Canadian 5th wrote: If people here are so 'casual' why do they care if they play nothing but WAAC tournament grinders? If you care enough to set up a crusade campaign or a narrative game that isn't exactly casual.
Because others influence the experience of a game you muppet. If I have a limited amount of time to play 40k, I'd rather not face some try hard with their meta-web-list turning a 2-3 hour afternoon into an hour of me going "Why the am I even here".
And you keep mistaking casual with apathy. Casual gaming isn't "I don't care what happens nothing matters", it's "As long as I had an enjoyable experience, winning is optional" or "I am going to try and play this game narratively in character with the army I play".
It doesn't have to be olympics. And by the way, people do the same thing to each other without scholarships. All it takes is for two streets or blocks to play against each other, specially when people are watching or when people just plain don't like each other. Yes scholarship examples are the easiest for me to think about, because this is my daily life. What kind of a example do you want me to give, that people at work do the same stuff to each other, that siblings do it to get inheritance etc. Doesn't mean that stuff can't be enjoyable. Also the prerequisit of having friends to play w40k is another one of those bizzar ones for me, that come along with the gigantic multi army collections, own houses to play games and cars to transport those collections so you can pre build armies on the spot. w40k cost a ton of money, a lot of people don't even finish getting an army, because the struggle is so hard and the nerfs to armies, so big. Nothing which is that expensive can be considered casual.
Also if you think the results are unimportant, buy and build an army and then lose every game with it for 3 years, while seeing it nerfed over and over again. While watching other people who bought stuff like tablets or bikes with their money, have fun on a daily basis. Do it for 3 years and we can talk about mutally enjoyable activities.
You're turning playing 40k in a non-competitive way into some kind of class struggle. You seem fully incapable of thinking outside of your own limited experiences and accepting that people do things differently from you. The only time I got Warhammer stuff as a young un' was at birthdays or Xmas, compared to most of the people I played with who could just ask their parents to get them new stuff. As an adult, I try to get the most out of my purchases so I don't accidentally spend rent or food money on Warhammer. My family wasn't going to food banks or on benefits, they just wanted me to build/paint the stuff I already had.
As for playing armies that only lose, do you mean something like CSM through 6th to 7th or Orks through 5th to 7th? If you weren't running summoning engines or Mega Armoured Nob lists then you weren't winning.
I mowed lawns for 18mo to buy my squats and they got squatted.
Didn't buy/play for 25yrs until I could afford it and had time to devote to it.
I play the game seriously, not about winning, but about cinematic events unfolding.
Karol, don't worry your GK will be OP soon enuff and you can rolfstomp those jerks at your local shop to your hearts content. Which seems to be what you/your meta like. Enjoy
Because some people don't have the luxury of pick up games or multiple gaming groups and the group they DO have is difficult/impossible to convince to play anything else. My group played nothing but 8th from its release and towards the end and into 9th I was bored of it. The rules didn't excite me and changes to armies were to frequent and hard to keep track of and the monetary cost was getting too high and 9th added in a bunch of book keeping to a game that already has a good amount of book keeping. It felt like a chore to play but most of the people in my group don't want to play anything else. And its not like they don't have the option. I have a good sized board game collection and multiple other minis games and multiple factions for each so playing other games requires no financial investment on their part or even really learning rules since I already know how to play all my games. But aside from one other member of the group everyone else only wants to play 40k (or derivatives of it) so my choice is currently 40k or nothing.
Canadian 5th wrote: If people here are so 'casual' why do they care if they play nothing but WAAC tournament grinders? If you care enough to set up a crusade campaign or a narrative game that isn't exactly casual.
Because others influence the experience of a game you muppet. If I have a limited amount of time to play 40k, I'd rather not face some try hard with their meta-web-list turning a 2-3 hour afternoon into an hour of me going "Why the am I even here".
And you keep mistaking casual with apathy. Casual gaming isn't "I don't care what happens nothing matters", it's "As long as I had an enjoyable experience, winning is optional" or "I am going to try and play this game narratively in character with the army I play".
It doesn't have to be olympics. And by the way, people do the same thing to each other without scholarships. All it takes is for two streets or blocks to play against each other, specially when people are watching or when people just plain don't like each other. Yes scholarship examples are the easiest for me to think about, because this is my daily life. What kind of a example do you want me to give, that people at work do the same stuff to each other, that siblings do it to get inheritance etc. Doesn't mean that stuff can't be enjoyable. Also the prerequisit of having friends to play w40k is another one of those bizzar ones for me, that come along with the gigantic multi army collections, own houses to play games and cars to transport those collections so you can pre build armies on the spot. w40k cost a ton of money, a lot of people don't even finish getting an army, because the struggle is so hard and the nerfs to armies, so big. Nothing which is that expensive can be considered casual.
Also if you think the results are unimportant, buy and build an army and then lose every game with it for 3 years, while seeing it nerfed over and over again. While watching other people who bought stuff like tablets or bikes with their money, have fun on a daily basis. Do it for 3 years and we can talk about mutally enjoyable activities.
You're turning playing 40k in a non-competitive way into some kind of class struggle. You seem fully incapable of thinking outside of your own limited experiences and accepting that people do things differently from you. The only time I got Warhammer stuff as a young un' was at birthdays or Xmas, compared to most of the people I played with who could just ask their parents to get them new stuff. As an adult, I try to get the most out of my purchases so I don't accidentally spend rent or food money on Warhammer. My family wasn't going to food banks or on benefits, they just wanted me to build/paint the stuff I already had.
As for playing armies that only lose, do you mean something like CSM through 6th to 7th or Orks through 5th to 7th? If you weren't running summoning engines or Mega Armoured Nob lists then you weren't winning.
I'd say you've thoroughly put my perspective into words.
Because some people don't have the luxury of pick up games or multiple gaming groups and the group they DO have is difficult/impossible to convince to play anything else. My group played nothing but 8th from its release and towards the end and into 9th I was bored of it. The rules didn't excite me and changes to armies were to frequent and hard to keep track of and the monetary cost was getting too high and 9th added in a bunch of book keeping to a game that already has a good amount of book keeping. It felt like a chore to play but most of the people in my group don't want to play anything else. And its not like they don't have the option. I have a good sized board game collection and multiple other minis games and multiple factions for each so playing other games requires no financial investment on their part or even really learning rules since I already know how to play all my games. But aside from one other member of the group everyone else only wants to play 40k (or derivatives of it) so my choice is currently 40k or nothing.
Yes, 40k as a wargame has this particular problem where people play 40k, because people play 40k, and people play 40k because people play it. You have to make a concerted personal effort to shift the local community into trying other things. This typically requires a monetary, time, and effort investment and often will ultimately not net you the result you're looking for unless you persist. There is always the argument that someone should just quit and invest their time and mental energy into something that makes them happy. You're correct in that statement, but ultimately telling people to quit does not solve the underlying problem. I've personally quit 40k as a game, but i'd very much like it if GW fixed the grossly apparent problems with their core design philosophy.
Ultimately is that good for the game, the player base or the community? You're just shutting out potential people from playing and engaging with you rather than fixing the underlying problems.
I mean "don't PLAY 40k" works fine as a sentiment. Focus on the hobby aspect if that makes you happier. Or play the bazillion video games associated with it.
TBH I cannot imagine a community where literally every single player is the opposite of what you want to play against. It can be hard but I've found that SOME FB groups can be useful for finding local clubs to join. Of course playing with friends is easier and making new ones difficult. Sadly not all the options work for peeps.
JNAProductions wrote: Karol’s community is not a healthy one. It’s not worth maintaining.
Yes, you can be correct certain communities can be toxic and unfriendly outside of the bounds of what the rules of play necessitate. I know, because I used to play Airsoft a decade ago and that became very unfun, very quickly due to the community.
Obviously I have no data, or anything to really back up my assertion, but I'd argue in the realm of 40k, that the rules themselves are a large reason as to why players gravitate toward certain tendencies. Design the rules with a thorough acknowledgement and understanding of how people interact with your rule set in a social environment and create contingencies for meta gaming, and list building behavior.
Historicals don't have these problems to the same degee.
Yeah, they do. Week one of my group starting Bolt Action two out of five were spending hours trying to make the gamiest lists they could possibly take, despite them being painfully un-historical. Compare this to me and another guy who were building DAK and 8th Army forces and were restricted to certain units and upgrades because history is fun. People who are competitive naturally aren't going to stop being competitive because the rules cater to casual players, they just find a way around it.
Gert wrote: Yeah, they do. Week one of my group starting Bolt Action two out of five were spending hours trying to make the gamiest lists they could possibly take, despite them being painfully un-historical. People who are competitive naturally aren't going to stop being competitive because the rules cater to casual players, they just find a way around it.
Yes, that's my argument! And Bolt Action does a poor job in that department, i've seen this discussed in many places for Bolt Action in particular.
JNAProductions wrote: Karol’s community is not a healthy one. It’s not worth maintaining.
Yes, you can be correct certain communities can be toxic and unfriendly outside of the bounds of what the rules of play necessitate. I know, because I used to play Airsoft a decade ago and that became very unfun, very quickly due to the community.
Obviously I have no data, or anything to really back up my assertion, but I'd argue in the realm of 40k, that the rules themselves are a large reason as to why players gravitate toward certain tendencies. Design the rules with a thorough acknowledgement and understanding of how people interact with your rule set in a social environment and create contingencies for meta gaming, and list building behavior.
Historicals don't have these problems to the same degee.
Played Flames of War? Or Bolt Action? I wouldn't call those communities toxic, but there is certainly meta gaming and "list building behaviour."
If you don't like "meta gaming" and "list building behaviour" then, perhaps, avoid games that feature list building? Games that allow players some choice in their force are popular, because, people like having choice. Doesn't mean that you have to like it or participate. Playing among friends with common expectations is one way to mitigate the list building that you do not like.
JNAProductions wrote: Karol’s community is not a healthy one. It’s not worth maintaining.
Yes, you can be correct certain communities can be toxic and unfriendly outside of the bounds of what the rules of play necessitate. I know, because I used to play Airsoft a decade ago and that became very unfun, very quickly due to the community.
Obviously I have no data, or anything to really back up my assertion, but I'd argue in the realm of 40k, that the rules themselves are a large reason as to why players gravitate toward certain tendencies. Design the rules with a thorough acknowledgement and understanding of how people interact with your rule set in a social environment and create contingencies for meta gaming, and list building behavior.
Historicals don't have these problems to the same degee.
Played Flames of War? Or Bolt Action? I wouldn't call those communities toxic, but there is certainly meta gaming and "list building behaviour."
If you don't like "meta gaming" and "list building behaviour" then, perhaps, avoid games that feature list building? Games that allow players some choice in their force are popular, because, people like having choice. Doesn't mean that you have to like it or participate. Playing among friends with common expectations is one way to mitigate the list building that you do not like.
You're right, games with the ability to choose your list, will always have list building and meta gaming, but I'd take the list building meta of Bolt Action over 40k's any day of the week because the game is functionally designed more around it's in game mechanics than it's list building ones. At this point it gets VERY hard to start pinning down the HOW and the WHY of that, but again it has to do with the philosophy.
I think you're talking yourself into a corner. 'The philosophy?' Whose? Which 'one?' If you're starting point is you have no data or reason for your assertion, you probably shouldn't be making it. At the very least, it definitely shouldn't be so absolutist.
Voss wrote: I think you're talking yourself into a corner. 'The philosophy?' Whose? Which 'one?' If you're starting point is you have no data or reason for your assertion, you probably shouldn't be making it. At the very least, it definitely shouldn't be so absolutist.
I don't think anyone here is making any kind of point on this website that has substantial peer reviewed and vetted data nor am I making an absolutist claim. Every opinion here has been conjecture, and should be treated as such.
The point that I'm making is that game systems that focus on in game modifiers for power like flanking, positional play, etc, and that leave the wombo combo special rules interactions (like unit based auras, stratagems, and army specific rules (In 40k the problem is really that all three exist in such large quantities)) behind tend to either cater to an audience that isn't as interested in building lists to win, or creates a system where those rules are not as big of a determinate on victory. Which in turn leads to a game system, or naturally occurring community, where people don't feel like they have to sacrifice their intended army of play to either win, or accommodate a player with a "non meta" army.
Games that do this better, not perfectly, but better mind you, are the Middle Earth Strategy Battle Game, Epic Armageddon, and Conquest.
Karol wrote: Also the prerequisit of having friends to play w40k is another one of those bizzar ones for me,
It's not a prerequisite. It just helps immensely. Because you & friends can alter the game in whatever ways you agree on in order to to have more fun.
Karol wrote: that come along with the gigantic multi army collections,
Most of us that have gigantic multi-army collections have been doing this for years. And have (or had) jobs/incomes that allowed it.
Karol wrote: own houses to play games and cars to transport those collections so you can pre build armies on the spot.
No. Just no.
I do not own a house so that I can play games. I own a house to live in it. The perks of owning a house where I do is a combination of cost of living, nearness to family/friends, like the area/community, and a non-terrible commute distance. Oh yeah, it also has enough space to hold all my crap & allow me to host games for a select invite list.
The car....
I own a car because it's practically a necessity. There is no viable public transportation where I live. Walking, though certainly the healthy option, would be far too slow. Biking is also too limited. The days of horse & buggy are about a century past (and I have no real means to care for a horse). Thus I need a car.
Yes, I can haul a case of 40k minis about in the trunk. No, that has never been a primary concern when choosing the next car.
Making armies on the spot: Yes, to some degree. Each army has a dedicated case {a BattleFoam PACK 720 to be exact) & holds between 3k-5k pts worth of stuff. So if I take my Necrons to the shop, yes, I have options as far as list building.
BTW, I choose to limit the armies to fitting in PACK 720 cases because that's what fits in my cars trunk.
Karol wrote: w40k cost a ton of money, a lot of people don't even finish getting an army, because the struggle is so hard and the nerfs to armies, so big. Nothing which is that expensive can be considered casual.
Really? I have a TV on my wall that costs as much as a 40k army. As I'm not a TV/Movie critic, I don't think there's any way to define me sitting on my couch & watching NetFlix as anything but casual.
Likewise, I've got a slightly out of date x-box & about a dozen games - about the same invested as in a 40k army. Nothing but casual involved.
ccs wrote: I do not own a house so that I can play games. I own a house to live in it. The perks of owning a house where I do is a combination of cost of living, nearness to family/friends, like the area/community, and a non-terrible commute distance. Oh yeah, it also has enough space to hold all my crap & allow me to host games for a select invite list.
I live in a city where a 'cheap' home starts at $1,000,000 and where rent tends to start at $1,500 for a single bedroom dump and rises rapidly from there. Owning a home is beyond most people here so consider yourself lucky.
The car....
I own a car because it's practically a necessity. There is no viable public transportation where I live. Walking, though certainly the healthy option, would be far too slow. Biking is also too limited. The days of horse & buggy are about a century past (and I have no real means to care for a horse). Thus I need a car.
The use public transit system is a mess, but this is less true in Canada and Europe so many people my age and younger don't own cars. Thus making 40k even more difficult to play.
Really? I have a TV on my wall that costs as much as a 40k army.
A multi-hundred dollar TV is again difficult for a lot of people to afford without saving for it. Consider yourself lucky that you can likely afford to replace it if it breaks and never worry about paying for netflix and internet access, not everybody is so fortunate.
C5th has some fair points here and it is not entirely fair to dismiss Karol's experience (or anyone who can just about afford to experience the hobby in some way). That said as I stated previously I think it important to remind Karol that life and people are not always so bloody awful, his posts actually concern me at times.
And no this is not just a cultural "Poland" thing. I've lived and spent a lot of time in central and eastern Europe including Poland. I've a Russian parent and a Romanian parent so am relatively keyed in to the different cultures of the areas.
ccs wrote: I do not own a house so that I can play games. I own a house to live in it. The perks of owning a house where I do is a combination of cost of living, nearness to family/friends, like the area/community, and a non-terrible commute distance. Oh yeah, it also has enough space to hold all my crap & allow me to host games for a select invite list.
I live in a city where a 'cheap' home starts at $1,000,000 and where rent tends to start at $1,500 for a single bedroom dump and rises rapidly from there. Owning a home is beyond most people here so consider yourself lucky.
The car....
I own a car because it's practically a necessity. There is no viable public transportation where I live. Walking, though certainly the healthy option, would be far too slow. Biking is also too limited. The days of horse & buggy are about a century past (and I have no real means to care for a horse). Thus I need a car.
The use public transit system is a mess, but this is less true in Canada and Europe so many people my age and younger don't own cars. Thus making 40k even more difficult to play.
Really? I have a TV on my wall that costs as much as a 40k army.
A multi-hundred dollar TV is again difficult for a lot of people to afford without saving for it. Consider yourself lucky that you can likely afford to replace it if it breaks and never worry about paying for netflix and internet access, not everybody is so fortunate.
The housing situation sounds like here, you in BC?
Dai wrote: C5th has some fair points here and it is not entirely fair to dismiss Karol's experience (or anyone who can just about afford to experience the hobby in some way). That said as I stated previously I think it important to remind Karol that life and people are not always so bloody awful, his posts actually concern me at times.
And no this is not just a cultural "Poland" thing. I've lived and spent a lot of time in central and eastern Europe including Poland. I've a Russian parent and a Romanian parent so am relatively keyed in to the different cultures of the areas.
The only people dismissing others experiences are Karol and Canadian. Both have fully ignored others who have given their views and decided only their opinions matter for some reason.
Canadian 5th wrote: If people here are so 'casual' why do they care if they play nothing but WAAC tournament grinders? If you care enough to set up a crusade campaign or a narrative game that isn't exactly casual.
Be casual is more about having fun with the other person, talking, hanging out, throwing dice. I don't want to set up my minis for 2 turns and get tabled without any fun play. Thats like playing pool with friends and having a drink then some pro comes up and hits 4 to 1 balls in each round and talking or drinking, yeah thats not why me and my friends are there.
It seems like you are trying really are to push a narrative, at this point I truly believe you are trolling or trying to start arguments on purpose.
Canadian 5th wrote:If people here are so 'casual' why do they care if they play nothing but WAAC tournament grinders? If you care enough to set up a crusade campaign or a narrative game that isn't exactly casual.
Because WAAC tournament grinders aren't casual. It's like you've not been reading what people are defining the "casual" experience as, and are battling your own made-up definition.
JNAProductions wrote:If you don’t have fun, why play?
Exactly.
Dai wrote:C5th has some fair points here and it is not entirely fair to dismiss Karol's experience (or anyone who can just about afford to experience the hobby in some way). That said as I stated previously I think it important to remind Karol that life and people are not always so bloody awful, his posts actually concern me at times.
Yes, agreed - but I don't see anyone entirely dismissing Karol's experience. People are (quite rightly) reminding Karol that their claims about how humans are all inherently evil and everyone's out to disadvantage you and there's no such thing as good in the world are not universal. Karol's experiences are definitely not to be ignored, but they do not apply to everyone, in the same way that other people's experiences don't necessarily apply to Karol.
As Gert says,
Gert wrote:The only people dismissing others experiences are Karol and Canadian. Both have fully ignored others who have given their views and decided only their opinions matter for some reason.
- which is something I also say to be accurate.
Karol's experiences are valid, but not universal. Canadian's ways of enjoying themselves are valid, but not universal. Neither of the two seem to be able to understand that, and are insistent on devaluing the valid experiences of others.
It is because there is no "common language" to casual play.
The core rules are a shared and understood lens through which to converse about the game, it requires no pre-ambling or contextualizing. The "objective" of the game mechanically, winning, is an easy concept to discuss and the natural path of least resistance will lead to discussing how best to win overtime.
Anything else requires a conversation of context-setting and explicit premises. Which is small friction, but enough to make casual play an uncommon subject amongst strangers on the internet when compared to competitive play.
Agreed. I've said before that 40K is a "lingua franca" or common tongue among tabletop wargamers. Matched play with Battleforged lists means that two strangers can have a good gaming experience without tons of pre-game negotiation. And if they do need to negotiate at least they are doing it from a mutually understood starting point. "You cool with Lords of War? You OK with Forge World?" etc.
I think that "casual" could mean not terribly invested in winning. Doesn't mean you are playing to lose, but you aren't poring over the books trying to squeeze every ounce of tabletop efficiency out of your list.
I find that people in my area tend to show up with a pick-up game with a list tuned to about 70%. They might be trying out a theme but still have a solid core of effectiveness. They would come to a tourney with a list tuned to 90%. If I am playing a stranger I will not bust out the "A List."
Issues arise when one player comes to a pick-up game with a list tuned to 100% against somebody who has recreated a list from their Badaab War (whatever that is, but I see people write about it) fan fiction tuned to about 40% effectiveness but 100% fan fiction attention to detail. Pick-up game culture is not fantastically conducive to hard-core narrative play, and folks who only bring LVO-winning lists will also end being a little unsatisfied (or without opponents).
And that's OK. They'll just have to communicate with opponents before game to find folks with a common understanding of the gaming experience. But the majority seem to get by just fine. Maybe I am mirror-imaging, but I also think that people are capable of being "casual" in one gaming situation and "competitive" in another.
I understand that some local situations may not be as pleasant or flexible as mine.
ccs wrote: I do not own a house so that I can play games. I own a house to live in it. The perks of owning a house where I do is a combination of cost of living, nearness to family/friends, like the area/community, and a non-terrible commute distance. Oh yeah, it also has enough space to hold all my crap & allow me to host games for a select invite list.
I live in a city where a 'cheap' home starts at $1,000,000 and where rent tends to start at $1,500 for a single bedroom dump and rises rapidly from there. Owning a home is beyond most people here so consider yourself lucky.
The car....
I own a car because it's practically a necessity. There is no viable public transportation where I live. Walking, though certainly the healthy option, would be far too slow. Biking is also too limited. The days of horse & buggy are about a century past (and I have no real means to care for a horse). Thus I need a car.
The use public transit system is a mess, but this is less true in Canada and Europe so many people my age and younger don't own cars. Thus making 40k even more difficult to play.
Really? I have a TV on my wall that costs as much as a 40k army.
A multi-hundred dollar TV is again difficult for a lot of people to afford without saving for it. Consider yourself lucky that you can likely afford to replace it if it breaks and never worry about paying for netflix and internet access, not everybody is so fortunate.
The housing situation sounds like here, you in BC?
