mahweens?
Buy the Tau BOOSTER PACK(many)!
auticus wrote: You have set army lists for each race. That is exactly how the historical tournaments I went to in the late 80s and early 90s ran as well as Battletech.
If someone wanted to write an essay “What’s the difference between how people play Battletech and how people play 40k...”.
The only thing more disasterous than trying to suggest army lists for each 40k faction, would be watching someone attempt to defend their choices and then wonder why no one came to play.
“We chose Chapter X out of the Space Marine book, Legion Y out of the Chaos Space Marine book, God Z out of Chaos Demons.”
Or, for that matter, the difference in cost between “Buy this arbitrary lance of mechs” vs. “Buy this arbitrary 40k army”.
An idea I've played around with and have, entirely without success, attempted to try out in my own !casual! gaming group was to randomly 'break' everyone's list before the game begins. Everybody builds their list, but the mission being played would during deployment force both players to leave behind all of their, say, Fast Attack choices. Or a single Heavy Support choice. Not knowing what part of your list is going to get shafted, you'd be forced to build a far more balanced list that relies less on comboing. But I'm also a big fan of asymmetric armies and love the idea of chucking points out of the window entirely, so nobody takes my game ideas seriously unless I'm DMing custom missions
That is a great idea, and very much could be employed in tournaments blindly with mission pack distribution.
People would bitch nonstop if they had to leave certain things out. Let's not forget that ITC *removes* the idea of balanced lists, it doesn't encourage them. Do you know what does? Chapter Approved and Maelstrom missions since you can't guarantee what you get or what you might need.
And you know what else happens? Tournament players bitch and say how awful those are while kissing ITC's ass for "balanced" missions which remove pesky things like bringing a well-rounded army rather than a meta skew.
auticus wrote:The #1 reason I see for people leaving GW games, and often the hobby, is that they go in to the store, love models, buy those models, and find out that the game is about listbuilding and they chose wrong and get stomped.
This was what pushed me out of WHFB. I had miniatures that I liked, but because they weren't the power choices I had two choices; fork out for practically a whole new army or just play an older edition. For the most part I chose the later.
Wayniac wrote:Do you know what does? Chapter Approved and Maelstrom missions since you can't guarantee what you get or what you might need.
Mission variety is by far one of the easiest ways to mess with hyper-optimised lists.
Horst wrote: Lol.... your ideas for tournaments are pretty hilarious. Funny joke. If you don't like tournaments, just don't play in them. No need to ruin them.
Yet those ideas you say "ruin" them actually make you take well-rounded armies and show that you have better tactics, rather than just brought a better list.
I think it's pretty clear to see that tournament players WANT listbuilding to be the focus, as they are quick to shoot down anything which throws unknowns into the mix because god forbid it means they can't plan out everything beforehand.
People complaining about "millenials" playing 40K. Hahahah. Millenials started being born in the 80s, so most of us have been playing since 2nd edition 40K. But sure, our entitled nonsense has been ruining the game for 6 editions.
Da Boss wrote: People complaining about "millenials" playing 40K. Hahahah. Millenials started being born in the 80s, so most of us have been playing since 2nd edition 40K. But sure, our entitled nonsense has been ruining the game for 6 editions.
Hilarious nonsense.
Pointed that out a page ago. Millennials don't like being told they're Millennials, which right here is being pointed out by a 34yo (a Millennial).
EDIT, I see you're the same age as me. I meant myself in the above.
auticus wrote: You have set army lists for each race. That is exactly how the historical tournaments I went to in the late 80s and early 90s ran as well as Battletech.
If someone wanted to write an essay “What’s the difference between how people play Battletech and how people play 40k...”.
The only thing more disasterous than trying to suggest army lists for each 40k faction, would be watching someone attempt to defend their choices and then wonder why no one came to play.
“We chose Chapter X out of the Space Marine book, Legion Y out of the Chaos Space Marine book, God Z out of Chaos Demons.”
Or, for that matter, the difference in cost between “Buy this arbitrary lance of mechs” vs. “Buy this arbitrary 40k army”.
It worked fine for many years. For many game systems, not just battletech. I wouldn't try it today. Because no one would want to do it because then they couldn't build a list that bent the game.
But that is the only way to highlight table skill at a tournament over listbuilding and elementary school math skills at a tournament. That is by and far not what tournament players today want, so yes it would be a disaster for any company to try it.
And I'm speaking as a former tournament player that did very well in the tournament scene based solely off my listbuilding.
Da Boss wrote: People complaining about "millenials" playing 40K. Hahahah. Millenials started being born in the 80s, so most of us have been playing since 2nd edition 40K. But sure, our entitled nonsense has been ruining the game for 6 editions.
Hilarious nonsense.
Pointed that out a page ago. Millennials don't like being told they're Millennials, which right here is being pointed out by a 34yo (a Millennial).
EDIT, I see you're the same age as me. I meant myself in the above.
Most millenials don't care. Its the millenials who listen to, say, fox talking about how gakky millenials are and how millenials are the true cause of all the worlds ills, certainly none of the people currently in power, that hate being told they're millenials.
Horst wrote: Lol.... your ideas for tournaments are pretty hilarious. Funny joke. If you don't like tournaments, just don't play in them. No need to ruin them.
How else would you drive tournament player out of the hobby? They're the reason everything is horrible! I personally blame Jim Vesal for my army not being painted!
You just can't enjoy the hobby if someone else is doing it wrong.
Da Boss wrote: People complaining about "millenials" playing 40K. Hahahah. Millenials started being born in the 80s, so most of us have been playing since 2nd edition 40K. But sure, our entitled nonsense has been ruining the game for 6 editions.
Hilarious nonsense.
Really now.
So, there is no difference between the world in which you grew up
the way that you turned out
and the world in which I grew up
and the way that I turned out
solely due that we emerged into different spaces of value,
regardless of other differences?
And, were you the one to read those rules, those 2nd ed rules, when you were 5?
Or did big brother my generation help you get started?
Dude I read those rules when I was 12, I was born in 1984. That is the start of the millenial generation.
I got my big brother into the game, actually.
And of course there is a difference between generations, but I don't hold with all this "Get offa my lawn!" crap that people come out with.
Your post is just a bunch of inserting words into my mouth that I never said to create a strawman to argue against. I don't see the point, but if it makes you happy knock yourself out, just don't expect me to respect it.
bouncingboredom wrote: This was what pushed me out of WHFB. I had miniatures that I liked, but because they weren't the power choices I had two choices; fork out for practically a whole new army or just play an older edition. For the most part I chose the later.
But that's not the only two choices you had. But what you could've done is asked for a handicap of some sort - start off with an extra small unit, or a bonus victory point, some extra command points, or given the unit a tough-like attribute where if you roll a 6, it ignores that wound. Or heck, play a scenario that favors your terrible models. There were very easy and obvious ways for you to play an underpowered army. Anyone who looks at your troop choice and laughs will not have a problem giving you a small bonus to make the match more sporting.
I'm more of an open play type of guy (one the few, apparently), so there's no unit or model that I'm not okay with playing. I just have to figure out the right circumstances in which to play it. I guess you could say that I fit the game to the models, rather than fitting the models to the game.
Da Boss wrote: People complaining about "millenials" playing 40K. Hahahah. Millenials started being born in the 80s, so most of us have been playing since 2nd edition 40K. But sure, our entitled nonsense has been ruining the game for 6 editions.
Hilarious nonsense.
Really now.
So, there is no difference between the world in which you grew up
the way that you turned out
and the world in which I grew up
and the way that I turned out
solely due that we emerged into different spaces of value,
regardless of other differences?
And, were you the one to read those rules, those 2nd ed rules, when you were 5?
Or did big brother my generation help you get started?
auticus wrote: You have set army lists for each race. That is exactly how the historical tournaments I went to in the late 80s and early 90s ran as well as Battletech.
If someone wanted to write an essay “What’s the difference between how people play Battletech and how people play 40k...”.
The only thing more disasterous than trying to suggest army lists for each 40k faction, would be watching someone attempt to defend their choices and then wonder why no one came to play.
“We chose Chapter X out of the Space Marine book, Legion Y out of the Chaos Space Marine book, God Z out of Chaos Demons.”
Or, for that matter, the difference in cost between “Buy this arbitrary lance of mechs” vs. “Buy this arbitrary 40k army”.
It worked fine for many years. For many game systems, not just battletech. I wouldn't try it today. Because no one would want to do it because then they couldn't build a list that bent the game.
Thank you for disqualifying your own opinion by providing a suggestion and then saying that you wouldn't even try it.
Adding the "Because ..." statement just gets you added to the ignore list as non-helpful and apparently not actually wanting to let people enjoy playing the games.
auticus wrote: You have set army lists for each race. That is exactly how the historical tournaments I went to in the late 80s and early 90s ran as well as Battletech.
If someone wanted to write an essay “What’s the difference between how people play Battletech and how people play 40k...”.
The only thing more disasterous than trying to suggest army lists for each 40k faction, would be watching someone attempt to defend their choices and then wonder why no one came to play.
“We chose Chapter X out of the Space Marine book, Legion Y out of the Chaos Space Marine book, God Z out of Chaos Demons.”
Or, for that matter, the difference in cost between “Buy this arbitrary lance of mechs” vs. “Buy this arbitrary 40k army”.
It worked fine for many years. For many game systems, not just battletech. I wouldn't try it today. Because no one would want to do it because then they couldn't build a list that bent the game.
Thank you for disqualifying your own opinion by providing a suggestion and then saying that you wouldn't even try it.
Adding the "Because ..." statement just gets you added to the ignore list as non-helpful and apparently not actually wanting to let people enjoy playing the games.
Auticus is probably one of the most knowledgeable and intelligent posters here, and almost everything he says is absolutely true. People today would bitch and moan and throw tantrums if they couldn't listbuild and use that to prove their "skill". That's evident right here by the vehemence against anything which doesn't push list building as the pinnacle of skill.
This thread really shows who has good ideas, and who just hides behind "Don't tell me how to have fun" no matter how wrong their bs idea of fun is. If anything, your post shows you're incapable of seeing others points.,
What you are describing is a gamist gamer using a gamey gamey game mechanic vs a simulationist gamer whose head explodes because that would never happen on a real battlefield butting heads. I don't think casual has anything to do with that scenario.
One of the most mind blowing moments I’ve had with the game is still a blood angel player telling me they refuse to take a jump pack on a captain because the fluff doesn’t allow it.
What you are describing is a gamist gamer using a gamey gamey game mechanic vs a simulationist gamer whose head explodes because that would never happen on a real battlefield butting heads. I don't think casual has anything to do with that scenario.
One of the most mind blowing moments I’ve had with the game is still a blood angel player telling me they refuse to take a jump pack on a captain because the fluff doesn’t allow it.
auticus wrote: You have set army lists for each race. That is exactly how the historical tournaments I went to in the late 80s and early 90s ran as well as Battletech.
If someone wanted to write an essay “What’s the difference between how people play Battletech and how people play 40k...”.
The only thing more disasterous than trying to suggest army lists for each 40k faction, would be watching someone attempt to defend their choices and then wonder why no one came to play.
“We chose Chapter X out of the Space Marine book, Legion Y out of the Chaos Space Marine book, God Z out of Chaos Demons.”
Or, for that matter, the difference in cost between “Buy this arbitrary lance of mechs” vs. “Buy this arbitrary 40k army”.
It worked fine for many years. For many game systems, not just battletech. I wouldn't try it today. Because no one would want to do it because then they couldn't build a list that bent the game.
Thank you for disqualifying your own opinion by providing a suggestion and then saying that you wouldn't even try it.
Adding the "Because ..." statement just gets you added to the ignore list as non-helpful and apparently not actually wanting to let people enjoy playing the games.
Someone mentioned what would be required to have tournaments be actually more about skill. I responded that in my opinion you need to have set lists like you used to years ago in historical and battletech tournaments before there was a giant internet meta.
No one would go for that. Not today. Not last year. Not ten years ago. If it involves removing listbuilding as a "skill" it will never be something you will see in tournaments.
If the culmination of all that means ignore list, then ignore list away.
Horst wrote: Lol.... your ideas for tournaments are pretty hilarious. Funny joke. If you don't like tournaments, just don't play in them. No need to ruin them.
How else would you drive tournament player out of the hobby? They're the reason everything is horrible! I personally blame Jim Vesal for my army not being painted!
You just can't enjoy the hobby if someone else is doing it wrong.
I heard Jim Vesal goes into people's houses at night and wrecks up the place.
Da Boss wrote: Dude I read those rules when I was 12, I was born in 1984. That is the start of the millenial generation.
I got my big brother into the game, actually.
And of course there is a difference between generations, but I don't hold with all this "Get offa my lawn!" crap that people come out with.
Your post is just a bunch of inserting words into my mouth that I never said to create a strawman to argue against. I don't see the point, but if it makes you happy knock yourself out, just don't expect me to respect it.
Hmmm... I was 24.
Looking at them, again, these were not written for a 12 year old.
Simulations need some experience of the way the world works to fill in the blanks and make the (simulated) world work.
Maybe an assumption that this experience is not necessary, and that the rules should work without it,
is part of the problem.
An assumption that seems to have carried through to this day...
And, thusly illustrated, this is a generational problem, at least in part.
auticus wrote: No one would go for that. Not today. Not last year. Not ten years ago. If it involves removing listbuilding as a "skill" it will never be something you will see in tournaments.
No animosity here but I'm not sure it is the case, because for instance the equivalent in CCG would be set decks, and Keyforge got quite popular around here even with set decks, which do totally remove deckbuilding as a skill.
But maybe I misunderstood what you meant?
auticus wrote: No one would go for that. Not today. Not last year. Not ten years ago. If it involves removing listbuilding as a "skill" it will never be something you will see in tournaments.
No animosity here but I'm not sure it is the case, because for instance the equivalent in CCG would be set decks, and Keyforge got quite popular around here even with set decks, which do totally remove deckbuilding as a skill.
But maybe I misunderstood what you meant?
No that's what he meant. In wargaming, Warhammer in particular, listbuilding seems to be the main focus. Just look at this thread, look at all the tactics and stuff that's discussed. Almost all of it revolves around the "meta" and picking X unit over Y unit and trying to eke out as many points as possible in listbuilding before your army ever hits the table.
Having the equivalent of set decks in wargaming for competitive purposes would be met with rioting.
It's much harder to implement that format into a TTG then a CCG. Ignoring pricing, CCG don't require hours of building and painting. You just tear film off of packs or decks and your good.
Set lists would actually most likely result in even less casual folks since they aren't the ones buying specific models for a tournament already. It's the competitive crowd that goes out and buys a new army because of the shift in meta.
auticus wrote: No one would go for that. Not today. Not last year. Not ten years ago. If it involves removing listbuilding as a "skill" it will never be something you will see in tournaments.
No animosity here but I'm not sure it is the case, because for instance the equivalent in CCG would be set decks, and Keyforge got quite popular around here even with set decks, which do totally remove deckbuilding as a skill.
But maybe I misunderstood what you meant?
No that's what he meant. In wargaming, Warhammer in particular, listbuilding seems to be the main focus. Just look at this thread, look at all the tactics and stuff that's discussed. Almost all of it revolves around the "meta" and picking X unit over Y unit and trying to eke out as many points as possible in listbuilding before your army ever hits the table.
Having the equivalent of set decks in wargaming for competitive purposes would be met with rioting.
Literally every thread in the "Tactics" forum have maybe 10% of the discussion based on actual tactics while the majority of the discussions are about list building. X unit is pure trash, take Y, etc. etc.
So yea, 40k is definitely tilted toward list building, but I don't really see that changing. 40k as a game can get incredibly boring without that sandbox.
We will never know. Because no one will try it. Because few would go if they were forced to use what they consider a non optimal army. Even if everyone had to field similar armies at that event.
And based on my past experience that's because a lot of folks know they wouldnt do so hot without the ability to bend the game.
Actual tactics discussions in 40k are light because indeed... its listbuilding and then playing is target priority.
You cant really have meaningful discussion beyond that and the “tactics” forums reflect that.
auticus wrote: We will never know. Because no one will try it. Because few would go if they were forced to use what they consider a non optimal army. Even if everyone had to field similar armies at that event.
And based on my past experience that's because a lot of folks know they wouldnt do so hot without the ability to bend the game.
Actual tactics discussions in 40k are light because indeed... its listbuilding and then playing is target priority.
You cant really have meaningful discussion beyond that and the “tactics” forums reflect that.
Yes, listbuilding is a component. One I and many other competitive gamers enjoy. Removing that would remove much of the fun. Again, if you don't like tournaments just don't play them, you don't have to try and ruin the fun of those who do enjoy it. And saying our fun is "wrong" answers OPs question, that's why casuals and other non tournament players get hate.
It’s not so much that the game is all about list building but just that that’s the portion of the game easiest to discuss on forums. The game is more about list building than it should be, but forums definitely make it dominate the discussion.
auticus wrote: We will never know. Because no one will try it. Because few would go if they were forced to use what they consider a non optimal army. Even if everyone had to field similar armies at that event.
And based on my past experience that's because a lot of folks know they wouldnt do so hot without the ability to bend the game.
Actual tactics discussions in 40k are light because indeed... its listbuilding and then playing is target priority.
You cant really have meaningful discussion beyond that and the “tactics” forums reflect that.
Yes, listbuilding is a component. One I and many other competitive gamers enjoy. Removing that would remove much of the fun. Again, if you don't like tournaments just don't play them, you don't have to try and ruin the fun of those who do enjoy it. And saying our fun is "wrong" answers OPs question, that's why casuals and other non tournament players get hate.
I think that the problem is that we need two games.
One for listbuildy gotcha artists,
and one for RPG simu-realists.
I am not sure why GW doesn't just develop add-ons, even levels of granularity.
Buy this book to get rules at this level fo realism.
Extended rules for terrain and cover - with special kits to support this realism, e.g. moving doors, detachable wall sections.
Could be done and could be good bizniss.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LunarSol wrote: It’s not so much that the game is all about list building but just that that’s the portion of the game easiest to discuss on forums. The game is more about list building than it should be, but forums definitely make it dominate the discussion.
Why would this be the case?
Certainly, lists are easy to share,
and some people can go shopping with mom's credit card,
but why would this necessarily be the case if it weren't also the key to tabletop glory?
auticus wrote: We will never know. Because no one will try it. Because few would go if they were forced to use what they consider a non optimal army. Even if everyone had to field similar armies at that event.
And based on my past experience that's because a lot of folks know they wouldnt do so hot without the ability to bend the game.
Actual tactics discussions in 40k are light because indeed... its listbuilding and then playing is target priority.
You cant really have meaningful discussion beyond that and the “tactics” forums reflect that.
Yes, listbuilding is a component. One I and many other competitive gamers enjoy. Removing that would remove much of the fun. Again, if you don't like tournaments just don't play them, you don't have to try and ruin the fun of those who do enjoy it. And saying our fun is "wrong" answers OPs question, that's why casuals and other non tournament players get hate.
Your point would be valid if tournaments were the only place the listbuilding over everything else existed.
As tournament mentality bleeds out into every aspect of play, simply not playing in tournaments does nothing.
Youll also have a hard time pinning me ever saying youre playing “wrong” because i never said that, wrote it, or thought it.
I do find it obnoxious and heavily irritating that that is for many of us the only way we get to play, and i spent ten years or so doing the gt listbuilding thing so ive been on both sides but it is definitely not “wrong”.
I would enjoy playing in a tournament with set lists. It would be a really interesting experience! I do think that the casual/competitive dichotomy is overblown though.
I like the background and the look of the minis and I tend to build my armies based on what I like rather than what works extremely well. I might try to make what I like work in the context of the list I make, but ultimately I am gonna go with the army I like and the theme I like.
But I enjoy playing the game to win and do not enjoy arbitrary nonsense in the game for that reason. I like to do my best to win when I play and I like to win too. I think most players are like this to some extent. Making it into a binary "casual, does not care if they win or lose" vs. "compeitive, would play with counters and abstract unit names and just want to win" is stupid and overly simplistic.
auticus wrote: You have set army lists for each race. That is exactly how the historical tournaments I went to in the late 80s and early 90s ran as well as Battletech.
If someone wanted to write an essay “What’s the difference between how people play Battletech and how people play 40k...”.
The only thing more disasterous than trying to suggest army lists for each 40k faction, would be watching someone attempt to defend their choices and then wonder why no one came to play.
“We chose Chapter X out of the Space Marine book, Legion Y out of the Chaos Space Marine book, God Z out of Chaos Demons.”
Or, for that matter, the difference in cost between “Buy this arbitrary lance of mechs” vs. “Buy this arbitrary 40k army”.
Or, encourage people to not 'buy this XYZ to win'.
This attitude I saw with CCG players in the early 90s while working at a comics/game shop.
That is NOT how and why people bought armies in 40k or Warhammer.
Then, it was fantasy sci fi RPG nerds who liked hobby and chess, with beer bongs and sure, pretzels.
It was simulation, very first personal.
Now, everything is 'meta' this or 'that 'meta that... e.g. the knight meta.
This is the difference here.
You go to an ice cream store. Everyone is eating chocolate. Everyone is happy eating their chocolate. Except you, who doesn't want to eat chocolate, and knows that it's better to eat vanilla.
Alas, everyone likes chocolate and the voice of vanilla will forever be drowned out under all of the voices telling each other to continuing eating chocolate.
The course that tournament discussions always seem to take at that point in the example:
* Obviously, the solution is to ban chocolate, because given a difference in opinion, the presenter's opinion is the correct one.
Instead of:
* Gosh, it's going to take a lot of work for me to get the word out to the other people that want to eat vanilla, or don't know that they'd like vanilla but haven't tried it yet.
Complaining about "the meta" is just sitting on your chair on your porch complaining about "kids these days".
Edit: I'm pretty sure the one universal factor for gaming is that no one ever won a convert over to a new idea by telling them "You're playing it wrong" and expecting to be believed. If that worked, there wouldn't be threads like this.
Wayniac wrote: Having the equivalent of set decks in wargaming for competitive purposes would be met with rioting.
No, I don't think so. I mean, the equivalent of Keyforge for wargaming would be a new game being released with set lists. Of course if 40k switched suddenly to set lists there would be right. Same thing if Magic switched to set deck. But a new game, entering the market with a low cost of entry, could work. In fact, I am not very familiar with AOS games, but I think that's exactly what Warhammer Underworld is doing!
New wargames entering the market already have the megalithic obstacle of trying to get any form of playerbase (unless you have the license of a massive franchise like starwars and even then other than xwing, those games have also not been super massively popular that I have seen)
We've had industry veterans like Alessio and Priestley release new games this year which were met with a wet fart by the gaming community simply because investing in a system when you don't know if you can find players is failure (which is how 40k continues to be a juggernaut, you can find a game anywhere on the globe)
A new wargame coming out and additionally trying to force set tournament lists I doubt would be well received - at - all.
You go to an ice cream store. Everyone is eating chocolate. Everyone is happy eating their chocolate. Except you, who doesn't want to eat chocolate, and knows that it's better to eat vanilla.
Alas, everyone likes chocolate and the voice of vanilla will forever be drowned out under all of the voices telling each other to continuing eating chocolate.
The course that tournament discussions always seem to take at that point in the example:
* Obviously, the solution is to ban chocolate, because given a difference in opinion, the presenter's opinion is the correct one.
Instead of:
* Gosh, it's going to take a lot of work for me to get the word out to the other people that want to eat vanilla, or don't know that they'd like vanilla but haven't tried it yet.
Complaining about "the meta" is just sitting on your chair on your porch complaining about "kids these days".
Edit: I'm pretty sure the one universal factor for gaming is that no one ever won a convert over to a new idea by telling them "You're playing it wrong" and expecting to be believed. If that worked, there wouldn't be threads like this.
What you have reported,
and what actually happened,
are two completely different things.
"New idea"?
"You're playing it wrong"?
The more that I read threads like this,
the more that they show that the differences between what is expected of 40k are differences in cognitive styles.
There are essentially two worthy of note -
one, that seeks the easiest way and, though zealously enforcing rules, is not invested in their creation, maintenance, issues of systemic injustice due said rules and other such truly "meta-" level thinking.
two, that does the work of transforming what is given into something better, is invested in their creation, maintenance, issues of systemic injustice ("imbalance") due said rules and other such truly "meta-" level thinking.
The former style is disproportionately "normal" as the latter requires courage, even moral courage, strength of conviction and tenacity.
The former style is easier, and in fact how most people spend their entire lives, with many escaping the terror of angst awakened at confronting the meaninglessness of life revealed upon recognition that the former style is habitual, leaving one with an empty, non-productive and non-constructive life absent display of what everyone from Aristotle Adam Smith would have considered social virtue.
The latter, is "authentic" and the former ruled by idle chatter, gossip, everyday distractions (list building and net lists and such gamey "metas" and so on).
The preceding is based in careful study of philosophy, psychology and neurology directed at understanding this and closely related issues for the past 20 years.
Maybe the people seeking "authentic" engagement with their hobby and fellow hobbyists are expecting too much.
I feel that I am expecting too much from this forum, sometimes, when I see my posts being what must be purposefully misread in order to deflect discussion into some respondent's safe zone.
All that aside, I did watch some live-streamed 40k in order to see how this e-sports 40k wet-dream might play out.
With decent commentators, some table side interviews, some recaps, and lots of tables all playing at once, with some better camera and vid processing work, sure, this might be as entertaining as watching golf I suppose.
Is there going to be sponsorship money for it?
Maybe, paint companies and brush companies and painting services who knows...
Will it pay salaries?
Maybe, but by then, I imagine the game to be even less appealing to the first cognitive style described above, meaning that if GW wants to keep this segment of the population engaged (not many people habitually engage in this cognitive style, but they do tend to be influential), then GW will need two distinct rule-sets for 40k.
Just my opinion.
Given the radical split in the types of thinking going on in either segment of the overall "community",
the potential for a reconciliation is simply not there.
In short, why the hate?
Because these two different ways of thinking about and engaging with the world and with others leave the two groups effectively unable to agree on what is "good", either what is given and convenient, or what is just and best regardless of effort.
In addendum to the discussion re millennials, above, it appears that this ascription applies to the first cognitive style regardless of birth date.
If anyone is interested in further reading, PM me.
I can send a reference list.
auticus wrote: New wargames entering the market already have the megalithic obstacle of trying to get any form of playerbase (unless you have the license of a massive franchise like starwars and even then other than xwing, those games have also not been super massively popular that I have seen)
We've had industry veterans like Alessio and Priestley release new games this year which were met with a wet fart by the gaming community simply because investing in a system when you don't know if you can find players is failure (which is how 40k continues to be a juggernaut, you can find a game anywhere on the globe)
A new wargame coming out and additionally trying to force set tournament lists I doubt would be well received - at - all.
This. Also, at least in most parts of the USA where the vast majority of games happen in a game store as opposed to an independent club, nobody will touch a game that the store doesn't stock, and the store often doesn't want to stock untested games because they aren't sure if it sells (which at least makes sense. Not wanting to play an otherwise-good game because your local store doesn't stock it is IMHO stupid). Not to mention that most game stores I've seen do very little to promote games that they do stock, so even if they stocked the game it's doubtful they would try to pitch it to the community.
So the result is that games that might otherwise have a good fanbase are ignored and never given a chance because 1) The local stores don't/won't/can't carry their product and 2) THe local players won't be aware of it or touch it if they can't buy it at the game store, and/or 3) The local players already play one expensive miniature game and don't want to invest in another, or they might be interested but don't know if anyone else is and figure it's not worth buying into. As a result, the majority of alternative games simply die on the vine as people are set in their ways. Hell I have actually been cussed out in the past for trying to suggest a different game to the community; I got told off once for "trying to push [my] pet game" (despite the fact I hadn't played this game, it just looked neat) when everyone was "perfectly happy" with Warhammer. So you suffer blowback in the community itself for trying to suggest an alternative game.
It's way different from the club atmosphere where you could likely get a 2-player starter for a game, turn up to club night and offer demos. Sure, it might not work in that case either but it already has a way better chance than relying on a game store to know about the game, purchase the product, and tell people about it to drum up interest. For whatever reason trying that approach in a game store is often never met with interest.
LunarSol wrote: It’s not so much that the game is all about list building but just that that’s the portion of the game easiest to discuss on forums. The game is more about list building than it should be, but forums definitely make it dominate the discussion.
Why would this be the case?
Certainly, lists are easy to share,
and some people can go shopping with mom's credit card,
but why would this necessarily be the case if it weren't also the key to tabletop glory?
List building is certainly a factor to success in any game system out there, but not the only one. Meaningful variety requires that bad lists can happen in even the best balanced games. As a hypothetical example, a faction may be given LasCannons to crack armor, but a player may refuse to take LasCannons and then complain when they struggle against armor. You can give players tools, the necessity to use those tools, but you can't make them use them. The point is, list building IS a factor and too much of one in 40k, but its not alone.
Most discussion looking for advice is looking to improve without having to actually play the dozens of games required to learn. This is even true of list building, where you really hone in on a list by playing repeatedly and adjusting as you find inefficiencies. The same is true of other factors like decision making, positioning, etc. The difference is, the result of list building is pretty easy for other people to copy and see some success with, even if they probably won't be as successful as they lack an understanding of some of the tricks available. The other factors are a lot harder to share, particularly in the TLDR culture of forums. People buy a car and just ask for the keys. No one wants to sit and read the manual.
Well, part of it is that other games, while list building is a thing, it doesn't seem to be the major factor like in Warhammer. Like when I played Warmahordes there was a BIG emphasis on list building, but it wasn't as black and white.
You would often have people say they wanted to use units X, Y, and Z and ask for (and receive!) advice on how to synergize well with those units and what to take to complement them. There was almost never cases where the advice was "Drop X, Y, and Z and just spam A and B instead" which is a lot closer to the sort of list advice you get in Warhammer where someone wants to use a unit and basically gets told that unit sucks, throw away half of your list and go spam the netlist-du-jour instead.
I think that's a big reason why Warhammer *feels* like list building is the only thing that matters; it's the main thing people focus on because it's so dominant. Sure you occasionally get the tournament results with some sort f unorthodox or "non-meta" list performing well or winning, but by and large, it's the same general lists with minor tweaks, which generally means that list discussion is cut and dried without much leeway if someone really wants to use a certain unit.
Granted, that's a big flaw of the game design and not part of list building, but it also makes the game feel like list building is the only thing that matters since it's so frequent to find people saying Unit X sucks don't bother taking it rather than here's how you can make Unit X work decently. The emphasis is on what you take, rather than how you use it.
auticus wrote: A new wargame coming out and additionally trying to force set tournament lists I doubt would be well received - at - all.
Well, that's your opinion. A properly argumented and supported opinion, you definitely make a strong case, but I'm still not 100% convinced it is an absolute certainty that a new wargame with set lists for tournaments (or even all games) would do worse than a new wargame without set lists. I think the novelty factor might even play in its favor.
Something I was betting on for 6th and 8th edition was a renewed focus on Terrain, and specifically letting players bring terrain paid for out of their army points. Didn't happen, presumably because terrain tends to be an afterthought for so many players. Which is weird, because it has such an impact on the game.
Wayniac wrote: Well, part of it is that other games, while list building is a thing, it doesn't seem to be the major factor like in Warhammer. Like when I played Warmahordes there was a BIG emphasis on list building, but it wasn't as black and white.
You would often have people say they wanted to use units X, Y, and Z and ask for (and receive!) advice on how to synergize well with those units and what to take to complement them. There was almost never cases where the advice was "Drop X, Y, and Z and just spam A and B instead" which is a lot closer to the sort of list advice you get in Warhammer where someone wants to use a unit and basically gets told that unit sucks, throw away half of your list and go spam the netlist-du-jour instead.
I think that's a big reason why Warhammer *feels* like list building is the only thing that matters; it's the main thing people focus on because it's so dominant. Sure you occasionally get the tournament results with some sort f unorthodox or "non-meta" list performing well or winning, but by and large, it's the same general lists with minor tweaks, which generally means that list discussion is cut and dried without much leeway if someone really wants to use a certain unit.
Granted, that's a big flaw of the game design and not part of list building, but it also makes the game feel like list building is the only thing that matters since it's so frequent to find people saying Unit X sucks don't bother taking it rather than here's how you can make Unit X work decently. The emphasis is on what you take, rather than how you use it.
40k's big issue is just that there's no real in faction interaction. It's largerly an exercise in mechanical input/output of DPS and target selection. List design is largely an exercise in finding the most efficient output per point which means its really hard to have a reason to take a list of a significantly different style without changing factions.
40k's big issue is just that there's no real in faction interaction. It's largerly an exercise in mechanical input/output of DPS and target selection. List design is largely an exercise in finding the most efficient output per point which means its really hard to have a reason to take a list of a significantly different style without changing factions.
Spot on.
Which is weird, because it has such an impact on the game.
Terrain has always been one of those things that people both don't want to invest in / building, and don't like impacting their game.
Even back in "the day" so many tables were either planet bowling ball because tournaments were planet bowling ball, or if they generated terrain it would be on the edge of the table out of the way.
Not surprisingly, we get AOS and new 40k that basically both almost totally disregard terrain to ancillary effects at best.
People don't like complications they're unprepared for. If they don't play locally with meaningful terrain, they get frustrated when encountering it in the wild same as when you run into a rule interaction or model you're unfamiliar with. Honestly, one of my favorite aspects of good competitive standard is they have a tendency to do a good job ensuring people play with more terrain than they naturally would, though it can also problematically make people reject playing with more terrain than they could over time.
I really like the ITC changes to terrain. First level blocking line of sight is great, it means you actually have a chance to hide smaller vehicles and infantry behind a building, since most of them have windows / doors on the first floor. Combine that with the recommended amount of terrain you're supposed to have, and it makes it so terrain actually does play a part in the game instead of just not impacting it at all.
Horst wrote: I really like the ITC changes to terrain. First level blocking line of sight is great, it means you actually have a chance to hide smaller vehicles and infantry behind a building, since most of them have windows / doors on the first floor. Combine that with the recommended amount of terrain you're supposed to have, and it makes it so terrain actually does play a part in the game instead of just not impacting it at all.
This I 100% agree with. But I often see even tournament tables that are sparse on meaningful terrain. AOS at least wen ta bit to correcting this by making forests block LOS, but 40k still keeps forest terrain as basically useless decoration.
I really like the ITC changes to terrain. First level blocking line of sight is great, it means you actually have a chance to hide smaller vehicles and infantry behind a building, since most of them have windows / doors on the first floor. Combine that with the recommended amount of terrain you're supposed to have, and it makes it so terrain actually does play a part in the game instead of just not impacting it at all.
Getting an overall standard on terrain and making it meaningful would go miles with how I feel about the game. The ITC changes I agree with.
Forests in 40k aren't entirely useless, they give you cover saves, and if you charge through one it's -2 to your charge distance, so it's not ENTIRELY useless, but yea they definitely don't block LoS.
I really like the ITC changes to terrain. First level blocking line of sight is great, it means you actually have a chance to hide smaller vehicles and infantry behind a building, since most of them have windows / doors on the first floor. Combine that with the recommended amount of terrain you're supposed to have, and it makes it so terrain actually does play a part in the game instead of just not impacting it at all.
Getting an overall standard on terrain and making it meaningful would go miles with how I feel about the game. The ITC changes I agree with.
I think that's something competitive and casual players can absolutely agree on... having enough terrain is important, otherwise it's just down to whoever has the best shooting army wins. If you have enough terrain, movement and positioning becomes much more important. Tournaments do need to do a better job ensuring all tables have enough terrain. I've been lucky and been to some great events recently where most of the tables have great terrain, but it's hard to get enough terrain together for a 50 table event honestly.
Realistically, ITC isn't changing terrain. You can build terrain that functions like the ITC rules just fine. The problem is just that people don't build their terrain to work well with the terrain rules. Doubly problematic, the terrain GW makes doesn't work well with their terrain rules.
Nurglitch wrote: In Halifax, our local terrain Magos/TO has boarded up all the ground floor windows of his terrain.
IIRC auticus tried this with his group and got complaints it "wasn't fair" because the normal GW terrain doesn't block LOS, so no terrain should because it screws over shooty armies and isn't "official". That might have been for AOS though, since I'm pretty sure the competitive players in his area would use ITC rules and that's a rule automatically.
Nurglitch wrote: In Halifax, our local terrain Magos/TO has boarded up all the ground floor windows of his terrain.
IIRC auticus tried this with his group and got complaints it "wasn't fair" because the normal GW terrain doesn't block LOS, so no terrain should because it screws over shooty armies and isn't "official". That might have been for AOS though, since I'm pretty sure the competitive players in his area would use ITC rules and that's a rule automatically.
This is why its fairly essentially for the maker of the game to have some standards in this regard. Of course its fair, but without the game designers officially stating so, people are left to their own personal biases.
That scenario (complaining boarding up GW model windows was cheating because that screws them over) was in both aos and 40k. Before ITC standard was their thing.
In AOS it can still happen that people complain but I haven't had anyone gripe in a while since all of the tournament AOS players are in 40k-only mode currently and have not been around our AOS games.
I have long been an advocate of Codex: Tournament that has specific rules for tourney play, table set-ups, and restricted lists for all factions. It can even provide some guidelines and methods for running/scoring tournaments.
I agree with Auticus though, it will never happen or catch on.
Easy E wrote: I have long been an advocate of Codex: Tournament that has specific rules for tourney play, table set-ups, and restricted lists for all factions. It can even provide some guidelines and methods for running/scoring tournaments.
I agree with Auticus though, it will never happen or catch on.
Some parts might if the ITC standardized that sort of thing. Restricted lists/comp, mandatory terrain setup, etc. But FLG seems to want to push list building, so they are exactly the sort of people who would rail against these ideas.
FLG wants to push what the majority of it's players consider fun. Most of us consider listbuilding a lot of fun, we enjoy coming up with new and exciting combos.
So why would they introduce something like set lists, when it would piss off everyone who goes to ITC events? FLG suggests terrain setup, but they make it very clear ITC is wide open, and TO's are free to do whatever they want.
So the ITC/FLG is bad went they use custom missions and some terrain rules changes, but it okay for them to alter the list building and mandated terrain?
Crimson Devil wrote: So the ITC/FLG is bad went they use custom missions and some terrain rules changes, but it okay for them to alter the list building and mandated terrain?
Dakka is so fething weird.
Apparently the new boogyman isn't changing rules or making custom missions, but rather building lists.
Horst wrote: I really like the ITC changes to terrain. First level blocking line of sight is great, it means you actually have a chance to hide smaller vehicles and infantry behind a building, since most of them have windows / doors on the first floor. Combine that with the recommended amount of terrain you're supposed to have, and it makes it so terrain actually does play a part in the game instead of just not impacting it at all.
Some standard terrain rules are good, I agree. I would say that my impression of the ITC changes to LoS blocking on the ground floor was more a practical consideration than it was a real rules change. They already had a bunch of standardised terrain that didn't function well with the new edition so introduced a rule to deal with that rather than modify all their terrain (which I don't have a problem with, in general). However, we've found that using that as a blanket rule can have some issues with flexibility of terrain (now you can't put ruins down that don't block LoS on the ground floor) so we're in the process of gradually upgrading our own terrain so it largely blocks LoS on the ground floor, but not in all ruins, allowing us to use true LoS and still have a decent amount of LoS-blocking terrain.
The less said about ITC enclosed ruins the better, I think.
Crimson Devil wrote: So the ITC/FLG is bad went they use custom missions and some terrain rules changes, but it okay for them to alter the list building and mandated terrain?
Dakka is so fething weird.
Apparently the new boogyman isn't changing rules or making custom missions, but rather building lists.
My point was basically competitive players will bitch and whine about stuff unless ITC adopts it, then it's good and wholesome.
ITC Missions = Good because they let you plan more about your list (secondaries) and since the mission and objectives are virtually the same and predetermined you can plan deployment and moves out as well.
CA Missions = Bad because they have extra quirks that encourage bringing variety and discourage "meta" lists. Bad because it's not something you can know beforehand.
If ITC suddenly had their own terrain rules that replaced the default (which wouldn't necessarily be a bad idea), it would be great. But there is Cities of Death which has much better terrain rules, and I haven't seen anyone give a gak about those.
There's a lot of problem with pre-set tourney lists. For one, its awful on GW to have huge chunks of their product catalog go from unpopular to actually unplayable. Having stores stocked with the only models you can play in a tournament at any time is a logistics nightmare and people would quickly grow frustrated when they can't play because tournaments are mandating a new model that players can't meet demand of. Generally speaking any change is going to be disruptive. There's a big difference between a forced change and letting players switch at their own pace.
The bigger issue though, is the assumption that whoever makes the lists will get the balance right and in a situation like this its got to be more than right; its got to be nearly perfect for people to accept the idea. It's one things when players dig and discover imbalances in a game; its another entirely when they're handed one and simultaneously lose access to tools to react to it.
Their argument is that it is okay, even preferable for the mission or terrain to put you at a disadvantage in a game, but it is wrong, possible malicious for your opponent to cause that disadvantage.
So in this case set lists would fall into the preferable disadvantage because it is caused by a 3rd party.
CA Missions = Bad because they have extra quirks that encourage bringing variety and discourage "meta" lists. Bad because it's not something you can know beforehand.
If ITC suddenly had their own terrain rules that replaced the default (which wouldn't necessarily be a bad idea), it would be great. But there is Cities of Death which has much better terrain rules, and I haven't seen anyone give a gak about those.
This is what I am hearing, mostly.
Again, it is the list building phase that seems sacrosanct for some more than others.
These players seem especially afraid that someone might remove
the "super-combo CP farming win-button"(tm) from the game mechanics.
Cities of Death has gotten favorable attention where I have seen...
Automatically Appended Next Post: I see this from another thread:
Wayniac wrote: I think the big question is like with anything else, will the competitive crowd that will latch onto matched play by the book tournament-style games only care about these Advanced rules. If they do not then they might as well not exist given how most things will gravitate towards only the basic rules
Crimson Devil wrote: So the ITC/FLG is bad went they use custom missions and some terrain rules changes, but it okay for them to alter the list building and mandated terrain?
Dakka is so fething weird.
I don't think it should be the standard for all tournaments or whatever, but it is an interesting set up for an event and I would like to play in an event like that. It would make the focus be on playing the game, rather than listbuilding. I think it would be a lot of fun and generate quality play.
I recall someone arguing that being able to sit down and play as if at a tournament, without negotiating and discussing the kind of game you want to play with the models and terrain you have available, would be ideal for casual pick-up games.
Mind you, that excludes the kind of fun test-matches like whether 10 Marines and their Rhino can fight their way through 100 Guardsmen and stuff, or what-have-you. Mind you, that's a different way to play than tournament or casual pick-up.
...afraid that someone might remove
the "super-combo CP farming win-button"(tm) from the game mechanics.
Tell me, which list is that? Because your comment just comes off to me as ignorant of the tournament scene. What list exactly is it that is a "super-combo CP farming win-button"?
Name me one list that is absolutely unstoppable in 8th edition, and I'll shut up and accept that you are right. Every list out there has a counter, no list is a "win button".
Some lists are "lose buttons" though, where no matter how you play them you're gonna get stomped. That's to be expected though. There are a solid 10-15 "good" style lists that will do well at any given tournament though, and in each of those there are variations you can customize to base on your playstyle. Honestly your comments come off as someone who plays their fluffy space marines, and doesn't want to be bothered to change up what he brings against newer style 8th edition lists to win.
The problem is when there are entire factions which are not included in your 10-15 entire lists and other factions have 3 or so of the lists to themselves.
Oh I'm not saying balance is perfect. There are issues. My point is that there is no "CP farm instant win button", there are a LOT of lists that compete for that top spot.
Even still, I'd be hard pressed to think of a single faction that can't be used at least as an ally in a competitive list, at least in some form, even if it's limited to what you can actually play. Necrons unfortunately are like that, you can make quite a good competitive necron list, but you need to take 3x doomsday arks and 3x doomscythes as the core of pretty much every list you make.
Horst wrote: Oh I'm not saying balance is perfect. There are issues. My point is that there is no "CP farm instant win button", there are a LOT of lists that compete for that top spot.
Playing devils advocate, My question would be this:
'A LOT of lists' is is how many lists, exactly as a percentage/fraction of how many lists in total?
I mean, let's face it, having two dozen top tier lists isn't that meaningful if they're among a field of, say, two thousand lists, in total.
I know there aren't any instant win button lists. Because at the most busted level of the game there are a handful of busted lists that can beat each other, there is no one of those lists that will always win.
My problem is that you have to be rocking one of those lists if you want to have a good game, and thats where a good half of my issue with the game lies. The other half is that the game has no resemblance to actual military tactics and thats a gamestyle I don't enjoy.
However, that has nothing to do with tournament or casual. That has to do with design decisions made.
About 75% of the codex in this game actually have valid competitive lists, that could do well at an ITC event. Maybe half of those have only 1-2 "strong" lists possible though, like Necrons and Tau have pretty specific lists that do well, while Chaos, Imperial, and Eldar players are free to build much more varied lists.
Most of the "non-competitive" codex that are really bad are space marines, unfortunately.
Horst wrote: Depends what you define as "how many lists".
About 75% of the codex in this game actually have valid competitive lists, that could do well at an ITC event. Maybe half of those have only 1-2 "strong" lists possible though, like Necrons and Tau have pretty specific lists that do well, while Chaos, Imperial, and Eldar players are free to build much more varied lists.
Most of the "non-competitive" codex that are really bad are space marines, unfortunately.
You didn't answer the question.
'A LOT of lists' is is how many lists, exactly as a percentage/fraction of how many lists in total?