Nailed it in 1. Moved from Kelowna to Vancouver a few years ago and both are too expensive to live in. Any other "city" is too small to have jobs or is just as expensive.
ccs wrote: I do not own a house so that I can play games. I own a house to live in it. The perks of owning a house where I do is a combination of cost of living, nearness to family/friends, like the area/community, and a non-terrible commute distance. Oh yeah, it also has enough space to hold all my crap & allow me to host games for a select invite list.
I live in a city where a 'cheap' home starts at $1,000,000 and where rent tends to start at $1,500 for a single bedroom dump and rises rapidly from there. Owning a home is beyond most people here so consider yourself lucky.
The car....
I own a car because it's practically a necessity. There is no viable public transportation where I live. Walking, though certainly the healthy option, would be far too slow. Biking is also too limited. The days of horse & buggy are about a century past (and I have no real means to care for a horse). Thus I need a car.
The use public transit system is a mess, but this is less true in Canada and Europe so many people my age and younger don't own cars. Thus making 40k even more difficult to play.
Really? I have a TV on my wall that costs as much as a 40k army.
A multi-hundred dollar TV is again difficult for a lot of people to afford without saving for it. Consider yourself lucky that you can likely afford to replace it if it breaks and never worry about paying for netflix and internet access, not everybody is so fortunate.
The housing situation sounds like here, you in BC?
Nailed it in 1. Moved from Kelowna to Vancouver a few years ago and both are too expensive to live in. Any other "city" is too small to have jobs or is just as expensive.
Agreed. I've said before that 40K is a "lingua franca" or common tongue among tabletop wargamers. Matched play with Battleforged lists means that two strangers can have a good gaming experience without tons of pre-game negotiation. And if they do need to negotiate at least they are doing it from a mutually understood starting point. "You cool with Lords of War? You OK with Forge World?" etc.
I think that "casual" could mean not terribly invested in winning. Doesn't mean you are playing to lose, but you aren't poring over the books trying to squeeze every ounce of tabletop efficiency out of your list.
I find that people in my area tend to show up with a pick-up game with a list tuned to about 70%. They might be trying out a theme but still have a solid core of effectiveness. They would come to a tourney with a list tuned to 90%. If I am playing a stranger I will not bust out the "A List."
Issues arise when one player comes to a pick-up game with a list tuned to 100% against somebody who has recreated a list from their Badaab War (whatever that is, but I see people write about it) fan fiction tuned to about 40% effectiveness but 100% fan fiction attention to detail. Pick-up game culture is not fantastically conducive to hard-core narrative play, and folks who only bring LVO-winning lists will also end being a little unsatisfied (or without opponents).
And that's OK. They'll just have to communicate with opponents before game to find folks with a common understanding of the gaming experience. But the majority seem to get by just fine. Maybe I am mirror-imaging, but I also think that people are capable of being "casual" in one gaming situation and "competitive" in another.
I understand that some local situations may not be as pleasant or flexible as mine.
I agree with a most of this.
I tent to play scheduled games with friends and not pickup games. I'm out of the loop now with my local area gamers as I moved out of the area in 05 and haven't moved closer than an hour and a half dive to the area. I don't have time to get out to the shop with out knowing what I am in for when I arrive. I used to play several games a week but that was several years ago now. I'm more of a casual player because of this. I have attended a few tournaments and hope to attend the club tournament this year if we have it, hopefully I'll be competent enough with 9th to have a good showing if I can't make the top 25%. top 10 would be amazing at this point. For scheduled games I have advantage of knowing who I am playing and their personality as well as expectations from the game, we've gamed together for about 20 years now. I bring a list that will be fun to play and challenging to win with for games with my least competitive friend so that he has as much fun as I do and we'll roll dice and see what happens. I do not enjoy crushing him in a game. He's my standard for list building with friends. as my other friends are usually stronger players I turn up my lists an needed or as I see fit. I have one very competitive friend who I enjoy beating when I do because that's the game he's looking for. Unfortunately if the games are too one sided in my favor he's been known to quit. Which is funny given that I lost all but a hand full of games to him during all of 7th edition. 8th really balanced out our games as far as wind and losses. Good times. He'll ty to explain his army to me but for how little I play now there isn't a lot of point to get specific as I wont remember it.
I prefer close games where we don't know which army will win until the last dice is dropped win or not. I see 40K more like pro-wrestling than a sport. I want to take the ride not reach the destination, my favorite part of playing the game is playing the game.
Agreed. I've said before that 40K is a "lingua franca" or common tongue among tabletop wargamers. Matched play with Battleforged lists means that two strangers can have a good gaming experience without tons of pre-game negotiation. And if they do need to negotiate at least they are doing it from a mutually understood starting point. "You cool with Lords of War? You OK with Forge World?" etc.
I think that "casual" could mean not terribly invested in winning. Doesn't mean you are playing to lose, but you aren't poring over the books trying to squeeze every ounce of tabletop efficiency out of your list.
I find that people in my area tend to show up with a pick-up game with a list tuned to about 70%. They might be trying out a theme but still have a solid core of effectiveness. They would come to a tourney with a list tuned to 90%. If I am playing a stranger I will not bust out the "A List."
Issues arise when one player comes to a pick-up game with a list tuned to 100% against somebody who has recreated a list from their Badaab War (whatever that is, but I see people write about it) fan fiction tuned to about 40% effectiveness but 100% fan fiction attention to detail. Pick-up game culture is not fantastically conducive to hard-core narrative play, and folks who only bring LVO-winning lists will also end being a little unsatisfied (or without opponents).
And that's OK. They'll just have to communicate with opponents before game to find folks with a common understanding of the gaming experience. But the majority seem to get by just fine. Maybe I am mirror-imaging, but I also think that people are capable of being "casual" in one gaming situation and "competitive" in another.
I understand that some local situations may not be as pleasant or flexible as mine.
I agree with a most of this.
I tent to play scheduled games with friends and not pickup games. I'm out of the loop now with my local area gamers as I moved out of the area in 05 and haven't moved closer than an hour and a half dive to the area. I don't have time to get out to the shop with out knowing what I am in for when I arrive. I used to play several games a week but that was several years ago now. I'm more of a casual player because of this. I have attended a few tournaments and hope to attend the club tournament this year if we have it, hopefully I'll be competent enough with 9th to have a good showing if I can't make the top 25%. top 10 would be amazing at this point. For scheduled games I have advantage of knowing who I am playing and their personality as well as expectations from the game, we've gamed together for about 20 years now. I bring a list that will be fun to play and challenging to win with for games with my least competitive friend so that he has as much fun as I do and we'll roll dice and see what happens. I do not enjoy crushing him in a game. He's my standard for list building with friends. as my other friends are usually stronger players I turn up my lists an needed or as I see fit. I have one very competitive friend who I enjoy beating when I do because that's the game he's looking for. Unfortunately if the games are too one sided in my favor he's been known to quit. Which is funny given that I lost all but a hand full of games to him during all of 7th edition. 8th really balanced out our games as far as wind and losses. Good times. He'll ty to explain his army to me but for how little I play now there isn't a lot of point to get specific as I wont remember it.
I prefer close games where we don't know which army will win until the last dice is dropped win or not. I see 40K more like pro-wrestling than a sport. I want to take the ride not reach the destination, my favorite part of playing the game is playing the game.
Agree. That's the thing, it's quite easy to talk about casual play. I do it all the time. Only I do it on my gaming club's discord channel with people who already know what kind of 40K I like to play and share that perspective.
Agree. That's the thing, it's quite easy to talk about casual play. I do it all the time. Only I do it on my gaming club's discord channel with people who already know what kind of 40K I like to play and share that perspective.
Okey, so you come to play a game at the store. Tell your opponent you play a weaker or weak army, and he informs you that he has a good army. You both have 2000pts, maybe one of you have a bit more. The easy to talk about part is true, but the results are different only if majority of people have huge collections or multiple armies. And even then there is still power difference. If one player has a top tier 55%+ win rate army and the other one plays something like GSC, Tau or GK, then even if the later player has 10000pts of models there is not going to be much of a real game happening.
Agree. That's the thing, it's quite easy to talk about casual play. I do it all the time. Only I do it on my gaming club's discord channel with people who already know what kind of 40K I like to play and share that perspective.
Okey, so you come to play a game at the store. Tell your opponent you play a weaker or weak army, and he informs you that he has a good army. You both have 2000pts, maybe one of you have a bit more. The easy to talk about part is true, but the results are different only if majority of people have huge collections or multiple armies. And even then there is still power difference. If one player has a top tier 55%+ win rate army and the other one plays something like GSC, Tau or GK, then even if the later player has 10000pts of models there is not going to be much of a real game happening.
I don't play pick up games with whoever is at the store, this issue doesn't really apply to me. I understand that if your only way to get games is like this, it would be a problem. There really isn't a way around it other than to build more interconnected relationships with gamers that you like to play with.
Racerguy180 wrote: This has been suggested to Karol for years, their toxic meta probably won't allow them to tho...which is sad.
I do understand the frustration. When I got into playing 40k I wasted a lot of weekday nights getting stomped by people who approached 40k more like MtG than a wargame. It really only got better for two reasons: a coalescing of a local club with clear principles, and my proactive drive to game with people that liked to play the same way as me.
Agree. That's the thing, it's quite easy to talk about casual play. I do it all the time. Only I do it on my gaming club's discord channel with people who already know what kind of 40K I like to play and share that perspective.
Okey, so you come to play a game at the store. Tell your opponent you play a weaker or weak army, and he informs you that he has a good army. You both have 2000pts, maybe one of you have a bit more. The easy to talk about part is true, but the results are different only if majority of people have huge collections or multiple armies. And even then there is still power difference. If one player has a top tier 55%+ win rate army and the other one plays something like GSC, Tau or GK, then even if the later player has 10000pts of models there is not going to be much of a real game happening.
If its a pickup game and neither player has backup armies with them then I guess they have some choices. They can decide not to play - if there is a group of players perhaps they sort out more "even" matches. They could decide to play and let the chips fall where they may, accepting that the result might be a foregone conclusion. They could agree to a "handicap."
Its a pick up game - at the end of the day the stakes are fantastically low.
I don't play pick up games with whoever is at the store, this issue doesn't really apply to me. I understand that if your only way to get games is like this, it would be a problem. There really isn't a way around it other than to build more interconnected relationships with gamers that you like to play with.
Okey played in 2 stores in my area, all the other stores are too far for me to go to play somewhere else. I don't build relationship with people, because I don't do social stuff, I don't understand it and each time I do try it, it ends bad. I tried telling jokes 3 times on this forum. And each time it ended with a warrning. Learned my lessons the hard way. But this is hardly a me problem. People here generaly have one army, and most people don't have more then 2000pts or what ever is considered the basic sized army in a given edition. Plus I don't think that telling people that things will get better as long as they get more stuff. First of all they would have to paint the models, then there is the cost of those extra 500-1000pts and some armies don't even have extra stuff to buy, what is a harli player suppose to buy after he gets a 2000pts army. And the third and worse thing is, what happens if buying the extra stuff doesn't fix anything, what if you spend even more cash on the army, then paint it and it is still bad. And this is a general problem, not some specific me one. Not everyone is 35+ with a good job and no family to buy an army ever 6 months.
If durning 8th, I went and followed the advice what was considered the better choice for my army. I would have still end up with a weak army then, and it would still be bad in 9th. So technicaly I would have saved money, if I hadn't bought anything, of course only in theory, because in reality I didn't and don't have the money to rebuy an army.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
TangoTwoBravo 798035 11119916 wrote:
If its a pickup game and neither player has backup armies with them then I guess they have some choices. They can decide not to play - if there is a group of players perhaps they sort out more "even" matches. They could decide to play and let the chips fall where they may, accepting that the result might be a foregone conclusion. They could agree to a "handicap."
Its a pick up game - at the end of the day the stakes are fantastically low.
I can tell you that after 3+ years of losing and the game not being very fun, the stakes maybe aren't high, if you got the army for free. Each time I think about my sisters buying a tablet with her confirmation money, I just get angry. And I don't like to get angry, it makes me more stupid, and then I have to take medication and that makes me sleepy.
I'm sorry to hear about your difficulties with social interactions, Karol.
I definitely don't think that buying more stuff is the answer for you. I would say to let go of the importance around the game. When you have moments in games that are fun, remember the person you played with and try playing again, even if you lost. Follow the fun if you can. I wish you luck.
I don't play pick up games with whoever is at the store, this issue doesn't really apply to me. I understand that if your only way to get games is like this, it would be a problem. There really isn't a way around it other than to build more interconnected relationships with gamers that you like to play with.
Okey played in 2 stores in my area, all the other stores are too far for me to go to play somewhere else. I don't build relationship with people, because I don't do social stuff, I don't understand it and each time I do try it, it ends bad. I tried telling jokes 3 times on this forum. And each time it ended with a warrning. Learned my lessons the hard way. But this is hardly a me problem. People here generaly have one army, and most people don't have more then 2000pts or what ever is considered the basic sized army in a given edition. Plus I don't think that telling people that things will get better as long as they get more stuff. First of all they would have to paint the models, then there is the cost of those extra 500-1000pts and some armies don't even have extra stuff to buy, what is a harli player suppose to buy after he gets a 2000pts army. And the third and worse thing is, what happens if buying the extra stuff doesn't fix anything, what if you spend even more cash on the army, then paint it and it is still bad. And this is a general problem, not some specific me one. Not everyone is 35+ with a good job and no family to buy an army ever 6 months.
If durning 8th, I went and followed the advice what was considered the better choice for my army. I would have still end up with a weak army then, and it would still be bad in 9th. So technicaly I would have saved money, if I hadn't bought anything, of course only in theory, because in reality I didn't and don't have the money to rebuy an army.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
TangoTwoBravo 798035 11119916 wrote:
If its a pickup game and neither player has backup armies with them then I guess they have some choices. They can decide not to play - if there is a group of players perhaps they sort out more "even" matches. They could decide to play and let the chips fall where they may, accepting that the result might be a foregone conclusion. They could agree to a "handicap."
Its a pick up game - at the end of the day the stakes are fantastically low.
I can tell you that after 3+ years of losing and the game not being very fun, the stakes maybe aren't high, if you got the army for free. Each time I think about my sisters buying a tablet with her confirmation money, I just get angry. And I don't like to get angry, it makes me more stupid, and then I have to take medication and that makes me sleepy.
Karol,
The money you spent on your army is indeed spent. If playing makes you consistently angry, though, then that is absolutely a problem. I am not a therapist or mental health practitioner, and given your disclosure regarding medication I will assume you have access to genuine help. I hope that you share with them (the medical practitioner) what you share here regarding anger etc.
You say that you do not do social stuff, which could also be a problem with tabletop wargaming. I do know, however, that lots of people with various anxieties/phobias do participate in the game and I do hope that people are accommodating in your area. I hazard that our hobby has plenty of folks on the spectrum who find enjoyment and social connection through gaming. I also realize that everyone is a little bit different and honestly wish you the best.
warhead01 wrote: I see 40K more like pro-wrestling than a sport. I want to take the ride not reach the destination, my favorite part of playing the game is playing the game.
Love this, really nice summary of how I like to approach the game – well put!
Agree. That's the thing, it's quite easy to talk about casual play. I do it all the time. Only I do it on my gaming club's discord channel with people who already know what kind of 40K I like to play and share that perspective.
Okey, so you come to play a game at the store. Tell your opponent you play a weaker or weak army, and he informs you that he has a good army. You both have 2000pts, maybe one of you have a bit more. The easy to talk about part is true, but the results are different only if majority of people have huge collections or multiple armies. And even then there is still power difference. If one player has a top tier 55%+ win rate army and the other one plays something like GSC, Tau or GK, then even if the later player has 10000pts of models there is not going to be much of a real game happening.
If you do not have the money to chase the meta then you cannot play 40k in a competitive manner. The power swings are to drastic and certain factions are favored while others not so much. The fact is you need a army in a supported faction (imperial) and even then, as you know being a GK player, that is not enough. No matter your feelings on the issue these facts are facts. The game is highly dependent on your local scene. In your case I would probably just find another hobby. Harsh but its probably the best move for you. There are other games. You are not beholden to GW.
As for the OT. The reason people focus on tourney play on dakka is because thats all there is to talk about. There is a lore section but that does not have very much traffic. Most other things can be supported by watching youtube (hobby advice).
Table wrote: If you do not have the money to chase the meta then you cannot play 40k in a competitive manner.
This is a flat out lie.
First it is hyperbole. It overly states a concept that the only way one can play is one only wins. If that was the truth, then only the Harlem Globetrotters play basketball. This hyperbole drives me nuts.
Second is that one doesn't have to chase the meta to in order to consistently win. There are a few armies that stay consistently good edition to edition, but more importantly, how one plays an army is far more important. A player who constantly switch armies will always be a few steps behind one that is consistent with their army to be fully comfortable with it, and know how to maximize their strengths and minimize their weaknesses. That isn't to say that a good player with a bad army will succeed against a good player with a good army, it is more that a good player with a bad army can do well against a medium or bad player with a good army.
Table wrote: If you do not have the money to chase the meta then you cannot play 40k in a competitive manner.
This is a flat out lie.
First it is hyperbole. It overly states a concept that the only way one can play is one only wins. If that was the truth, then only the Harlem Globetrotters play basketball. This hyperbole drives me nuts.
Second is that one doesn't have to chase the meta to in order to consistently win. There are a few armies that stay consistently good edition to edition, but more importantly, how one plays an army is far more important. A player who constantly switch armies will always be a few steps behind one that is consistent with their army to be fully comfortable with it, and know how to maximize their strengths and minimize their weaknesses. That isn't to say that a good player with a bad army will succeed against a good player with a good army, it is more that a good player with a bad army can do well against a medium or bad player with a good army.
I disagree. To your first point, the quote is specifically about competitive play which implies you're most concerned with winning. You only have to look at how many of the top players get success by switching armies rather than selecting a single faction and honing their skills to see that having access to more armies/models is the only way to chase the meta. Just look at how the various tools SM players were using at the end of 8th are now much less useful (Aggressors and Eliminators for example) or how Dark Eldar are currently miles ahead of anyone else, to the extent that all the top players at a GT from a few weeks ago played them and most (all?) of them weren't playing them prior to their Codex being released. Knowing a faction well only helps if that faction happens to be one of the ones that is good right now. There's no amount of playing certain weak armies well that will get you success against most DE armies due to the huge power imbalance at the moment. Maybe when they get their Codex they'll be good enough to compete again but until then in certain circumstances and certain matches it just doesn't matter what you do with certain armies, you will lose against the top meta stuff. I somewhat agree with your last sentence except the imbalance between some armies in most GW games is often so bad even a good player will struggle to beat a weak player with certain army combinations.
Karol's problem seems to be they're stuck in a situation where they didn't fully realise what they were getting themselves into when they bought their GK army. If you play in a meta as competitive and toxic as theirs seems to be then the only way to improve your success rate in games is to spend money. Either you go all-out to chase the meta or at the very least you need to be looking at changing your army composition and that means spending money to add new units. 40k, like many wargames, is not a great hobby to play competitively if you're not willing to spend money to "keep up".
That's not to say there aren't many other ways to play the game that don't require constant spending but Karol's made it clear their community doesn't take part in those kind of games. No idea why, and I've also no idea why it's not possible to arrange games beforehand rather than when you're at the store but that seems to be the situation they're in.
As somebody who has played Warmachine and Hordes for years and is possibly picking up some 40K after the pandemic for kick about games with friends, I have one plea to all GW players.
You need to run and support both casual play and competitive play in equal measure. When your ONLY focus and metric of success for a game or faction is how well it did in the last grand tournament, you are on a slow downward spiral that slowly poisons the mindset of the community, the types of people you get coming into the game and then eventually the direction of the company.
GW has some leeway as its such a big company in this space, but even they will respond over time to the desires of the community. If they see reliably that the newest “meta shaping” list sells or that formal big competitions are the real drivers of sales then they will drive production, sales and rules in that direction. Being only focused on Tournaments is dangerous and detrimental to the game. Something we are trying desperately to show the diehards of the WM/H community.
In answer to the op - I have banned talk about casual play from the ork tactics threads years ago because it was causing too many problems. People were starting fights about how great objectively horrible units were because they made them work in their private super-casual environment where they have been playing one and the same person for a decade. No one gains anything when a guy from a super laid back meta convinces a new player to buy a pile of worthless models, this will only cause the new player to waste money, get frustrated and eventually leave the hobby.
Essentially what is worth discussing about a faction is 1) how to build a working army 2) how well which units work and in what context 3) how to use any given unit and why they perform as well as they do
If you have understood those things, you can apply that knowledge to your game no matter whether you are playing a casual or competitive game - either to build the best of the best or to match your opponent for a fun and enjoyable game. Recently there have been some voices in my club about some players getting to competitive, and I genuinely asked whether I was one of them. Three guys of vastly varying experience and competitiveness told me that they always feel like they are getting a great game and a fair fight from me. It wouldn't be possible for me to tune my armies to match my respective opponent as well as I do if I didn't know my orks and DG inside out.
Any opinion akin to "Well, it works for me, because I'm my opponents aren't TFGWAAC tournament cheater murderhobos" "It's a great distraction carnifex, my opponent always shoots it first because he is afraid of it" "I would refuse to play against that" "If your opponent <does something greatly disadvantageous to them>, then..." "In our games we have <houserule/gentlemans agreement>, so..." Are utterly worthless tactically to anyone not playing in the exact same environment as you.
It just doesn't make sense to talk about non-competitive tactics. Either you are trying to win or you are not. How much of the "trying you win" you eventually apply to your game is up to you.
That said, it's not true that people aren't talking about casual play, there are tons of threads in the general forum on that topic, and YMDC often has suggestions on how to house-rule things that feel unintuitive.
Table 798035 11120119 wrote:
If you do not have the money to chase the meta then you cannot play 40k in a competitive manner. The power swings are to drastic and certain factions are favored while others not so much. The fact is you need a army in a supported faction (imperial) and even then, as you know being a GK player, that is not enough. No matter your feelings on the issue these facts are facts. The game is highly dependent on your local scene. In your case I would probably just find another hobby. Harsh but its probably the best move for you. There are other games. You are not beholden to GW.
.