Pointing out that there's a dozen strong builds out of how many units, unit types in how many codices kinda reinforces wayniacs point rather than yours.
In addition, focusing in on tournament lists as a subset is also misleading, as a dozen strong builds here, whilst it looks better against the few dozen lists that also turn up at tournaments that don't get to the top table, is still leaving 80-90% of the game behind.
My problem is that you have to be rocking one of those lists if you want to have a good game, and thats where a good half of my issue with the game lies.
There's really no game out there that avoids this to be honest. 40k probably has more room for bad choices, but there's really not a system that doesn't demand this once players have gotten past the initial learning stages of development.
Nurglitch wrote: I recall someone arguing that being able to sit down and play as if at a tournament, without negotiating and discussing the kind of game you want to play with the models and terrain you have available, would be ideal for casual pick-up games.
Mind you, that excludes the kind of fun test-matches like whether 10 Marines and their Rhino can fight their way through 100 Guardsmen and stuff, or what-have-you. Mind you, that's a different way to play than tournament or casual pick-up.
I found that this benefits from realism imported into the game mechanics
more than it does an abstract simple set of tourney-ready rules.
It is possible to have an interesting conversation
even with strangers.
Sadly, I feel that it is due a culture bent on win at all costs
or suffer stifling poverty for the lack of initiative
that characterizes latter day corporate capitalism in the West,
that feeds the need to create an environment
in which playtesting the same 'list' on the same set of missions on the same types of terrain
should be the way to prepare for a 40k game,
as if winning in such an environment is to express a sort of virtue essential to the enterprise.
I think that there is more to it, to this game, hobby, whatever, than that.
My problem is that you have to be rocking one of those lists if you want to have a good game, and thats where a good half of my issue with the game lies.
There's really no game out there that avoids this to be honest. 40k probably has more room for bad choices, but there's really not a system that doesn't demand this once players have gotten past the initial learning stages of development.
So, that means that it shouldn't be the case...?
Is this what they call an "is... ought..." fallacy?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Nurglitch wrote: It just occurred to me: Set lists would also open up the scoring to Best Overall and Best X List (where X = Space Marines, Knights, Orks, etc).
Wouldn't it be cool if the lists were 'blind peer reviewed' by a sort of editorial review board,
noted scholars for lore/fluff, fit with event theme, and use of units, showing love to the iconic over-costed but awesome, while recognizing the undervalued strengths and army synergies accessible only to the truly well-versed...
'A LOT of lists' is is how many lists, exactly as a percentage/fraction of how many lists in total?
Pointing out that there's a dozen strong builds out of how many units, unit types in how many codices kinda reinforces wayniacs point rather than yours.
In addition, focusing in on tournament lists as a subset is also misleading, as a dozen strong builds here, whilst it looks better against the few dozen lists that also turn up at tournaments that don't get to the top table, is still leaving 80-90% of the game behind.
I hate to bring up Sirlin because I rather despise his closing arguments when it comes to game theory, but I do quite like his insight getting there. One of the more interesting concepts is taking a step back and really evaluating competitive variety. In a game like 40k, asking how many lists total is rather misleading as their are far too many potential combinations to really track and some decisions and variations are likely to have a minimal impact on what competitive tier a list archetype falls into.
Ultimately, having a dozen viable competitive options is pretty rare in any game, no matter how many choices it has. Highly tuned competitive fighting games with only 10 characters often only find 6 of them truly viable. So is it better to have 6 real choices out of 10 or 15 out 100? The latter gives you more variety, but the former gives you fewer disappointing options. In games like 40k with a large number of factions you can ask similar questions. Lets say 40k has 20 factions and 15 competitive lists. Is it better to have 15 factions that are all competitive with a single configuration or 3 factions that are competitive 5 different ways?
I've definitely enjoyed games more as I've gotten away from being concerned with all the bad choices and focused on how much variety there can be among the good choices. I tend to evaluate balance in tiers, with the number of competitive factions being the most important factor to me, followed up by how many valid options there are within those factions. I'll latch on to pet models are care if they are among the competitive set, but I'd rather see a struggling faction improve even if my favorite model gets left behind.
Right now 40k has one of more varied competitive pools I've seen in wargaming. Of course, there's a ton of models and options that aren't part of that set; but that's somewhat inevitable when your system has enough options to make a an army 6 times over without repeating models. More variety is obviously better and its awfully disappointing when something you love is bad, but I'm still happier looking at how many options there are than worry about how many options just don't fit.
auticus wrote: I know there aren't any instant win button lists. Because at the most busted level of the game there are a handful of busted lists that can beat each other, there is no one of those lists that will always win.
My problem is that you have to be rocking one of those lists if you want to have a good game, and thats where a good half of my issue with the game lies. The other half is that the game has no resemblance to actual military tactics and thats a gamestyle I don't enjoy.
However, that has nothing to do with tournament or casual. That has to do with design decisions made.
On this note, yeah, I wasn't pointing to any particular magic recipe,
just the fact that half the game involves having a magic recipe going in,
rather than here we are, a rag tag set of marine lost in the warp 10000yrs,
still believing that the emporer rules
trying to make our way home,
heroes in a vacuum of rent space,
and lo, we are hailed by an alien world beacon...
Who shall we send to investigate?
1500points of cool stuff.
Some of the ideas in the thread so far
would work like this:
On the way down tot he planet surface roll a dice:
on a 1, lose one unit of Heavy Support (your opponent choses).
on a 2, lose one unit of Fast Attack (your opponent chooses).
and so on...
or something like that, many possibilities ...
Would be awesome,
and - given that super-combo beat sticks are sometimes obvious
removing a key unit can deflate some sails going in to that first turn.
Frankly, I like letting the opposing player either choose 1 unit to remove completely from the game
or 2 units to keep off the table the first turn.
Or, you have to play the opponent's list!
So, everyone then must make the least synergistic!
Silly, but this is the idea.
De-emphasize list-building as the way to win.
Long term, I hope it goes more academic style.
So, how about the TOs rate the 'list' according to current 'meta' rankings as compiled by the scholarly competitive scene champs, cus - respect - there are some very smart, studious, serious people playing 40k, this is true and they would have the talent to set up such editorial review boardswith standard handicap ratings (I think that the ITC almost has something like this) and then, well, if you being super-beat-stick list to a tourney, and smash a less optimized list, then win points are low, and loss losses are nil. Now, there is a different sweet-spot, closer to the balanced in a different sort of way.
My problem is that you have to be rocking one of those lists if you want to have a good game, and thats where a good half of my issue with the game lies.
There's really no game out there that avoids this to be honest. 40k probably has more room for bad choices, but there's really not a system that doesn't demand this once players have gotten past the initial learning stages of development.
Furthermore, the fact that 40k requires so much time/money investment in preparing models for tabletop-readiness means an official, seasonal competitive rotation like MtG's is likely out of the question.
But the thing is, the competitive 40k meta draws from such a limited selection of units that it already might as well be a limited, seasonal format like Mtg Standard. There is actually a fairly decent representation of different factions in the current 40k meta, just not a great representation of all units of every faction. Only a fraction of total units per faction are competitively viable, but MtG Standard is effectively the same thing.
MtG just made it official.
I suspect the biggest limiting factor in having great unit representation for the entire catalog is that it is simply not cost effective for GW to spend man-hours balancing all of those units.
Horst wrote: Oh I'm not saying balance is perfect. There are issues. My point is that there is no "CP farm instant win button", there are a LOT of lists that compete for that top spot.
Even still, I'd be hard pressed to think of a single faction that can't be used at least as an ally in a competitive list, at least in some form, even if it's limited to what you can actually play. Necrons unfortunately are like that, you can make quite a good competitive necron list, but you need to take 3x doomsday arks and 3x doomscythes as the core of pretty much every list you make.
Above, I address this.
My point is not that there is X list,
but that it is all about lists
(deck building, in more famiilar terms)
to begin with...
Horst wrote: Oh I'm not saying balance is perfect. There are issues. My point is that there is no "CP farm instant win button", there are a LOT of lists that compete for that top spot.
Even still, I'd be hard pressed to think of a single faction that can't be used at least as an ally in a competitive list, at least in some form, even if it's limited to what you can actually play. Necrons unfortunately are like that, you can make quite a good competitive necron list, but you need to take 3x doomsday arks and 3x doomscythes as the core of pretty much every list you make.
Above, I address this.
My point is not that there is X list,
but that it is all about lists
(deck building, in more famiilar terms)
to begin with...
And honestly, that's just the way competitive players like it. So.... yea trying to "fix" that is going to be poorly received.
...afraid that someone might remove
the "super-combo CP farming win-button"(tm) from the game mechanics.
Tell me, which list is that? Because your comment just comes off to me as ignorant of the tournament scene. What list exactly is it that is a "super-combo CP farming win-button"?
Name me one list that is absolutely unstoppable in 8th edition, and I'll shut up and accept that you are right. Every list out there has a counter, no list is a "win button".
Some lists are "lose buttons" though, where no matter how you play them you're gonna get stomped. That's to be expected though. There are a solid 10-15 "good" style lists that will do well at any given tournament though, and in each of those there are variations you can customize to base on your playstyle. Honestly your comments come off as someone who plays their fluffy space marines, and doesn't want to be bothered to change up what he brings against newer style 8th edition lists to win.
I think that you missed the point, but I tried to address it above.
Horst wrote: Oh I'm not saying balance is perfect. There are issues. My point is that there is no "CP farm instant win button", there are a LOT of lists that compete for that top spot.
Even still, I'd be hard pressed to think of a single faction that can't be used at least as an ally in a competitive list, at least in some form, even if it's limited to what you can actually play. Necrons unfortunately are like that, you can make quite a good competitive necron list, but you need to take 3x doomsday arks and 3x doomscythes as the core of pretty much every list you make.
Above, I address this.
My point is not that there is X list,
but that it is all about lists
(deck building, in more famiilar terms)
to begin with...
And honestly, that's just the way competitive players like it. So.... yea trying to "fix" that is going to be poorly received.
Why do you insist that 40k tournaments must treat the game like a CCG?
Your point is that you don't like "list building"... I get that.
Well, that's a very large part of competitive 40k. If you don't like it, well... play something else? Or only play with like-minded players?
Some people in this thread are acting like it's "infecting" casual players at their LGS... it's because most people LIKE the ability to try to tweak their lists to eke out more power.
Why do I insist people treat competitive 40k like a CCG? I don't insist on that (well I do, because I want it to be that way, because I enjoy that aspect).... that's just the way it is, and I (like most others who play competitive 40k) enjoy it like that.
Horst wrote: Oh I'm not saying balance is perfect. There are issues. My point is that there is no "CP farm instant win button", there are a LOT of lists that compete for that top spot.
Even still, I'd be hard pressed to think of a single faction that can't be used at least as an ally in a competitive list, at least in some form, even if it's limited to what you can actually play. Necrons unfortunately are like that, you can make quite a good competitive necron list, but you need to take 3x doomsday arks and 3x doomscythes as the core of pretty much every list you make.
Above, I address this.
My point is not that there is X list,
but that it is all about lists
(deck building, in more famiilar terms)
to begin with...
And honestly, that's just the way competitive players like it. So.... yea trying to "fix" that is going to be poorly received.
Have you ever played an RPGA event say, D&D, at a large venue, with really good players - really good?
I have won awards, people do actually 'win' things, prizes and so on, for playing even these comparatively informally structured games well.
Why couldn't (or shouldn't) so called "competitive" 40k be more like that?
No, I haven't. I have played competitive 40k though, in 5th edition, 6th edition, and 8th edition. It's been about "list building" for each of those editions. As long as I've known it, it's been this way. Why would it be changed, why SHOULD it be changed, when it's obviously got a large (and growing) fan base? 40k tournaments are exploding in popularity, they're everywhere. It confirms that people want this style.
List building isn't everything... but it is a large part of this game, and the evidence shows most people who participate in competitive 40k enjoy it.
Yeah, you seem to be right Horst. I am not out to ruin your fun, I just found the discussion of ways to get around listbuilding interesting. I would like an event like that, I think it would be a nice change of pace.
The problem is the huge sunk-cost feeling that many players go through when they buy into a faction before learning that, like MtG Standard, there is indeed an effectively, rigidly-enforced selection of viable units at the competitive level.
My problem is that you have to be rocking one of those lists if you want to have a good game, and thats where a good half of my issue with the game lies.
There's really no game out there that avoids this to be honest. 40k probably has more room for bad choices, but there's really not a system that doesn't demand this once players have gotten past the initial learning stages of development.
So, that means that it shouldn't be the case...?
Is this what they call an "is... ought..." fallacy?
Not at all. The demand for iterative development is very much driven by the need and desire to improve. I don't think you'll find a competitive player out there that doesn't want to see a focus on making changes that expand the pool of competitive options. At the same time, the point of these things is to have fun and its a lot easier to have fun if you focus on the game as it exists. Ultimately we don't really control what changes and when, and while wishlisting improvements certainly makes sense, it shouldn't come at the cost of appreciating everything that does work.
I suspect the biggest limiting factor in having great unit representation for the entire catalog is that it is simply not cost effective for GW to spend man-hours balancing all of those units.
It's actually harder than that. Ultimately the issue is that for the most part, every unit in 40k is competing for the same points (HQs and Troops have some rules that make them a premium purchase) and fulfilling the same role. Tacs, Terms, Intercessors, even Dreadnoughts and Land Raiders exist to output a certain number of shots while dying after failing a certain number of rolls and maybe punch some things if that happens. Even if the math efficiency per point is the same for all of them, factors outside of that makes one of them slightly better than the others and the only one taken. Little things like how they degrade over the course of the game or how they're affected by control effects. Sometimes its just that the meta has a lot of weapons that hurt more one than the other. That's why its not often the most overpowered thing that dominates the meta in a game, but the thing that plays best into that thing.
So, that means that it shouldn't be the case...?
Is this what they call an "is... ought..." fallacy?
Not at all. The demand for iterative development is very much driven by the need and desire to improve. I don't think you'll find a competitive player out there that doesn't want to see a focus on making changes that expand the pool of competitive options. At the same time, the point of these things is to have fun and its a lot easier to have fun if you focus on the game as it exists. Ultimately we don't really control what changes and when, and while wishlisting improvements certainly makes sense, it shouldn't come at the cost of appreciating everything that does work.
Ummm, I think that the fallacy remains fallacious.
And, focusing on the game as it exists and so on recalls my earlier posts about cognitive styles.
"Expand the pool of competitive options"? Unless those include not emphasizing listbuilding super-duper combo-maxing over other ways to game?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LunarSol wrote: Ultimately the issue is that for the most part, every unit in 40k is competing for the same points (HQs and Troops have some rules that make them a premium purchase) and fulfilling the same role. Tacs, Terms, Intercessors, even Dreadnoughts and Land Raiders exist to output a certain number of shots while dying after failing a certain number of rolls and maybe punch some things if that happens. Even if the math efficiency per point is the same for all of them, factors outside of that makes one of them slightly better than the others and the only one taken. Little things like how they degrade over the course of the game or how they're affected by control effects. Sometimes its just that the meta has a lot of weapons that hurt more one than the other. That's why its not often the most overpowered thing that dominates the meta in a game, but the thing that plays best into that thing.
See, this is what doesn't look like fun, and doesn't look like a game, but more like counting cards in poker or literally stacking the deck in CCGs, this is the attitude that is frankly exclusionary of others, because in its hyper-optimization for points efficient probabilities, every other way to meet at the table ends in a loss, and a lecture about optimal probabilities rather than a talk about strategy, tactics, battlefield roles and mad turns of event.
You see, in so many words, without actually using the words, you are telling everyone else that they don't play the game correctly, because if they did then they could be competitive, and win, like you~
see, it is a sort of tyranny of the zealous.
Horst wrote: No, I haven't. I have played competitive 40k though, in 5th edition, 6th edition, and 8th edition. It's been about "list building" for each of those editions. As long as I've known it, it's been this way.
With respect, This strikes me as having more than a pinch of confirmation bias than anything else. A self-confessed competitive/tournament player who has played competitive games from 4th onwards will of course be exposed heavily to the mentality of 'list-building-for-advantage'. And will know only this. It's fair to say that the competitive game has always been about list building (specifically list building for advantage. This I said a different beast to list building. Narrative player list build too, just differently), but not everyone plays this game. You (and I!) don't necessarily get a view of 'the big picture'. Like the old story of ten blind men trying to describe an elephant. In my experience for example, Tournament play has always been more of a minority in the hobby, over all. And that is not to dismiss it at all. For years I played tournaments exclusively. That said, in comparison, A narrative gamer who plays the club circuit or in garages through fourth ed onwards will have a totally different experience to you, and in my experience, both subsets rarely mix. And in my experience, there are a lot more 'basement/garage' gamers than flgs/store gamers will see.
Horst wrote: Why would it be changed, why SHOULD it be changed, when it's obviously got a large (and growing) fan base? 40k tournaments are exploding in popularity, they're everywhere. It confirms that people want this style.
Does it?
Again, this is more than a little of confirmation bias. In my experience, gw's surge has a lot more to do with stellar models, better communications and media savvy, better ease-of-entry, the explosive popularity of boxed games and return of specialist games, as well as the acknowledgement of 'three ways to play'. Everyone I know has a 40k project on the go, and only a minority's of them are serious tournament players. I've spent more On gw stuff in the last 18 months than in the last ten years, and I haven't got within poking range of a tournament. Tournaments will of course get a boost from 40ks resurgent popularity, and I'm glad they are, but are they driving the surge or is it a case of a rising tide lifts all boats? Are there that many (new) tournament players, or are the same people just playing more? Is it a subset of all the new players that are contributing to the rise in tournaments? Is it growing in spite of itself? Tournament play has always been a minority element of this hobby on the whole. Are you, a self confessed tournament player from 4th ed, extensively familiar (or even vaguely familiar) with the garage/club scene in order to gauge its growt/presence in relation to gw's success? Who knows. That scene tends to be quiet and somewhat invisible - for all we know, it could hypothetically have ten times the players involved as tournaments. And i doñt say this to be crude. Please, don't take it that way at all.
With respect, 'more tournament games' proves nothing beyond there are more tournaments. Though As I said, I am happy for the competitives that their scene is bigger too.
As to why would it be changed and why should it be changed. Simple. Growth. Variety. Tournaments/pick up play should not be seen as the default or root from which all else Springs. Warmachine/hordes, a game I truly love, suffered greatly from an overexposure to 'one way to play' as determined by the community that played it. (To be fair. Pp have made some truly ham fisted decisions too, but the scene didn't really have a 'casual' base, and when the competitive got fed up and left, there was little left) Other approaches, and other types of wargaming should also be encouraged, and explored. And at the end of the day, just Because while some people may like them, plenty more are arguably turned off by them- as has been shown in this thread.
List building is a skill, but some people want the game to be about what you actually do on the board, as opposed to the list you bring and winning before you turn up. They are not wrong either. Personally, as a narrative playerI like 'matching lists' to a theme/scenario, rather than blind, independent list-building-for-advantage. And the forces we would field would be more 'traditional' company based builds rather than super-combos. Essentially, a collaborative approach generally not focused on list building for advantage. An I find it to be a far more intriguing test of skill to 'do the best you can, with what you have to hand, with often sub par units or limited amounts of 'the good stuff'' rather than use a super list as a bit of a crutch. Also gives me an excuse to field everything, and match relatively rather than just focus on the top dozen tournament builds. My opinion, of course. Ymmv.
People are not wrong for feeling this way, Or for feeling that tournament play, and talk about tournament play sucks all the oxygen out of the room and doesn't let other types of gaming happen - gamers are very conservative- once you have a 'default', you rarely see people even considering stepping out of bounds or exploring a game. Creativity ultimately dries up. It's a slow death. I've said it before - there is a viable niche for pick up games and tournaments, and 'pragmatic' gsming. But a lot of things get sacrificed on that altar to make it happen, and I don't consider it to be worth it all of the time.
Honestly GW has been doing well lately partially because they are making decent efforts to support all styles of play, competitive, casual, and narrative included.
Rules-wise it looks like they're aiming to make all the design trade-offs necessary to cater to all types of players. This means that not every player type will be 100% pleased and that's certainly a risk. What makes a game better for a competitive audience might make it worse for a casual audience, and vice versa.
But if they get it right their prize is capturing a much larger audience than catering exclusively to competitive, or exclusively casual, etc.
Based on the recent growth in popularity... it seems to be working?
My problem is that you have to be rocking one of those lists if you want to have a good game, and thats where a good half of my issue with the game lies.
There's really no game out there that avoids this to be honest. 40k probably has more room for bad choices, but there's really not a system that doesn't demand this once players have gotten past the initial learning stages of development.
I play and have played a ton of games and i can say that having been a player for over 30 years total, ive only ever had this problem with gw games.
To this day 40k and aos are the only games where we have to socially engineer our groups in such a way to avoid having to powerlist to have a good game.
Ive also been doing game design since the late 1990s and gw games are the only games with this issue to this degree largely because they are the largest listbuilding focused games.
You dont have as bad of problems in other games because most other games dont design games dpecifically to attract listbuilding.
Listbuilding requires bad balance because it requires optimal choices, and it requires garbage. The tighter the balance, the less of an impact listbuilding has.
The more 2000 pts means 2000 pts the less of an influence a powerlist has.
I have been involved in designing games where the chief complaint from players was that our work was “boring” because their list didnt matter as much as playing did. To include azyr comp, one of the most used fan comps of aos before gw gave that game points again. Gw makes these disparities intentionally to appeal to listbuilding intentionally. It is a bugbear i struggle with as a designer because i feel gameplay should matter a lot more.
I feel it is the commercially successful model in an era dominated by ccg mechanics and deckbuilding so cant fault them for following the money, but it certainly props up the schism between the folks who want a wargame. For right now, sucks to be us.
The lack of list building is one of the things (among many others) that killed warmachine with mk3. The introduction of all but mandatory themes meant that lists basically wrote themselves. I used to spend hours and hours a week on war room building lists and thinking about what I was going to play the next time I had a chance. It's a big part of the game for many people since actually playing the game tends to be a small percentage of your actual hobby time.
Sqorgar wrote:But that's not the only two choices you had. But what you could've done is asked for a handicap of some sort - start off with an extra small unit, or a bonus victory point, some extra command points, or given the unit a tough-like attribute where if you roll a 6, it ignores that wound.
I can just imagine someone walking into a store to play a pick up game and saying to their opponent "Sorry, is it ok if I start with 10 victory points and give this unit of Orcs frenzy and stubborn, because I like playing with them?". Your solution to the problem of the lack of a semblance of balance is to essentially 'create your edition', which is not going to go down well outside of your core group of friends.
auticus wrote:Terrain has always been one of those things that people both don't want to invest in / building, and don't like impacting their game
Which I've always found odd, considering how much varied terrain you can create with actually very little effort and considering how important terrain is in a typical (good) strategy/tactics game.
how important terrain is in a typical (good) strategy/tactics game
The crucible of my problems with 40k.
It is not a game about strategy and tactics first and foremost. And the people that it appeals to are not as concerned about those things because of that.
See, this is what doesn't look like fun, and doesn't look like a game, but more like counting cards in poker or literally stacking the deck in CCGs, this is the attitude that is frankly exclusionary of others, because in its hyper-optimization for points efficient probabilities, every other way to meet at the table ends in a loss, and a lecture about optimal probabilities rather than a talk about strategy, tactics, battlefield roles and mad turns of event.
You see, in so many words, without actually using the words, you are telling everyone else that they don't play the game correctly, because if they did then they could be competitive, and win, like you~
see, it is a sort of tyranny of the zealous.
I just see it as being realistic. It's not about telling people how to play the game; its about recognizing how the game plays. Game engines are a lot like physics; interconnected systems that govern how different things interact that can largely be defined with math. Competitive play is generally just how the game works, or doesn't if that's the case, but thinking it should be different doesn't change what happens when you actually get to the table.
Part of it is just that people are asking about actually getting to the table. If you've got your optimized points against optimized points, games do depend on strategy, tactics and more than a little luck. To no small degree, the reason people enjoy aiming for top end competition simply because in a tournament, its a good way to get into games that test those factors. You might get some easy wins, but sooner or later, your list isn't going to be enough and you start to see the kind of things people want from every encounter.
The problem is the huge sunk-cost feeling that many players go through when they buy into a faction before learning that, like MtG Standard, there is indeed an effectively, rigidly-enforced selection of viable units at the competitive level.
The thing with magic is, anything that is not good. Is also far cheaper to play, or is a limited designed card. The opportunity cost is far lower, as well as a few other advantages like not needing to paint your deck.
...afraid that someone might remove
the "super-combo CP farming win-button"(tm) from the game mechanics.
Tell me, which list is that? Because your comment just comes off to me as ignorant of the tournament scene. What list exactly is it that is a "super-combo CP farming win-button"?
Name me one list that is absolutely unstoppable in 8th edition, and I'll shut up and accept that you are right. Every list out there has a counter, no list is a "win button".
Some lists are "lose buttons" though, where no matter how you play them you're gonna get stomped. That's to be expected though. There are a solid 10-15 "good" style lists that will do well at any given tournament though, and in each of those there are variations you can customize to base on your playstyle. Honestly your comments come off as someone who plays their fluffy space marines, and doesn't want to be bothered to change up what he brings against newer style 8th edition lists to win.
Shifting goalposts wins you no arguments. There have been problem lists in 40k. GW has been willing to balance them out, but the statistics don't like. I suspect eldar flyers will be around 60ish win percentage, and ynnari lists were. And if you know about game balance, a 60 percent winrate is fething bad for competitive games. List building should involve studying the meta, knowing matchups, and crafting a list for it. Not crafting a list and knowing you can beat almost any other list with it because it is just better.
Now where I stand is that I don't think you can fix it. You can run about and wack down every list that appears and overperforms, but that will just bring the next one out because the way the game inherently values the ability to stack up super murder units and remove models before they get to act, with far fewer units able to pull off near invulnerability. The first two turns almost inevitably involves both sides picking up most of their models (if this is a top tournament game. If its a meta list punching down, one side will be removing all their models) before things like objective grabbing, cost benefit trades, and other clever plays come out because all the over performing murder units have mutually annihilated.
But I also don't begrudge the people who enjoy top tournament play or any success they win. I've moved on to games that I feel have tighter core balance, but they don't have the following. If you like playing competitive 40k and you are even finding success with it, more power to you.
The problem is the huge sunk-cost feeling that many players go through when they buy into a faction before learning that, like MtG Standard, there is indeed an effectively, rigidly-enforced selection of viable units at the competitive level.
The thing with magic is, anything that is not good. Is also far cheaper to play, or is a limited designed card. The opportunity cost is far lower, as well as a few other advantages like not needing to paint your deck.
MTG isn't actually fantastically cheaper at the competitive level, the deck cycles for most competitive formats every three months and you have to heavy invest in the next set to grab all the cards required. If you are chasing the MTG tourney meta, you are buying a lot of gak regularly. And as much as GW wants you to do the same for 40k, there's a limit to their ability to churn. The top competitive people all have huge collections and trade freely with each other and are pretty much set for getting their hands on most models for little investment.
See, this is what doesn't look like fun, and doesn't look like a game, but more like counting cards in poker or literally stacking the deck in CCGs, this is the attitude that is frankly exclusionary of others, because in its hyper-optimization for points efficient probabilities, every other way to meet at the table ends in a loss, and a lecture about optimal probabilities rather than a talk about strategy, tactics, battlefield roles and mad turns of event.
You see, in so many words, without actually using the words, you are telling everyone else that they don't play the game correctly, because if they did then they could be competitive, and win, like you~ see, it is a sort of tyranny of the zealous.
I just see it as being realistic. It's not about telling people how to play the game; its about recognizing how the game plays. Game engines are a lot like physics; interconnected systems that govern how different things interact that can largely be defined with math. Competitive play is generally just how the game works, or doesn't if that's the case, but thinking it should be different doesn't change what happens when you actually get to the table. Part of it is just that people are asking about actually getting to the table. If you've got your optimized points against optimized points, games do depend on strategy, tactics and more than a little luck. To no small degree, the reason people enjoy aiming for top end competition simply because in a tournament, its a good way to get into games that test those factors. You might get some easy wins, but sooner or later, your list isn't going to be enough and you start to see the kind of things people want from every encounter.
It might be realistic but this is exactly the sort of thing that leads to my "math hammer is the devil" rant. Because this does NOT look like fun. It looks like boiling everything down to numbers, and then unequivocally stating that X is bad so there are zero reasons to ever take X unless you're a masochist (or scrub, or CAAC, or whatever term we want to use) and will defend X to the death because you just want to make it work, while everyone else will ignore X because "the numbers" say X is bad. There's no discussion of how to make X work (this is more the fault of the system though; other wargames usually have ways to make things work somehow) just X sucks take Y instead. Which is feth all helpful to someone who likes X and wanted to make it work to be told "Nope, there is no way to do that. You chose poorly, buy something else and research this time so you don't make this mistake again"
When GW pitches the game as being a spectacle and how you should pick armies/units/lists based on what looks good, or what jumps out as thematic to you, or basically anything other than "The number-crunching says this is good", then while it's not "wrong" seeing that approach to the game looks like it's flying in the face of everything the game is presented to be about. Basically, it's that math hammer denigrates the game to not caring about anything EXCEPT mathematical efficiency. Sure, that's a valid way to play. I totally get some people enjoy analyzing everything in exquisite detail to find the "best". But, and I sound like a crotchety old man here I know, god damn it, that approach FEELS like it's wrong.
I think part of it is the sheer ubiquitous presence of 40k, and whilst you can't be having fun wrong, I've long maintained you can be playing the wrong game, but if 40k is the only game in town you're kind of stuffed (as others have mention the uphill thanlkess task trying to get other not 40k games up and running can be)
Once, in an age barely remembered, there was no 40k and wee Turnip and his nerd amigos were RPG players. where basically the rules came secondary to spinning a tale and resolving the surprise sword and wand based interactions
Then 40k rumbled in and some of the herd picked it and some didn't, but it was always a numbers game to us with the RPG's being our narrative fix
Unsurprisingly I blame GW in part as they really don't seem to know what the game is actually meant to be, other than the model selling juggernaut its become
I think we give GW too much credit when we say they don't know what they want it to be.
I think they have the magic the gathering rules development paradigm pinned to the wall in the ivory tower.
They are trying to make a game that has great narrative, great models, and also attracts numbers crunching spike personalities as well and their game design reflects that.
Then they say "well you don't have to play like spike plays, if you like narrative then buy the models that forge your narrative".
Which is true!
And the community echoes that!
And thats also true! And fine.
Except when spike bleeds into casual play. No one likes to get stomped by spike because they took a narrative list. So the spike way to play becomes slowly a thing in pretty much every group I've ever played in until its the only game in town.
And then you have people venting their frustration, both in person and on forums. And the schism we see between spike and casual and have seen since internet forums were a thing becomes the spectacle instead of the game because a lot of people bought into whfb, aos, and 40k because of the spectacle and the narrative, not the number crunching, but the number crunching is in many places across the globe the only way to play. Its just you don't get told that at the gate, you find out later after you've spent $500 - $1000 and hundreds of hours of time painting that you need to be rocking adepticon list B for your faction or else you will get erased by turn 2, your bad for not researching the game, go git gud (and here again, I was the spike for about a decade and i did the travel to GTs across the US and told people to git gud for not researching so I've been on both sides of the fence)
Because with 40k, and AOS, and WHFB before it, and any GW game really, you must be good at socially engineering if you want to play the game in anyway other than as a numbers crunching exercise.
And typically GW games are the only game in town for a lot of people because no one wants to buy in to other systems that have few players.
I would argue the issue isn't even "Spike" bleeding into casual play, it's that the game isn't designed remotely well enough that there isn't a grand canyon's worth of a gap between "Spike" and the rest (I forget the MTG terms. Jimmy? Timmy? No wait I think that's South Park). If the gap wasn't huge, then Spike would have an advantage because he number crunches (as he should) but it wouldn't be as lopsided as you find. Honestly, 40k fits David Sirlin's concept of a "degenerate" game in that it can't properly support the mindset. The choices are too obvious in most cases, and too extreme when used even in small doses.
David Sirlin, Playing to Win wrote: Some games don't hold up to high-level play. That's sloppy design in my opinion. A solid game holds up to experts playing it as hard as they can against each other. That way, the game can be fun for beginners and experts.
When a game doesn't hold up to expert play, it's degenerate in some way. There's only one good move or one good character, or one good strategy, or something like that. The game offers what appears to be a lot of fun options, but you don't actually get to do those fun options against experts, even if you are an expert too. So for this type of game, playing to win really will make it less fun, but that's not a problem with the players who are doing their best; it's a problem with the game. I wouldn't fault players here or complain to them that they are playing in a boring way. I'd complain to the game developer or play a different game.
Emphasis mine. I would argue that almost, if not exactly, 100% describes 40k to a tee (AOS too). A well-designed game would appeal to Spike who wants to number crunch and find all the min/maxed wombo-combos, but also be able to appeal to Jim (making up my own names here) who wants to build a themed force around the Blood Angels 5th company that fought in the Battle of Omicron Persei IX, with every model named and customized, and Dwight who just likes certain models and wants to build an army based around what he finds is cool and not just get his teeth kicked in every game he plays because sucks for him, the models he likes aren't very good on the table.
THAT is the problem. 40k pretends it can appeal to all three of those personalities, but it really can't. That's why you see the Spike types dominate outside of the PR-laden WHC articles and the small pockets of narrative gaming. Because when you have to house rule or tack on a bunch of extra stuff, or worse restrict yourself because even remotely trying to be like Spike will throw the game off the rails, there's a huge problem.
40k definitely does have some design issues, because even if you take 2 absolutely casual players who play their favorite units, and do zero math on trying to figure out the best combos, the game is horribly imbalanced. A new player who picks up Knights is going to utterly trash a new player who picks up space marines. A new player who picks up Eldar will utterly trash a new player who picks up grey knights. If both players are trying to absolutely maximize their armies, the imbalance IMO actually shrinks, because they both understand what is possible and try to plan around it with their list.
Honestly, people who take tournament lists to play against casual players ARE a problem, and those guys are jerks. I live in a city with a large casual gamer group... I have never once played my tournament list against them. I'll bring my mono-codex Guard list, and generally have a fun time (except the one guy who asked for a game and didn't tell me he was bringing Grey Knights, so I didn't hobble my list hard enough to not massacre him). People who take high powered tournament lists to smash casuals at their LGS are a different issue entirely from competitive gamers, because they're both ruining the fun for others and not doing anything constructive themselves. This is a situation though where I think it's on the local group to not tolerate that crap. If you see a guy bringing his ITC Knight Soup list to narrative games, then refuse to play him. If you see a new player looking for a game, warn him about that guy. Don't let that behavior slide.
Anyone who is ACTUALLY competitive, and not just trying to stomp noobs, would generally want to either play a fun narrative game with casual gamers just to play 40k, or spend time painting models for his tournament list. Stomping people with a tournament list when they don't want that style of game it is actually detrimental to the guy with the tournament list, since he's just picking up bad habits.
We have a handful of guys that only ever take tournament lists regardless of what type of game they are playing.
Because to them all games should be ultra competitive, no matter where they are played and to them in their mind they are properly preparing their opponents to play at that level by beating the garbage units off the table to encourage them to go buy better units to be better players.
Which is where I say it bleeds into all forms of play where I am.
Unfortunately it sounds like you're dealing with some rather toxic players then, that are just ruining the fun for everyone. Do you have other guys that don't play tournament lists? I'd try to talk to them, and maybe convince them to just stop playing against those guys who bring tournament lists. Maybe they'll get the message if people refuse to play them.
I guess it also depends what you mean by "tournament" lists. If they're bringing something like mono codex Astra Militarum, but using 3 Tank Commanders instead of 3 Leman Russ, that isn't really a tournament list. If they're bringing Astra Militarum with Blood Angels allies and some Assassins, that's a different matter entirely.
Wayniac wrote: It might be realistic but this is exactly the sort of thing that leads to my "math hammer is the devil" rant. Because this does NOT look like fun. It looks like boiling everything down to numbers, and then unequivocally stating that X is bad so there are zero reasons to ever take X unless you're a masochist (or scrub, or CAAC, or whatever term we want to use) and will defend X to the death because you just want to make it work, while everyone else will ignore X because "the numbers" say X is bad. There's no discussion of how to make X work (this is more the fault of the system though; other wargames usually have ways to make things work somehow) just X sucks take Y instead. Which is feth all helpful to someone who likes X and wanted to make it work to be told "Nope, there is no way to do that. You chose poorly, buy something else and research this time so you don't make this mistake again"
When GW pitches the game as being a spectacle and how you should pick armies/units/lists based on what looks good, or what jumps out as thematic to you, or basically anything other than "The number-crunching says this is good", then while it's not "wrong" seeing that approach to the game looks like it's flying in the face of everything the game is presented to be about. Basically, it's that math hammer denigrates the game to not caring about anything EXCEPT mathematical efficiency. Sure, that's a valid way to play. I totally get some people enjoy analyzing everything in exquisite detail to find the "best". But, and I sound like a crotchety old man here I know, god damn it, that approach FEELS like it's wrong.
I don't really disagree with how you feel about it; I'm just explaining my approach. Knowing how and why things work the way they do lets me understand how and why some things don't work. Now, where I find internet discussion on the matter problematic is that they usually don't know how to take this information beyond finding what's most optimal. I find the information interesting because if you dig a little deeper and find how much less optimal something is, you can start to come up with some better answers to your other questions than "X sucks, take Y". The game is big enough that you can include some pet models here and there and still have a pretty solid build. It's just a question of how much efficiency you're willing to give up to put it on the table. If the top tournament list is 100% efficient or so; its pretty easy to play 80% or so and still be in the game and still often win, particularly at a local level and there's really nothing wrong with that.
Generally when something is suboptimal, its not doing nothing. For example, I get that DW Veterans with Storm Bolters and Shields are super optimal, but I like Frag Cannons and some of the Primaris options. Those things are "less" optimal, but still pretty solid; like 90% or so of the best choice. Taking them as one of my troop choices isn't crippling my list. The same is true of most models people love but aren't great. They still do something in game and can be really fun to play if you love them; you just need to be realistic about it. Where I see people get into trouble is when they get convinced that to enjoy their favorite model they have to spam it. I find more enjoyment when I start with something optimal and find something to remove to fit in just one of whatever it is that I love and make the most of it. It gives my favorite model its best chance to succeed.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
auticus wrote: We have a handful of guys that only ever take tournament lists regardless of what type of game they are playing.
Because to them all games should be ultra competitive, no matter where they are played and to them in their mind they are properly preparing their opponents to play at that level by beating the garbage units off the table to encourage them to go buy better units to be better players.
Which is where I say it bleeds into all forms of play where I am.
Generally every meta experiences a bit of an arms race. Some of it comes from players who really are of the WAAC mindset, but its also just something of a natural progression. You get two rather casual players that play a game and afterwards, the loser feels disappointed in how a unit performed or just gets something new and shiny and adds it to their list. Over time this just naturally evolves their list into something more competitive. It's actually the process most competitive lists come from; they're just generally forged from players who get in a dozen games a week and are able to rapidly explore and evolve their lists.
It's honestly rather hard to tune things back down. Most people bring their best and expect their opponent to do the same and in a game with as many models as 40k, sometimes its even hard to have weaker options on hand to play with, let alone judge how weak is weak enough. It's hard to get a feel of whether you're losing because you held back too much or winning because you didn't hold back enough compared to the purity of neither side holding back. There's a difference between winning and improving as a player and to a lot of people the latter can't exist if you're pulling your punches. Of course, some people just like to win without any regards to their opponent. They're definitely a challenge to keep in line.
Horst wrote: Unfortunately it sounds like you're dealing with some rather toxic players then, that are just ruining the fun for everyone. Do you have other guys that don't play tournament lists? I'd try to talk to them, and maybe convince them to just stop playing against those guys who bring tournament lists. Maybe they'll get the message if people refuse to play them.
I guess it also depends what you mean by "tournament" lists. If they're bringing something like mono codex Astra Militarum, but using 3 Tank Commanders instead of 3 Leman Russ, that isn't really a tournament list. If they're bringing Astra Militarum with Blood Angels allies and some Assassins, that's a different matter entirely.
As usual, it sounds like those who hate tournament players are the actual "toxic players'. I have rarely seen tournament players be so damn judgmental against players who prefer narrative games, yet the reverse is quite true in regards to those that hate tournament players for some bizarre reasons. I've always contended its because they hate losing and yet don't want to actually learn to play at the tournament level which is much more a WAAC mentality.
I think its more they hate playing a one-sided game where the winner is already determined because their opponent won't tone the power of their list down, thrusting the complete onus on the narrative/casual player to collect and chase the power meta to have good games along with the tournament players that already gladly do this.
Which takes us down the road of GW and GW inept balancing is the root of the problem.
I don't hate tournament players.
I dislike players that show up to campaign days knowing the game is narrative and casual and knowing that that is the type of list expected with their ATC/Adepticon/LVO list.
I certainly don't hate tournament players going to tournaments and playing with tournament lists. That is expected.
auticus wrote: I think its more they hate playing a one-sided game where the winner is already determined because their opponent won't tone the power of their list down, thrusting the complete onus on the narrative/casual player to collect and chase the power meta to have good games along with the tournament players that already gladly do this.
Which takes us down the road of GW and GW inept balancing is the root of the problem.
I don't hate tournament players.
I dislike players that show up to campaign days knowing the game is narrative and casual and knowing that that is the type of list expected with their ATC/Adepticon/LVO list.
I certainly don't hate tournament players going to tournaments and playing with tournament lists. That is expected.
I dont disagree, as I can play up or down in my lists depending on what kind of game I want. However, good players tend to beat average players regardless of list and that is what I think many people discount (their own overall skill level at the game). I just have not seen a tournament player have spew such open vitriol at non-tournament players in the same way. I'm always astounded that 40k is one of the few miniature games where its players all think they "know how to play the game well" and get mad when they lose, rather than sit down and figure out why they lost. This isn't as big of a problem in other miniature games.
My experience is not the same as yours in regards to player skill. I've already outlined that in past posts though.
TLDR: when my powergaming buddies and myself stopped powergaming, our win/loss ratio plummeted to about 50/50. I can count on one hand the number of players I've met over 20 years of playing 40k or WHFB/AOS that could take a bad list and beat an ok player that had a great list.
I find good games are great players with bad lists playing bad players (not average ... bad) with good lists. Those games usually are fun to play or watch because they are unpredictable.
Tournament players don't slag non tournament players because they are the dictators of what type of game gets played typically.
Now in my events and any narrative event I have been to that forced certain types of lists, I *have* reliably seen tournament players slag non tournament players because they don't like to have to change their list.
Which leads me to the conclusion that it has nothing to do wtih tournament vs non tournament players. It has to do with being forced to field a list that you don't want to. Typically in most environments, the powerlisters are going to be dictating you have to take powerlists if you want a good game unless they are willing to tone down (which some will) and so naturally the players that are being forced to buy models they don't like to have a good game are the casual / narrative players - thus displaying disproportionately more venom at having to do so than tournament players will ever exhibit, as dictators of what playstyle is being played. They will tone down, *if they want to*. Narrative players will have to power up *if they want a good game*.
However some of the times if an event really enforces certain list comps, you will see it the other way around.
This isn't as big of a problem in other miniatures games for a variety of reasons.
#1) most games are not as packed with players, meaning the competitive scenes in most games are tiny. Most people in any other game I play will not min/max, not because they can't or don't know how, but because there is that social contract present that does not exist in 40k or AOS/WHFB.
#2) most games also have a tighter ruleset than GW games, which just exasperates the issues with bad balance while also wanting to appeal to min/max play and narrative play at the same time.
Non-tournament players usually aren't the ones who go to a tournament, lose and then say how the tournament should be less competitive. They just stay away from tournaments.
What's far more common though is the group of tournament players going to campaign/narrative events with their tournament list and wrecking face and it's all "git gud" sort of horsegak, instead of staying away from those events unless they want to tone down.
Basically, the tournament players have their organized events (i.e. tournaments) where it can be expected you won't find casual players (you sometimes get the ones who don't care if they win or lose, they want to just have fun). But the flip side is often not true, and you're likely to find tournament players lurking around casual events trying to "win" a campaign, or if they're real donkey caves then deliberately to disrupt the event.
Also exactly what auticus stated. Usually, your tournament players are in the position of power. They have more power to exert over the community and "meta". So a tournament player doesn't *have* to tone down their list if they don't want to. Some will (IMHO the best ones who know when to bring a power list and when to bring something fun), but a lot will just tell everyone else to "git gud" which results in the non-tournament players *having* to power up their list, or get their teeth kicked in repeatedly. It's a power imbalance.
And yes, the majority of tournament players do NOT do this. But it only takes one jackass doing it to completely kill off non-tournament games, at least from the public eye.
In my experience they aren't there trying to actually be disruptive, but indeed are there to win campaigns or narrative events as hard as they try to win tournaments with the same type of list because everything should be played at that level of competitiveness to them.
Would also like to point out I am not saying all tournament players do this. Or even half. Its typically a handful in a larger group.
But it only takes 1 or 2 to get the bile going in the event they are inadvertently crashing.
Kirasu wrote:
As usual, it sounds like those who hate tournament players are the actual "toxic players'. I have rarely seen tournament players be so damn judgmental against players who prefer narrative games, yet the reverse is quite true in regards to those that hate tournament players for some bizarre reasons. I've always contended its because they hate losing and yet don't want to actually learn to play at the tournament level which is much more a WAAC mentality.