Well here the options are historicals, which I don't like the people, or AoS which I don't like the models for. there is is also infinity, but the guys playing it only play vs painted armies. Plus the main problem is, the money. I tried selling my army a few times. No one wants to buy it, aside for one guy who ,although this may have been a joke and I am not very good with getting those, said he could buy it for 1/10th what I paid for it. And with that money I could buy a box of 10 intercessors. Ain't going to start another army with it. So I very much am locked in. Quiting is also not an option, the very idea of sitting at home watching a wall thinking that I wasted so much money, would not be good for my mental health. I already have problems with that, and don't need more.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Las wrote: I'm sorry to hear about your difficulties with social interactions, Karol.
I definitely don't think that buying more stuff is the answer for you. I would say to let go of the importance around the game. When you have moments in games that are fun, remember the person you played with and try playing again, even if you lost. Follow the fun if you can. I wish you luck.
I had fun 3 times over the span of 4+ years playing w40k First two games were demos, and we played it with the old store owners armies. Those two were fun, and then one game in 9th, when I got a draw. In an actual game, not by the opponent not showing up for the game. Comparing to that my sister has fun with her tablet ever day, and when I ask for one her dad just tells me that "I got the toy soldiers with my money", and he isn't wrong about that.
Sometimes I just wish, I never started the game, but peer preasure is a thing. First year in new school, everyone was starting 8th. Even my mom thought it was a good idea. That by the way turned up to be a good thing, in all the bad things. Because learned that sometimes your parents can very much be wrong about something.
Karol wrote: Quiting is also not an option, the very idea of sitting at home watching a wall thinking that I wasted so much money, would not be good for my mental health. I already have problems with that, and don't need more.
I don't think anyone is suggesting quitting and then doing literally nothing to fill the time previously spent gaming. There must be other options for things to do with your free time. I say this because...
I had fun 3 times over the span of 4+ years playing w40k
...this is not healthy. Look, I understand there may be some mental health issues at play here and it's great that you seem to be getting help and guidance for them. However, voluntarily participating in an activity that has been fun only 3 times over more than 4 years is not good, to put it mildly. If this really is the case I would strongly advise you to find something else to occupy your time. It seems as though your local community is about as toxic as they come so they're unlikely to change and without players who are willing to adapt to offer something more engaging and enjoyable for you there aren't too many other options.
ingtaer wrote: Switch to X Wing, massive player base in Poland and I have never come across (nor heard of) anyone with the kind of attitude you describe, Karol.
Also much more balanced than 40k in general and cheaper too.
Karol wrote: Well here the options are historicals, which I don't like the people, or AoS which I don't like the models for. there is is also infinity, but the guys playing it only play vs painted armies. Plus the main problem is, the money. I tried selling my army a few times. No one wants to buy it, aside for one guy who ,although this may have been a joke and I am not very good with getting those, said he could buy it for 1/10th what I paid for it. And with that money I could buy a box of 10 intercessors. Ain't going to start another army with it. So I very much am locked in. Quiting is also not an option, the very idea of sitting at home watching a wall thinking that I wasted so much money, would not be good for my mental health. I already have problems with that, and don't need more.
People have literally offered to buy your army here on dakka. Your suffering is of your own making.
It's Karol's fault that Grey Knights aren't a good army and people shouldn't have to accommodate their own armies because of GW's screwed up balance y'all defend?
It's Karol's fault that Grey Knights aren't a good army and people shouldn't have to accommodate their own armies because of GW's screwed up balance y'all defend?
Crappy balance is GW's fault.
A toxic community is the community's fault-not helped by the rules, but you can have garbage rules and positive people, or vice versa.
Karol continuing to play despite basically never having fun is his fault-the money is already spent. Playing games you don't enjoy won't unspend it.
It's Karol's fault that Grey Knights aren't a good army and people shouldn't have to accommodate their own armies because of GW's screwed up balance y'all defend?
Crappy balance is GW's fault.
A toxic community is the community's fault-not helped by the rules, but you can have garbage rules and positive people, or vice versa.
Karol continuing to play despite basically never having fun is his fault-the money is already spent. Playing games you don't enjoy won't unspend it.
The community isn't toxic because other people shouldn't have to accommodate their armies for a bad army, just by principle. Where is their unlimited money to do so? Blaming the players has always been garbage reasoning.
Nobody is blaming Karol for playing GK or the rules decisions GW makes.
What people are saying is that they have chosen to keep doing a thing that actively makes them depressed, not gone for any alternatives and if they have been offered a option to sell their collection, haven't taken that either.
Instead Karol has come onto a forum, given their views, disagreed with literally everyone who isn't on board with those views and continued to complain.
You're right, it would a lovely thing if people didn't need to change what they want to take in an army to accommodate other players. But that's not how things are and compromising to make sure everyone has a good time is the sign of a good community. If someone's hobby is causing them to be depressed and their community is a main cause of that, then that community is absolutely toxic.
I have never been in any social situation where *SOME* self-control that isn't imposed externally is required.
Wargaming is no different. Yes. It isn't against the rules that you don't piss on the table while nude and covered in chocolate, but I still won't be interested in playing against you just because you follow the rules.
Or there is rules. You can't scream or shot, because otherwise the store owner gets problems with other stores and they call the police on him. You can't drink or eat inside, because it stinks the place up. Can't play with digital or printed out rules, especially vs new players. You are not allowed to touch other people models. You can't fight people at the store. Ton of social rules to follow.
You're right, it would a lovely thing if people didn't need to change what they want to take in an army to accommodate other players. But that's not how things are and compromising to make sure everyone has a good time is the sign of a good community.
That is nice, for others to read I guess. Because when I started the forums gave me this options. Polish forums gave me army lists, which at a glance cost more then I had money, and I did not know that recasting is a thing when I started. Plus I generaly tend to not trust local people very much. People that live 2-3 countries away, tend to gain less for screwing with you, which makes their anwsers less unbiased. Problem is on non-polish forums, I got a mix of play what you want and 8th is the best and most balanced edition ever. So after a few dozen games that went really bad, I came here and asked what am I doing wrong with GK. I think that was even my first post on the forums. No one told me when I was starting that to properly play w40k and have fun, you need the income of an unmarried 35 year old, preferably with his own house and a bunch of friends who also play w40k. And that bad things can stay bad in w40k for a very long time, or at least for me 4 years is a very long time. Took me over 2 years to realise that maybe GW is not even trying to fix stuff or even make a good game. A learning expiriance, I wish was less costly.
Table wrote: If you do not have the money to chase the meta then you cannot play 40k in a competitive manner.
This is a flat out lie.
First it is hyperbole. It overly states a concept that the only way one can play is one only wins. If that was the truth, then only the Harlem Globetrotters play basketball. This hyperbole drives me nuts.
Second is that one doesn't have to chase the meta to in order to consistently win. There are a few armies that stay consistently good edition to edition, but more importantly, how one plays an army is far more important. A player who constantly switch armies will always be a few steps behind one that is consistent with their army to be fully comfortable with it, and know how to maximize their strengths and minimize their weaknesses. That isn't to say that a good player with a bad army will succeed against a good player with a good army, it is more that a good player with a bad army can do well against a medium or bad player with a good army.
I disagree. To your first point, the quote is specifically about competitive play which implies you're most concerned with winning. You only have to look at how many of the top players get success by switching armies rather than selecting a single faction and honing their skills to see that having access to more armies/models is the only way to chase the meta. Just look at how the various tools SM players were using at the end of 8th are now much less useful (Aggressors and Eliminators for example) or how Dark Eldar are currently miles ahead of anyone else, to the extent that all the top players at a GT from a few weeks ago played them and most (all?) of them weren't playing them prior to their Codex being released. Knowing a faction well only helps if that faction happens to be one of the ones that is good right now. There's no amount of playing certain weak armies well that will get you success against most DE armies due to the huge power imbalance at the moment. Maybe when they get their Codex they'll be good enough to compete again but until then in certain circumstances and certain matches it just doesn't matter what you do with certain armies, you will lose against the top meta stuff. I somewhat agree with your last sentence except the imbalance between some armies in most GW games is often so bad even a good player will struggle to beat a weak player with certain army combinations.
You missed what I said and inserted your own beliefs. There is a difference between playing to win and only considering winning as playing. If you only consider only winning as playing, then you are one of the toxic players. Playing does involve losing. And it is fine to lose, even in a competitive atmosphere. Admittedly, it is more fun to lose in a close race than a loss in turn 1, but that doesn't equate to playing = winning.
You also ignored what I said in the second point. I never stated that a good player with a bad army will always win, I just said that they can win against a bad player with a good army. If a player doesn't know how to use the abilities in that army, especially with a finesse army that doesn't allow a lot of mistakes (which is what Dark Eldar have historically been), then it doesn't matter if they have the new hotness if they can't deploy it properly, time the abilities right, prep the table/use cover properly, etc. This concept is known in some circles as strategy and tactics in others.
I also pointed out that one does not always have to be using the top army in order to be competitive. One does not have to chase the meta to be competitive, but one can be close without necessarily chasing it, and sometimes those dice will do the win more than any other choices you make. All the hot armies do is make rolling your desired rolls easier and your opponent's rolls harder. If a person is using an army that is currently #3 in the meta, then they will usually do pretty well. You mentioned in "certain scenarios and certain matches", well those don't always apply. Sometimes you can mold the game towards them and sometimes you can mold them away from it.
Nothing you said actually counters those points.
Slipspace wrote:Karol's problem seems to be they're stuck in a situation where they didn't fully realise what they were getting themselves into when they bought their GK army. If you play in a meta as competitive and toxic as theirs seems to be then the only way to improve your success rate in games is to spend money. Either you go all-out to chase the meta or at the very least you need to be looking at changing your army composition and that means spending money to add new units. 40k, like many wargames, is not a great hobby to play competitively if you're not willing to spend money to "keep up".
That's not to say there aren't many other ways to play the game that don't require constant spending but Karol's made it clear their community doesn't take part in those kind of games. No idea why, and I've also no idea why it's not possible to arrange games beforehand rather than when you're at the store but that seems to be the situation they're in.
And I wasn't addressing Karol's problems, I was addressing the very toxic concept that one cannot play a bad army in competitive games. One can, just their losses will be more incredibly more likely than wins. If winning is the only objective, then more research is needed, but I doubt that is why get Karol got involved in 40K in the first place. It is this type of attitude which leads to the same toxic atmosphere that Karol is experiencing.
And it sounds like Karol is in a toxic atmosphere. "Winning is the only goal." "The next tournament is the only concern, and so all games must fit in to that paradigm." I've ran in to those guys before, and I don't care for them. There are only a few choices in that situation: Join in and stop complaining; Try to develop a side community that plays the way you want; Start looking in to a different game with a different group; abandon the hobby all together. While the last is technically the easiest, it's not always desired.
My local community at large has a mix of those who are good with pickup games and those who only do schedule games as they are tournament-focused. It sometimes made it hard to get a 40K game in with an army that was 1/2 to 2/3 the size of the tournament standard. But to be fair, it is a big metropolis with numerous game stores one can find one's groove with and a few more popular ones who are big enough to attract both crowds.
Still, my best time, lately, has been with a new, small store that has been playing an old favorite, Classic Battletech, and we're just playing to have fun and introducing new players to the game, and being quite crazy about how we handle things. Last Friday, we did a 3v3v3, with each player having 3 models doing a Team King of the Hill on old Heroscape tiles. We could only get a few turns in before the store closed (CBT turns can take a while to process at times), but some crazy events happened, like a headcap on a custom Wasp with a medium laser, an ammo explosion on an otherwise healthy Battlemaster, and me jumping a mech up to capture the hill, alpha strike and THEN notice it had Stealth Armor I could have turned on right after everyone started shooting at it.
ingtaer wrote: Switch to X Wing, massive player base in Poland and I have never come across (nor heard of) anyone with the kind of attitude you describe, Karol.
Yes in central and western Poland. I live what is sometimes considered as Poland B. Would love to live in a big city like Pozen or Krakow with its multiple stores .
And as much as I feel people think I am telling stories. I always like to point out at stuff like CB kicking the polish judges for infinity from the forums, for not accepting stuff like intent play. My people are the reason why Kurwaspam existed, and why the newest edition of inifity looks the way it does, because our dudes were warping it really hard.
People have literally offered to buy your army here on dakka. Your suffering is of your own making.
I have no way to recive the money or send out the army. Unless someone decides to hop on plane and visit Dubeniki.
And it sounds like Karol is in a toxic atmosphere. "Winning is the only goal." "The next tournament is the only concern, and so all games must fit in to that paradigm." I've ran in to those guys before, and I don't care for them. There are only a few choices in that situation: Join in and stop complaining; Try to develop a side community that plays the way you want; Start looking in to a different game with a different group; abandon the hobby all together. While the last is technically the easiest, it's not always desired.
This didn't even work even when my old store was open. And I knew all people in it from seeing them in my town or at school. There is zero chance, and I checked, for someone my age to go up to people who are 30+, and clearly are having fun, and force them to play my way. Specially as I wouldn't even know what that would be. I had maybe 3 games I would consider fun, and only one of them was played with GK. I ain't no game designer, it takes me weeks if not longer to figure out what is wrong with something. Creating something from ground up is something I never did, and don't think I could go do. Plus people would just say no, the way they always say to all homebrews that don't come from event orgs or store owners.
I've been thinking more about this thread; in my last post, I came to the realization that describing myself as a casual player wasn't really correct; narrative player, or Crusade player fits better than "casual" as a descriptor for me; I'm actually pretty aggressive about the narrative elements of my gaming; there isn't really anything casual about writing a 20 page backstory for every army and refusing to fight in any arena that would compromise that story.
But I do see myself as non-competitive, and I think that is why I sometimes describe myself as casual.
Essentially what is worth discussing about a faction is
1) how to build a working army
2) how well which units work and in what context
3) how to use any given unit and why they perform as well as they do
For me, what's worth discussing is campaign systems and ideas, cross platform gaming/ integration and connections between rules and stories. That's not to say that Jidmah's list ISN'T worth discussing... It certainly is- especially for new players. It just isn't what I really want to read about- I can figure that all out by reading the rules myself. The Crusade thread that popped up as an offshoot to this one was the most interesting threads I've read in a long time, and it didn't contain any of the stuff listed above.
Some of what I'm looking for appears in background and rule forums, but I find rule forums still focus more on suggestions made in the name of balance than narrative, and I find the background forums place too much emphasis on BL content, which is entirely divorced from the tabletop (like my favourite example of "Marines are faster than sisters and guardsmen cuz novels say so, despite the fact that everyone has the same move stat).
If I were to play my Tau army, I'd pretty much have to play it under Casual/Open play. I've done a ton of models in it that are customized to my own tastes, nothing terribly fancy mind you. I wager some of my friends are game-mature enough to work with me to get them on the table and have a decently fun AND fair game.
And I think that's the requirement. Not 'being an adult', not needing to have a third party or designer decide for us what the points and power should be... You need people who are game-mature (trademark and all rights to knucklewolf 2021 )
We could easily sit down and say realistically together that this model is built to be like this one, but has these alternate things, and that could impact the game in this way, so we will just agree to go with it's base cost per the 'dex plus a tax of 'XYZ'points, or just add one or two to it's power. Then we'll play a game and do an after action look of was that enough tax? Or should we laugh at ourselves and bump it up? Or maybe even just go back to base price of it really wasn't that impactful?
With the amount of games experience some guys have played, mixed with the right mental attitude, I'm sure we could get it done. But I haven't answered really why we don't talk about that on forums.
That I think, IMHO, is because it's just plain easier to argue with concrete than with the fog. It's really kind of a departure from the comfort zone of a rulebook to deal with some more abstract items that casual play would embody. And someone who isn't 'game-mature' could often be afraid someone's trying to cheat them, or indeed trying to cheat someone else with a playground attitude of having the same action figure but wanting to still win the mock battle in the sand box.
KnuckleWolf wrote: We could easily sit down and say realistically together that this model is built to be like this one, but has these alternate things, and that could impact the game in this way, so we will just agree to go with it's base cost per the 'dex plus a tax of 'XYZ'points, or just add one or two to it's power. Then we'll play a game and do an after action look of was that enough tax? Or should we laugh at ourselves and bump it up? Or maybe even just go back to base price of it really wasn't that impactful?
I agree with your sentiment about playing with a mature gamers. In this particular endeavor, there's an even easier solution: play with a points-handicap. Tau are bad. How bad? Let's try giving you 20% more points and see what happens. Outside of a tournament, there's no stakes for a one-off game. A strongly competitive minded player shouldn't have complaints, and should find the challenge interesting. Certainly you can give the weaker player too many points, but once you approach a handicap that feels balanced, by the definition the competitive player can't complain about it being unfair. We have the math to show playing an even game is unfair to the Tau.
That's not at all to say you need to use meta-data winrates to make a handicap chart for every match up you play, or any such extreme. Rather, it's a really simple way to bridge the gap between the least and most competitive players and armies. I think we should normalize it. A hardened veteran should offer 10-30% against a fluff bunny or a noob. It makes the game more fun for everyone, even if your only goal is to win. The win by itself isn't valuable, the win signifies overcoming a challenge; so make the challenge fair, or even stack the odds against yourself, and the win is better.
KnuckleWolf wrote: We could easily sit down and say realistically together that this model is built to be like this one, but has these alternate things, and that could impact the game in this way, so we will just agree to go with it's base cost per the 'dex plus a tax of 'XYZ'points, or just add one or two to it's power. Then we'll play a game and do an after action look of was that enough tax? Or should we laugh at ourselves and bump it up? Or maybe even just go back to base price of it really wasn't that impactful?
I agree with your sentiment about playing with a mature gamers. In this particular endeavor, there's an even easier solution: play with a points-handicap. Tau are bad. How bad? Let's try giving you 20% more points and see what happens. Outside of a tournament, there's no stakes for a one-off game. A strongly competitive minded player shouldn't have complaints, and should find the challenge interesting. Certainly you can give the weaker player too many points, but once you approach a handicap that feels balanced, by the definition the competitive player can't complain about it being unfair. We have the math to show playing an even game is unfair to the Tau.
That's not at all to say you need to use meta-data winrates to make a handicap chart for every match up you play, or any such extreme. Rather, it's a really simple way to bridge the gap between the least and most competitive players and armies. I think we should normalize it. A hardened veteran should offer 10-30% against a fluff bunny or a noob. It makes the game more fun for everyone, even if your only goal is to win. The win by itself isn't valuable, the win signifies overcoming a challenge; so make the challenge fair, or even stack the odds against yourself, and the win is better.
You might be surprised by how some people absolutely refuse to operate outside of the GW/rules mandated standards. I think your suggestion is fair and reasonable but even in my local group most are unwilling to move outside of the standard matched play framework. For example I offered one of my regular opponents to have his IW updated to 2/3 Wounds a pop for 3 points per model. But he refused, stating that would be unofficial and he would rather try and beat my DG with his woefully trash current CSM codex. In this instance one refuses even to his own detriment so I think it is rather common for quite a few people/groups to find it hard to find opponents willing to handicap themselves for a better play experience.
KnuckleWolf wrote: We could easily sit down and say realistically together that this model is built to be like this one, but has these alternate things, and that could impact the game in this way, so we will just agree to go with it's base cost per the 'dex plus a tax of 'XYZ'points, or just add one or two to it's power. Then we'll play a game and do an after action look of was that enough tax? Or should we laugh at ourselves and bump it up? Or maybe even just go back to base price of it really wasn't that impactful?
I agree with your sentiment about playing with a mature gamers. In this particular endeavor, there's an even easier solution: play with a points-handicap. Tau are bad. How bad? Let's try giving you 20% more points and see what happens. Outside of a tournament, there's no stakes for a one-off game. A strongly competitive minded player shouldn't have complaints, and should find the challenge interesting. Certainly you can give the weaker player too many points, but once you approach a handicap that feels balanced, by the definition the competitive player can't complain about it being unfair. We have the math to show playing an even game is unfair to the Tau.
That's not at all to say you need to use meta-data winrates to make a handicap chart for every match up you play, or any such extreme. Rather, it's a really simple way to bridge the gap between the least and most competitive players and armies. I think we should normalize it. A hardened veteran should offer 10-30% against a fluff bunny or a noob. It makes the game more fun for everyone, even if your only goal is to win. The win by itself isn't valuable, the win signifies overcoming a challenge; so make the challenge fair, or even stack the odds against yourself, and the win is better.
You might be surprised by how some people absolutely refuse to operate outside of the GW/rules mandated standards. I think your suggestion is fair and reasonable but even in my local group most are unwilling to move outside of the standard matched play framework. For example I offered one of my regular opponents to have his IW updated to 2/3 Wounds a pop for 3 points per model. But he refused, stating that would be unofficial and he would rather try and beat my DG with his woefully trash current CSM codex. In this instance one refuses even to his own detriment so I think it is rather common for quite a few people/groups to find it hard to find opponents willing to handicap themselves for a better play experience.
I understand his perspective. I think the principle issue is that players want consistent experiences, both for fairness but also for comparing their own progress as a player. Changing the unit's statlines and cost doesn't really help his experience. It's harder to reconfigure your list if you change the points value of individual parts; the value propositions change. He doesn't have a direct comparison to his previous performance, so it's both harder to play well and apply the game's lessons going forward. On the point of going forward, it's extremely unlikely that every opponent will agree on the specifics of the changes. The opponent also can't use the game as a reference point or lesson. Changing the stats for one match is basically meaningless for both players.
That's why I think giving points handicaps is more effective. It's way easier for an opponent to understand and agree to. If your community is acclimated to it, you can sort of count on the experience being consistent. You don't have to relearn your list, just throw in an extra unit. Plus point handicaps are useful in more situations, like helping a weaker player have a good experience against a strong player, regardless of armies.
I had not considered that to be honest. I think you make a fair point, I'll try and offer him to play 2200 vs my 2000 points and see if he accepts.
But realistically I think he will still decline on grounds of me belittling him even if I don't mean it in that way. Weird how people can agree one army (DG) is better than another (IW) and still refuse to actually do anything about it themselves.
Castozor wrote: Weird how people can agree one army (DG) is better than another (IW) and still refuse to actually do anything about it themselves.
A lot of people aren't willing to take on the responsibility of balancing the game for themselves. It means putting on a designer hat, trying to understand the problematic areas or at least agree on the relative power, and becoming partially responsible if the game still ends poorly rather than being able to simply blame imbalance. Taking on the burden of trying to balance the game means potentially having to resolve differences of opinion (do we agree on the degree of imbalance, or if it even exists?) or damage to one's ego (are we handicapping this much because my army is weak, or is it implying that I'm a worse player and need a leg up?). For some, that's just not part of the experience they want, so it's easier to just play it as-is and hope for a fix.