Kirasu wrote: I just have not seen a tournament player have spew such open vitriol at non-tournament players in the same way.
I'm sure there are as many reasons for disliking tournaments, and even tournament players as there are people who dislike tournaments and/or tournament players. I doubt it's as simplistic as 'they hate losing and don't want to l2p'. If one were to ask, the actual reasons (as oppose to projections) will probably range from polite disinterest in 'that kind of thing' from some towards full on 'nuke the site from orbit' from others. Don't be so quick as to throw about terms like 'hate' and 'toxic'. You're coming very close to 'other-ing'. With respect, while you probably don't mean it in this way, it's not helpful.
And with respect, it does go both ways. Maybe you've not seen it, but Keep an eye out, especially on the usual 'red button' threads like points versus power level etc., and you will see that it does happen - there are more than just a couple of posters who either denigrate or dismiss narrative games and gamers entirely, either dismissing their value by saying theyre just about pew pew noises or as dismissing them entirely as not being serious, or for serious people as well as posts that are incredibly judgemental and full of naked contempt against anything that isn't blind-match up/individual list-building-for-advantage, anything that isn't points-based, anything that questions points at all, anything that suggests or encourages a collaborative/cooperative instead of competitive-at-all-costs etc. Or that you should consider your opponent at all and should only be about winning, and screw them because despite this being a social hobby, their enjoyment/misery is not your problem.
Toxic players are toxic players. I've come across them both in 'casual' environments, and 'serious' environments. The trick is, regardless of where on the competitive/not competitive spectrum you are on, to try to avoid them.
I dislike players that show up to campaign days knowing the game is narrative and casual and knowing that that is the type of list expected with their ATC/Adepticon/LVO list.
So, here's the challenge you're presenting these players. You're expecting them to come to play a game with the objective to win but not do too much to win but not have a clear definition of what too much is other than if they win all the games in which the objective is to win they probably did too much?
I'm not trying to put words in your mouth; more just expressing how the concept of a casual list comes across to competitive minded players. They're left in a weird gap where success breeds contempt which robs a lot of the motivation to participate.
I'm sure there are as many reasons for disliking tournaments
For the record, I dislike tournaments. Being locked into play the same list multiple times in a row bores me, as I like to change it up a bit game to game.
Its an event specifically laid forth to bring casual for-fun lists.
Now over the years I have learned that I had to codify what that means.
It can be that just as tournaments are offputting to casual / narrative players that don't want to chase the meta, that casual / narrative events aren't really the thing for tournament players, and I think thats ok.
But beyond that, codifying what you mean (comp) goes a long way. For AOS that has meant that I have identified the two biggest things that blow casual lists out of the water and provide an alternate means of victory.
If they do too many mortal wounds or summon too many free models, the other player gets a sudden death victory condition because they see that they cannot achieve a nominal military victory against such a superior foe so they need to take their small victories (in the form of a sudden death victory) and run.
This has been immensely successful without telling people that they cannot take something.
It has also caused several people to have melt downs because the real game doesn't enforce something liike that (even though sudden death victory conditions are in fact part of the core rules for open play, which our events fall under open/narrative play)
And yes, the majority of tournament players do NOT do this. But it only takes one jackass doing it to completely kill off non-tournament games, at least from the public eye.
I'm not sure I understand your definition of a non-tournament game. I assume you're referring to games played with competitive lists outside of an event as tournament games still? If so, what about when two players with "casual" lists get paired up in a tournament?
I'm not trying to be obtuse here. I think I get your meaning, I just think the pursuit of "non-tournament" games ends up moving the goal posts. There's not exactly a utopia free of the tyranny of list building below the tournament meta; there's just a slightly weaker subset of overly strong options and Grey Knights that recreate the same divisions all over again.
And yes, the majority of tournament players do NOT do this. But it only takes one jackass doing it to completely kill off non-tournament games, at least from the public eye.
I'm not sure I understand your definition of a non-tournament game. I assume you're referring to games played with competitive lists outside of an event as tournament games still? If so, what about when two players with "casual" lists get paired up in a tournament?
I'm not trying to be obtuse here. I think I get your meaning, I just think the pursuit of "non-tournament" games ends up moving the goal posts. There's not exactly a utopia free of the tyranny of list building below the tournament meta; there's just a slightly weaker subset of overly strong options and Grey Knights that recreate the same divisions all over again.
No, what I mean is that I (and auticus has seen this way more) have seen a casual/fun/non-competitive group be essentially devoured from the inside by one jackass competitive player going there and curbstomping people. It starts a chain reaction where everyone begins to abandon casual play to start bringing stronger and stronger lists so they don't get clubbed like a baby seal until eventually, no more casual games happen. It's the mindset shift. One guy brings Loyal 32 with a knight and 3 smash captains to "40k Friday" at the game store, and there's a chance that people are going to see that list absolutely crush poor Bob's fluffy Word Bearers chaos army and start a chain reaction of people bringing competitive lists so they don't end up like Bob.
That's what I mean. All it takes is one jackass to go to a campaign/narrative event/casual game night with a power list and utterly thrash someone for the entire casual meta to collapse as everyone starts an arms race in the vein of the old Looney Tunes cartoons with Bugs Bunny and Elmer Fudd where they chase each other with bigger and bigger weapons)
More specifically, casual games will still happen. Its just that everyone in the store/group amplifies their lists so that everyone is running tournament-efficient lists, tournament or no.
Which for an optimizer is great, because now everyone is playing the same type of lists as they are and they don't have to deal with clubbing baby seals (being optimistic and not assuming this is a waac guy).
For narrative players, this sucks because the narrative builds are slowly removed out of the environment in lieu of the optimized builds, even though there is no tournament going on.
More specifically, casual games will still happen. Its just that everyone in the store/group amplifies their lists so that everyone is running tournament-efficient lists, tournament or no.
Which for an optimizer is great, because now everyone is playing the same type of lists as they are and they don't have to deal with clubbing baby seals (being optimistic and not assuming this is a waac guy).
For narrative players, this sucks because the narrative builds are slowly removed out of the environment in lieu of the optimized builds, even though there is no tournament going on.
Yes, this is actually what I meant. You have "casual" games but they are all with optimized, quasi-tournament (if not full blown tournament) type lists. What dies is casual/non-competitive/non-optimized/fluffy/fun/narrative lists because inevitably those lists will get curbstomped by the people who are bringing the heavily optimized lists, and those people will either get frustrated and leave, or "git gud" and start bringing the optimized lists themselves to have a fighting chance.
The end result is you have a community that only plays tournament style games. Any new players are shown that everyone plays tournament style lists, so get into tournament style list building immediately.
That's essentially the physics in effect. You can attempt to find your own point where something is precariously balanced, but the physics of the system is working against you and all it takes is an outside force to bring it down.
In both cases though, you're looking to create an environment at equilibrium with itself. I guess I just don't understand the antagonism levied when that equilibrium is in line with what is essentially the game's natural state. I understand the desire for armies than are evocative of the fluff, but in the instance of 8th; the competitive meta is pretty fluffy; at least from how I've always perceived the world. I'm not sure what makes other lists narratively better and not just different.
Things like tactical marines and bog standard chaos marines being missing is one example.
Automatically Appended Next Post: The next issue being once your entire area is chasing its tail then everyone has to burn and churn as new faqs are released, so if you love a faction, chances are its not in the top of the meta and you have to be ok with getting pounded.
This also shortens interest overall and you constantly need to recruit new people and say goodbye to those you enjoyed.
Is that any better than say, banning Knights across the board? You're still just removing something people love from the game. Standard Marines aren't really that bad and I'm not really sure how casual you have to get to make them appear. The things that bully them out of the game exist in the troop slots of about every army. There's no secret super powered model keeping them down. They work as a subpar troop choice still; you just can't take like 60 of them
That's actually part of the reason I'm really fond of soup. For the most part, its kept every faction at least playable as a part of an army somewhere. I love my Grey Knights and they're terrible, but a limited detachment can still be a lot of fun.
LunarSol wrote: I guess I just don't understand the antagonism levied when that equilibrium is in line with what is essentially the game's natural state. I understand the desire for armies than are evocative of the fluff, but in the instance of 8th; the competitive meta is pretty fluffy; at least from how I've always perceived the world. I'm not sure what makes other lists narratively better and not just different.
I think a lot of people simply don't share your perception. I don't know many players -- even of the competitive variety -- who would honestly call smash captains & scouts + loyal 32 + Imperial Knight a fluffy, representative 40K military force. Add some BA tacticals or other units and some IG tanks and support in place of the Knight, and opinions might shift as those elements start to feel fuller and more well-rounded...more like an 'army' or 'armies'. You obviously feel differently, but I legitimately have a hard time getting inside your headspace on this point.
Note that I'm not knocking competitive players for taking what's good. It's the system that rewards fielding cherry-picked, barebones mishmash combinations, and I think there are definitely players who are turned off by that.
LunarSol wrote: I guess I just don't understand the antagonism levied when that equilibrium is in line with what is essentially the game's natural state. I understand the desire for armies than are evocative of the fluff, but in the instance of 8th; the competitive meta is pretty fluffy; at least from how I've always perceived the world. I'm not sure what makes other lists narratively better and not just different.
I think a lot of people simply don't share your perception. I don't know many players -- even of the competitive variety -- who would honestly call smash captains & scouts + loyal 32 + Imperial Knight a fluffy, representative 40K military force. Add some BA tacticals or other units and some IG tanks and support in place of the Knight, and opinions might shift as those elements start to feel fuller and more well-rounded...more like an 'army' or 'armies'. You obviously feel differently, but I legitimately have a hard time getting inside your headspace on this point.
Note that I'm not knocking competitive players for taking what's good. It's the system that rewards fielding cherry-picked, barebones mishmash combinations, and I think there are definitely players who are turned off by that.
The only reason you don't see the tacticals in that list is because scouts are a slightly more min-maxed option that fills the same role at a better price. It's a design space issue that comes down to FFG essentially making Tacs irrelevant in their own codex.
I get that my perspective is universal; I've just mostly experienced the 40k universe via videogames and books and such where the Imperium and Chaos and the like are more intermixed than what appears in codices. 17 tough guys behind 32 soft guys is the kind of ratio I expect (honestly, I'd expect fewer marines). I often feel like its mostly the result of GW selling players chunks of the Imperium as a "new army" to sell more kits over the years, because for some reason cultist/chaos marines is a much more accepted mix than guard/marines despite being more or less the same relationship in the fluff. Even a recent Frontline Gaming podcast lamented how cultists weren't a troop choice in the Chaos Knights codex because it broke their self imposed faction purity rules to mix them but it seemed really fluffy. Well, the official GW faction rules allow and encourage that mix because it IS really fluffy and I find that same mix equally how I've always experienced the Imperium as well.
Scouts are literally better than tactical marines though.... especially with blood angels. Scouts get a close combat weapon, so they can have 2 attacks each instead of the 1 each that a tac marine gets. Plus, they get the very nice ability to infiltrate anywhere on the board.
Horst wrote: Scouts are literally better than tactical marines though.... especially with blood angels. Scouts get a close combat weapon, so they can have 2 attacks each instead of the 1 each that a tac marine gets. Plus, they get the very nice ability to infiltrate anywhere on the board.
Tac marines pay more for less. It's terrible.
I've always kind of hated scouts. To me they fill the role that Guard should be filling in an imperium list. Unlike the way soup works though, because they fill the same slot in the same codex, the way they were designed just makes one replace the other completely with scouts generally taking the honors. They're pretty much my go to example of the problems 40k has with design space because they've essentially always been like this.
Horst wrote: Scouts are literally better than tactical marines though.... especially with blood angels. Scouts get a close combat weapon, so they can have 2 attacks each instead of the 1 each that a tac marine gets. Plus, they get the very nice ability to infiltrate anywhere on the board.
Tac marines pay more for less. It's terrible.
I've always kind of hated scouts. To me they fill the role that Guard should be filling in an imperium list. Unlike the way soup works though, because they fill the same slot in the same codex, the way they were designed just makes one replace the other completely with scouts generally taking the honors. They're pretty much my go to example of the problems 40k has with design space because they've essentially always been like this.
Back in 2nd ed, Scouts had lower toughness and weaker armour. I never got why they changed that. But it does confirm the design space argument.
Horst wrote: Scouts are literally better than tactical marines though.... especially with blood angels. Scouts get a close combat weapon, so they can have 2 attacks each instead of the 1 each that a tac marine gets. Plus, they get the very nice ability to infiltrate anywhere on the board.
Tac marines pay more for less. It's terrible.
I've always kind of hated scouts. To me they fill the role that Guard should be filling in an imperium list. Unlike the way soup works though, because they fill the same slot in the same codex, the way they were designed just makes one replace the other completely with scouts generally taking the honors. They're pretty much my go to example of the problems 40k has with design space because they've essentially always been like this.
See, this is something here.
Maybe for a "list" you are better off spamming cheap guarsdmen and tossing them into bushes,
but in an army, like space marines, these are a focused force, precise, hard and effective - different animal, theme, synergies,
and different ways to "win".
The best leader makes the most of what is given,
the worst, can't.
Simple.
This is to say also that I agree with a prior poster,
that scouts used to be more different, less hard than marines,
and so more clearly played a different role.
Also worthy of note is that cover and so on, line of sight and realism in general,
seemed to be more important aspects of the game back then, too.
With the way that so-called "competitive" play is set up,
it is not clear to me for which virtue the process is selecting.
Back in 2nd ed, Scouts had lower toughness and weaker armour. I never got why they changed that. But it does confirm the design space argument.
And for me that the current iteration of the game is so broken
that I cannot bend my head enough to make it feel right.
We have a new Ward problem, imho, and it has infested the entire design team.
This is my only explanation for Girlyman and his flying tanks for extra tall beautiful people.
Unless of course the rumor is true,
that what the codexes represent
are simply the propaganda published by the Imperium
for meta-hobbyists to pretend is the truth.
Then, the explanation is that everything is a lie,
which is OK, sure, but that doesn't save the game.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
auticus wrote: Its an event specifically laid forth to bring casual for-fun lists.
Now over the years I have learned that I had to codify what that means.
It can be that just as tournaments are offputting to casual / narrative players that don't want to chase the meta, that casual / narrative events aren't really the thing for tournament players, and I think thats ok.
But beyond that, codifying what you mean (comp) goes a long way. For AOS that has meant that I have identified the two biggest things that blow casual lists out of the water and provide an alternate means of victory.
If they do too many mortal wounds or summon too many free models, the other player gets a sudden death victory condition because they see that they cannot achieve a nominal military victory against such a superior foe so they need to take their small victories (in the form of a sudden death victory) and run.
This has been immensely successful without telling people that they cannot take something.
It has also caused several people to have melt downs because the real game doesn't enforce something liike that (even though sudden death victory conditions are in fact part of the core rules for open play, which our events fall under open/narrative play)
This is necessary I think, a sort of handicapping system.
I am sure that math-hammerers can sort his out,
assigning certain units and combinations of units handicaps ...
I wouldn't blame all that much on the current team. Most of the issues are historical sins that get propagated because no one wants to squat models again. I pick on scouts simply because at some point someone thought Marines needed lesser humans that were already on the ground engaged in the fight and worse still, someone though Guard needed super soldiers that drop down in the middle of the fight and created Scions....
LunarSol wrote: I wouldn't blame all that much on the current team. Most of the issues are historical sins that get propagated because no one wants to squat models again. I pick on scouts simply because at some point someone thought Marines needed lesser humans that were already on the ground engaged in the fight and worse still, someone though Guard needed super soldiers that drop down in the middle of the fight and created Scions....
Why should models ever need squatting?
Dropping support for old stuff just because it is old is lame.
Scouts weren't finished, I think, they needed to run as scouts first
and then eventually could become full on weenies.
Wasn't this the original story about scouts?
And scions, I mean...
Shock troops are the lightly mailed fist of the ... well, Imperium in its local likely corrupted incarnation.
and useful. Important even.
Not exactly belonging to the same "list" from the start.
Kirasu wrote: I just have not seen a tournament player have spew such open vitriol at non-tournament players in the same way.
Really? I guess you missed the opening post, when it still had the facebook posts. Or, really, anything Peregrine has ever posted. Also, I'm sure, if you want, I could provide some links to some Warmachine discussions on playing nicely with new/casual players. Or, heck, what about the first year of posts surrounding Age of Sigmar.
I came to Dakka Dakka with the release of Age of Sigmar. It wasn't my first miniatures game, but after having kids, it had been about 10 years since I used to play Warmachine Mk1. I am not a casual gamer, but I mainly come from video games, and Age of Sigmar with, what we now call, Open Play was something of a revelation to me. I loved it. It was like playing Minecraft. If I felt like doing this, I could. If I felt like doing that, I could. It really allowed me to explore the game in whatever manner I felt. And let me tell you, coming in with no expectations, the dialogue surrounding Age of Sigmar in that first year was... well, let's go with "offputting". If you were there, you'd remember. If you weren't, you'd think my description of it was an exaggeration.
I was enjoying Age of Sigmar so much, I decided to join a local Warmachine group that my brother-in-law was in. The Press Ganger wouldn't play anyone without full tournament lists. One day, there was just the two of us there. I asked if he wanted to play a quick, small game (I only had a small army to play), and he said, let's wait for more people to show up before we start. After ten minutes of us just sitting there, staring off into space, someone showed up with a full tournament list and he played the press ganger while I sat there for another twenty minutes waiting for someone else to show up. There was no vitriol there, but boy did it make me feel like gak. And this was the press ganger - the person in charge of bringing new players into Warmachine!
And I know someone is going to come in and say, well, that guy was an donkey-cave. He wasn't really (though after that, I don't think we said more than 10 words to each other - our opportunity to socialize was basically destroyed). He was just rigid in how he wanted to play the game. And he wasn't the only one. I didn't quit playing Warmachine after that situation. It took more - a lot more - before I was finally like, "well, this just isn't working. I'll stick with Age of Sigmar and weather the insults for enjoying it".
But that rigidity is really the problem. Nobody has any problems with tournament players who can easily play casual or narrative games. The ones that take easy lists against new players, and make suboptimal moves to give them a fun first experience. People have problems with tournament players who can't turn it off. Who are all tournaments, all the time. The ones who look at a game without points and choose to insult the game and the people who enjoy it rather than simply going, "well, that game isn't for me, I'll go spend my efforts on games that are". The ones who go into non-tournament campaign games with a tournament mindset, and ruin the entire campaign for everyone involved. Nobody has a problem with playing tournament style, they have a problem with the rigidity of the tournament mindset.
It's just a question of design priorities and constraints. Dropping support for old stuff is lame, but so is not finding a useful place for things when you do updates. Everyone wants everything playable but when design gets spread too thin, you end up with huge backlogs of models with no real niche to fill.
I think a lot of those kind of redundant models can just share rules. If scouts went away and just became different models for Tacs? Doesn't bother me.
This whole thread is basically about people being upset that any random set of models doesn't necessarily form a competitive list. That's sort of an inevitable outcome when you have enough stuff in a single faction to fill out a 2000 point list 5 times over and only gets worse as more stuff gets added. Codices are like anything. You get what you need, you get some variety, and then you're just getting more stuff than you can use. Sooner or later you just need to get rid of some things or you're just hording.
I don't want a random set of models forming a competitive list.
I want the games that I play to reflect the narrative.
The game can reflect the narrative, but because of GW's poor design ethos, both players have to agree to do so.
If I were going to play competitively or at the tournament level, I wouldn't expect anything less of my opponent than to min/max to the best of their ability, because thats the point of playing that way.
40k and AOS are also the only games that I play where this is an issue.
I guess I don't see what doesn't reflect the narrative, at least any more than other games. What issues do you have with tournament lists that you don't see in the tournament lists for other systems?
auticus wrote: I think its more they hate playing a one-sided game where the winner is already determined because their opponent won't tone the power of their list down, thrusting the complete onus on the narrative/casual player to collect and chase the power meta to have good games along with the tournament players that already gladly do this.
Which takes us down the road of GW and GW inept balancing is the root of the problem.
I don't hate tournament players.
I dislike players that show up to campaign days knowing the game is narrative and casual and knowing that that is the type of list expected with their ATC/Adepticon/LVO list.
I certainly don't hate tournament players going to tournaments and playing with tournament lists. That is expected.
If they're playing in a campaign... tell them to feth off.
auticus wrote: Ive explained in depth over the course of several pages.
I think its pretty clear GW would be happy to see marines placed with the truescale counterparts. I think that's likely how they'd like to see the fluff perceived going forward and are trying to do so without either forcing people to buy the new models or get away with not buying the new stuff. Next edition they'll give Tacs rules that only work while hopping on one foot or something until they can shame them out of everyone's collections.
The discussion in this thread has been excellent. Feel like I've learned something about how different kinds of players value different things and what that means for a game design. Thanks to everyone who's participated so far.
Sqorgar wrote: But that rigidity is really the problem. Nobody has any problems with tournament players who can easily play casual or narrative games. The ones that take easy lists against new players, and make suboptimal moves to give them a fun first experience. People have problems with tournament players who can't turn it off. Who are all tournaments, all the time. The ones who look at a game without points and choose to insult the game and the people who enjoy it rather than simply going, "well, that game isn't for me, I'll go spend my efforts on games that are". The ones who go into non-tournament campaign games with a tournament mindset, and ruin the entire campaign for everyone involved. Nobody has a problem with playing tournament style, they have a problem with the rigidity of the tournament mindset.
This right here, 100%. I notice a big difference culturally as well. The UK tournament guys (including the guys on the GW design team) seem to enjoy all aspects of the game, and can equally show up to club night with some unoptimized fluffy list that they think would be fun or a no-holds-barred tournament list tuned to win SCGT or whatever other big names UK/European tournament. They don't disparage others who dislike fluffy lists or optimization, and they don't disparage people who like Open Play or Power Level or picking what they think is cool. They can play both.
Compare that with the US mentality: It's usually playing to win, all the time. There is no "turn off". There is no "Maybe I won't min/max everything" although there are varying degrees of that (you have people who always bring their LVO list, and some who know when to tone it down a bit) but there is a very strong "This is how I enjoy the game, and this is the ONLY way I enjoy the game, so I will never deviate from it ever" that cause the issues even if they don't think they are.
That right there, I think, is the core of the issue. Some competitive players cannot ever do anything but competitive. They'll go to a campaign, or an escalation league, or a narrative event with a competitive army, stomp face and then wonder why they get gak for "ruining" the experience by bringing the optimal list. They'll go off on the idea that they shouldn't "dumb down" their list, everyone else should "git gud" and make better lists and have no concept of doing anything except building the best list. The sort of person who made up boogeymen during Open Play AOS about "10 Nagashes" or whatever horsegak as "proof" that Open Play was busted, because without rules to stop people from being donkey caves, they'll be donkey caves, and scoffs at the very idea of talking to your opponent before a game other than "2000 points, Eternal War?" as the most conversation.
slave.entity wrote: The discussion in this thread has been excellent. Feel like I've learned something about how different kinds of players value different things and what that means for a game design. Thanks to everyone who's participated so far.