I don't mean for that to sound like a negative judgment, to be clear. We're all invested in the hobby differently. I really enjoy homebrewing rules and iterating on games I like, but I have friends who just want to drink beer and throw dice, and I respect that they don't want to dive into this rabbit hole even if they also acknowledge that there are things that could be improved.
Castozor wrote: I had not considered that to be honest. I think you make a fair point, I'll try and offer him to play 2200 vs my 2000 points and see if he accepts.
But realistically I think he will still decline on grounds of me belittling him even if I don't mean it in that way. Weird how people can agree one army (DG) is better than another (IW) and still refuse to actually do anything about it themselves.
I can't see that as weird. The players of the armies are invested in them. They're not going to do a good job 'balancing' their own or the opposing army. I doubt they would anyway, even without the obvious bias. With it... why and how would they arrive at a mutually satisfactory conclusion?
Edit for clarity: garage play with the same handful of people for X years is going to be a different thing. Outside of that, good luck...
Castozor wrote: I had not considered that to be honest. I think you make a fair point, I'll try and offer him to play 2200 vs my 2000 points and see if he accepts.
But realistically I think he will still decline on grounds of me belittling him even if I don't mean it in that way. Weird how people can agree one army (DG) is better than another (IW) and still refuse to actually do anything about it themselves.
Because we shouldn't HAVE to do anything ourselves. Instead what happens is GW does this crap and you give it the ultimate pass: you buy it.
Voss wrote: I can't see that as weird. The players of the armies are invested in them. They're not going to do a good job 'balancing' their own or the opposing army. I doubt they would anyway, even without the obvious bias. With it... why and how would they arrive at a mutually satisfactory conclusion?
Very true. Either they will be arrogant and overbearing with the changes or too humble and conservative with the changes.
Oddly enough, didn't the ETC allow for such handicaps back in the old days of Fantasy Battles? I know that some people here are quite happy using tournament packs for balancing issues, and often insist on using them even in PUG situations. I don't know if anyone is actually considering utilizing such a system at this time. As it is, the point reductions that come out every year are basically the same thing, just in a different direction and more specificaly targeted.
ingtaer wrote: Switch to X Wing, massive player base in Poland and I have never come across (nor heard of) anyone with the kind of attitude you describe, Karol.
Yes in central and western Poland. I live what is sometimes considered as Poland B. Would love to live in a big city like Pozen or Krakow with its multiple stores .
And as much as I feel people think I am telling stories. I always like to point out at stuff like CB kicking the polish judges for infinity from the forums, for not accepting stuff like intent play. My people are the reason why Kurwaspam existed, and why the newest edition of inifity looks the way it does, because our dudes were warping it really hard.
People have literally offered to buy your army here on dakka. Your suffering is of your own making.
I have no way to recive the money or send out the army. Unless someone decides to hop on plane and visit Dubeniki.
And it sounds like Karol is in a toxic atmosphere. "Winning is the only goal." "The next tournament is the only concern, and so all games must fit in to that paradigm." I've ran in to those guys before, and I don't care for them. There are only a few choices in that situation: Join in and stop complaining; Try to develop a side community that plays the way you want; Start looking in to a different game with a different group; abandon the hobby all together. While the last is technically the easiest, it's not always desired.
This didn't even work even when my old store was open. And I knew all people in it from seeing them in my town or at school. There is zero chance, and I checked, for someone my age to go up to people who are 30+, and clearly are having fun, and force them to play my way. Specially as I wouldn't even know what that would be. I had maybe 3 games I would consider fun, and only one of them was played with GK. I ain't no game designer, it takes me weeks if not longer to figure out what is wrong with something. Creating something from ground up is something I never did, and don't think I could go do. Plus people would just say no, the way they always say to all homebrews that don't come from event orgs or store owners.
Ok dude, I tend to visit Poland once or twice a year in non-Covid times (my better half is from there). I'll give you a shout next time I do and if you send me a copy of your list I'll post my collection and other dakkarites who know the game better than me can suggest what I should field as a balanced match up. I've also always fancied a wee Grey Knights force so will give you a decent price for it. (All this assuming you can't get rid of it before then)
Also as someone else once said owning Karol from Dakkas GK army would be quite the thing, you're a bit of a legend.
Castozor wrote: Weird how people can agree one army (DG) is better than another (IW) and still refuse to actually do anything about it themselves.
A lot of people aren't willing to take on the responsibility of balancing the game for themselves. It means putting on a designer hat, trying to understand the problematic areas or at least agree on the relative power, and becoming partially responsible if the game still ends poorly rather than being able to simply blame imbalance. Taking on the burden of trying to balance the game means potentially having to resolve differences of opinion (do we agree on the degree of imbalance, or if it even exists?) or damage to one's ego (are we handicapping this much because my army is weak, or is it implying that I'm a worse player and need a leg up?). For some, that's just not part of the experience they want, so it's easier to just play it as-is and hope for a fix.
I don't mean for that to sound like a negative judgment, to be clear. We're all invested in the hobby differently. I really enjoy homebrewing rules and iterating on games I like, but I have friends who just want to drink beer and throw dice, and I respect that they don't want to dive into this rabbit hole even if they also acknowledge that there are things that could be improved.
It does happen
.
It took our group of veteran 40K players all of 2 hours of discussion to agree on rules fixes for 40K . 15 little rules imports into a single edition that make the game fun for all players no matter which codex you choose to use in the compatible editions.
Mezmorki did the same (with a great deal more effort) with his prohammer project as did AnomanderRake with his project.
Castozor wrote: Weird how people can agree one army (DG) is better than another (IW) and still refuse to actually do anything about it themselves.
A lot of people aren't willing to take on the responsibility of balancing the game for themselves. It means putting on a designer hat, trying to understand the problematic areas or at least agree on the relative power, and becoming partially responsible if the game still ends poorly rather than being able to simply blame imbalance. Taking on the burden of trying to balance the game means potentially having to resolve differences of opinion (do we agree on the degree of imbalance, or if it even exists?) or damage to one's ego (are we handicapping this much because my army is weak, or is it implying that I'm a worse player and need a leg up?). For some, that's just not part of the experience they want, so it's easier to just play it as-is and hope for a fix.
I don't mean for that to sound like a negative judgment, to be clear. We're all invested in the hobby differently. I really enjoy homebrewing rules and iterating on games I like, but I have friends who just want to drink beer and throw dice, and I respect that they don't want to dive into this rabbit hole even if they also acknowledge that there are things that could be improved.
It does happen
.
It took our group of veteran 40K players all of 2 hours of discussion to agree on rules fixes for 40K . 15 little rules imports into a single edition that make the game fun for all players no matter which codex you choose to use in the compatible editions.
Mezmorki did the same (with a great deal more effort) with his prohammer project as did AnomanderRake with his project.
Tendencially that happens with closeish knit groups and often vets that are desilusioned with the way GW "handels" it's IP and game...
Not all players have that. Also GW has it's own ecosystem of players in their shops. Which has them insulated from such issues entirely.
Recently there have been some voices in my club about some players getting to competitive, and I genuinely asked whether I was one of them. Three guys of vastly varying experience and competitiveness told me that they always feel like they are getting a great game and a fair fight from me.
It wouldn't be possible for me to tune my armies to match my respective opponent as well as I do if I didn't know my orks and DG inside out.
While I disagree with you on banning talk about casual play as I feel it has value, with the caveat that context should also be firmly declared, I think that if there is any take-home message for you, you should be proud of this Jidmah, that folks who play at a lot of varied levels want to play against you.
I feel the ‘greatest player’ isn’t the guy who wins the most tournaments the hardest, it’s the guy who understands the game well enough to play at every level, who is the guy everyone enjoys playing against and who everyone wants to play against. Inclusivity and community building 101. Yeah, be that guy.
KnuckleWolf wrote:If I were to play my Tau army, I'd pretty much have to play it under Casual/Open play. I've done a ton of models in it that are customized to my own tastes, nothing terribly fancy mind you. I wager some of my friends are game-mature enough to work with me to get them on the table and have a decently fun AND fair game.
I agree. ‘beating the game’ and building the most powerful lists is certainly a skill, but while some people idolise it, and see it as the ultimate expression of a game I don’t. I see it as only the most basic understanding of a game, the beginners take on the ultimate expression of the game. Its aiming for the ‘absolute’ power of a list, rather than the ‘relative’ power. While you might have patented ‘game-mature’, I’ve seen other terms used, such as ‘this approach requires emotional maturity to work’ or another one was ‘post-competitive’. I prefer the term ‘game-building’, and rather than ‘list-building for advantage’, I prefer ‘list-matching’ (note, not ‘list tailoring!’). Personally, I find the ‘game-building’ approach (which encompasses scenario, objectives, lists) to be a far more intriguing measure of my abilities and skills than ‘can I math out the best combo’.
Castozor wrote:you might be surprised by how some people absolutely refuse to operate outside of the GW/rules mandated standards. I think your suggestion is fair and reasonable but even in my local group most are unwilling to move outside of the standard matched play framework.
The ‘cult of officialdom’ is very much a thing. Gamers are very conservative and often lazy creatures, many will outright refuse to step outside of the walls of officialdom. More important than ‘good rules’ are ‘official rules’, even if they’re terrible. On the more extreme end, you have a lot of people treating the rules like the faithful hold to their god(s), often a blind, bitter and angry god who brooks no compromise. you’ll often find this synonymous with a cult of irresponsibility, that we shouldn’t have to put any effort into our communities, or games, and that all the problems are someone else’s fault, and we shouldn’t have to lift a finger, being angry is all we need to do, and adhere to the rules without question because anything else makes you a white knight/beaten.spouse etc.
catbarf wrote:
A lot of people aren't willing to take on the responsibility of balancing the game for themselves. It means putting on a designer hat, trying to understand the problematic areas or at least agree on the relative power, and becoming partially responsible if the game still ends poorly rather than being able to simply blame imbalance.
It’s a harder road for sure, but I think ultimately, more rewarding, and sometimes necessary – we all want different things.
Everything in life requires some sense of responsibility and personal endeavour. Put nothing in, get nothing out is something I’ve learned in life. My marathons didn’t run themselves, though my knee wishes they did these days!
And game building at least is a spectrum. There’s a difference in the input and energy required between ‘drinking beer and throwing dice’ as you say and some of the very complex scenarios we’ve run, not that I am devaluing either!
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Because we shouldn't HAVE to do anything ourselves. Instead what happens is GW does this crap and you give it the ultimate pass: you buy it.
2 sides. 1 coin.
Pretty much everything in life, and every type of relationship requires a modicum of personal responsibility, front end effort, cost, compromise and accomodation. Everything requires you ‘have’ to do things yourself, and if you think 40K is hard and that you shouldn’t have to do anything, wait until you have to deal with ‘friendships’ and ‘relationships’.
And again with this black knight malarkey. Give it a break man. Buying stuff from GW is not a free pass. Adhering to its most broken aspects without question and bludgeoning your peers with them without shame or regret whilst paying lip service to blaming ‘god and the good book’ (or in this case GW), doing nothing else and shrugging off any sense of responsibility for your own actions and their consequences is what a ‘free pass’ looks like in the real world. People accommodating others is community building – its building a broad church, rather than a sneering elitist clique. People homebrewing and house ruling is often a more effective way of thumbing noses, and ‘taking it to the man’ than just posing with righteous anger on the internet. Adhering unquestioningly to the rules and ignoring your own personal responsibility and ability to implement positive change is often more destructive than breaking rules or working around them with your peers – more bad things in life have occurred from people ‘following orders’ than ignoring them. There’s a reason we celebrate thieves and rogues, like Nottingham’s other favoured son Robin Hood and many other local renegades. And at the end of the day, in my experience this approach means that my friends and I enjoy our hobby and our games more. And that for me, is the real ‘win’.
many will outright refuse to step outside of the walls of officialdom. More important than ‘good rules’ are ‘official rules’, even if they’re terrible.
Yep i see that quite a bit. usually translated as the "i refuse to play anything other than the current rules set", or any other game system outside GWs walls.
many will outright refuse to step outside of the walls of officialdom. More important than ‘good rules’ are ‘official rules’, even if they’re terrible.
Yep i see that quite a bit. usually translated as the "i refuse to play anything other than the current rules set", or any other game system outside GWs walls.
Honestly, i think it's also strategy from GW to insulate itself and it's custommers . (nvm their shops)
It's also something with the recent focus on Competitive that mndates all official rules... despite the core problem right now being GW day 1 DLC.
And then there's the fact that the most regular players seem to be the ones atleast locally that are competitive minded so they will always demand up to date rules use, even IF the up to date rules are infact worse than what once was. Yup, had that admitted to my face, which makes me wonder, what if GW officialdom cult would not exist, or turn as bad as it once did, would we see more local and often better approaches torwards the comp scene?
I am split on the matter, on one hand i think that if i pay for a ruleset it should be working without me needing to intervene all too much, or at all indeed (NVM that there are better games out there with rules not costing a dime so yeah..... about that). Otoh, it is my responsibility to have fun with my hobby indeed and as such modifying a ruleset should come naturally.
Maybee that's an issue with how i went along the hobby road, being somewhat competitively minded initially, before switching over to a casual and narrative approach.
Castozor wrote: I had not considered that to be honest. I think you make a fair point, I'll try and offer him to play 2200 vs my 2000 points and see if he accepts.
But realistically I think he will still decline on grounds of me belittling him even if I don't mean it in that way. Weird how people can agree one army (DG) is better than another (IW) and still refuse to actually do anything about it themselves.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^it is BEYOND bonkers to me that people will sit down at a table and go 'haha, this is broken' 'haha yep the game is sure meaningless and over in five seconds' like you BOTH AGREE fething DO SOMETHING ABOUT THAT instead of just doing this weird ritual of a foregone conclusion. Why would you actively choose to have less fun and make a less interesting game? It takes five seconds to give one player more points, or play on a normal size board instead of carefully measuring to the 'real' edge of the board every time JUST so you can play the published MINIMUM board size allowable for your game.
If both players are saying 'this is unfair' and spotting the same exact unfairness between their armies, and agreeing that thing is unfair, why just laugh about it and move on? I see this happen every week I play a game, at least once! no GW employee is under the table taking notes, nobody's gonna pop out of the closet and get you if you fail to take your unearned advantage in an imbalanced game of plastic dollies.
I feel GW has made going away from offical rules quite difficult. The game is bloated up a lot with lots of rules that are different in name and the burden of understand can be quite high.
So deviating from offical rules can be hard for a lot of players.
Special missions and such I see as really tough to make work in 40k as even a great mission can be unplayable if someone decides to turn up with something like knights.
Terrain and boards need to accomodate them as well, and objectives in buildings or hard to reach places can be a no go to push a infantry based gameplay.
The other games I okay don’t have these issues and players can with relative ease since everyone is playing with a more equal design to there factions.
This I think leads into the other issues of casual play falling to the wayside, sometimes units just suck. I don’t think I have ever taken a cutthroat list of units before in 40k, but there is some units that I don’t use as they are just mostly useless.
It’s great when players are willing to take more agency in trying to fix the game issues.
But if they are changing basic things, then things that make the game more fun are also harder to change as it’s adding more burden of rules onto players.
:(
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^it is BEYOND bonkers to me that people will sit down at a table and go 'haha, this is broken' 'haha yep the game is sure meaningless and over in five seconds' like you BOTH AGREE fething DO SOMETHING ABOUT THAT instead of just doing this weird ritual of a foregone conclusion. Why would you actively choose to have less fun and make a less interesting game? It takes five seconds to give one player more points, or play on a normal size board instead of carefully measuring to the 'real' edge of the board every time JUST so you can play the published MINIMUM board size allowable for your game.
If both players are saying 'this is unfair' and spotting the same exact unfairness between their armies, and agreeing that thing is unfair, why just laugh about it and move on? I see this happen every week I play a game, at least once! no GW employee is under the table taking notes, nobody's gonna pop out of the closet and get you if you fail to take your unearned advantage in an imbalanced game of plastic dollies.
Stop being a white knight! How dare you show any sense of responsibility or personal initiative or even worse how dare you do anything other than take the most broken stuff, bludgeon your peers with it without compromise or apology. Life is brutal and unforgiving, remember? Your games need to reflect this.
Apparently...
Some will say you, and your attitude are the real enemy. Sad, really. *shrug*
Honestly, i think it's also strategy from GW to insulate itself and it's custommers . (nvm their shops)
It's also something with the recent focus on Competitive that mndates all official rules... despite the core problem right now being GW day 1 DLC.
I disagree. Its no planned strategy. Its just human psychology 101. Basic instinctive tribalism and herd mentality. Stay in the ‘protection’ of the group, don’t deviate, follow orders, get in line. If I may quote Equilibrium ‘its not the message that is important but our obedience to it’. And its always been there, in every edition of the game, its not a recent focus. You’ll see this is every group, hobby, belief system, political party etc. Heck, if we think of the cult of officialdom in terms of religion, those of us who homebrew, accommodate and DIY are basically the heretics and atheists and ne’er-do-wells of the analogy. At the more extreme end, we all know what the blind zealots of a religion think of heretics, don’t we? Pitchforks and flaming torches. I’m sure you’ve seen the internet versions of these.
And then there's the fact that the most regular players seem to be the ones at least locally that are competitive minded so they will always demand up to date rules use, even IF the up to date rules are in fact worse than what once was. Yup, had that admitted to my face, which makes me wonder, what if GW officialdom cult would not exist, or turn as bad as it once did, would we see more local and often better approaches torwards the comp scene?
Yes, and no. You’d ultimately get a fracturing of the community, which arguably is not necessarily a bad thing in and of itself since in reality, there is no ‘one’ community anyway. ‘Better’ would be down to perspective. I’d prefer ‘different’. Clubs and stores would reflect what the garagehammer scene already reflects, and rather than any kind of official dogma or ‘one true way to play’, you’d have more local variations and eccentricities in the real world. People would ultimately make it work for themselves and their group and what they see in their area, but other groups with an alternative approach may find frictions and incompatibilities when directly compared. No different to dealing with a different culture or language barrier when you go abroad. You move locations or play in a different club, you’d need to appreciate more that ‘folks do things a bit differently here’ rather than a universal meta based on the lowest common denominator of ‘I can turn up, grunt, throw my stuff on the table, not need to speak to speak to anyone and still get a game in’. If you’re ok with that, and are happy/willing to adapt, it’s not necessarily an issue.
Then again, not everyone is going to play everyone else everywhere else, so I often find the cries of potential frustration that ‘this would mean I’d need to buy a totally different army to play in the shop ten miles down the road’ are more than a little bit of overblown hyperbole.
I am split on the matter, on one hand i think that if i pay for a ruleset it should be working without me needing to intervene all too much, or at all indeed (NVM that there are better games out there with rules not costing a dime so yeah..... about that). Otoh, it is my responsibility to have fun with my hobby indeed and as such modifying a ruleset should come naturally.
.
Fair, but no rules set will ever accommodate the demands that the competitive (and especially competitive-at-all-costs) crowd insist they are due, especially to keep ‘those tfgs’ in line. These are limited systems with limited load bearing abilities and rough edges. No rules set will ever be without issue, or aspects that cannot be gamed. Unfortunately, those approaches, especially the latter caac, are all about gaming the system, and exploiting those issues. These modes of play often have an undue influence in shaping how the game is played (especially online), and on the conversations surrounding this, and left unchecked these approaches can rapidly toxify an environment to everyone’s detriment regardless of how things work at lower levels.
It’s the same as recycling, in a lot of ways. Regardless of what the big players are doing or not doing, you should still do your bit at your end. We all have responsibilities and obligations after all.
Maybe that's an issue with how i went along the hobby road, being somewhat competitively minded initially, before switching over to a casual and narrative approach.
I dunno. It was exactly the same approach for me. Played competitive 40k back in 3rd and 4th amongst a very competitive group, played competitive WMH for most of Mk2, burned out twice with both and honestly, learning to appreciate the hobby side brought me back the first time, and learning to appreciate modes of play outside of ‘tournament play’ brought me back the second time – when I lost interest in the competitive scene and chasing the dragon, it was our far more laid-back weekend garagehammer (or garagehistoricals, garagefinity and garage-other-gw-games) that kept me excited and actively engaged in rolling dice. After nearly 20 years and half my life playing TTGs, its not the tournament meta or the top table talk that keeps me engaged after all this time. And I don’t have anything to prove to any try-hard either.
Ultimately, unlike the interwebs where you can more easily be a poser spouting vengeful absolutist uncompromising and extremist nonsense, you have to make compromises when it comes to gaming in the real world if you want to enjoy your hobby long term and keep your community healthy. There are a lot of things we want in our games in the real world that are mutually exclusive. Within games, from my POV, ‘variety’, ‘competition’ and ‘social aspect’ all feed off of each other – you can’t be 100% in all 3 (and to be fair, there’s probably more than 3). You want to play at the top table? Say goodbye to the 97% of the game that isn’t mathematically efficient enough as well as a lot of the players and lists that reflect the lore. You want to play all the variety the game has? Say goodbye to the top table. You want to be welcoming to everyone, accommodate everyone else type of game completely – you’re playing everyone else’s version of the game, or different games, not necessarily the game/game style you want to play. Adapting to how your community plays opens some doors and closes others, both in terms of ‘who’ you play and ‘how’ you play – sometimes you gotta be assertive and push back on what you want to play too, which may be at their expense. Accomodation goes both ways after all. Everything is a compromise to some extent. That’s just the reality.
Well the first few games against my new Codex I can understand. You are trying to feel out the powerlevel and try and come up with counters for the next game. It is fun to come up with new list ideas or strats to use to hopefully come out on top next time. But we are almost 10 games in at this point, I think we can all agree that his IW's need help against DG.
Castozor wrote: I had not considered that to be honest. I think you make a fair point, I'll try and offer him to play 2200 vs my 2000 points and see if he accepts.
But realistically I think he will still decline on grounds of me belittling him even if I don't mean it in that way. Weird how people can agree one army (DG) is better than another (IW) and still refuse to actually do anything about it themselves.
Because we shouldn't HAVE to do anything ourselves. Instead what happens is GW does this crap and you give it the ultimate pass: you buy it.
We shouldn't have to, but reality is GW does a poor job. Just sitting there and sulking about it isn't going to do anything. As for buying, I only really buy the codex at this point. Their Day 1 DLC is too insulting to buy, and the second hand market has all the models I need.
PenitentJake wrote: I've been thinking more about this thread; in my last post, I came to the realization that describing myself as a casual player wasn't really correct; narrative player, or Crusade player fits better than "casual" as a descriptor for me; I'm actually pretty aggressive about the narrative elements of my gaming; there isn't really anything casual about writing a 20 page backstory for every army and refusing to fight in any arena that would compromise that story.
But I do see myself as non-competitive, and I think that is why I sometimes describe myself as casual.
Essentially what is worth discussing about a faction is
1) how to build a working army
2) how well which units work and in what context
3) how to use any given unit and why they perform as well as they do
For me, what's worth discussing is campaign systems and ideas, cross platform gaming/ integration and connections between rules and stories. That's not to say that Jidmah's list ISN'T worth discussing... It certainly is- especially for new players. It just isn't what I really want to read about- I can figure that all out by reading the rules myself. The Crusade thread that popped up as an offshoot to this one was the most interesting threads I've read in a long time, and it didn't contain any of the stuff listed above.
I agree, but you are taking my list completely out of context. I was talking about tactics only. Fluff doesn't really have a place there.
On the note about how easy GW makes it to deviate from officialdom:
As the organizer for my local club's 30k narrative event at our local con, I will say I've had a way easier time developing fun and narrative special rules in the 30k system than I would have in the 40k system.
Compare the following: "The Forward Observer model has the following weapon: [Artillery Bombardment] R: Infinite | Str: 9 | AP: 3 | Apocalyptic Barrage (3), Pinning, One Use" vs "The Forward Observer model has the following ability: [Artillery Bombardment]: Pick a point on the table. Roll a dice for each unit within 4" of that point (friend or foe!). Subtract one if it is a character. On a 4+, that unit takes d3 mortal wounds. If a unit suffers any wounds from this attack, it must roll 2d6 against its leadership, and if it fails, it cannot move in its following turn and only hits on a 6+ if it shoots."
One of those is clean, elegant, and utilizes USRs and weapon keywords to make it clear exactly what is going on. I can model up said FO, hand it to a player for use in a narrative battle (say, to represent allied PDF on a beleaguered world in the midst of planetary civil war), and it is immediately clear what that FO does (if you are familiar with the 30k rules).
For the second rule, it follows the normal formatting of GW's "orbital strike" mechanics (e.g. inquisition orbital strike, deathstrike missile, SM orbital strike, etc). but I'd be surprised if I didn't miss some necessary detail or something and the weapon doesn't function correctly. It was harder to write, I still probably missed something, and I have no idea if it's even relatively effective compared to the first weapon listed. Is it the same? More damaging? Less damaging? Who knows, I certainly don't.
Honestly, i think it's also strategy from GW to insulate itself and it's custommers . (nvm their shops)
It's also something with the recent focus on Competitive that mndates all official rules... despite the core problem right now being GW day 1 DLC.
I disagree. Its no planned strategy. Its just human psychology 101. Basic instinctive tribalism and herd mentality. Stay in the ‘protection’ of the group, don’t deviate, follow orders, get in line. If I may quote Equilibrium ‘its not the message that is important but our obedience to it’. And its always been there, in every edition of the game, its not a recent focus. You’ll see this is every group, hobby, belief system, political party etc. Heck, if we think of the cult of officialdom in terms of religion, those of us who homebrew, accommodate and DIY are basically the heretics and atheists and ne’er-do-wells of the analogy. At the more extreme end, we all know what the blind zealots of a religion think of heretics, don’t we? Pitchforks and flaming torches. I’m sure you’ve seen the internet versions of these.
Actually no, it is facilitated and planned by GW. infact, GW attempted to break into the Swiss market at one point, decided against it, however the local FLGS and biggest seller of GW in switzerland had a decent offer to them, GW laughed at them and then promptly proceeded to lower supply for FLGS compared to their own stores in Germany and other sourounding countries. GW knows basic psychology, as do most games companies nowadays thanks to "inovations " in the mobile gameing industry and marketing.
Incidentally 6th and 7th did shatter gw's chokehold on TG's over here, but if you genuinely liked 40k for what 40k was the group mentality and interconnectedness with gaming scenes in germany and austria did facilitate that by the rules officialdom cult.
They want to controll the player experience, hence why GW bothers with stores at all, because they realised they can controll information.
And then there's the fact that the most regular players seem to be the ones at least locally that are competitive minded so they will always demand up to date rules use, even IF the up to date rules are in fact worse than what once was. Yup, had that admitted to my face, which makes me wonder, what if GW officialdom cult would not exist, or turn as bad as it once did, would we see more local and often better approaches torwards the comp scene?
Yes, and no. You’d ultimately get a fracturing of the community, which arguably is not necessarily a bad thing in and of itself since in reality, there is no ‘one’ community anyway. ‘Better’ would be down to perspective. I’d prefer ‘different’. Clubs and stores would reflect what the garagehammer scene already reflects, and rather than any kind of official dogma or ‘one true way to play’, you’d have more local variations and eccentricities in the real world. People would ultimately make it work for themselves and their group and what they see in their area, but other groups with an alternative approach may find frictions and incompatibilities when directly compared. No different to dealing with a different culture or language barrier when you go abroad. You move locations or play in a different club, you’d need to appreciate more that ‘folks do things a bit differently here’ rather than a universal meta based on the lowest common denominator of ‘I can turn up, grunt, throw my stuff on the table, not need to speak to speak to anyone and still get a game in’. If you’re ok with that, and are happy/willing to adapt, it’s not necessarily an issue.
Then again, not everyone is going to play everyone else everywhere else, so I often find the cries of potential frustration that ‘this would mean I’d need to buy a totally different army to play in the shop ten miles down the road’ are more than a little bit of overblown hyperbole.
By all means. infact the more the better i think, however on a baseline the core experience as dictated by the core rules is important and it's not wrong to point at GW and state that their recent focus strengthens that psychological dependency of the hobby and also the officaldom cult.
I remember where WD had pictures of fully converted ork armies with other plastic kits happily intermingled with GW plastic. That's not happening anymore. It has become... sanitised? Insulated?
I am split on the matter, on one hand i think that if i pay for a ruleset it should be working without me needing to intervene all too much, or at all indeed (NVM that there are better games out there with rules not costing a dime so yeah..... about that). Otoh, it is my responsibility to have fun with my hobby indeed and as such modifying a ruleset should come naturally.
.
Fair, but no rules set will ever accommodate the demands that the competitive (and especially competitive-at-all-costs) crowd insist they are due, especially to keep ‘those people’ in line. These are limited systems with limited load bearing abilities and rough edges. No rules set will ever be without issue, or aspects that cannot be gamed. Unfortunately, those approaches, especially the latter caac, are all about gaming the system, and exploiting those issues. These modes of play often have an undue influence in shaping how the game is played (especially online), and left unchecked these approaches can rapidly toxify an environment to everyone’s detriment regardless of how things work at lower levels.
It’s the same as recycling, in a lot of ways. Regardless of what the big players are doing or not doing, you should still do your bit at your end. We all have responsibilities and obligations after all.
Which is also true. It's just a shame that GW facilitates it more. However it also breaks open GW's glaring issues of general balance aswell. Sure, you may never contain the people that attempt to break a system or optimise a build to the nth degree but you can have a solid game system that would atleast facilitate at the comp level an equalish playing field. However GW was often so uncapable at providing a solid system that even for garagehammering it becomes an potential issue, and i don't know you, but i'd rather bring my models and have 2 matches, or plan a campaign out for the next month, rather than adressing core rules problems after the first match because what GW provided as a framework is less a framework and more a disaster in all but name because it lacks general technical oversight over it's ruleswriters seemingly which seem to refuse to coordinate and communicate.
Maybe that's an issue with how i went along the hobby road, being somewhat competitively minded initially, before switching over to a casual and narrative approach.
I dunno. It was exactly the same approach for me. Played competitive 40k back in 3rd and 4th amongst a very competitive group, played competitive WMH for most of Mk2, burned out twice with both and honestly, learning to appreciate the hobby side brought me back the first time, and learning to appreciate modes of play outside of ‘tournament play’ brought me back the second time – when I lost interest in the competitive scene and chasing the dragon, it was our far more laid-back weekend garagehammer (or garagehistoricals, garagefinity and garage-other-gw-games) that kept me excited and actively engaged in rolling dice. After nearly 20 years and half my life playing TTGs, its not the tournament meta or the top table talk that keeps me engaged after all this time. And I don’t have anything to prove to any try-hard either.
Ultimately, unlike the interwebs where you can more easily be a poser spouting vengeful absolutist uncompromising and extremist nonsense, you have to make compromises when it comes to gaming in the real world if you want to enjoy your hobby long term and keep your community healthy. There are a lot of things we want in our games in the real world that are mutually exclusive. Within games, from my POV, ‘variety’, ‘competition’ and ‘social aspect’ all feed off of each other – you can’t be 100% in all 3 (and to be fair, there’s probably more than 3). You want to play at the top table? Say goodbye to the 97% of the game that isn’t mathematically efficient enough as well as a lot of the players and lists that reflect the lore. You want to play all the variety the game has? Say goodbye to the top table. You want to be welcoming to everyone, accommodate everyone else type of game completely – you’re playing everyone else’s version of the game, or different games, not necessarily the game/game style you want to play. Adapting to how your community plays opens some doors and closes others, both in terms of ‘who’ you play and ‘how’ you play – sometimes you gotta be assertive and push back on what you want to play too, which may be at their expense. Accomodation goes both ways after all. Everything is a compromise to some extent. That’s just the reality.
Also true, however i think it is an issue, even for casual or narrative, when there are choices (especially subfaction choices for narrative) that are so unoptimal that you could remove 97% (hyperbole of course but on occaison certain codices felt that way).
It goes back to the ease of play, i am perfectly willing to commit 10 hours to plan a campaign meticulously with my mates. I am not happy if am forced to add another 10 hours to fix up a codex / faction because GW couldn't bother to implement seemingly minimal quality controll.
Table wrote: If you do not have the money to chase the meta then you cannot play 40k in a competitive manner.
This is a flat out lie.
First it is hyperbole. It overly states a concept that the only way one can play is one only wins. If that was the truth, then only the Harlem Globetrotters play basketball. This hyperbole drives me nuts.
Second is that one doesn't have to chase the meta to in order to consistently win. There are a few armies that stay consistently good edition to edition, but more importantly, how one plays an army is far more important. A player who constantly switch armies will always be a few steps behind one that is consistent with their army to be fully comfortable with it, and know how to maximize their strengths and minimize their weaknesses. That isn't to say that a good player with a bad army will succeed against a good player with a good army, it is more that a good player with a bad army can do well against a medium or bad player with a good army.
It is not a flat out lie. If you chose to play 40k on a comp level then winning is your goal. All other participation on that level is a non-factor as it can be found in other game formats. And if you want to win you need to not only the best tools to do so but you also have to observe what it is you are facing. Both functions are "chasing" the meta. And to chase the meta you need time and money. That is not something every player has. Hyperbole, not in the slightest. Unfortunate truth and logic, yes.
As I stated, and I guess you did not read, there are armies which are good edition to edition. But even a favored faction (imperial) has its stinkers. The current GK's are those stinkers. If a good player with a bad army wont succeed against a good player with a good army then you prove my point. The goal of competitive activities is to win. How this is undertaken can be argued about. But the results cannot. And with this game, you need the best tools to post a consistent performance which is a key part to winning, which is the goal. I honestly do not even understand what you were trying to do here besides either react in a negative manner to a idea you did not like (which could be ok, if you did not reinforce the idea you disliked) or I just dont know. Very few "pros" if any play a singular army with a unchanging list. Id wager there are none. None that place top 10. But as always, I am not a warhammer seer, I only casually follow the tournaments. If a top placing player does indeed play this way then I will be glad to modify my views.
Recently there have been some voices in my club about some players getting to competitive, and I genuinely asked whether I was one of them. Three guys of vastly varying experience and competitiveness told me that they always feel like they are getting a great game and a fair fight from me.
It wouldn't be possible for me to tune my armies to match my respective opponent as well as I do if I didn't know my orks and DG inside out.
While I disagree with you on banning talk about casual play as I feel it has value, with the caveat that context should also be firmly declared, I think that if there is any take-home message for you, you should be proud of this Jidmah, that folks who play at a lot of varied levels want to play against you.
Thanks
Mind you, if you come to the ork tactics thread and want to know how to make best use of an army that is running Makari and Da Red Gobbo in an all-grot list, people will help you win the game with your casual/fluff list. I firmly believe "buy new models" is not a great advice unless people a genuinely weird collection.
Competitive doesn't mean "top table tournament play only", it just means playing to win. There is little value in discussing strategies that fall apart if your opponent stops doing the same mistakes over and over or when those tactics simply aren't supported by the current game only exist in your head (running boyz in wedge formation, for example).
If you assume everyone is trying to win the game and are fighting competent people who build lists that actually work, you have a common ground to argue.
In the end, I didn't ban the discussion because casual play was a problem, but because toxic people kept moving goalposts and dragging the discussion into the same "casual vs WAAC" arguments because they refused to admit when they were wrong.
As many people have pointed out, casual play is a wide spectrum, not a defined state. Anyone who as played at number of games at stores should have experienced the same lists being called "too casual" and "too cutthroat".
This comes back to the whole 'casual vs narrative' thing. it can take more effort to come up with an interesting, close matchup to fit a given narrative than it does to make an interesting, close competitive matchup or a quick slapped together casual game.
A little while back someone came by who was a big model collector/painter and not so much gamer, and his list was like, every Cadian named character (so pask, creed, kell, and nork deddog plus the new lady commissar SC) and an extremely un-optimized cadian gunline list with a bunch of regular oggryns, Kasrkins as Scions on foot, just a random jumble of stuff. All mostly the oldschool metal models, the old 3rd ed leman russes that were just battle cannon+lascannon with no sponsons, etc.
In terms of creating a good game, it was tough to take any army even GSC and create a scenario where I could field my stuff in the configurations that I actually have built, without playing at a massive advantage. Creating a narrative scenario where the cadians were trying to hold the breach against infinitely respawning GSC units, we didn't use Cult Ambush as it was a frontal assault, and I didn't use Goliath Trucks or Ridgerunners because I could envision them being fast and durable enough to basically just cross the board no problem against his fairly light anti-tank capabilities.
And it worked out really well, but in order to actually construct the scenario, I had to go
"ok if I use cult ambush in any significant way, I'm just going to roll right over the top of him.
....but if I go with loads of goliaths and ridgrunners he's got no way to kill those.
...But if I just run acolytes on foot, the game is gonna be me walking 6" onto the board and then getting wiped every turn.
....OK so I will take Rockgrinders then for the squads of acolytes I do take, and I'll go for Twisted Helix for fast advances for everyone else, and we'll go for a good number of Purestrains and Aberrants rather than lots of Acolytes because they'll survive better against the wall of lasguns
My units respawning will allow for my stuff to not get wiped off the table entirely before it gets near him, and it prevents my army from hitting his army in one huge wave and tabling him in melee instantly, so we'll replace Cult Ambush with that and make my goal leaving the board via his edge"
It takes more effort and thought prior to the game if your ultimate goal is "get the score as close as possible, make the game go as long as possible" than it does if the ultimate goal is "get my score as high a possible, make the game as short as possible with me winning." That's not "Casual" it's a whole, separate, sort of alternate game mode and alternate goal.
Right, and that's the space where there is to talk about casual play. For example, I'd love to be able to share my 30k narrative primer (at least the rules portion) and get people's opinion on it from a narrative perspective and a fun-to-play perspective.
But I guarantee you I'd get a slew of "wow you're buffing X?!" or "Y is already bad, this rule seems to interact in strange rube-goldberg X-Y-Z way with that rule and makes Y even less competitive!!1!!" rather than
"that doesn't sound narratively engaging"
or
"I wouldn't have fun with this mechanic, could you try making the roll to trigger it a 4+?" or whatever.
Unit1126PLL wrote: Right, and that's the space where there is to talk about casual play. For example, I'd love to be able to share my 30k narrative primer (at least the rules portion) and get people's opinion on it from a narrative perspective and a fun-to-play perspective.
But I guarantee you I'd get a slew of "wow you're buffing X?!" or "Y is already bad, this rule seems to interact in strange rube-goldberg X-Y-Z way with that rule and makes Y even less competitive!!1!!" rather than
"that doesn't sound narratively engaging"
or
"I wouldn't have fun with this mechanic, could you try making the roll to trigger it a 4+?" or whatever.
Yeah, there's also the element of 'paper is fine, nerf rock, sincerely scissors." I recently made a little rules patch to make small sub-1k games more interesting and did some testing with it using 500pts games, and one very vocal dude had a lot of complaints about how OP the little vehicle flanking bonus made fast anti-tank units, because he decided that putting 190 of his points into a predator destructor with two lascannons and a storm bolter and a hunter killer missile would make his list basically unbeatable because he could use the Vehicle Damage Table to avoid losing wounds....but then his opponent took a couple of melta guns, drove round the side of the tank, and when he rolled on the VDT to avoid the 10 damage they were going to do to him, he rolled and instead it auto-exploded.
Like, if you see a custom mechanic, and you think 'oh man that's super busted im gonna totally abuse that by skewing my list in this direction' and then make the argument that the thing that the designer put in to counterbalance that custom mechanic is OP, then you're misunderstanding what the purpose of the thing was in the first place.
Narrative and casual are not the same thing though.
Neither is every casual game automatically is a narrative game, nor is every narrative game a casual game.
Jidmah wrote: Narrative and casual are not the same thing though.
Neither is every casual game automatically is a narrative game, nor is every narrative game a casual game.
Clearly you missed my definition earlier in the thread.
Unit1126PLL wrote: I would define casual play as "any form of play where winning the game matters less than having fun (in some people's case, fun = collaborative storytelling, in other people's case it's seeing cool models hit the table, in still more people's case it's a time to be social while rolling dice, etc).".
It's why I generally don't think competitive players CAN play casually, because to them "fun = victory" so their very existence automatically makes the prior paragraph impossible.
Jidmah wrote: Narrative and casual are not the same thing though.
Neither is every casual game automatically is a narrative game, nor is every narrative game a casual game.
Clearly you missed my definition earlier in the thread.
Unit1126PLL wrote: I would define casual play as "any form of play where winning the game matters less than having fun (in some people's case, fun = collaborative storytelling, in other people's case it's seeing cool models hit the table, in still more people's case it's a time to be social while rolling dice, etc).".
It's why I generally don't think competitive players CAN play casually, because to them "fun = victory" so their very existence automatically makes the prior paragraph impossible.
Yeah I disagree with your assessment. I don't consider the high-effort narrative game setups and house rule setups I make to be casual. They require more effort to put together (and, honestly, more compettiive analysis on my part) than competitive games, but winning absolutely matters less than having fun.
the game I played a little while ago where an opponent just wanted to throw 7 dreads down on the table so I grabbed however many dread-size things I could fit into 1500, that was a casual game. The amount of thought and setup that went into it was basically none, and the objective was just 'as many walkers/monsters fighting in melee as possible.'
There is nothing casual about a person naming, sculpting, and writing a background story about every single one of their guard platoon.
There also is nothing casual about organizing a large narrative campaign.
Sure, I guess you could call it "non-competitive" then, instead of casual, if that floats your boat. When I say casual, I mean "non-competitive" play. And I think that's what the person who wrote the thread meant based on their OP, but I could be wrong.
Jidmah wrote:You also can have a highly competitive game with narrative armies in a narrative setting.
You can, yes, though the big distinction is that both players can win, because objectives can be asymmetric. This makes it inherently less competitive, since you're not fighting to determine the sole victor or best player between the two.
Jidmah wrote: Narrative and casual are not the same thing though.
Neither is every casual game automatically is a narrative game, nor is every narrative game a casual game.
Clearly you missed my definition earlier in the thread.
Unit1126PLL wrote: I would define casual play as "any form of play where winning the game matters less than having fun (in some people's case, fun = collaborative storytelling, in other people's case it's seeing cool models hit the table, in still more people's case it's a time to be social while rolling dice, etc).".
It's why I generally don't think competitive players CAN play casually, because to them "fun = victory" so their very existence automatically makes the prior paragraph impossible.
Yeah I disagree with your assessment. I don't consider the high-effort narrative game setups and house rule setups I make to be casual. They require more effort to put together (and, honestly, more compettiive analysis on my part) than competitive games, but winning absolutely matters less than having fun.
Like I told Jidmah, call it "non-competitive" instead of "casual" then. But it is this type of play I imagine the OP had in mind when he asked his question.
the_scotsman wrote:the game I played a little while ago where an opponent just wanted to throw 7 dreads down on the table so I grabbed however many dread-size things I could fit into 1500, that was a casual game. The amount of thought and setup that went into it was basically none, and the objective was just 'as many walkers/monsters fighting in melee as possible.'
Sure, but then I'd consider it to be a bad definition, and also it applies a connotation that comes along with the actual real definition of the word 'casual' that makes no sense when applied to the sort of high-effort narrative scenarios that are usually required if at least one player really wants to just take a random jumble of units with zero coherent gameplan and throw them down on the table and have a good game.
Real, actual, casual games (as in, games where minimal effort is put in and neither player particularly cares about what they're throwing down) are often pretty low quality 40k games. Personally I think theyre generally better than competitive games, because you do get units that can't interact with gak on the board, you do get imbalanced matchups, you do have terrain that's pointless and wonky rules interactions...but they at least generally don't tend to be two-turn tabling miserable bs like competitive games often are, and while the games often ARE decided in the list building stage, with a random jumble of funky units you at least have a higher chance of the players not realizing that fact until later on in the game, rather than it being abundantly clear the second minis are unpacked. But the complaints levied about them by competitively minded players do have merit, they're just delusional about how much wiggle room actually exists in the games on their side of the fence.
I disagree only because I think it's impossible to play 40k "casually" in the way you're describing and have it be distinct enough to be its own category of play.
What you describe could be competitive (throw gak together randomly, but I STILL WANT TO WIN OR IT ISN'T FUN!) or narrative (we want to smash our walkers together because my mek likes walkers and your magos does too).
"Casual" isn't the same as "not giving a gak" in 40k, because I would argue it's not trivial to play a 40k game in the slightest. Generally, in the context of 40k, when people talk about "casual" gaming, they distinguish it from tournament or competitive play. So it makes sense to define it relative to tournament and competitive play.