Yeah this thread has surprised me. There have only been a few trolling attempts to get someone to emotionally go off, and those have been curtailed pretty well.
Those are the best discussions. Where we can all find at least perspective.
Compare that with the US mentality: It's usually playing to win, all the time. There is no "turn off". There is no "Maybe I won't min/max everything" although there are varying degrees of that (you have people who always bring their LVO list, and some who know when to tone it down a bit) but there is a very strong "This is how I enjoy the game, and this is the ONLY way I enjoy the game, so I will never deviate from it ever" that cause the issues even if they don't think they are.
That right there, I think, is the core of the issue. Some competitive players cannot ever do anything but competitive. They'll go to a campaign, or an escalation league, or a narrative event with a competitive army, stomp face and then wonder why they get gak for "ruining" the experience by bringing the optimal list. They'll go off on the idea that they shouldn't "dumb down" their list, everyone else should "git gud" and make better lists and have no concept of doing anything except building the best list. The sort of person who made up boogeymen during Open Play AOS about "10 Nagashes" or whatever horsegak as "proof" that Open Play was busted, because without rules to stop people from being donkey caves, they'll be donkey caves, and scoffs at the very idea of talking to your opponent before a game other than "2000 points, Eternal War?" as the most conversation.
I'll agree to that. I've been part of the competitive community for over 15 years but also a huge narrative person that creates my own fluff based campaigns. I certainly see a lot of tournament only players that simply play to win, which is astounding to me because 40k is a pretty awful competitively balanced game ;p If I didn't enjoy the painting and fluff aspect i don't know how I'd deal with the rules being always in shambles. On the flip side, over the decades I've seen the same type of mentality from non-tournament players who want to win but just can't for whatever reason.
I suppose the point of the matter is, there is a type of personality that I'm gonna guess is basically the same on each side of the coin. The inability to adapt their game play and an inflexible thinking pattern create poor gaming experiences.
The reason I stopped playing 40k competitively (and whfb/AOS) is because to do so regularly you have to regularly buy new models and change your army out.
I did pretty well at competitive play, well enough to enjoy myself and collect a trophy room of stuff from playing at that level. But I got super burned out on having to constantly update my collection and assemble/paint new stuff on a deadline.
I also noted it was why a lot of my buddies were leaving the hobby, they were getting burned out, whereas the casual/narrative route had a longer shelf-life.
Other games my model collection can largely remain as it is and I can still get good games years and years later.
It isn't even that you have to buy new models, it's that you have to chase the meta or even switch armies to stay "competitive". Which is great for GW and bad for everything else.
A balanced game would still have that but to a much lesser extent and have way more things viable so you didn't need to run the numbers on each purchase to make sure you aren't buying a stinker, which unduly punishes people who want to pick things they like (you know, the way GW *says* to play) only to find the units the picked are dog gak in-game and suck to be them, should have done research or ignored the fluff. Both of which seem directly opposed to everything GW presents about the game.
If they're playing in a campaign... tell them to feth off.
Yes, but then you open yourself up to accusations of being 'tfg', 'hobby gatekeeping' and being a 'toxic player'.
For the record, playing with like minded individuals should be the number one piece of advice given to anyone. and be positive about your message, rather than othering.
If they're playing in a campaign... tell them to feth off.
Yes, but then you open yourself up to accusations of being 'tfg', 'hobby gatekeeping' and being a 'toxic player'.
For the record, playing with like minded individuals should be the number one piece of advice given to anyone. and be positive about your message, rather than othering.
Don't forget CAAC
But yeah, playing with people who share your ideas of the game is the best advice, and also the hardest.
Wayniac wrote: The sort of person who made up boogeymen during Open Play AOS about "10 Nagashes" or whatever horsegak as "proof" that Open Play was busted, because without rules to stop people from being donkey caves, they'll be donkey caves, and scoffs at the very idea of talking to your opponent before a game other than "2000 points, Eternal War?" as the most conversation.
This reminds me of when they polled a bunch of people who said that they'd never vote for an atheist president. When asked why, the majority of the answers were, without the threat of hell, what's to keep atheists from just going around and murdering and raping? In my head, the only thing I can think is, "Is the only reason these people aren't going around murdering and raping because the rules told them not to? Holy crap".
Ironically, when put to the test, it turns out that atheists tend to dictate themselves in a more moral fashion because their morality is not based on explicit rules, and thus there are fewer loopholes to exploit that allow them to feel like a good person for following the rules, while also doing bad things. There was this complaint thread on Reddit a few days ago from waitresses complaining about how the Sunday crowd will tip with bible verses or chick tracts instead of money.
That's neither here nor there, but I do get the impression from many with the tournament mindset that if the rules allow it (or explicitly don't disallow it) then it is fair game. They are still good players even though they are hella-cheating just because there isn't a specific rule that says it is cheating.
Wayniac wrote: It isn't even that you have to buy new models, it's that you have to chase the meta or even switch armies to stay "competitive". Which is great for GW and bad for everything else.
A balanced game would still have that but to a much lesser extent and have way more things viable so you didn't need to run the numbers on each purchase to make sure you aren't buying a stinker, which unduly punishes people who want to pick things they like (you know, the way GW *says* to play) only to find the units the picked are dog gak in-game and suck to be them, should have done research or ignored the fluff. Both of which seem directly opposed to everything GW presents about the game.
I think a lot of people put more of the meta chase on themselves than they need to. It's often better to stick to a faction and adjust the competitive list you have than faction hop to whatever is currently the tippy top. The best players rarely jump factions to keep things sharp and tend to just evolve as new threats challenge their dominance. Too much attention is paid to the top 4 or whatever and a lot of people fail to appreciate that really anyone going X-1 has had a pretty spectacular showing. The idea that if you play the list that won the last major event you'll win the next one is a huge trap. It's even kind of self defeating, as the next event will probably be won by someone gunning for that list. I see a lot of meta chasers sell armies for the new hotness and that just seems like a recipe for failure. If you stick to one thing and add models to your options as the game shifts around you eventually build up a collection that's a lot more future proof.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that I think too many people put too much faith in having a list at 100% efficiency, but that's not the same as saying you should just build whatever you like without considering how competitive it is. I like to encourage people to start with a net list as a starting point rather than the final one. For the vast majority of people, you're not going to be playing in an environment that can't tolerate 200-400 points of suboptimal. That's even true of most major touranments. Sure, you might now win the whole event, but if you're just copying the top players, you're probably not going to beat those same players at their own game anyway. A netlist gives you a strong foundation to let you know you're not completely off base, but you don't need that exact list to be competitive. If you've got a favorite unit you want to throw in or just have some stuff you want to use because you don't have the 3rd copy of some random thing.... its fine. You can treat the game competitively in a pretty casual manner, just like you can play pretty casually without shielding from the tournament crowd. There's a lot of space in between.
But yeah, playing with people who share your ideas of the game is the best advice, and also the hardest.
But that's its own kind of rigidity too. I think it is more important to be flexible in how you play. The greatness of games like AoS and 40k is in the breadth and variety of experiences you can have with them. You can have a really cutthroat competitive game with them, a big narrative campaign, a beer and pretzels fun time, a test to see if 40 space marines can take on big monster, or paint them all to look like Hello Kitty. You'll get more out of the games if you can do (and enjoy) all of those.
But yeah, playing with people who share your ideas of the game is the best advice, and also the hardest.
But that's its own kind of rigidity too. I think it is more important to be flexible in how you play. The greatness of games like AoS and 40k is in the breadth and variety of experiences you can have with them. You can have a really cutthroat competitive game with them, a big narrative campaign, a beer and pretzels fun time, a test to see if 40 space marines can take on big monster, or paint them all to look like Hello Kitty. You'll get more out of the games if you can do (and enjoy) all of those.
Yes, but the issue is when someone who wants to have cutthroat competitive games heads down to the game store and plays a game against someone who wants a beer and pretzels fun time or what have you. It's far too common that you have a variety of people who want different things from the game, are unable to come to any sort of compromise (this is on both people, not just the competitive one) and as a result, neither has a fun game and thinks the other side sucks.
Wayniac wrote: It's far too common that you have a variety of people who want different things from the game, are unable to come to any sort of compromise (this is on both people, not just the competitive one) and as a result, neither has a fun game and thinks the other side sucks.
That kind of sums up this whole thread, doesn't it?
Well, I know I often just don't go to game nights, because I don't feel like playing with watered down lists, so I just stay home and paint models so I can try them in tournament lists....
So I guess the moral of the story is if you can't play nice, just stay home and play with your toys by yourself, lol.
But that's its own kind of rigidity too. I think it is more important to be flexible in how you play. The greatness of games like AoS and 40k is in the breadth and variety of experiences you can have with them. You can have a really cutthroat competitive game with them, a big narrative campaign, a beer and pretzels fun time, a test to see if 40 space marines can take on big monster, or paint them all to look like Hello Kitty. You'll get more out of the games if you can do (and enjoy) all of those.
Though you are not necessarily wrong, being 'flexible in how you play' is all well and good, but ultimately meaningless when you are the only one willing, or interested in playing, or acomodating that 'flexibility' with different players/styles of games. Which goes back to my point - play with like minded people. If you want flexibility in what/how you play, you really need to find people who want the same. But we are arguing semantics really.
That said, whilst being rigid in what you want isn't necessarily wrong (people like what people like. If that happens to be one thing, then that's fair. If it happens to be one thing that I don't particularly care for, then there also fair - I will at the very least be polite about it). I largely agree with the premise that flexibility in what/how you play is a good thing. Competitive gaming is fun, and has a niche, but I've burned out from it twice, both with 40k and warmachine. Narrative is more what I enjoy now. It takes a fair bit more work to 'game-build' to judge/eyeball rosters/objectives etc, and get right, but for me at least, putting in that amount of work is worth it. In my experience, Having that variety of playing, or evenvexperiencing the varieties of competitive, open and narrative games broadens your horizons and gives you a far better appreciation for enjoying different things and increases the shelf life of your hobby massively.
Though you are not necessarily wrong, being 'flexible in how you play' is all well and good, but ultimately meaningless when you are the only one willing, or interested in playing, or acomodating that 'flexibility' with different players/styles of games. Which goes back to my point - play with like minded people. If you want flexibility in what/how you play, you really need to find people who want the same. But we are arguing semantics really.
Well, if you can play with anyone, you'll never be for want of someone to play with. The problem is, if you like lots of parts of the game and only get to see a very small part of all that, it can be pretty frustrating. Also, though I'm willing to play matched play, I have an intense dislike of min-maxing, so I'd make a particularly bad tournament-style opponent - so, I might play with others, but they won't play with me.
But I might have to be more accommodating, simply because I don't think anyone else actually plays like I do. Jervis does. Whenever I read an article by him, I feel like, finally! Someone gets it! Only to then come online and see 40 page threads about how what he said was stupid and he should feel bad. Every time I see someone complain that Open Play is stupid and isn't really a thing, I get all sad inside, like someone took my candy and kicked me in the nards.
That said, whilst being rigid in what you want isn't necessarily wrong (people like what people like. If that happens to be one thing, then that's fair. If it happens to be one thing that I don't particularly care for, then there also fair - I will at the very least be polite about it). I largely agree with the premise that flexibility in what/how you play is a good thing. Competitive gaming is fun, and has a niche, but I've burned out from it twice, both with 40k and warmachine. Narrative is more what I enjoy now. It takes a fair bit more work to 'game-build' to judge/eyeball rosters/objectives etc, and get right, but for me at least, putting in that amount of work is worth it. In my experience, Having that variety of playing, or evenvexperiencing the varieties of competitive, open and narrative games broadens your horizons and gives you a far better appreciation for enjoying different things and increases the shelf life of your hobby massively.
I feel like Minecraft is a really good example. A competitive player is the type who goes into the game thinking, I'm going to win this game. These are the steps I have to take to get to the dragon, what I need to beat him, and the most efficient way to do this. The narrative player is the type who thinks, I'm going to build a giant castle with my friends, where I will build the basic blueprint, Ted will be in charge of making the throne room, and Phil is going to make the stables. The open play player is the kind that goes, oh hey, this red stone stuff is cool, I'm going to build a working Atari 2600 emulator out of it, because Minecraft isn't a game, it's a toolbox.
The competitive player takes structure and produces efficiency.
The narrative player takes structure and produces experiences.
The open player takes components and builds his own structure.
The competitive player takes structure and produces efficiency.
The narrative player takes structure and produces experiences.
The open player takes components and builds his own structure.
Those categories aren't mutually exclusive.
The last WHFB and 40k campaigns that I was in, the same competitive players that would look at the rules and say "You'd have to be stupid to not see these optimums" were the same ones sitting down and writing out after-the-fact narratives to explain what happened in the battle and what cool things the characters did.
What also happened was players getting together and agreeing, "These are the campaign rules and extra restrictions we're agreeing to use. Such-and-such-thing-that-I-don't-remember is getting restricted so it doesn't get out of hand."
I swear to heaven that people forget that part of playing when you're a kid is negotiating what the rules of the game are going to be. Then you get stuff like this where it's all "This is how I want to play" and "No, I want to play this other way" and a complete failure of anyone to play nice with each other. :-/
But I might have to be more accommodating, simply because I don't think anyone else actually plays like I do. Jervis does. Whenever I read an article by him, I feel like, finally! Someone gets it! Only to then come online and see 40 page threads about how what he said was stupid and he should feel bad. Every time I see someone complain that Open Play is stupid and isn't really a thing, I get all sad inside, like someone took my candy and kicked me in the nards.
If it's any consolation, I'm walking in your shoes, too. But it's very unlikely that I can convince my wife and children to move to the US anytime soon...
The competitive player takes structure and produces efficiency. The narrative player takes structure and produces experiences. The open player takes components and builds his own structure.
Those categories aren't mutually exclusive.
The last WHFB and 40k campaigns that I was in, the same competitive players that would look at the rules and say "You'd have to be stupid to not see these optimums" were the same ones sitting down and writing out after-the-fact narratives to explain what happened in the battle and what cool things the characters did.
What also happened was players getting together and agreeing, "These are the campaign rules and extra restrictions we're agreeing to use. Such-and-such-thing-that-I-don't-remember is getting restricted so it doesn't get out of hand."
I swear to heaven that people forget that part of playing when you're a kid is negotiating what the rules of the game are going to be. Then you get stuff like this where it's all "This is how I want to play" and "No, I want to play this other way" and a complete failure of anyone to play nice with each other. :-/
Right. Because people don't seem to WANT to "negotiate what the rules of the game are going to be". They want it to be universal, so they can minimize discussion for some strange reason (despite, y'know, it is a social game because you're playing with other people). So for every competitive person who knows when to tone it down and write after-the-fact narratives, there's the jackass who can't turn off "tournament" mode no matter what they're playing or who they're playing with that is always showing up with their LVO-style curb stomp list and demanding to use it because "It's a legal list" and feth anything else and if anyone dares to suggest that maybe they shouldn't bring an LVO face-smashing list to a casual game night at the shop or narrative campaign then they are "CAAC" people who should just git gud and learn to optimize lists better rather than expect the person who knows how to optimize better to also know when is and isn't the right to be to be maxing to the nines.
So it goes back to what was said above: Many competitive players, especially it seems in the USA, only have one mode: Tournament. They have no idea or desire to ever do anything else, and get offended when people dislike that they're always bringing their tournament lists all over the place.
The narrative player is the type who thinks, I'm going to build a giant castle with my friends, where I will build the basic blueprint, Ted will be in charge of making the throne room, and Phil is going to make the stables. The open play player is the kind that goes, oh hey, this red stone stuff is cool, I'm going to build a working Atari 2600 emulator out of it, because Minecraft isn't a game, it's a toolbox.
The competitive player takes structure and produces efficiency.
The narrative player takes structure and produces experiences.
The open player takes components and builds his own structure.
Those categories aren't mutually exclusive.
Indeed. I disagree with sqorgar's minecraft comparison as well.
Sqorgar' - Your narrative player sounds like a three man painting team doing a diorama. Or building a themed board. As a narrative player, I also view a rules system as a 'toolbox' as much as your 'open play player' - it's a tool to build interesting games/face-offs and scenarios. And when I speak about building scenarios, I see this as encompassing every aspect of 'the game', from terrain layout/function, opposing/complimentary forces, missions/goals/objectives etc. 'Structures' and 'experiences' are functional facets of the same type of creativity. The main difference is my experience is open play is more freeform in that things like 'a space marine, a tyranid hive tyrant, and a tau stormsurge walk into a bar and decide to hook up to fire some guns at the range' or 'monstrous creature wrestling' is as acceptable a game as anything else, whereas a narrative player will probably raise an eyebrow at calling it 'narrative'. And bear in mind, this is not to say those things couldn't be fun.
With respect, while you probably don't intent it, and probably mean it in the best possible way, it comes across as a little bit of 'gatekeeping' on your behalf when you ascribe all the positive things to what you personally like And all the negative things to things you don't, as you frequently do with regard to competitive games/players, and just seem to misunderstand the other things. If anything, it's probably how I'm picking up your signal here though - like I said, it's probably not deliberate, or anywhere near deliberately malicious on your part.
Sqorgar wrote:
Well, if you can play with anyone, you'll never be for want of someone to play with.
That's not what I said. Playing with like-minded people, or being willing to change up your game for the sake of others (assuming the reverse is also true) is not the same as playing with anyone.
Sqorgar wrote:
The problem is, if you like lots of parts of the game and only get to see a very small part of all that, it can be pretty frustrating.
Agreed. But in ways, that's also the price you pay for 'rigidity', as you say, unless you have those like minded players.
Sqorgar wrote:
Also, though I'm willing to play matched play, I have an intense dislike of min-maxing, so I'd make a particularly bad tournament-style opponent - so, I might play with others, but they won't play with me.
Sqorgar wrote:
But I might have to be more accommodating, simply because I don't think anyone else actually plays like I do. Jervis does. Whenever I read an article by him, I feel like, finally! Someone gets it! Only to then come online and see 40 page threads about how what he said was stupid and he should feel bad. Every time I see someone complain that Open Play is stupid and isn't really a thing, I get all sad inside, like someone took my candy and kicked me in the nards.
I'm just surprised that you are surprised that the Internet would say this back. Forums are what they are - a skewed/different perspective, that tends to self-select from the more serious and competitive players in the community, rather than those from any other viewpoint. Plenty people play like you do. They just don't tend to go online and get involved in the 'General discussion' or 'tactics' boards- maybe 'painting/modelling is weirdly, more of a home. There's only a handful of narrative players here, and only a very few of us, for example, get involved with anything approaching regularity.
I know when I try to get a narrative discussion going about campaign play, it gets hardly any attention, and typically one or two trolls will jump on to say we aren't playing right.
So that kind of dissuades me from giving a damn to post about that material.
But competitive topics are like fleas. THey are everywhere and compound daily.
Wayniac wrote: Right. Because people don't seem to WANT to "negotiate what the rules of the game are going to be". They want it to be universal, so they can minimize discussion for some strange reason (despite, y'know, it is a social game because you're playing with other people).
I really, really don't want to negotiate the rules of the game; that's not the same thing as wanting to minimize discussion. I'll happily add an extra hour to the game chatting about whatever; I just don't want the game itself to become an exercise in bartering for victory. I just want to sit down and play and let the developers worry about designing a fun experience for me so I can focus on having a good time with my opponent. A round of peace talks and disarmament agreements has never been my idea of a casual experience.
The competitive player takes structure and produces efficiency.
The narrative player takes structure and produces experiences.
The open player takes components and builds his own structure.
Those categories aren't mutually exclusive.
I never said they were, though I can see how you would think the classifications could be mutually exclusive from the way I posted them. In a previous post, I said that it is the rigidity of tournament players that is a problem, and that these kinds of games are really much better if you try to experience all that they offer.
Deadnight wrote:
Sqorgar' - Your narrative player sounds like a three man painting team doing a diorama. Or building a themed board. As a narrative player, I also view a rules system as a 'toolbox' as much as your 'open play player' - it's a tool to build interesting games/face-offs and scenarios. And when I speak about building scenarios, I see this as encompassing every aspect of 'the game', from terrain layout/function, opposing/complimentary forces, missions/goals/objectives etc. 'Structures' and 'experiences' are functional facets of the same type of creativity.
Well, right. I mean, the Minecraft players that build giant castles or adventure maps for their friends to go through are using the toolbox for all that it is worth. They look at red stone and wonder to what ends it could be used in their favor.
it's a tool to build interesting games/face-offs and scenarios.
Requoting this line because it more or less underscores the idea that you are not trying to win games, but instead create interesting experiences with them.
The main difference is my experience is open play is more freeform in that things like 'a space marine, a tyranid hive tyrant, and a tau stormsurge walk into a bar and decide to hook up to fire some guns at the range' or 'monstrous creature wrestling' is as acceptable a game as anything else, whereas a narrative player will probably raise an eyebrow at calling it 'narrative'. And bear in mind, this is not to say those things couldn't be fun.
I think open play is nebulous and hard to define because, by nature, it has very little structure by itself. But I see open play as... well, if Minecraft is a game and a toolkit for making games, then it is also a kind of programming language - a toolkit for making toolkits.
For instance, I've had it in the back of my head for years to do a campaign system where the objectives on the board are paint pots, and the goals of playing the game is to collect paint that you then paint your armies with. Denying a green paint to an orc army, or just seeking out washes (ignoring bases and layers) with a white undercoat are valid strategies. What kind of orc can you paint without green and only drybrush paints? Don't know, but it would demand some creativity and could produce unexpectedly cool results. And, of course, painted armies play better on the battlefield. That's just common sense. It'd be one the most expensive campaign systems ever devised though.
A paint pot campaign is very meta, to the point where you have to step outside the game rules and purpose to create new game rules and purpose - and a paint pot campaign could potentially be narrative or competitive! Now that I'm thinking of it, you could have a competitive narrative campaign. None of this stuff is mutually exclusive. They are more like layers. To the person building the scenarios, campaigns, and rules packets, he'll probably dip into all three, while the players can choose their own level of involvement. In a narrative campaign, even though there is generally one "game master", it is the responsibility of all the players to work together towards the goal of making a good experience, since narrative games can usually be easily broken by minmaxing.
With respect, while you probably don't intent it, and probably mean it in the best possible way, it comes across as a little bit of 'gatekeeping' on your behalf when you ascribe all the positive things to what you personally like And all the negative things to things you don't, as you frequently do with regard to competitive games/players, and just seem to misunderstand the other things. If anything, it's probably how I'm picking up your signal here though - like I said, it's probably not deliberate, or anywhere near deliberately malicious on your part.