If a game can be between two WAACers and still be casual, I think that's probably not what people mean when they say they want a casual game. Similarly, if I ask for a casual game in my local club and a WAACer responds, I will politely decline - even though by your definition I am wrong to do so, as it's perfectly capable for a WAACer to play "casually" in the sense that he doesn't give a crap as long as he wins.
Most people defining casual in such a way are just looking for a way to vilify people that enjoy playing in a different way than oneself and are often referred to as CAAC.
Castozor wrote: I had not considered that to be honest. I think you make a fair point, I'll try and offer him to play 2200 vs my 2000 points and see if he accepts.
But realistically I think he will still decline on grounds of me belittling him even if I don't mean it in that way. Weird how people can agree one army (DG) is better than another (IW) and still refuse to actually do anything about it themselves.
Because we sholdn't HAVE to do anything ourselves. Instead what happens is GW does this crap and you give it the ultimate pass: you buy it.
"I know I put no effort into the marriage, but it totally blindsided me when she walked out one day"
Jidmah wrote: Narrative and casual are not the same thing though.
Neither is every casual game automatically is a narrative game, nor is every narrative game a casual game.
Clearly you missed my definition earlier in the thread.
Unit1126PLL wrote: I would define casual play as "any form of play where winning the game matters less than having fun (in some people's case, fun = collaborative storytelling, in other people's case it's seeing cool models hit the table, in still more people's case it's a time to be social while rolling dice, etc).".
It's why I generally don't think competitive players CAN play casually, because to them "fun = victory" so their very existence automatically makes the prior paragraph impossible.
Unit,
That your definition of casual cannot survive your own quick logic check should tell you that it is not a workable definition. Linking "casual" with "fun" and then saying that "casual is when winning matters less than fun" locks out people for whom playing to win is part of the fun.
I would accept that casual could refer to the approach to the game - more laid back and not terribly concerned with winning. It could mean "not all that invested." But linking it to fun is a blind-alley.
I find that there are very casual tournament players and there are super-serious narrative players. Hopefully both are having fun, or I question why they are doing it?
Jidmah wrote: Most people defining casual in such a way are just looking for a way to vilify people that enjoy playing in a different way than oneself and are often referred to as CAAC.
Well, what do you make of this very thread?
Does it make sense to say "Why does nobody talk about casual play?" when defining casual play as "not caring"? I feel like if that were the definition the OP meant, the answer would be self-evident. So clearly, the definition "not really caring about the game" isn't what's intended in this thread.
Or do you think he really was curious why earnest discussions weren't being had about not giving a gak?
That your definition of casual cannot survive your own quick logic check should tell you that it is not a workable definition. Linking "casual" with "fun" and then saying that "casual is when winning matters less than fun" locks out people for whom playing to win is part of the fun.
I would accept that casual could refer to the approach to the game - more laid back and not terribly concerned with winning. It could mean "not all that invested." But linking it to fun is a blind-alley.
I actually said that in my post. "Competitive" is the term you are looking for here. I covered exactly this critique at the end of my post, positing "competitive" as the term for people whom winning = fun. Casual is the term for people who thing fun = something other than winning. Locking out the people for whom winning is fun is the point, because those people are not casual.
TangoTwoBravo wrote: I find that there are very casual tournament players and there are super-serious narrative players. Hopefully both are having fun, or I question why they are doing it?
Your comment begs the question. That is to say that your use of the word casual implies a definition I do not espouse. You have included the conclusion to your argument (the definition of casual) in the argument itself (about the definition of casual).
There are tournament players who don't care very much - this I agree with. They're not casual by my definition.
There are super serious narrative players who ARE casual, by my definition.
Both can have fun, but one is competitive and one is casual.
Casual is not caring enough to invest a lot into 40k as a game.
And that's precisely why no one on a board full of people caring a lot about the game discusses casual games.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Unit1126PLL wrote: I actually said that in my post. "Competitive" is the term you are looking for here. I covered exactly this critique at the end of my post, positing "competitive" as the term for people whom winning = fun. Casual is the term for people who thing fun = something other than winning. Locking out the people for whom winning is fun is the point, because those people are not casual.
Competitive players are players who enjoy a challenge in their game. Actually winning or losing matters a lot less than you think.
But I don't expect a person who equates competitive to insulting terms such as WAAC to understand.
Casual is not caring enough to invest a lot into 40k as a game.
And that's precisely why no one on a board full of people caring a lot about the game discusses casual games.
Well, the OP clearly disagrees with your definition as well, given that he asked the question that seems so obvious to you. Either that or you must assume he can't make this somewhat trivial connection.
Unit1126PLL wrote: I actually said that in my post. "Competitive" is the term you are looking for here. I covered exactly this critique at the end of my post, positing "competitive" as the term for people whom winning = fun. Casual is the term for people who thing fun = something other than winning. Locking out the people for whom winning is fun is the point, because those people are not casual.
Competitive players are players who enjoy a challenge in their game. Actually winning or losing matters a lot less than you think.
That's not true at all. I've never met a competitive player who would let me use a 2+ armor save Baneblade that can only move 8" (to use an example from earlier in the thread), even if it would increase the challenge for them.
Jidmah wrote: But I don't expect a person who equates competitive to insulting terms such as WAAC to understand.
I didn't equate them, or if I did, could you show it?
What I did do was use WAAC as an example of a competitive player, because whilst not all competitive players are WAAC, I am certain all WAACers are competitive. It's like using a square as an example of a rectangle, and then being yelled at for equating squares and rectangles...
"Casual" isn't the same as "not giving a gak" in 40k, because I would argue it's not trivial to play a 40k game in the slightest. Generally, in the context of 40k, when people talk about "casual" gaming, they distinguish it from tournament or competitive play. So it makes sense to define it relative to tournament and competitive play.
Its the other way round, actually, and no, it doesn't.
The use of the term casual in this manner, ie defining casual as not competitive' or 'not tournament's is whats flawed. The opposite of competitive is non-competitive. The opposite of casual is serious.
Dictionary definitions of casual include 'without definite or serious intention; careless or offhand; passing'
'seeming or tending to be indifferent to what is happening; apathetic; unconcerned'.
You can absolutely be a casual tournament player. I've met enough folks at tourneys who were married with kids who were using the tournament as a way to chill out for a day and roll some dice and couldn't be bothered with where they placed. 'Tournament' is not a gold standard.
You can be perfectly serious about some aspects of the hobby/game and also still want low investment games (long day, tough day at work, kids are driving you round the bend and you just want to roll some dice) some or even all of the time.
"Casual" isn't the same as "not giving a gak" in 40k, because I would argue it's not trivial to play a 40k game in the slightest. Generally, in the context of 40k, when people talk about "casual" gaming, they distinguish it from tournament or competitive play. So it makes sense to define it relative to tournament and competitive play.
Its the other way round, actually, and no, it doesn't.
The use of the term casual in this manner, ie defining casual as not competitive' or 'not tournament's is whats flawed. The opposite of competitive is non-competitive. The opposite of casual is serious.
Dictionary definitions of casual include 'without definite or serious intention; careless or offhand; passing'
'seeming or tending to be indifferent to what is happening; apathetic; unconcerned'.
You can absolutely be a casual tournament player. I've met enough folks at tourneys who were married with kids who were using the tournament as a way to chill out for a day and roll some dice and couldn't be bothered with where they placed. 'Tournament' is not a gold standard.
You can be perfectly serious about some aspects of the hobby/game and also still want low investment games (long day, tough day at work, kids are driving you round the bend and you just want to roll some dice) some or even all of the time.
Yes, the dictionary definition doesn't line up with mine. I agree that non-competitive may be a better term, then, if it is preferable to use the "dictionary definition" of casual in this context rather than developing our own.
As for casual tournament players, I agree. Non-competitive (<- casual or not) players can attend a tournament (I have). But as you yourself admit, they aren't concerned with winning. They want to "chill out for a day and roll some dice". That's casual even by my definition. Remember, my definition doesn't even include the word tournament. But, to reiterate, if the dictionary definition is preferred to deriving our own, then I agree mine does not match the dictionary and 'non-competitive' would.
Jidmah wrote:Ugh, I fell for your trolling again.
Keep going, I should have known better as to answer to any of your posts.
I have no idea what you are talking about, but okay? I'm sorry I communicated badly, and if I can offer any further clarifications feel free to ask.
To my mind being "competitive" in 40k is just playing on the basis that each decision you make should be the best one you could make to win the game.
Casual or narrative is doing something other than that.
Players may do a bit of both. I know when I've had games go horribly wrong I've played them "for fun" rather than trying to claw my way back into a seemingly doomed game. This was especially the case when I played a mainly goblin army in WHFB.
So for example lets say its turn 5 and you could win just by disengaging and running everything away. Competitively its the right call. Casually though it might be a bit boring. You might instead throw what's left of your army into theirs just to see what happens. Equally you might decide narratively its a bit lame to have Space Marines or whatever running away in fear because "technically" they would win the game. (Although equally you can argue it the other way, which is why I think narrative isn't much of a distinction.)
There are many reasons why you would make moves other than the seeming "best" ones in 40k. Maybe you think its fluffy. Maybe you want to kill that unit your friend has just finished painting up. Maybe you just want to see what happens when character X runs into character Y.
This is I think different to something like Chess, where you really have to try and come up with a contrived reason why you want to send a knight on a five turn adventure... rather than try to win the game.
-Non-competitive play is putting some other objective above winning. (I used to call this casual, but I think I'm wrong to do so, even if this thread doesn't make sense) -Competitive play is putting winning above any other objective.
Typically, this is because the non-competitive players have more fun doing something other than winning, whilst competitive players have more fun in trying to win.
Unit1126PLL wrote: That's not true at all. I've never met a competitive player who would let me use a 2+ armor save Baneblade that can only move 8" (to use an example from earlier in the thread), even if it would increase the challenge for them.
I think most competitive players prefer to play within the established official rules of the game and would probably view your suggestion as akin to cheating. They want you to come at them as hard as you can within the rules not to bend the rules to give them a good match with the non-competitive forces you've brought to the game that day.
EDIT: As a sports fan your suggestion would be like asking if your rec league hockey team can put illegal pads on their goalie or use a smaller net because otherwise, the game will be a blowout. It will make the game more challenging for the other team but it doesn't do so in a fair way.
Casual is not caring enough to invest a lot into 40k as a game.
BS.
Casual games are ones where there's nothing on the line. Doesn't matter how much time/$/years/book shelves full of crap you've got.
Fun will be had. And within the context f that single game? Sure we'll certainly try to win with whatever we've brought. But tomorrow it won't matter one way or another if I won the game the night before. We'll come back in a few days or so and play some more.
Non-casual games have something at stake. Bragging rights, world domination in your current escalation league, internet fame & glory, prizes....Even just validation as a player in Karol's case.
And the more valuable the prize? The further away from casual it becomes. In fact, it becomes..... work.
Fun here, while preferred, is optional. Especially if the payout is enough.
Unit1126PLL wrote:Right, and that's the space where there is to talk about casual play. For example, I'd love to be able to share my 30k narrative primer (at least the rules portion) and get people's opinion on it from a narrative perspective and a fun-to-play perspective.
But I guarantee you I'd get a slew of "wow you're buffing X?!" or "Y is already bad, this rule seems to interact in strange rube-goldberg X-Y-Z way with that rule and makes Y even less competitive!!1!!" rather than
"that doesn't sound narratively engaging"
or
"I wouldn't have fun with this mechanic, could you try making the roll to trigger it a 4+?" or whatever.
Reminds me a bit of a guy i used to play regularly back when 5th was the current edition. he had an old chapter approved kroot list he loved to play. it had some unique abilities, but seriously who plays kroot other than to bubble wrap the tau if they are a WAAC player? It turns out it was a fun list to fight, even if it was not what you would expect to see in a tau army.
Unit1126PLL wrote:Tyel understands my point.
-Non-competitive play is putting some other objective above winning. (I used to call this casual, but I think I'm wrong to do so, even if this thread doesn't make sense)
-Competitive play is putting winning above any other objective.
Typically, this is because the non-competitive players have more fun doing something other than winning, whilst competitive players have more fun in trying to win.
I think that pretty well nails it. when i fight the 3.5 chaos codex players in our 5th ed games and khorne berserkers blood frenzy while holding an objective and then run it towards the nearest enemy. it isn't what a WAAC player would want, but it is what berserkers would do in universe.
I could give dozens of examples in our games where the lore based rules made the games more enjoyable win or loose because the play part of the game was the focus of the enjoyment. some of the best games i have had have been very close or i have lost, but the actual game play was epic.
I work a lot during the week and i get one day a week to hang out at the FLGS to game and socialize. i am not looking to get stressed over games on my fun day of the week.
Casual is not caring enough to invest a lot into 40k as a game.
Hell no. I'm a casual player but holy have I invested heavily into 40k to the point where I am now on my second rounds of "oh God I need to sell some of this I never use it".
I work a lot during the week and i get one day a week to hang out at the FLGS to game and socialize. i am not looking to get stressed over games on my fun day of the week.
This is exactly what I imagine when someone says they are a casual player, not someone who doesn't care to the point of apathy. To me someone is casual if they don't like/want/have time to play the game competitively i.e. attending tournaments, meta chasing, playing FOTM so they can win. If that's your jam, then cool beans, that's great but not everyone is like that.
You can also add "keeping track of the rules release schedule" to that list I think.
I played a death guard list with mortarion recently and mid-way through the explanation of his sixth special rule I just had to stop my opponent and say "you know what, I trust you to get this stuff right, I'll just assume anything I fling his way is unlikely to hurt him, and anything he gets near is likely to be dead."
Casual is not caring enough to invest a lot into 40k as a game.
BS.
Casual games are ones where there's nothing on the line. Doesn't matter how much time/$/years/book shelves full of crap you've got.
Fun will be had. And within the context f that single game? Sure we'll certainly try to win with whatever we've brought. But tomorrow it won't matter one way or another if I won the game the night before. We'll come back in a few days or so and play some more.
Non-casual games have something at stake. Bragging rights, world domination in your current escalation league, internet fame & glory, prizes....Even just validation as a player in Karol's case.
And the more valuable the prize? The further away from casual it becomes. In fact, it becomes..... work.
Fun here, while preferred, is optional. Especially if the payout is enough.
Gert wrote: [spoiler]
Hell no. I'm a casual player but holy have I invested heavily into 40k to the point where I am now on my second rounds of "oh God I need to sell some of this I never use it".
To be fair, he's not wrong. Investing in the game in terms of 'having lots of stuff' is not necessarily the same as investing in your game in terms of the effort you put into trying to win (ie meta chasing, list building for advantage etc) on the table top.
There's many aspects of this game/hobby. You can be casual or serious about some, all, most or none of them. Or any variation in between.
Its like what was said earlier - casual has a whole load of different definitions, depending on who.you speak to.
Catulle wrote: "I know I put no effort into the marriage, but it totally blindsided me when she walked out one day"
I get the meaning of your analogy, and I don't disagree that players should feel empowered to put a bit of themselves into the hobby to make it more enjoyable, but...
1) Corporations aren't people.
2) Corporations aren't people.
3) GW is selling rules at a premium price. It is not even remotely unreasonable to expect that houseruling be an optional undertaking (and that houseruling be purely a matter of preference instead of a necessary effort to make a given army playable).
4) Buying a product from a corporation (reminder: not a person) is not comparable to an intimate interpersonal relationship.
5) Even if this is an issue of the players expecting too much of GW, that's still on GW's head for not properly communicating that the ruleset is incomplete and must be modified. If I'm selling take'n'bake pizza, I don't advertise as "ready to eat".
Now, if you're talking about the hobby in general, that's another thing. I still don't think it's a great analogy since what everyone wants from the hobby is different. I wouldn't call someone who doesn't want to get into modding Skyrim "not a fan" or "not a gamer", nor would I insist that they must get into modding to fix it if Bethesda released a bugged patch or a nonfunctional perk; why would I say the same about a fellow hobbyist?
Jidmah wrote: Most people defining casual in such a way are just looking for a way to vilify people that enjoy playing in a different way than oneself and are often referred to as CAAC.
This three-thousand. Clearly, I've misread.
The main issue I see in this discussion is the crusade of the self-proclaimed 'casual' players 'offended' by people who have different idea as to what 'casual' means.
Evidently, the word means different things to people. On one end of the spectrum, 'casual' means "a friendly game, without regards to whether you win or not, because it's the fact that you played a game of 40k together with friends/real people, and that's what makes 40k, 40k ('40k is a social, not a competition')." On the other end of the spectrum, calling 40k 'casual' in itself is an oxymoron - by virtue of the hobby itself requiring considerable time & money expenditure, the game by nature cannot possibly be anything remotely resembling 'casual'. To them it's like saying 'rectangular circle' - it simply doesn't exist.
I get the meaning of your analogy, and I don't disagree that players should feel empowered to put a bit of themselves into the hobby to make it more enjoyable, but...
1) Corporations aren't people.
2) Corporations aren't people.
3) GW is selling rules at a premium price. It is not even remotely unreasonable to expect that houseruling be an optional undertaking (and that houseruling be purely a matter of preference instead of a necessary effort to make a given army playable).
4) Buying a product from a corporation (reminder: not a person) is not comparable to an intimate interpersonal relationship.
5) Even if this is an issue of the players expecting too much of GW, that's still on GW's head for not properly communicating that the ruleset is incomplete and must be modified. If I'm selling take'n'bake pizza, I don't advertise as "ready to eat".
Now, if you're talking about the hobby in general, that's another thing. I still don't think it's a great analogy since what everyone wants from the hobby is different. I wouldn't call someone who doesn't want to get into modding Skyrim "not a fan" or "not a gamer", nor would I insist that they must get into modding to fix it if Bethesda released a bugged patch or a nonfunctional perk; why would I say the same about a fellow hobbyist?
1+2) Yes, corporations aren't people. What's your point here?
3) GW is not selling rules at a premium price. For just a quick comparison, the 40k Core Book is £40 and barring certain products *cough*30k*cough*, the rules are FAQ'd regularly and most glaring problems are resolved. The Bolt Action 2nd Rulebook is £30 and is now nearly a decade old. A GW Codex on average is £25, however, all of the new ones have been £30 (SM supplements excluded) and at least with 6th/7th/8th all the army books were updated to fit the new ruleset. A Bolt Action Army Book is £20, however, these books are not constantly updated i.e. the USA Army Book is from 1st Edition, and important rules have changed since then. Of course, the most important thing to remember is the difference in scale between GW and Warlord Games. GW produces all of its own content in-house with only its own IP (Middle Earth excluded) whereas Warlord works with multiple companies such as Perry Miniatures and Osprey Publishing to produce its products.
As for houseruling, it's entirely subjective and to many people isn't necessary to play the game.
4) Yes, buying things is not the same as an intimate relationship. The guy is doing a metaphor, not a simile.
5) The ruleset is complete (excluding Codex releases) but it's not GW's job to come in and tell you how to balance a player group.
I get the meaning of your analogy, and I don't disagree that players should feel empowered to put a bit of themselves into the hobby to make it more enjoyable, but...
1) Corporations aren't people.
2) Corporations aren't people.
3) GW is selling rules at a premium price. It is not even remotely unreasonable to expect that houseruling be an optional undertaking (and that houseruling be purely a matter of preference instead of a necessary effort to make a given army playable).
4) Buying a product from a corporation (reminder: not a person) is not comparable to an intimate interpersonal relationship.
5) Even if this is an issue of the players expecting too much of GW, that's still on GW's head for not properly communicating that the ruleset is incomplete and must be modified. If I'm selling take'n'bake pizza, I don't advertise as "ready to eat".
Now, if you're talking about the hobby in general, that's another thing. I still don't think it's a great analogy since what everyone wants from the hobby is different. I wouldn't call someone who doesn't want to get into modding Skyrim "not a fan" or "not a gamer", nor would I insist that they must get into modding to fix it if Bethesda released a bugged patch or a nonfunctional perk; why would I say the same about a fellow hobbyist?
1+2) Yes, corporations aren't people. What's your point here?
3) GW is not selling rules at a premium price. For just a quick comparison, the 40k Core Book is £40 and barring certain products *cough*30k*cough*, the rules are FAQ'd regularly and most glaring problems are resolved. The Bolt Action 2nd Rulebook is £30 and is now nearly a decade old. A GW Codex on average is £25, however, all of the new ones have been £30 (SM supplements excluded) and at least with 6th/7th/8th all the army books were updated to fit the new ruleset. A Bolt Action Army Book is £20, however, these books are not constantly updated i.e. the USA Army Book is from 1st Edition, and important rules have changed since then. Of course, the most important thing to remember is the difference in scale between GW and Warlord Games. GW produces all of its own content in-house with only its own IP (Middle Earth excluded) whereas Warlord works with multiple companies such as Perry Miniatures and Osprey Publishing to produce its products.
As for houseruling, it's entirely subjective and to many people isn't necessary to play the game.
4) Yes, buying things is not the same as an intimate relationship. The guy is doing a metaphor, not a simile.
5) The ruleset is complete (excluding Codex releases) but it's not GW's job to come in and tell you how to balance a player group.
If I realistically wanted to play Dark Angles right now that would be $65 dollars for the main rules, $50 for the space marine codex, and $30 for the Dark Angels supplement.
That's $145 dollars for rulebooks that are ALL arguably required to play the game. If that's not a premium I don't know what is.
I get the meaning of your analogy, and I don't disagree that players should feel empowered to put a bit of themselves into the hobby to make it more enjoyable, but... 1) Corporations aren't people. 2) Corporations aren't people. 3) GW is selling rules at a premium price. It is not even remotely unreasonable to expect that houseruling be an optional undertaking (and that houseruling be purely a matter of preference instead of a necessary effort to make a given army playable). 4) Buying a product from a corporation (reminder: not a person) is not comparable to an intimate interpersonal relationship. 5) Even if this is an issue of the players expecting too much of GW, that's still on GW's head for not properly communicating that the ruleset is incomplete and must be modified. If I'm selling take'n'bake pizza, I don't advertise as "ready to eat".
Now, if you're talking about the hobby in general, that's another thing. I still don't think it's a great analogy since what everyone wants from the hobby is different. I wouldn't call someone who doesn't want to get into modding Skyrim "not a fan" or "not a gamer", nor would I insist that they must get into modding to fix it if Bethesda released a bugged patch or a nonfunctional perk; why would I say the same about a fellow hobbyist?
1+2) Yes, corporations aren't people. What's your point here? 3) GW is not selling rules at a premium price. For just a quick comparison, the 40k Core Book is £40 and barring certain products *cough*30k*cough*, the rules are FAQ'd regularly and most glaring problems are resolved. The Bolt Action 2nd Rulebook is £30 and is now nearly a decade old. A GW Codex on average is £25, however, all of the new ones have been £30 (SM supplements excluded) and at least with 6th/7th/8th all the army books were updated to fit the new ruleset. A Bolt Action Army Book is £20, however, these books are not constantly updated i.e. the USA Army Book is from 1st Edition, and important rules have changed since then. Of course, the most important thing to remember is the difference in scale between GW and Warlord Games. GW produces all of its own content in-house with only its own IP (Middle Earth excluded) whereas Warlord works with multiple companies such as Perry Miniatures and Osprey Publishing to produce its products. As for houseruling, it's entirely subjective and to many people isn't necessary to play the game. 4) Yes, buying things is not the same as an intimate relationship. The guy is doing a metaphor, not a simile. 5) The ruleset is complete (excluding Codex releases) but it's not GW's job to come in and tell you how to balance a player group.
If I realistically wanted to play Dark Angles right now that would be $65 dollars for the main rules, $50 for the space marine codex, and $30 for the Dark Angels supplement.
That's $145 dollars for rulebooks that are ALL arguably required to play the game. If that's not a premium I don't know what is.
And how much does an XBOX cost? a playstation? a PC? What about all the games? controllers? accessories? Are we paying a 'premium' in order to then buy games and play with them?
Did you know that a single elite controller for xbox cost $199?? Talk about premium.
What about boardgames? Most of CMON's games are +$90.
I don't understand all these complaints about a game costing money. Everything in life should come free, am I right?
Rulebooks = console Models = games Other people's rulebook that I don't own = some other console that you do not own Other people's models from an army whose rulebook I don't own = games exclusive to the console that you do not own
So if we go for starting a Dark Angels army you could go for the Command Edition box set which gives you two Patrol size armies, the Core Book, a game board (up to you if that's worth it), and terrain for £105. You now need the SM Codex which is £30 to use exclusively the models in the box. You can opt to buy the supplement for a further £17.50 but it is not required.
So for a maximum of £147.50, you now have a playable army with core rules, a codex, and extra rules for your Dark Angels plus a Necron force. That's not including the fact all of this can be bought from a third party for a potentially lower price. Add on £85 for the Combat Patrol and you now have a "regular" size army for under £250.
Is it expensive? Yes. Are there easy ways to make the hobby cheaper? Also yes.
yes, but you don't have to paint your consol for multiple hours. And if a game is not making you happy, you can spend 60$ or less, depending if you want legal or not, and get a game that is fun. That is the main difference between w40k and some other games. You can easily play infinity with 200$ investment. With w40k you get the books you need for that. And the worse thing is that people keep telling you about those mythical 500pts games, and play with just a SC or patrolbox, when in reality you maybe get 2-3 games like that, and later everyone expects you to get a normal sized army to play normal games.
That is a huge difference. Plus if you got a PC, you can use it for other stuff too. Unless you really like to paint, there isn't much else to do with a bunch of models.
Also why the hell would you buy a 199$ controler when you can buy one from China for a lot less?
If you don't want to paint your models then don't. You lose 10pts in a game, whoop de do. But at the same time, you've chosen a hobby that includes painting as a fairly major part of the experience. People keep trotting up Infinity and AFAIK it's a different beast entirely, more akin to Kill Team or Warcry than 40k or AoS. The miniatures are all metal and monopose which for me is a major turn away. There are much fewer factions to choose from and they are all Human-based. The Xenos factions might need a bit of love model wise but at least I have a choice of not playing a Human faction. So if we're going into price on a fairer scale, an Infinity starter set costs roughly £80 and you get about 10 monopose metal miniatures plus a rulebook that costs about £60. For Kill Team you need the Core Book for £25 and for most factions one box of Troops which we'll say average at £30. So to buy into Infinity, I need to spend £140 but Kill Team is only roughly £55.
Another major part of the 40k hobby is the social aspect, which you have said you struggle with Karol. There is literally nothing GW can do to make people behave differently so blaming the lack of a non-competitive local environment on them isn't fair.
And why would you paint your console? Painting is part of the game, like how terraforming is completely unrelated to the gameplay of ACNH, and yet its a vital part of "winning" the game (lily of the valley spawns).
And yes, just like how you say you can buy knockoffs, you can easily scour the internet for all of your rulebooks and buy recasts.
Money is only an issue if you make it to be. It's not in any way related to the 'casuality' of the game?
I get the meaning of your analogy, and I don't disagree that players should feel empowered to put a bit of themselves into the hobby to make it more enjoyable, but...
1) Corporations aren't people.
2) Corporations aren't people.
3) GW is selling rules at a premium price. It is not even remotely unreasonable to expect that houseruling be an optional undertaking (and that houseruling be purely a matter of preference instead of a necessary effort to make a given army playable).
4) Buying a product from a corporation (reminder: not a person) is not comparable to an intimate interpersonal relationship.
5) Even if this is an issue of the players expecting too much of GW, that's still on GW's head for not properly communicating that the ruleset is incomplete and must be modified. If I'm selling take'n'bake pizza, I don't advertise as "ready to eat".
Now, if you're talking about the hobby in general, that's another thing. I still don't think it's a great analogy since what everyone wants from the hobby is different. I wouldn't call someone who doesn't want to get into modding Skyrim "not a fan" or "not a gamer", nor would I insist that they must get into modding to fix it if Bethesda released a bugged patch or a nonfunctional perk; why would I say the same about a fellow hobbyist?
1+2) Yes, corporations aren't people. What's your point here?
3) GW is not selling rules at a premium price. For just a quick comparison, the 40k Core Book is £40 and barring certain products *cough*30k*cough*, the rules are FAQ'd regularly and most glaring problems are resolved. The Bolt Action 2nd Rulebook is £30 and is now nearly a decade old. A GW Codex on average is £25, however, all of the new ones have been £30 (SM supplements excluded) and at least with 6th/7th/8th all the army books were updated to fit the new ruleset. A Bolt Action Army Book is £20, however, these books are not constantly updated i.e. the USA Army Book is from 1st Edition, and important rules have changed since then. Of course, the most important thing to remember is the difference in scale between GW and Warlord Games. GW produces all of its own content in-house with only its own IP (Middle Earth excluded) whereas Warlord works with multiple companies such as Perry Miniatures and Osprey Publishing to produce its products.
As for houseruling, it's entirely subjective and to many people isn't necessary to play the game.
4) Yes, buying things is not the same as an intimate relationship. The guy is doing a metaphor, not a simile.
5) The ruleset is complete (excluding Codex releases) but it's not GW's job to come in and tell you how to balance a player group.
If I realistically wanted to play Dark Angles right now that would be $65 dollars for the main rules, $50 for the space marine codex, and $30 for the Dark Angels supplement.
That's $145 dollars for rulebooks that are ALL arguably required to play the game. If that's not a premium I don't know what is.
And how much does an XBOX cost? a playstation? a PC? What about all the games? controllers? accessories? Are we paying a 'premium' in order to then buy games and play with them?
Did you know that a single elite controller for xbox cost $199?? Talk about premium.
What about boardgames? Most of CMON's games are +$90.
I don't understand all these complaints about a game costing money. Everything in life should come free, am I right?
Rulebooks = console
Models = games
Other people's rulebook that I don't own = some other console that you do not own
Other people's models from an army whose rulebook I don't own = games exclusive to the console that you do not own
if you have to compare a SINGLE miniatures game to a console that allows for a wide range of different games and play experiences and does not have the same 2-3 year rule set obselence ( consoles are more like 6-7 years now), then you're acknowledging that the game is indeed a premium.
If you're ok with the price that's fine, but it is a premium.
You can get an Xbox or Playstation, pay for online, and then just pay for their version of the game pass and get thousands of dollars worth of games to play without much extra investment. If you need an extra controller that's a cost, but for single-player gaming, you don't need that unless you break the one your console came with. You also don't need an elite controller, the regular ones are just fine.
Sledgehammer wrote: if you have to compare a SINGLE miniatures game to a console that allows for a wide range of different games and play experiences and does not have the same 2-3 year rule set obselence ( consoles are more like 6-7 years now), then you're acknowledging that the game is indeed a premium.
If you're ok with the price that's fine, but it is a premium.
No, it just means its a life choice difference.
I could really care less for consols that update every other year. I don't want to pay $500+ EVERY OTHER YEAR, or wait until the previous model goes on sale for christmas/black friday when the hype for that system is dwindling, or I'm buying it for a timeless classic (like how many people bought switch just to play SSBU).
I started this hobby with measly weekly allowance of $20 per week to cover lunch for the week (with each lunch costing $4-$9/day). I was able to afford my first full 2k tau army over the course of the year by not eating lunch and saving up. I could have bought more games for my N64/PS, but I spent it on 40k. This was a life choice, not something I did on a whim because I was filthy rich.
Not everyone holds the same value as you, and I dont mind spending $100 of my disposable income once in a while on figurines. To each to their own, and everyone's cup of tea.
FYI, console releases has been every 4-6 years. PS4 was delayed (outlier).
Sledge, if you can provide me with a miniatures game the ticks the exact same boxes as 40k (various multipart plastic kits, large selection of faction choice, good value starter sets, game sizes that range from skirmish to mass battles) with a lower buy-in price, I will concede the point.
Canadian 5th wrote: You can get an Xbox or Playstation, pay for online, and then just pay for their version of the game pass and get thousands of dollars worth of games to play without much extra investment. If you need an extra controller that's a cost, but for single-player gaming, you don't need that unless you break the one your console came with. You also don't need an elite controller, the regular ones are just fine.
Yeah and doing that is pretty much gimping yourself with a value army strictly composed of second-hands (remastered games from previous console versions) and start collecting/battleforce boxes (premium games with expiration for access).
I get the meaning of your analogy, and I don't disagree that players should feel empowered to put a bit of themselves into the hobby to make it more enjoyable, but...
1) Corporations aren't people.
2) Corporations aren't people.
3) GW is selling rules at a premium price. It is not even remotely unreasonable to expect that houseruling be an optional undertaking (and that houseruling be purely a matter of preference instead of a necessary effort to make a given army playable).
4) Buying a product from a corporation (reminder: not a person) is not comparable to an intimate interpersonal relationship.
5) Even if this is an issue of the players expecting too much of GW, that's still on GW's head for not properly communicating that the ruleset is incomplete and must be modified. If I'm selling take'n'bake pizza, I don't advertise as "ready to eat".
Now, if you're talking about the hobby in general, that's another thing. I still don't think it's a great analogy since what everyone wants from the hobby is different. I wouldn't call someone who doesn't want to get into modding Skyrim "not a fan" or "not a gamer", nor would I insist that they must get into modding to fix it if Bethesda released a bugged patch or a nonfunctional perk; why would I say the same about a fellow hobbyist?
1+2) Yes, corporations aren't people. What's your point here?
3) GW is not selling rules at a premium price. For just a quick comparison, the 40k Core Book is £40 and barring certain products *cough*30k*cough*, the rules are FAQ'd regularly and most glaring problems are resolved. The Bolt Action 2nd Rulebook is £30 and is now nearly a decade old. A GW Codex on average is £25, however, all of the new ones have been £30 (SM supplements excluded) and at least with 6th/7th/8th all the army books were updated to fit the new ruleset. A Bolt Action Army Book is £20, however, these books are not constantly updated i.e. the USA Army Book is from 1st Edition, and important rules have changed since then. Of course, the most important thing to remember is the difference in scale between GW and Warlord Games. GW produces all of its own content in-house with only its own IP (Middle Earth excluded) whereas Warlord works with multiple companies such as Perry Miniatures and Osprey Publishing to produce its products.
As for houseruling, it's entirely subjective and to many people isn't necessary to play the game.
4) Yes, buying things is not the same as an intimate relationship. The guy is doing a metaphor, not a simile.
5) The ruleset is complete (excluding Codex releases) but it's not GW's job to come in and tell you how to balance a player group.
If I realistically wanted to play Dark Angles right now that would be $65 dollars for the main rules, $50 for the space marine codex, and $30 for the Dark Angels supplement.
That's $145 dollars for rulebooks that are ALL arguably required to play the game. If that's not a premium I don't know what is.
And how much does an XBOX cost? a playstation? a PC? What about all the games? controllers? accessories? Are we paying a 'premium' in order to then buy games and play with them?
And how much does it cost when the games get their balance and glitch fixes instead of you programming the game yourself to fix?
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: And how much does it cost when the games get their balance and glitch fixes instead of you programming the game yourself to fix?
Would you contend that FAQ's are not free?
And of you actually had the knowledge to rewrite/edit a game at its code level, would you contend that they weren't doing it just because they CAN and not because they needed to because they didn't have the money to pay for the update amd they NEEDED to play the game?
Gert wrote: Sledge, if you can provide me with a miniatures game the ticks the exact same boxes as 40k (various multipart plastic kits, large selection of faction choice, good value starter sets, game sizes that range from skirmish to mass battles) with a lower buy-in price, I will concede the point.
The sheer amount of choice that historicals offer for a much lower price point is ludicrous. Just about any setting or historical period of your choice has a multitude of rules, kits, factions and the ability to scale the scope of your engagements across different systems. Many of the rule-sets are free too! One could argue that this isn't a good counter point to 40k because these are all being offered by different companies, but I'd argue it's precisely that point that makes it a good comparison.
No one company has a monopoly over a historical setting or period. Historical companies do not have the same kind of control over their own IP, nor can they utilize the exclusivity of their IP to their advantage. The free market has by way of the lack of IP protection in historicals, driven prices down. Victrix and Perry miniatures are both companies that offer high quality multi part plastic miniatures. If you want anything more detailed than they are, you're starting to talk about premium quality, and thus premium costs.
If someone just wants to play a wargame they can play a historical for FAR less than GW. Now if you like the 40k setting, or the sense of a unified offical ruleset for your miniatures, you're going to pay a premium for it with 40k.
I could go out buy one box of victrix anglo danes and get
Spoiler:
60 x figures
6 x Warrior Main Frames
2 x Command Frames
14 x Body options (including armoured, unarmoured and religious robes)
22 x Head options (including helmets, hats and cloak hoods)
2 x Monks
7 x Shields options (including rounded and kite shields)
7 x Weapon options (including single handed axes, double handed axes, swords, clubs, spears and javelins)
Then i could go download Ravenfeast from little wars for free.
You're absolutely paying premium prices, and that's OK. Value is subjective and 40k offers things that historicals do not.
We're going to have to disagree over Historicals.
I like them, they let me beat the Nazis or stop Alexander the Great from making his empire.
But the fact that no company has exclusive rights to any of their product designs makes it an unfair comparison IMO.
GW pays people to come up with original content (mileage may vary when it comes to artistic influences) and has to protect anything it produces. Warlord doesn't have to worry about IP defense expenses for the vast majority of its products or have to invest in artists/writers as heavily as GW to produce content. All they have to do is go to Wikipedia or pick up a history book and copy-paste it.
It's hardly a fair comparison when one side can basically monetise someone else's work for little to no cost
skchsan wrote: I disagree. Premium is what you pay for a cup of beer at stadiums for $21.
What you are paying for when you buy GW product is brand equity.
In a way, yes, it's not just a game, it's an ecosystem designed to fit together, just like apple products. With that being said, I do think GW's codex prices (or more accuratly how they design the game intentionally around you buying three of them) are inherently prohibitive to more casual play.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gert wrote: We're going to have to disagree over Historicals.
I like them, they let me beat the Nazis or stop Alexander the Great from making his empire.
But the fact that no company has exclusive rights to any of their product designs makes it an unfair comparison IMO.
GW pays people to come up with original content (mileage may vary when it comes to artistic influences) and has to protect anything it produces. Warlord doesn't have to worry about IP defense expenses for the vast majority of its products or have to invest in artists/writers as heavily as GW to produce content. All they have to do is go to Wikipedia or pick up a history book and copy-paste it.
It's hardly a fair comparison when one side can basically monetise someone else's work for little to no cost
Well that's exactly my point, you pay a premium for that. If you're just going to pick up a historical those prices aren't a factor, thus the lower price. At that point the customer makes a decision whether they're willing to pay for that premium or not, but it IS a premium.
If nobody is producing something in the same market vein as 40k i.e. a SciFi wargame that has a large game size range, with its own model line that is entirely the producer's own IP, then how are the 40k rules a premium?
The "Hail Caeser" rules could be considered a premium because there are other free versions of Historical wargames available that do the same as it, as you have given an example of.
NGL this is actually a very interesting discussion.
Gert wrote: If nobody is producing something in the same market vein as 40k i.e. a SciFi wargame that has a large game size range, with its own model line that is entirely the producer's own IP, then how are the 40k rules a premium?
The "Hail Caeser" rules could be considered a premium because there are other free versions of Historical wargames available that do the same as it, as you have given an example of.
Yes, you'd be paying premium prices for a perceivably (i mean, you're buying it right?) better system than the presumably free game system you were playing.
As for you're first point, you're looking for a niche within a niche, within a niche, and as you increase you're specifications you're going to inevitably find fewer and fewer competitors, which will naturally increase prices. 40K fills your said prerequisites in the market SO WELL, that it has essentially beaten any and all competitors from competing in that super specific marketplace, and yes again, that increases prices.
If i want a a gun that, fulfills a specific purpose, and there haven't been any real competitors due to how good / innovate the product is, it's going to get expensive and I'm going to pay a premium for it. Look at the FN 5.7 that thing fulfills a specific purpose, is a quality product, uses it's own ammunition and is expensive as hell. If you want an alternative to that specific gun, you're pretty much stuck with the ruger. There just isn't enough interest in this very specific portion of the fire arms industry to allow for a multitude of firearms that fit this specific mission profile. Of course the company that offers the best solution is going to charge a premium for that, but that doesn't mean that the industry as a whole doesn't have other offering that fulfill different and much broader mission profiles for much, much cheaper (the ar-15 being a patent-less example and the stand in for historicals here).
I guess it does fully come down to what you want from 40k. As just a wargame, I think it fails on the price aspect. As a long-term hobby, I would say it passes since it offers a wargame, the hobby aspect, RPGs, novels, and video games that can all be connected and discussed as a single general topic.
Gert wrote: I guess it does fully come down to what you want from 40k. As just a wargame, I think it fails on the price aspect. As a long-term hobby, I would say it passes since it offers a wargame, the hobby aspect, RPGs, novels, and video games that can all be connected and discussed as a single general topic.
precisely it does fail in the price aspect for just a wargame, but that's not REALLY what they're offering. If you listen GW they will call it "the hobby", this is because 40k is more of an eco system that they're trying to sell you on rather than just a game. It's a way to justify the premiuim prices. Now IMO the game isn't of premium quality, but the lore and the models are. You as the consumer dictate what is worth your money and what isn't.
The game is just simply not good enough to justify the emotional or financial effort to try and form my own personal social contract around.
There are 2 types of general philosophies in approach to 40k;
Type Z: Those that can only envision something when they've been told what to do. Anything other than official is to be actively avoided and vocally shunned.
Type X: Those that can take something and work their own storytelling into it irrespective of official-ness. Actively seeking out changes to better their experience and will cooperate to achieve it.
They are fundamentally differing in the outcomes which are expected by the respective types of players.
Racerguy180 wrote: There are 2 types of general philosophies in approach to 40k;
Type Z: Those that can only envision something when they've been told what to do. Anything other than official is to be actively avoided and vocally shunned.
Type X: Those that can take something and work their own storytelling into it irrespective of official-ness. Actively seeking out changes to better their experience and will cooperate to achieve it.
They are fundamentally differing in the outcomes which are expected by the respective types of players.
Racerguy180 wrote: There are 2 types of general philosophies in approach to 40k;
Type Z: Those that can only envision something when they've been told what to do. Anything other than official is to be actively avoided and vocally shunned.
Type X: Those that can take something and work their own storytelling into it irrespective of official-ness. Actively seeking out changes to better their experience and will cooperate to achieve it.
They are fundamentally differing in the outcomes which are expected by the respective types of players.
That seems both reductive and insulting.
That's just how 'casual' rolls, I guess.
It all comes down to everyone else doing BadWrongFun in the end.
At least in internet arguments. Most people who just play don't worry about it.
Gert wrote: People keep trotting up Infinity and AFAIK it's a different beast entirely, more akin to Kill Team or Warcry than 40k or AoS. The miniatures are all metal and monopose which for me is a major turn away. There are much fewer factions to choose from and they are all Human-based. The Xenos factions might need a bit of love model wise but at least I have a choice of not playing a Human faction. So if we're going into price on a fairer scale, an Infinity starter set costs roughly £80 and you get about 10 monopose metal miniatures plus a rulebook that costs about £60. For Kill Team you need the Core Book for £25 and for most factions one box of Troops which we'll say average at £30. So to buy into Infinity, I need to spend £140 but Kill Team is only roughly £55.
To be fair, Infinity rules are free on the website, along with a free army builder.
Besides that, GW is working overtime to give us plastic monopose anyway.
Racerguy180 wrote: There are 2 types of general philosophies in approach to 40k;
Type Z: Those that can only envision something when they've been told what to do. Anything other than official is to be actively avoided and vocally shunned.
Type X: Those that can take something and work their own storytelling into it irrespective of official-ness. Actively seeking out changes to better their experience and will cooperate to achieve it.
They are fundamentally differing in the outcomes which are expected by the respective types of players.
That seems both reductive and insulting.
That's just how 'casual' rolls, I guess.
It all comes down to everyone else doing BadWrongFun in the end.
At least in internet arguments. Most people who just play don't worry about it.
I never have and never will understand why players from both camps are so polarized in perspective. There is a entire swath of grey territory between the two. I understand the need for segregation on tactics threads and vice versa but beyond that I am lost. Perhaps those respective threads are polarizing enough to create the division we see today.
Gert wrote: Sledge, if you can provide me with a miniatures game the ticks the exact same boxes as 40k (various multipart plastic kits, large selection of faction choice, good value starter sets, game sizes that range from skirmish to mass battles) with a lower buy-in price, I will concede the point.