I'm not really making judgement calls on any of it. To me, everything about making and playing games is fair game. Heck, I'd be fine playing competitively, and the only reason I don't is that I refuse to spend the money needed to buy models I don't like just to be successful at the game. When I played Warmachine, I looked into it and discovered that, to play the way I wanted to play, I had to buy not just a warcaster I didn't like, but also multiples of various units I didn't like (if I remember correctly, it was a Butcher list with multiple Doom Reavers). If it were a video game with lower cost associated with army building, I'd be more than happy to make an attempt at playing at high levels of competency. But miniatures are freaking expensive and that's nothing compared to having to paint 30 models I don't like - I've done that before, and it's just not how I like to spend my precious hobby time.
I'll say it again. I have no problem with tournament games, but I do have a problem with the tournament mindset. Not only do I think most (or all) games break down at high levels of minmaxing, I also think the attitude is positively destructive to communities. Warmachine was dying way before Mk3 because of how abusive the community could be to casual and newbie players. Not even hostile. Just abusive. The premise that you will have to lose 20 games before you will win is accepted as a selling point, when nobody is going to invest in a massive, tournament-sized army for a few hundred bucks just to lose at a game they aren't enjoying for 30-40 hours. It sounds good to the people who did it - the Spartan infants left on hills to die which made it, but you can't have a healthy game community by killing 19 out of every 20 new players.
I'm just surprised that you are surprised that the Internet would say this back.
To quote the immortal C3P0, "sometimes, I just don't understand human behavior".
Forums are what they are - a skewed/different perspective, that tends to self-select from the more serious and competitive players in the community, rather than those from any other viewpoint. Plenty people play like you do. They just don't tend to go online and get involved in the 'General discussion' or 'tactics' boards- maybe 'painting/modelling is weirdly, more of a home. There's only a handful of narrative players here, and only a very few of us, for example, get involved with anything approaching regularity.
There's self selecting, and then there is actively tar and feathering those who play a different way and running them out of town. When I first came here, with the release of Age of Sigmar, the amount of abuse I had to suffer through just for saying "I like this game" was really beyond the pale. Unfortunately (for everybody, I guess), the only thing I like more than games is arguing on the internet - but I have to assume that this is a rare condition that is not found in most gamers.
The competitive player takes structure and produces efficiency.
The narrative player takes structure and produces experiences.
The open player takes components and builds his own structure.
Those categories aren't mutually exclusive.
I never said they were, though I can see how you would think the classifications could be mutually exclusive from the way I posted them. In a previous post, I said that it is the rigidity of tournament players that is a problem, and that these kinds of games are really much better if you try to experience all that they offer.
Deadnight wrote:
Sqorgar' - Your narrative player sounds like a three man painting team doing a diorama. Or building a themed board. As a narrative player, I also view a rules system as a 'toolbox' as much as your 'open play player' - it's a tool to build interesting games/face-offs and scenarios. And when I speak about building scenarios, I see this as encompassing every aspect of 'the game', from terrain layout/function, opposing/complimentary forces, missions/goals/objectives etc. 'Structures' and 'experiences' are functional facets of the same type of creativity.
Well, right. I mean, the Minecraft players that build giant castles or adventure maps for their friends to go through are using the toolbox for all that it is worth. They look at red stone and wonder to what ends it could be used in their favor.
it's a tool to build interesting games/face-offs and scenarios.
Requoting this line because it more or less underscores the idea that you are not trying to win games, but instead create interesting experiences with them.
The main difference is my experience is open play is more freeform in that things like 'a space marine, a tyranid hive tyrant, and a tau stormsurge walk into a bar and decide to hook up to fire some guns at the range' or 'monstrous creature wrestling' is as acceptable a game as anything else, whereas a narrative player will probably raise an eyebrow at calling it 'narrative'. And bear in mind, this is not to say those things couldn't be fun.
I think open play is nebulous and hard to define because, by nature, it has very little structure by itself. But I see open play as... well, if Minecraft is a game and a toolkit for making games, then it is also a kind of programming language - a toolkit for making toolkits.
For instance, I've had it in the back of my head for years to do a campaign system where the objectives on the board are paint pots, and the goals of playing the game is to collect paint that you then paint your armies with. Denying a green paint to an orc army, or just seeking out washes (ignoring bases and layers) with a white undercoat are valid strategies. What kind of orc can you paint without green and only drybrush paints? Don't know, but it would demand some creativity and could produce unexpectedly cool results. And, of course, painted armies play better on the battlefield. That's just common sense. It'd be one the most expensive campaign systems ever devised though.
A paint pot campaign is very meta, to the point where you have to step outside the game rules and purpose to create new game rules and purpose - and a paint pot campaign could potentially be narrative or competitive! Now that I'm thinking of it, you could have a competitive narrative campaign. None of this stuff is mutually exclusive. They are more like layers. To the person building the scenarios, campaigns, and rules packets, he'll probably dip into all three, while the players can choose their own level of involvement. In a narrative campaign, even though there is generally one "game master", it is the responsibility of all the players to work together towards the goal of making a good experience, since narrative games can usually be easily broken by minmaxing.
With respect, while you probably don't intent it, and probably mean it in the best possible way, it comes across as a little bit of 'gatekeeping' on your behalf when you ascribe all the positive things to what you personally like And all the negative things to things you don't, as you frequently do with regard to competitive games/players, and just seem to misunderstand the other things. If anything, it's probably how I'm picking up your signal here though - like I said, it's probably not deliberate, or anywhere near deliberately malicious on your part.
I'm not really making judgement calls on any of it. To me, everything about making and playing games is fair game. Heck, I'd be fine playing competitively, and the only reason I don't is that I refuse to spend the money needed to buy models I don't like just to be successful at the game. When I played Warmachine, I looked into it and discovered that, to play the way I wanted to play, I had to buy not just a warcaster I didn't like, but also multiples of various units I didn't like (if I remember correctly, it was a Butcher list with multiple Doom Reavers). If it were a video game with lower cost associated with army building, I'd be more than happy to make an attempt at playing at high levels of competency. But miniatures are freaking expensive and that's nothing compared to having to paint 30 models I don't like - I've done that before, and it's just not how I like to spend my precious hobby time.
I'll say it again. I have no problem with tournament games, but I do have a problem with the tournament mindset. Not only do I think most (or all) games break down at high levels of minmaxing, I also think the attitude is positively destructive to communities. Warmachine was dying way before Mk3 because of how abusive the community could be to casual and newbie players. Not even hostile. Just abusive. The premise that you will have to lose 20 games before you will win is accepted as a selling point, when nobody is going to invest in a massive, tournament-sized army for a few hundred bucks just to lose at a game they aren't enjoying for 30-40 hours. It sounds good to the people who did it - the Spartan infants left on hills to die which made it, but you can't have a healthy game community by killing 19 out of every 20 new players.
I'm just surprised that you are surprised that the Internet would say this back.
To quote the immortal C3P0, "sometimes, I just don't understand human behavior".
Forums are what they are - a skewed/different perspective, that tends to self-select from the more serious and competitive players in the community, rather than those from any other viewpoint. Plenty people play like you do. They just don't tend to go online and get involved in the 'General discussion' or 'tactics' boards- maybe 'painting/modelling is weirdly, more of a home. There's only a handful of narrative players here, and only a very few of us, for example, get involved with anything approaching regularity.
There's self selecting, and then there is actively tar and feathering those who play a different way and running them out of town. When I first came here, with the release of Age of Sigmar, the amount of abuse I had to suffer through just for saying "I like this game" was really beyond the pale. Unfortunately (for everybody, I guess), the only thing I like more than games is arguing on the internet - but I have to assume that this is a rare condition that is not found in most gamers.
I just briefly chime in to say that you guys have some fine discussion here. What it IMHO misses on slightly however is a simple fact: all you need for a fully fledged and pretty much unrestricted narrative or open mode experience is a single like-minded play companion (I deliberately don’t call this person an opponent) that has the same amount of time to spend on gaming as you do. And because of that most people involved in wargaming on such basis do not frequent forums like dakka or FB groups and if they do it is usually with terrain/modeling blogs rather than narrative discussions. Those people form pretty much self contained isles of 40k happiness and see no added value in being called filthy CAACs by people from the other side of the planet. I personally was much more active here during 7th ed, because „proposed rules” forum was full of ideas that I could directly utilize in my scenarios and there was value in discussing them, but since me and my group forked away from official rules the last thin thread connecting us to wider „community” has been torn. For some time after that I saw some merit in participating in narrative discussions here for the sake of „bearing the torch” of narrative play for all those silent lurkers, so that they may know they are not alone, but this kind of motivation also died out. Despite how fine those discussions could sometimes get, there is no deeper reason to try discussing the same narrative meta-topics again and again with mostly the same people (most notably Wayniac, Deadnight and auticus; cheers guys!) while being shouted at and called names by the usual suspects. It is simply more productive and more rewarding to spend time on enriching my own gaming experience by making new terrain, new scenarios or working on a new ruleset from ground up (and not getting involved in pointless debates on how a ruleset specifically tailored for my narrative group is utter crap in eyes of sworn competetive pick-up players - the standard way all proposed new rulesets threads here on dakka eventually end up).
@ sqorgar and minecraft comparison: one of the last heated discussions I was involved here revolved around whether or not 40k is a sandbox game. You can either try and find it or try to imagine how some dakka regulars reacted to the ideas of shaping 40k freely to your personal needs. Getting back to thread at hand - I agree with Deadnight here - distinction between narrative and open player in that comparison is needlesly picky. I consider myself a narrative player but I did a lot of very „freeform” things with 40k and I have always considered official GW rules more as general guidelines rather than a gospel, even before forking away completely.
And man, I would very much like to see an Atari 2600 emulator build upon 40k rules interactions
LunarSol wrote: I just don't want the game itself to become an exercise in bartering for victory.
That's a terrible attitude, freebirth!
We must become more adept at bidding for victory, quiaff?
Aff.
I don't mind discussing a game, but I will admit having to do it EVERY game might get obnoxious. Of course, in this day and age most games are arranged before the day anyways via social media; you shouldn't just show up at the game store (I could see doing this if you lived like super close) and hope someone else did and just bring your army. Usually it's saying you'll be at the shop, so any negotiating can be done before you ever show up so you don't have to discuss it then; you already hashed it out a few days prior.
Why that's not more accepted is a mystery to me, since it requires basically nothing other than talking to the group you are probably already a part of.
Having a regularly scheduled game night where people just show up and play is pretty nice on everyone's schedule. You don't have to really put any effort into making the game happen, its just there waiting for you and when someone moves to the area they can just ask what night it is and likely show up to meet everyone and join the group. Basically, the negotiation was done years ago with the group's momentum carrying itself without any real intervention.
LunarSol wrote: Having a regularly scheduled game night where people just show up and play is pretty nice on everyone's schedule. You don't have to really put any effort into making the game happen, its just there waiting for you and when someone moves to the area they can just ask what night it is and likely show up to meet everyone and join the group. Basically, the negotiation was done years ago with the group's momentum carrying itself without any real intervention.
Even with a scheduled game night I see people communicate on social media in the store/club's Facebook group or otherwise to arrange games, or at the very least a "Hey I'm going to be at the shop if anyone wants a game" sort of message, which often gets someone to respond and a get set up in advance.
LunarSol wrote: Having a regularly scheduled game night where people just show up and play is pretty nice on everyone's schedule. You don't have to really put any effort into making the game happen, its just there waiting for you and when someone moves to the area they can just ask what night it is and likely show up to meet everyone and join the group. Basically, the negotiation was done years ago with the group's momentum carrying itself without any real intervention.
Even with a scheduled game night I see people communicate on social media in the store/club's Facebook group or otherwise to arrange games, or at the very least a "Hey I'm going to be at the shop if anyone wants a game" sort of message, which often gets someone to respond and a get set up in advance.
Sure, but there's still not much effort in that. Certainly not the kind of effort we're talking about in negotiating armies.
If they're playing in a campaign... tell them to feth off.
Yes, but then you open yourself up to accusations of being 'tfg', 'hobby gatekeeping' and being a 'toxic player'.
For the record, playing with like minded individuals should be the number one piece of advice given to anyone. and be positive about your message, rather than othering.
If they're doing this, then all your players probably KNOW they are doing this, and are okay with them being told to leave. If enough of your players play in a similar way, then it is fine, your group just takes competitive lists and gameplay to campaign play too.
So.... to keep the ball rolling, I thought I'd bring up the other end of things.
One thing I've noticed is that for a lot of players, narrative play kind of gets beaten out of them similar to the way some people feel competitive play beats certain players out of a game. Narrative events sound great but in execution feel like they often fall apart on the table. This isn't just a matter of competitive players exploiting a gap or something. I regularly see our less competitive crowds (regardless of system) build up these big ideas for campaigns or special scenarios. They put weeks into planning but when the event comes around, they tend to lose interest as quickly as the competitive crowd does.
Some of that gets back to the difference between ideals and reality. The campaign and resources and stuff sounds really interesting, but the first time you have to spend 3+ hours playing a game crippled by outside forces, people seem to realize they'd rather get the best experience they can out of the game in front of them than suffer through busywork encounters as part of a larger game. It's like filler episodes; sure they might have moments but actually being forced to watch them often leaves you wishing you were spending your time on a favorite movie or better episode and tend to kill people's interest long term. I feel like a lot of people are turned off narrative campaigns for the same reason people don't like Jump Anime; the high points are thrilling, but slogging through all that filler just isn't worth it.
I think the will for narrative play is always there. In many ways I think its stronger than competitive. The issue is just that few narrative experiences are as well designed and thought through as the competitive stuff. People are really excited for things like the Oblivion campaign and similar efforts, just hugely skeptical after so many experiences with campaigns that just don't play out the way people hope.
Eh. I have seen a lot of what I considered well designed narrative events fizzle out as much as non designed narrative events.
Competitive events are rarely masterpieces of design. They are a series of games with standard scenarios and then collecting the points tally.
Some will go beyond that but those are rare and most of the playerbase really doesn't put a lot of stock in anything past the standings tally.
Narrative games suffer from a variety of things today:
1) gamer ADD is real. Events that span beyond a weekend are usually doomed to fail. This is stark contrast to the same style of events run 15-20 years ago. Today, the expectation is fast, quick, and move on.
2) gamer intolerance for any sort of imbalance is delicate. Which is quite ironic considering that despite this, they will latch on to GW games for competitive play where the whole idea is to listbuild an imbalanced experience and win by having the superior list.
So when narrative games get imbalanced, its true people will jump ship, but yet they'll stay true to tournament play where everyone is trying to push 4000 points of output into a 2000 point list to make a skew list.
EDIT: Come to think of it I think the difference is here is players like imbalance if they feel they are in control of creating the imbalance, but hate imbalance if its because of the scenario creating the imbalance.
3) they are more consuming and involve a greater deal of investment. Tournaments and pickups you show up, play, and go home. Campaigns require a bit more investment, which quite frankly is not present in today's playerbase in great quantities.
they will latch on to GW games for competitive play where the whole idea is to listbuild an imbalanced experience and win by having the superior list.
Just wanted to respond to this point, I don't think that's that odd, because both players are looking at the same rules and codex. Yes, you might not own a specific army, but MOST people who play 40k competitively will pick an army they think stands a chance at winning, and then try to build their army to counter everything else. So if both players are trying to build a superpowered imba list, then the idea is it should cancel out. It often does, many of my games are quite close when playing in ITC events.
The main issue I've seen with narrative gaming is when it involves a map:
A) It requires a lot of logistics (think a big map like in the old days, with extra rules for movement or requisition or whatnot). People tend to want to use their game time to, y' know, game and not move pins on a map or deal with extra cruft to make it "realistic". Some games scratch this itch but Warhammer is not it. If you have weeks where nothing major happens because armies are moving across the map but nobody has encountered each other, it's likely going to fizzle out.
B) The big one in my experience, campaign games often have imbalanced forces due to something or another (whether because you only left a 750 point army to defend your territory, because you rolled poorly on some chart, half your force got lost and turns up later, etc.) which is almost always unfun for the person handicapped.
I've seen that second one a few times. A 750 point scouting force running into a 2k point army out in the field, stuff like that. It's never fun that I've found, ever. It usually leads to whoever has the massive handicap dropping out quickly.
C) Depending on the campaign, if you lose your early games it might be impossible for you to make a comeback, which for most people will get them to lose interest because even if it's a campaign, who wants to play games every week knowing you have no way of winning? Either you just go through the motions or, worse, you purposely try to knock other people out of the running since it doesn't matter to you. I've seen people basically act like a "hired gun" and go out of their way to attack the player in the lead just to try and drop them in standing, because if they lost it didn't mean anything as they already had no chance of winning.
Now, that's only map-based narrative. The other type of campaign is one that alleviates a lot of those, where it's relatively balanced forces, no map stuff to take up time, and is closer to a league with a story. These I find the issue is often that it tries to involve too many people, and becomes unwieldy to do even without a map. When you have a campaign that involves like 20 people at the game store, it adds yet another layer of logistics issues. Also, these sort of campaigns are more likely to turn into your regular matched play game with maybe a story behind it.
In general, though it's that narrative requires a commitment and caring about the story, and most players just want to play games. The event organizer might care about the story, but it's hard to keep the players interested in what's going on in the campaign rather than just using it as a way to guarantee games each week. And in that case you have a league with a bit of fluff, not a campaign.
LunarSol wrote: So.... to keep the ball rolling, I thought I'd bring up the other end of things.
One thing I've noticed is that for a lot of players, narrative play kind of gets beaten out of them similar to the way some people feel competitive play beats certain players out of a game. Narrative events sound great but in execution feel like they often fall apart on the table. This isn't just a matter of competitive players exploiting a gap or something. I regularly see our less competitive crowds (regardless of system) build up these big ideas for campaigns or special scenarios. They put weeks into planning but when the event comes around, they tend to lose interest as quickly as the competitive crowd does.
Some of that gets back to the difference between ideals and reality. The campaign and resources and stuff sounds really interesting, but the first time you have to spend 3+ hours playing a game crippled by outside forces, people seem to realize they'd rather get the best experience they can out of the game in front of them than suffer through busywork encounters as part of a larger game. It's like filler episodes; sure they might have moments but actually being forced to watch them often leaves you wishing you were spending your time on a favorite movie or better episode and tend to kill people's interest long term. I feel like a lot of people are turned off narrative campaigns for the same reason people don't like Jump Anime; the high points are thrilling, but slogging through all that filler just isn't worth it.
I think the will for narrative play is always there. In many ways I think its stronger than competitive. The issue is just that few narrative experiences are as well designed and thought through as the competitive stuff. People are really excited for things like the Oblivion campaign and similar efforts, just hugely skeptical after so many experiences with campaigns that just don't play out the way people hope.
I think there is a distinction needed here: narrative campaigns/events vs narrative scenarios. A series of Eternal War standalone games played out by strangers and linked by a vague background „narrative” is an entirely different beast than a single large, game over 8”x6” table full of carefully planned terrain, with carefully and collectively arranged army lists, planned reinforcements, mid game goals, routes, points of special interest and other bells and whistles. My experience both IRL and here on dakka shows, that typical 40k player never encountered the latter (in contrast to most players of historicals I have met). I have encountered just a few batreps of such narrative games on the web, I know a couple of Dakka regulars arrange such games in their garrages, but such games are hardly if ever played in stores. It is also a reccuring theme in narrative discussions here, that strong gatekeeping is a necessity for such games (for reasons presented below).
With all that said, I agree that what passes for „narrative event” in 40k can easily be a reason for geting „narrative play beaten out of players”. But IMHO it has notthing to do even with narrative mode of play as officially provided by GW, and most certainly not with narrative approach to tabletop wargames, and all to do with poor state of 40k community in hobby areas ranging from terrain making and utilizing it in games (we have discussed this in a lenghty thread around christmas) to actual social skills like true friendships (in opposition to merely „gaming acquaitances”) and general openness to non-official ideas and unscripted human interactions. It is hard to organize a true and open to all narrative event when many of 40k players treat other gamers as disposable AI bots for an otherwise near single-player experience and some even consider any attempt at pre game conversation more complex than „2000 pts Matched Play with rule of three” as a personal insult and attempted cheating.
nou wrote: With all that said, I agree that what passes for „narrative event” in 40k can easily be a reason for geting „narrative play beaten out of players”. But IMHO it has notthing to do even with narrative mode of play as officially provided by GW, and most certainly not with narrative approach to tabletop wargames, and all to do with poor state of 40k community in hobby areas ranging from terrain making and utilizing it in games (we have discussed this in a lenghty thread around christmas) to actual social skills like true friendships (in opposition to merely „gaming acquaitances”) and general openness to non-official ideas and unscripted human interactions. It is hard to organize a true and open to all narrative event when majority of 40k players treat other gamers as disposable AI bots for an otherwise near single-player experience and some even consider any attempt at pre game conversation more complex than „2000 pts Matched Play with rule of three” as a personal insult and attempted cheating.
Amen to this. A-fething-men. I wish I could exalt this multiple times. That's really it. A campaign isn't something to just throw together with random people or the guys you see each week at the game store. It's something you actually want to have people you communicate with outside of the game so you can really get into it, and have people who are willing to have homebrew missions, imbalanced forces, all sorts of crazy things to fit the story, and not bitch because they can't use their "2k list" that they bought only those models for, or because a mission doesn't allow Flyers and they field an Air Wing every single game and will never want to not do it. The sort of player who wants to talk before games about what they want, doesn't feel PL or open play is worthless garbage that just takes up space in a book, etc.
I think that's the number one reason narrative play gets "beaten out", because narrative play requires you to actually be playing with friends, not people who happen to play 40k at the same game store and that's about it. Even a narrative event can suffer from that. AOS has its yearly "Coalescence" narrative event and I have yet to see any interest in it because it's homebrew scenarios with different size armies (not imbalanced armies, at least not the ones I've seen). But it's more thought than people seem to want to put into it and instead basically want a matchmaking system or the equivalent of World of Warcraft's Dungeon Finder: Something that requires minimal effort and gives you people to play with, but removes any real need to interact with them beyond the basics, let alone care about them.
they will latch on to GW games for competitive play where the whole idea is to listbuild an imbalanced experience and win by having the superior list.
Just wanted to respond to this point, I don't think that's that odd, because both players are looking at the same rules and codex. Yes, you might not own a specific army, but MOST people who play 40k competitively will pick an army they think stands a chance at winning, and then try to build their army to counter everything else. So if both players are trying to build a superpowered imba list, then the idea is it should cancel out. It often does, many of my games are quite close when playing in ITC events.
I agree with that experience, that was exactly what I did for years and my games were fine so long as my opponent was doing the same thing.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Wayniac wrote: The main issue I've seen with narrative gaming is when it involves a map:
A) It requires a lot of logistics (think a big map like in the old days, with extra rules for movement or requisition or whatnot). People tend to want to use their game time to, y' know, game and not move pins on a map or deal with extra cruft to make it "realistic". Some games scratch this itch but Warhammer is not it. If you have weeks where nothing major happens because armies are moving across the map but nobody has encountered each other, it's likely going to fizzle out.
B) The big one in my experience, campaign games often have imbalanced forces due to something or another (whether because you only left a 750 point army to defend your territory, because you rolled poorly on some chart, half your force got lost and turns up later, etc.) which is almost always unfun for the person handicapped.
I've seen that second one a few times. A 750 point scouting force running into a 2k point army out in the field, stuff like that. It's never fun that I've found, ever. It usually leads to whoever has the massive handicap dropping out quickly.
C) Depending on the campaign, if you lose your early games it might be impossible for you to make a comeback, which for most people will get them to lose interest because even if it's a campaign, who wants to play games every week knowing you have no way of winning? Either you just go through the motions or, worse, you purposely try to knock other people out of the running since it doesn't matter to you. I've seen people basically act like a "hired gun" and go out of their way to attack the player in the lead just to try and drop them in standing, because if they lost it didn't mean anything as they already had no chance of winning.
Now, that's only map-based narrative. The other type of campaign is one that alleviates a lot of those, where it's relatively balanced forces, no map stuff to take up time, and is closer to a league with a story. These I find the issue is often that it tries to involve too many people, and becomes unwieldy to do even without a map. When you have a campaign that involves like 20 people at the game store, it adds yet another layer of logistics issues. Also, these sort of campaigns are more likely to turn into your regular matched play game with maybe a story behind it.
In general, though it's that narrative requires a commitment and caring about the story, and most players just want to play games. The event organizer might care about the story, but it's hard to keep the players interested in what's going on in the campaign rather than just using it as a way to guarantee games each week. And in that case you have a league with a bit of fluff, not a campaign.
Those are all legit issues with map campaigns yes. Map campaigns require a very special type of person, which is why they are mostly an extinct relic of the gygax era.
To echo the above, I'll also agree, narrative campaigning with a pickup group is a very very nasty and difficult process. I've been running public narratives for a very long time and unless your narratives are set up like tournaments, the moment you start dicking with houserules and narrative restraints on force composition, the public pick up group will chew you up one way and spit you out the other. It really has to be a group of people that are friends and all want that type of thing. It only takes ONE pickup / tournament style player in the mix to plant a bomb in a campaign and set it off because it really is a polar extreme to what is considered "standard" gaming.
I'm not sure its just an issue with the people you play with. I largely only game with friends and these things still tend to falter early on once people start really experiencing how they play out. I think one of the key aspects is just the fresh start you get with games as they're played competitively. When you have a bad game, you can just kind of move on, better luck next time, and play another game without feeling like you're at a disadvantage. That's generally more a campaign issue, but I also see it in narrative scenarios that get played out in phases or have lopsided goals. It's very easy for people to get demoralized as games go beyond a couple hours.
I think we all dream of a really engaging campaign system though. I think the challenge is just keeping that "winner take all" feel that most of these games thrive on without making it so the final battle is all that matters. Inevitability is pretty much the bane of any game and its kind of what a lot of campaigns are designed to build towards.
LunarSol wrote: I'm not sure its just an issue with the people you play with. I largely only game with friends and these things still tend to falter early on once people start really experiencing how they play out. I think one of the key aspects is just the fresh start you get with games as they're played competitively. When you have a bad game, you can just kind of move on, better luck next time, and play another game without feeling like you're at a disadvantage. That's generally more a campaign issue, but I also see it in narrative scenarios that get played out in phases or have lopsided goals. It's very easy for people to get demoralized as games go beyond a couple hours.
I think we all dream of a really engaging campaign system though. I think the challenge is just keeping that "winner take all" feel that most of these games thrive on without making it so the final battle is all that matters. Inevitability is pretty much the bane of any game and its kind of what a lot of campaigns are designed to build towards.
This I would agree with. Part of the drawback to a narrative campaign, even with just two people, is that if you lose one or two games, the campaign is effectively over unless you have the (IMHO lame) type of final scenario that's winner take all even if you lost all the games leading up to it, or the aforementioned "I'm going to stick around playing but try to screw over the winners" type of mindset in a multiplayer campaign which can quickly turn toxic rather than in good fun. Or, possibly worse, if there are handicaps put in place in a game with the person with the losing streak, they might think it's out of pity for them or even think people are letting them win so they don't drop out.
One thing I will say about pickup game/competitive mentality is that it lets you play and move on (and preferably learn/improve) without really feeling dejected for more than a little while if you lost (typically after a game where you get stomped). In a campaign, however, it's easy for the person who is behind to feel bad and just stop showing up because they feel humiliated, especially if they've had bad luck and haven't won a game in the campaign, for instance. I've seen many campaigns where they start out with a bunch of people and within a couple of weeks, half have dropped out because they were 0-X and just felt like it was a useless endeavor to continue playing or cause bad blood if it had an entry fee and in the end you basically paid money so two friends/regular opponents/etc. could have a normal game against each other to determine the winner.
You can get that in a tournament too, but in a tournament, you can reasonably expect several "normal" (YMMV what "normal" means) games during the day, so that alone is often worth the entry fee even if you don't think you have a chance to win. And after that you can just move on. Not always so in a campaign.
LunarSol wrote: I'm not sure its just an issue with the people you play with. I largely only game with friends and these things still tend to falter early on once people start really experiencing how they play out. I think one of the key aspects is just the fresh start you get with games as they're played competitively. When you have a bad game, you can just kind of move on, better luck next time, and play another game without feeling like you're at a disadvantage. That's generally more a campaign issue, but I also see it in narrative scenarios that get played out in phases or have lopsided goals. It's very easy for people to get demoralized as games go beyond a couple hours.
I think we all dream of a really engaging campaign system though. I think the challenge is just keeping that "winner take all" feel that most of these games thrive on without making it so the final battle is all that matters. Inevitability is pretty much the bane of any game and its kind of what a lot of campaigns are designed to build towards.
For exactly this reason any boons in my campaigns are very minor and are only used to provide the feel of continuity, not advantage, and are granted not for victories/goals but for actual in-mission performance on model level. In our pre-planned missions/sequences (as opposed to assymmetric mission generator we utilize for the rest of our games) we still listbuild for every new mission setup, you simply can (but not have to) use slightly "experienced" unit if you fancy. And we deal with lopsided scenarions pretty easily - we simply play maps twice with switched roles and treat such double-match as a single event. This is also why I don't know of and don't utilize any map-driven campaign system that stays either relevant (rewards both victor and underdog to keep everyone on equal footing) or balanced enough (rewards victor only) after just few games.
But, and it is a very big but - none of us plays for the feel of superiority on "omnipotent general" level, but to unfold engaging stories on model level. That is one of the reasons why we did not switch to 8th ed - puting so much game design emphasis on CPs and Stratagems and not on on-table events and interactions just robs us of too much story and feels too much CCGamey. That aspect of our mindset alone makes us separate enough from pick-up crowd to not want to mix with FLGS culture at all.
I keep hoping we see someone design a product along the lines of the "Legacy" games for minis. The hard part is that that particular genre seems to really thrive in coop (though the original Risk was solid). I think one of the big barriers for campaigns is just that they have such a spotty history. A product that produces repeatably successful experiences in the genre could really change the industry as we've seen from the board game crowd.
LunarSol wrote: I keep hoping we see someone design a product along the lines of the "Legacy" games for minis. The hard part is that that particular genre seems to really thrive in coop (though the original Risk was solid). I think one of the big barriers for campaigns is just that they have such a spotty history. A product that produces repeatably successful experiences in the genre could really change the industry as we've seen from the board game crowd.
Co-op is the key word here, as I was trying to picture in my post above. Competetive (even just on "clearly defining a winner" level, not "cut throat approach to gaming" level) approach to narrative is to all my knowledge doomed to failure. And yes, we also incorporate some Legacy elements to our games, but we have the luxury of being able to freely modify rules (for example, we constantly tweak codex entries to reflect desired performance style of particular units, e.g. trully represent adaptive nature of the Hive Mind). But I don't think you actually can design a fool-proof tabletop wargame ruleset to accomodate such modifications/legacy rules without some TFGs trying to break them and naysay. Just look at "4pl card farm" debate in Apocalypse section, a trick that isn't even gamebraking in the slightest, being called out as an ultimate proof for couple of regulars that Apocalypse is garbage in it's entirety.
Another reason why Legacy mechanics do work in boardgames but are hard to implement in wargames is collectible nature of the latter. Take a fresh Kickstarter of Etherfields as example - this game is an attempt on a game with even the core ruleset evolving over the course of the game - not just difficulty rising or unlocking some new mechanics, but also replacing early resolution methods with more advanced ones over the course of the campaign. You can do this with one-and-done purchase that comes with everything necessary, but you cannot succesfully try this with 40K (one could argue, that the very edition/codices changes is exactly this on meta level) as it comes with a very heavy financial requirement. Even narratives in our group are possible only because we collect with large collections and not just static 2000 pts lists in mind and because of our approach there are no "bad purchase choices" - if someone likes a particular model and want's it in his collection, then we will make it usable, no problem.
nou wrote: Just look at "4pl card farm" debate in Apocalypse section, a trick that isn't even gamebraking in the slightest, being called out as an ultimate proof for couple of regulars that Apocalypse is garbage in it's entirety.
Speaking as the person who started that discussion, no, that's not it at all. The point is not that Apocalypse is trash, it's that the CCG mechanic is a balance problem and needs to be fixed. Please do not build straw man arguments, especially when I have said many times already that Apocalypse is better than 8th.
If Nu-Apoc is the better game (objectively, not subjectively in the eyes of a few ... every game has somebody who thinks that particular game ever is the bestest), people will gravitate towards it and GW certainly wont mind that the game that finally improves upon 40K after 30 years of non-GW companies producing nothing but pretentious garbage is one of their own.
I played 30k at Adepticon this year, and all of the Heresy events were narrative. The one I took part in spanned 3 days and multiple different points levels. A tactical map was set up which represented the sector and it's various planets, orbital forces and objectives. It was awesome and panned out very well.
Many of the Black Books contain Campaign systems to run narrative style stuff.
I don't know if it's because 30k draws a different crowd, but competitive 30k is almost unheard of. Players seek to play in fluffy, narrative and fun matches. I think it's one of the main attractions for the game.
30k puts off a lot of tournament players (in my area) because its marines on marines (pedantically yes it includes guard and some other things as well but its based around marines vs marines). So listbuilding is not as important in that game since the forces all pull from the same pool. Take away the listbuilding importance and a lot of tournament players give it a hard pass.
Note i'm not saying listbuilding is not a thing in 30k i'm saying its not as big a thing.
auticus wrote: 30k puts off a lot of tournament players (in my area) because its marines on marines (pedantically yes it includes guard and some other things as well but its based around marines vs marines). So listbuilding is not as important in that game since the forces all pull from the same pool. Take away the listbuilding importance and a lot of tournament players give it a hard pass.
Note i'm not saying listbuilding is not a thing in 30k i'm saying its not as big a thing.
Your last part is interesting, as 30k has some *really* broken things that make 40k look well-balanced by comparison. However, it's the mindset. The majority of people who play 30k do so for narrative reasons, and not to pwn everyone with their uber army. In the same vein as most historical games will let you min/max and listbuild too but you usually don't find people who want that playing those games.
Which, is really the entire thing. Games attract a certain type of player. Currently, Warhammer has a mix but attracts your competitive, screw the fluff I want to build an uber combo and show my leetness type of player (it attracts more, of course, but this is specifically about competitive). Which is fine, but as we've seen and discussed that mindset bleeds into everything else and can quickly consume a gaming store's community if left unchecked.
auticus wrote: 30k puts off a lot of tournament players (in my area) because its marines on marines (pedantically yes it includes guard and some other things as well but its based around marines vs marines). So listbuilding is not as important in that game since the forces all pull from the same pool. Take away the listbuilding importance and a lot of tournament players give it a hard pass.
Note i'm not saying listbuilding is not a thing in 30k i'm saying its not as big a thing.
That is one reason, yes, but I think it has more to do with entry cost of 30K. People who buy into this game do so mostly because they are head deep in the lore and buy models out sheer love for model design, not solely for in-game power. Also worth to note is that second hand market for Heresy is so shallow that eventual „meta chasing” is 100% buying directly from FW and that nearly 100% of HH is resin, which is real pain to strip paint from. I think that tempers a lot of tournament players, especially since they already have a great 40k environment to thrive in.
That could also be. A lot of our tournament players here churn and burn like no one's business though. They sell their army in a heartbeat and buy and get pro painters to paint their current force with little thought, so at least here where I am I don't see cost as being the barrier because these guys are tossing hundreds of dollars a year on new armies and paintjobs.
auticus wrote: That could also be. A lot of our tournament players here churn and burn like no one's business though. They sell their army in a heartbeat and buy and get pro painters to paint their current force with little thought, so at least here where I am I don't see cost as being the barrier because these guys are tossing hundreds of dollars a year on new armies and paintjobs.
"They sell..." - that's a part of what I wrote about - they have to have people to sell those armies to. Here in Poland at least there is enough aftermarket for 40K for "churn and burn" tactics to at least partially refund itself but there is no FW aftermarket at all, be it 40K or 30K. I think it is similar in other parts of Europe and judging from all those threads about FW outrageous prices that frequently pop up on dakka and are mostly discussed by US flagged dakkanauts, it is not much better across the pond either. But I don't live there, so I may as well be very wrong in this regard.
auticus wrote: 30k puts off a lot of tournament players (in my area) because its marines on marines (pedantically yes it includes guard and some other things as well but its based around marines vs marines). So listbuilding is not as important in that game since the forces all pull from the same pool. Take away the listbuilding importance and a lot of tournament players give it a hard pass.
Note i'm not saying listbuilding is not a thing in 30k i'm saying its not as big a thing.
I'd chalk up the disappointment in a lack of variety to a disappointment in a lack of variety; nothing to do with how important list building is in it. I actually like marines, but I want to play a game in which I'm up against more different kinds of enemies.
That does get back to the point about how people perceive a competitive environment though. Some people see 30k as better balanced due to fewer bad options. Other people see it roughly as diverse as 40k at its worst with a single viable codex available. I tend to lean towards the latter, but again, its because I like wildly different stuff in my games.
Yeah I don't think you can say its all because of this one thing.
I just hear a lot of "it doesn't matter what army I build, and I like listbuilding to matter" a lot from people to formulate my opinion on what I perceive is why a lot of them avoid it.
I still think GW has been on the support the Tourney train and the "yearly" updates because it makes them gak-tons of money.
Since tournament players have to be the leetest of the leet they as said above, churn and burn. That is any business' dream come true. It means they can nerf and buff and sell product that isn't moving by making it into a must have and those tournament players will gobble it up at ANY price.
This of course makes buying on the secondary market nice because the more they churn the more the value on the secondary market diminishes due to basic rules of supply and demand.
I see the future of 40K being what is currently Apoc. They've been watering down the rules over the years to make it faster and more simple. The goal being to boost the "leet" market. The.. ehem.. short attentionspan Death Match type.
GW has been searching for a way to make gains in those areas and its been hard since wargamming is so niche. They have to alter it to be more "common" compatible.. but also faster.. and also to have "leet" builds that attract the WAC mindset to blow money like it's water.
I still hate 8th. It's utter broken gak breaking rules set down in the RT era because of common sense and the nature of D6 and statistics.
It IS faster. It is "more simple". There are much fewer mechanics and many rules are just duplication that can be removed by making a core rule such as "6+FNP" instead of the flavor texted version same with "death to false emperor" is just "every six to hit in combat gives an additional attack". Orks have that as do other armies but they are fluff named for no reason making the game seem bloated when it isnt.
They have also been moving towards the "card game" kind of play for a while now. Selling cards is great. Esp if they go WoC and pull from MtG and make the cards used in battles of Apoc come from booster packs that have rares, commons, etc and the ultra-rares are the best moves and thus you have to buy tons of boosters to get that ONE card to WAC.
That's money money money to GW.
new Apoc is utter gak. But.. again.. it is a FAST playing game that is simple and straight foward.
I can see 9th being Apoc rule set. They've been trying special rules and trying to break out of D6 for a while now and Apoc fits that bill.
Wargamming to me will always be what is supposed to be.. a complex tactical and strategic game where a single misplay or bad roll can hurt and you have to be smart enough and capable enough to overcome it (mostly you can). I still miss weapon arcs and charge arcs and wheeling and more because you had to THINK ahead, plan, and movement was critical as well as facing (for vehicles).
Point being. I am a dinosaur. My age is long over. Today is MOBA. They've been moving that way for a while. So it will.
I loved BFG, Epic Armageddon (I played epic from when it was called Space Marine till it was shelved).
For the record my start in wargamming wasn't GW... it was FASA's products. So hex bases still have a special place in my heart.
I've done the tourney thing back in the 90s. So I understand WAC and LEET builds as well as broken game mechanics abused.
But remember I played 40k when a single battle took 3 DAYS. HAHA.. and "combat squading" required you to write down orders on a piece of paper and your unit was required to follow those orders till it got back with it's old squad again.
Fun stuff. Also Turn Rate Radius.. accell and decell.
We actually made special templates and tools for TRR and ACC/DEC and it wasn't that hard once you had the tools to simplify it. But boy did you have to think ahead about your vehicles or you'd smack into your own squads or terrain. HAHA.
But yeah. I may often feel superior to the plebeian squeakers but the reality and future (as well as the big money for GW) is Apoc, Tournies, and simplified rules for "everyone" (tm). I realize that my era is over. I am a triple webber side draft guy in the era of advanced computer controlled fuel injection. Injection today is plug and play. A caveman could do it. So many more people are "tuners" when I remember being a "builder".. big cams, nasty exhaust, and hot days at the track trying to fix whatever broke. Just as the era of custom crazy vehicle rules in 40k and deodorant hovercraft is over.. and in a way it's good.
I ran a map based campaign that lasted about 9 months in Uni. Basic premise was each territory captured allowed you to 'raise' a unit of a certain type (heavy support, elite, troop, fast attack) with a set budget of points (250 I think?). We played weekly and it did result in lopsided games and lopsided armies (my all fast attack orks were a terror). But we had enough players and a big enough map that people always had a chance to come back from a defeat and so on. In the last two months interest did decline as it became obvious that the real fight was going to be between two players only, but people had a great time with it.
I did not consider that camapign narrative though. It was competitive, there was a definitive winner. It just had a basic strategic level on top of the tactical level.
We ran a narrative campaign based loosely on necromunda (kill team before there was kill team) with experience and injury tables where I was in a GM mode, and each of the players had a different narrative objective. That was a real narrative campaign, though I feel those sorts of games pretty much require a games master to keep things running.
Would love to do that sort of thing again. The group eventually changed into a much more tournament focused group that was often on the Irish etc circuit. That was a lot of fun too!
Sqorgar wrote: I swear to heaven that people forget that part of playing when you're a kid is negotiating what the rules of the game are going to be. Then you get stuff like this where it's all "This is how I want to play" and "No, I want to play this other way" and a complete failure of anyone to play nice with each other. :-/
I'll play nice with pick up games. But I schedule my times to play with certainty, which is what tourneys yield. "Pick up game" night sometimes lead to a 'no game' night.
:(
That's time wasted. I'm not a tourney player because I like the cut-throat list play; I go to tourneys for a guaranteed 3 games on a Saturday. GTs are even better. I like leagues too, because those mean a guaranteed set of games within a time period.
Wayniac wrote: Right. Because people don't seem to WANT to "negotiate what the rules of the game are going to be". They want it to be universal, so they can minimize discussion for some strange reason (despite, y'know, it is a social game because you're playing with other people).
Time would be a factor, actually, plus with tourney formats and 'house rulings' (note: Not "house rules") for those fewer grey areas, means less misunderstandings during the game.
Wayniac wrote: So for every competitive person who knows when to tone it down and write after-the-fact narratives, there's the jackass who can't turn off "tournament" mode no matter what they're playing or who they're playing with that is always showing up with their LVO-style curb stomp list and demanding to use it because "It's a legal list" and feth anything else and if anyone dares to suggest that maybe they shouldn't bring an LVO face-smashing list to a casual game night at the shop or narrative campaign then they are "CAAC" people who should just git gud and learn to optimize lists better rather than expect the person who knows how to optimize better to also know when is and isn't the right to be to be maxing to the nines.
Now, here's where I take exception, Wayniac. What makes a cut-throat (my words) tourney list versus a narrative event, 'friendly' list?
Can you please provide the difference between my regular tourney list, and what would be a fluffy, narrative drukhari list? I have been playing this at tourneys, for a year, with little variation.
Black Heart:
2 archons, x2 huskblades, 1 blast pistol, Relic: Writ of the Living Muse (reroll to wound bubble)
4x5 kabalite units
3x5 TrueBorn, x4 blasters each, 1 splinter rifle
2x5 scourges, x4 haywire blasters, 1 shard carbine
3x1 ravagers, disintegrator cannons, shock prows
3x1 raiders, disintegrator cannon, shock prow
3x1 venoms
Cursed blade
2x1 succubi, x1 blast pistol
3 units of wyches, 8, 9, 9, x3 shardNets, x3 agonizers
Wayniac wrote: So it goes back to what was said above: Many competitive players, especially it seems in the USA, only have one mode: Tournament. They have no idea or desire to ever do anything else, and get offended when people dislike that they're always bringing their tournament lists all over the place.
I have not had a problem with anyone not liking my tourney list, since Broadside Bash, 2012 (which was very close to the above drukhari list) and that guy was running 5e Grey Knights. He thought having 24 dark lance weapons was too much. It was my first GT ever.
But *if* someone were to point at my above list and and not like it, I'd ask, as I'm asking you, "Okay, care to show me a criteria that gives clear lines for a narrative/friendly game list and otherwise?
To me a nasty list that should stay in tournaments or in games where you know its coming are lists that *require* a hard counter to do anything against them and *require* a specific army composition to do anything against them.
auticus wrote: To me a nasty list that should stay in tournaments or in games where you know its coming are lists that *require* a hard counter to do anything against them and *require* a specific army composition to do anything against them.
I would agree with this, with the caveat that you have armies like Dark Eldar or say Imperial/Chaos Knights, among others, where a fluffy list is also a curbstomp list. Those are the hardest to quantify because it's due to such poor balance that you get that, while some other fluffy list can be garbage.
I'm just looking simply at does it require a hard counter to have a fun game? I don't care how fluffy it is. If you are forcing me to have to play a certain army / certain composition to have a fun game, that is not a game that I want to play.
Right, the problem Wayniac is addressing is when that applies to a faction as a whole. One of the big pitfalls of trying to disarm the arms race is sooner or later some really cool is really broken.
The best example of this I can think of is MK2 Cryx. It completely dominated much of the game, but did so with almost no Mercenary support and really amazing swarms of necro zombies and wraith knights. Their most broken caster was a mechanical lich hoving over the battlefield on a torrent of souls. It often wasn't beatable even with a hard counter, but you couldn't really fault anyone for playing it either. It was just a really cool army that happened to be significantly overtuned.
Yeah I was still playing WM back then (and I played Cryx) and I got out because of that. That and no one wanted to do anything except for tournament play.
)
to wound bubble)