Gert wrote: Sledge, if you can provide me with a miniatures game the ticks the exact same boxes as 40k (various multipart plastic kits, large selection of faction choice, good value starter sets, game sizes that range from skirmish to mass battles) with a lower buy-in price, I will concede the point.
Gert wrote: Sledge, if you can provide me with a miniatures game the ticks the exact same boxes as 40k (various multipart plastic kits, large selection of faction choice, good value starter sets, game sizes that range from skirmish to mass battles) with a lower buy-in price, I will concede the point.
Gert wrote: Sledge, if you can provide me with a miniatures game the ticks the exact same boxes as 40k (various multipart plastic kits, large selection of faction choice, good value starter sets, game sizes that range from skirmish to mass battles) with a lower buy-in price, I will concede the point.
Bolt Action
Gates of Antares, if you insist it be sci-fi.
I can have both with Konflict '47.
I've been curious about Conflict '47, but I'd be solo playing, what COVID.
Gert wrote: Sledge, if you can provide me with a miniatures game the ticks the exact same boxes as 40k (various multipart plastic kits, large selection of faction choice, good value starter sets, game sizes that range from skirmish to mass battles) with a lower buy-in price, I will concede the point.
Bolt Action
Gates of Antares, if you insist it be sci-fi.
I can have both with Konflict '47.
I've been curious about Conflict '47, but I'd be solo playing, what COVID.
Likewise on the interest.
I know it's based on the BA system & is supposedly compatible. And I like a fair # of the models. And I like BA well enough. But Bolt action has been pretty dormant in my circles & local shops since well before Covid. :( So adding Konflict stuff to the backlog has been a very low priority.
That might be changing in the near future though as some new players have just recently bought BA starters (one of them tonight!)
Gert wrote: Sledge, if you can provide me with a miniatures game the ticks the exact same boxes as 40k (various multipart plastic kits, large selection of faction choice, good value starter sets, game sizes that range from skirmish to mass battles) with a lower buy-in price, I will concede the point.
Man that's easy i got 2 right now that are better than anything GW has done in the last 3 editions.
DUST 1947
.5 factions with 3 sub factions with a broad selection of kits
.high quality, high detailed kits in 32mm
.cost that- varies on how much of a hobbiest you are. DUST comes in 3 levels of -un-assembled kits/ready to play fully assembled primed&decaled minis/premium fully pro painted weathered and based. in a straight across comparison a squad kit for space marines from GW are $60 US for dust a squad is $20 for the kit.....if you want to spend the extra money you can get a squad from DUST in premium for $65 but you are paying for a fully painted unit you don't have to do anything with aside from put it on the table.
.Rules/data cards-free to download
.incredibly balanced game play with hard counters for everything in the game (what can i say Andy Chambers does good work).
.alternating activation & reactive gameplay
.less restrictive army build rules outside of themed TO&E lists that allow play from skirmish level to apocalyptic level.
So yeah it ticks all the boxes and then some.
Spoiler:
Spoiler:
Spoiler:
Alternately you have mantic games rather it be deadzone/warpath for the scifi setting or kings of war for the old world warhammer fantasy setting. you are looking at an average half the cost of GW just in kit's alone.
As another example a 5 man squad of terminators is $55 from GW, compared to mantics warpath a squad of 5 enforcer peacekeepers (terminator equivalent) is $19.99
To be fair, Infinity rules are free on the website, along with a free army builder.
Besides that, GW is working overtime to give us plastic monopose anyway.
All the Warhammer systems have a free online army builder and have done for some time. AFAIK each unit box also includes some basic rules. I assume the whole "GW is forcing monopose models" thing is the same old argument that maybe about 25% of the 40k range is monopose character kits or starter sets? Even then that's not necessarily true but I don't fancy trawling for hours through GW looking for every monopose model.
My main point is that compared to another well known SciFi skirmish game, 40k Kill Team has a lower buy in price, better model quality and more factions to choose from. If I want to use Tactical Marines in KT I have 4 main kits to choose from (Tacs, Wolves, Mk3, Mk4) plus a boatload of upgrade kits if I want to play a specific chapter.
I would also like to point out to people that haven't read my discussion with Sledge:
A) I already play historical wargames. I enjoy playing them.
B) I don't consider them as filling the same niche as 40k as a hobby.
To be fair, Infinity rules are free on the website, along with a free army builder.
Besides that, GW is working overtime to give us plastic monopose anyway.
All the Warhammer systems have a free online army builder and have done for some time. AFAIK each unit box also includes some basic rules. I assume the whole "GW is forcing monopose models" thing is the same old argument that maybe about 25% of the 40k range is monopose character kits or starter sets? Even then that's not necessarily true but I don't fancy trawling for hours through GW looking for every monopose model.
My main point is that compared to another well known SciFi skirmish game, 40k Kill Team has a lower buy in price, better model quality and more factions to choose from.
I would also like to point out to people that haven't read my discussion with Sledge:
A) I already play historical wargames.
B) I don't consider them as filling the same niche as 40k as a hobby.
I am still trying to work out the price you got, there is no starter set in infinity that is even half the price you stated. The ones that price are full or close to full infinity army’s. Or the two player starter which has two factions of models.
Also all rules are free for infinity, and the free army builders are all provided by other people from GW. The GW without paying do not really compare.
Also people should not equate plastic to quality, just bad take. At best kill team is a similar cost as you would need to buy multiple boxes for Kill team for a lot of factions anyway to get a good selection.
Also there is similar number of factions in infinity as there is in killteam, and the sub factions are way more expanded than anything in killteam.
I went into the Starter section on the Corvus Beli store and the first page has the Action Packs which I assumed to be starter sets. I've done a second check and there are Starter bundles but even then it's around £40 for 6 miniatures. I can spend £35 and get a box of Intercessors which is a basic KT start. I will grant that since the 40k ETB sets disappeared it's more expensive to play certain factions but even still one box of models is enough to get started. You could even go for the 40k Starter Sets and get things for the KT expansions as well as a board and terrain.
The GW free army builders are on the Warhammer Community site and are available for 40k/AoS/KT/Warcry/Underworlds.
I don't say GW is better quality just because it's plastic, although it is a major part of it. The kits primarily used for KT are multi-part plastic kits that 9/10 times have compatibility with other products in the 40k range. I can pick up a squad of CSM and look at loads of GW and FW kits that I can use to either upgrade or make aesthetic changes to my squad with. It also comes down to ease of painting/building. I look at the Infinity sculpts as a person who's been doing wargaming for a while and they look like a challenge to paint. I look at a squad of SM with their flat open panels and that's a much easier job.
As for factions, on the Corvus Beli Infinity page under the Factions subheading, it has 10 options. In the KT rulebook, it lists 16. If I go onto the KT Roster Builder on WarCom it has another 5 factions you can easily buy into (I excluded the Gellerpox and Starstriders as they are OOP). Most factions also have their subfactions included i.e. White Scars, Night Lords, Biel Tann, Kraken.
The action packs are more advanced starters, more comparable to the start collecting boxes.
Infinity factions are split into several distinct forces. And they have several minor factions as well on top of that. It’s a lot more diverse than Kill team is on that front.
I find painting metal more enjoyable due to the way it holds detail, and never had issues with building.
Aesthetics is more personal thing, but infinity is not quite as strict with WYSWG as well as not really having as bloated weapon profiles as some 40k factions do. That advantage doesn’t really exist for probably half the factions so much.
With infinity if you do want the more advanced weapons you can just pick up the model with that weapon, not needing often to get a full box anyway.
As for the army builders GW does provide, I only use the kill team one and it didn’t offer anything as good as infinity.
There apps are not as good ether considering you have to pay for so much.
With a wiki linked right from the infinity app for any rules and rulings needed anytime, it’s a fantastic resource for casual games. And been fantastic for getting new players in with a very low investment
Gert wrote: I went into the Starter section on the Corvus Beli store and the first page has the Action Packs which I assumed to be starter sets. I've done a second check and there are Starter bundles but even then it's around £40 for 6 miniatures. I can spend £35 and get a box of Intercessors which is a basic KT start. I will grant that since the 40k ETB sets disappeared it's more expensive to play certain factions but even still one box of models is enough to get started. You could even go for the 40k Starter Sets and get things for the KT expansions as well as a board and terrain.
The GW free army builders are on the Warhammer Community site and are available for 40k/AoS/KT/Warcry/Underworlds.
I don't say GW is better quality just because it's plastic, although it is a major part of it. The kits primarily used for KT are multi-part plastic kits that 9/10 times have compatibility with other products in the 40k range. I can pick up a squad of CSM and look at loads of GW and FW kits that I can use to either upgrade or make aesthetic changes to my squad with. It also comes down to ease of painting/building. I look at the Infinity sculpts as a person who's been doing wargaming for a while and they look like a challenge to paint. I look at a squad of SM with their flat open panels and that's a much easier job.
As for factions, on the Corvus Beli Infinity page under the Factions subheading, it has 10 options. In the KT rulebook, it lists 16. If I go onto the KT Roster Builder on WarCom it has another 5 factions you can easily buy into (I excluded the Gellerpox and Starstriders as they are OOP). Most factions also have their subfactions included i.e. White Scars, Night Lords, Biel Tann, Kraken.
There are multiple subfactions for most factions in Infinity that are quite distinct. For example, my friend and I both have Nomads but I have Corregidor nomads which are kind of a hispanic spec ops force with slightly funkier weaponry, tattooed prison gang dudes with knives and super devastating shotgun weapons as their basic troopers, TAGs small enough that they can actually be included in a normal list without totally dominating half your points budget (the reason I picked them tbh), and he's got Bakunin, which are like, russian eastern Orthodox religious zealots with a quasi sisters of battle aesthetic.
We're playing "The Same" faction but every miniature we have is completely distinct.
Also, infinity does have non-human factions. There's a robot faction called Aleph and a Halo Covenant style alien race called the Combined Army.
Plus, while multiple factions are human, there's several aesthetics you generally don't get to see in most sci-fi settings where 'humans' are generally just 'everyone of all races decided to dress like americans, speak english and form a grand alliance of all the cultures' or 'everyone is just american by default and if there are any non-american people it's a large chunk of their personality and character and usually there's just the one' or 'we represent the non-white earth cultures with obviously culturally inspired aliens.' There are various european, american, middle eastern, east asian, and mesoamerican factions represented and given their own thing to do.
I've done a second check and there are Starter bundles but even then it's around £40 for 6 miniatures. I can spend £35 and get a box of Intercessors which is a basic KT start.
I think you may be missing a key point about the game.
It is a dedicated squad based skirmish game that is not designed to go large. in fact no matter what points level you play at the ideal army only has 10 models in a single order pool. you can do more order pools to get extra models but the number of actions each pool has is limited to 10.
The difference between a 10 man army at 150 points and one at 300 points is quality of gear/troopers.
You cannot build an entire 40K army for less than $150 US but it is the average for a full 300 point infinity army including TAGs (effectively tanks/vehciles) so that squad you buy from GW a full army does not make, but 6 minis from infinity may very well be a full army if they are elite enough units.
Thats why for scale i recommended DUST or Mantics warpath because they directly scale with a full sized 40K game.
You want starter boxes
The BIG army boxes from mantic run you a mix of 50 odd infantry/bikes etc... miniatures and a vehicle or 2 for $150 US GW doesn't even come close. what is close in price for $140 is a 40K combat patrol box with 10-15 infantry and a single vehicle
DUST starter boxes as full un-assembled kits are in the $75 for the same number of models you get in the GW patrol box...so about half price.
In terms of price or model quality it isn't even a valid argument, in terms of rules even less so. What GW has is market share and recognized IP. It is like buying a harley davidson motorcycle, you pay extra for the name.
I've done a second check and there are Starter bundles but even then it's around £40 for 6 miniatures. I can spend £35 and get a box of Intercessors which is a basic KT start.
I think you may be missing a key point about the game.
It is a dedicated squad based skirmish game that is not designed to go large. in fact no matter what points level you play at the ideal army only has 10 models in a single order pool. you can do more order pools to get extra models but the number of actions each pool has is limited to 10.
The difference between a 10 man army at 150 points and one at 300 points is quality of gear/troopers.
This is absolute bull. It might be true NOW, but it was not the case previously. Combat Groups(which aren't an army--it's a group of 10 models sharing an Order pool) have always been 10 models, but before they started with the Limited Insertion nonsense and things like that via ITS? It was not uncommon to see some factions with spammy lists of 30 or so models. Ariadna was a key offender in this regard, but they were far from alone.
You cannot build an entire 40K army for less than $150 US but it is the average for a full 300 point infinity army including TAGs (effectively tanks/vehciles) so that squad you buy from GW a full army does not make, but 6 minis from infinity may very well be a full army if they are elite enough units.
Also incorrect. $150 US might be the "average for a full 300 point infinity army including TAGs", but it also ignores that Infinity's boxed sets are just as wildly overpriced for what they are as GW's and you're taking a chance that your faction is going to be ignored for years if not outright "retired" with vague allusions to things being redone later. And that's not even getting into certain profiles being locked into "starter" products in a way that would make GW blush.
There are multiple subfactions for most factions in Infinity that are quite distinct. For example, my friend and I both have Nomads but I have Corregidor nomads which are kind of a hispanic spec ops force with slightly funkier weaponry, tattooed prison gang dudes with knives and super devastating shotgun weapons as their basic troopers, TAGs small enough that they can actually be included in a normal list without totally dominating half your points budget (the reason I picked them tbh), and he's got Bakunin, which are like, russian eastern Orthodox religious zealots with a quasi sisters of battle aesthetic.
"Corregidor" is the name of a ship that was used by South America, the Phillipines, parts of sub-Saharan Africa, and Eastern Europe as a dumping ground for prisoners and refugees. Hence the name of the ship being "Corregidor".
Bakunin is effectively an artist/hippy commune gone BDSM. The Observance is a subfaction within Bakunin, effectively a subsect of Christianity that venerates the "Lady of the Blade" or something to that extent. The translation on it from CB always felt weird.
We're playing "The Same" faction but every miniature we have is completely distinct.
Except for the shared stuff like remotes, you mean?
Also, infinity does have non-human factions. There's a robot faction called Aleph and a Halo Covenant style alien race called the Combined Army.
ALEPH aren't robots. They just employ robots. There's two branches happening there: the Reconstructions and the Posthumans. Reconstructions are a Westworld styled made up consciousness for a historical figure while Posthumans are legitimately human brains digitized and given a combat body.
Combined Army are vastly underutilized except as "The Bad Guys".
Plus, while multiple factions are human, there's several aesthetics you generally don't get to see in most sci-fi settings where 'humans' are generally just 'everyone of all races decided to dress like americans, speak english and form a grand alliance of all the cultures' or 'everyone is just american by default and if there are any non-american people it's a large chunk of their personality and character and usually there's just the one' or 'we represent the non-white earth cultures with obviously culturally inspired aliens.' There are various european, american, middle eastern, east asian, and mesoamerican factions represented and given their own thing to do.
Literally all of the Americans are shoveled into USARF, which has been a disaster from the outset of them getting their own army list. The only non-USARF Americans are background references to stuff that happened three or four generations back!
I think some people here need some perspective outside of comparing 40k to other less prominent games with cult following with little to no brand equity.
All this talk of "40k costs too much" is so BS. If you don't feel like spending money on plastic toy soldiers, that's fine. But that's a 'you' problem.
GW products are not cheap, that's for sure. But unless you're a meta chaser buying $500 worth figures per month, it's no more expensive than your netflix subscription, a pack of cigarette, fast food combo meal, etc. Either way, starting a 40k army is a considerable expense for mere toys, but by no means is it a bank/back breaker.
There are also plenty other ways to obtain models for cheaper -3rd party stores offering 20% discounts, second hand rescue, trades, etc. You don't HAVE to pay the MSRP as prescribed by GW.
My 2k ravenwing army costed me less than $300 by buying parts of dark vengeance kit and scouring ebay for second hands. (bikes were going for $5~8/bike when supply exceeded the demand at the time)
Then I spent about $40 in repairs (paint stripper, putties, etc).
Last ~800ish points were NIB, costing me about $180.
My current damage on my ~3k ravenwing army is still on the lower end of $500.
This was spread apart, I would say, over the course of 3 years? So that'd make $166.67 in expenses per year, which is $13.88 a month.
it's no more expensive than your netflix subscription, a pack of cigarette, fast food combo meal, etc.
I can get a pack of ciggarets for around half a dollar here. Polish version of netflix is the second highest in cost comparing to the number of movies/series you get, only Norwegians pay more.
Also go and tell a 13-14 year old and tell them they have to wait for 2-3 years for their army to be playable, see what reaction you will get. Specially when they are told that within those 2-3 years, there maybe an edition change that turns their army in to something bad.
skchsan wrote: ...All this talk of "40k costs too much" is so BS. If you don't feel like spending money on plastic toy soldiers, that's fine. But that's a 'you' problem.
GW products are not cheap, that's for sure. But unless you're a meta chaser buying $500 worth figures per month, it's no more expensive than your netflix subscription, a pack of cigarette, fast food combo meal, etc. Either way, starting a 40k army is a considerable expense for mere toys, but by no means is it a bank/back breaker...
You may notice that the people complaining about how much 40k costs are often the ones complaining that if you aren't a meta-chaser buying $500 of new stuff every month you get to spend long periods of time getting steamrolled because GW's warehouse algorithm has decided they've sold enough of your minis so they need to become unplayable for a while.
...There are also plenty other ways to obtain models for cheaper -3rd party stores offering 20% discounts, second hand rescue, trades, etc. You don't HAVE to pay the MSRP as prescribed by GW...
Yup. If you want to get the unplayable stuff that'll get tabled in two turns you can get it really cheap because all the meta-chasers are dumping armies as soon as they get nerfed.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gert wrote: ...All the Warhammer systems have a free online army builder and have done for some time. AFAIK each unit box also includes some basic rules...
I mean, if you count Battlescribe, sure. To my knowledge the official GW ones are barely functional and require subscription fees/buying paper Codexes if you want enough material to actually play the game. The datasheets in the boxes are so incomplete I'd basically have to build my own game to do anything with them.
...I assume the whole "GW is forcing monopose models" thing is the same old argument that maybe about 25% of the 40k range is monopose character kits or starter sets? Even then that's not necessarily true but I don't fancy trawling for hours through GW looking for every monopose model...
If you look at newer releases lots of "multi-part plastic kits" are completely monopose now (the Incubi/Banshees are particularly bad). This is also often a complaint about the move to no kit/no rules (where unit loadouts are informed solely by what the kit building instructions say) and the decision to make the Primaris all single-loadout squads.
...My main point is that compared to another well known SciFi skirmish game, 40k Kill Team has a lower buy in price, better model quality and more factions to choose from. If I want to use Tactical Marines in KT I have 4 main kits to choose from (Tacs, Wolves, Mk3, Mk4) plus a boatload of upgrade kits if I want to play a specific chapter...
The "lower buy-in price" argument sort of works, but it falls apart if you want to build a Kill Team that isn't just made of the models out of one box. You can spend $50 and buy some Tactical Marines and play Kill Team, sure, but if you want to add one non-Tactical Marine to your squad you're buying a whole extra $50 box. And if you don't like Space Marines you often don't have the ability to muddle through with just one box that way.
Karol wrote: Also go and tell a 13-14 year old and tell them they have to wait for 2-3 years for their army to be playable, see what reaction you will get. Specially when they are told that within those 2-3 years, there maybe an edition change that turns their army in to something bad.
Tell that kid to explain to me exactly why he perpetually needs $500 a month to buy toys, and then you and I could continue discussing.
And what does age have to do anything with a game being casual or not? Are you arguing 'high affordability' = 'casual'? If a kid could afford a game, that must mean that the game is very casual?
Meta chasing comes at a cost. If you're not willing to dish out enough money to be a meta chaser, then I don't think there's any grounds to justify your claim that "the game costs too much". It's not that it costs too much, but rather you simply cannot afford it - which brings us back to my point that this is a 'YOU' problem and not one that's about how 'casual' the game can or cannot be.
If you're upset that your current financial situation prohibits you from becoming a meta chaser, then maybe you should just find a higher paying job instead of blaming a company for selling products to make profit (which is quite literally what a company is supposed to do).
skchsan wrote: Tell that kid to explain to me exactly why he perpetually needs $500 a month to buy toys, and then you and I could continue discussing.
And what does age have to do anything with a game being casual or not? Are you arguing 'high affordability' = 'casual'? If a kid could afford a game, that must mean that the game is very casual?
Meta chasing comes at a cost. If you're not willing to dish out enough money to be a meta chaser, then I don't think there's any grounds to justify your claim that "the game costs too much". It's not that it costs too much, but rather you simply cannot afford it - which brings us back to my point that this is a 'YOU' problem and not one that's about how 'casual' the game can or cannot be.
If you're upset that your current financial situation prohibits you from becoming a meta chaser, then maybe you should just find a higher paying job instead of blaming a company for selling products to make profit (which is quite literally what a company is supposed to do).
Why should the player who gets into the hobby on the cheap have a drastically worse play experience than the whale who buys $500 worth of models every month?
Canadian 5th wrote: Why should the player who gets into the hobby on the cheap have a drastically worse play experience than the whale who buys $500 worth of models every month?
The same reason as to why a person who plays sports for leisure gets crushed by a professional athlete?
Differe league, different game. Period.
It is literally meta chaser's job to stay ahead of the competitive edge by spending money to get the new hot stuff that melts stuff by just looking at it. Meta chasing is arguably the highest level of competitiveness in wargaming.
Canadian 5th wrote: Why should the player who gets into the hobby on the cheap have a drastically worse play experience than the whale who buys $500 worth of models every month?
Cannot. Exalt. Enough.
I might not fully agree with how broadly you apply competitiveness - but there's a spirit of fairness in that statement that makes competition meaningful and meritocratic, and I can respect this.
"More money = More power" is the kind of predatory economy mobile gaming runs on, and whether engineered in 40K by malice or incompetence (I lean the latter) I'm absolutely sure it's not a good thing, or even one that should be tolerable.
I might not fully agree with how broadly you apply competitiveness - but there's a spirit of fairness in that statement that makes competition meaningful and meritocratic, and I can respect this.
"More money = More power" is the kind of predatory economy mobile gaming runs on, and whether engineered in 40K by malice or incompetence (I lean the latter) I'm absolutely sure it's not a good thing, or even one that should be tolerable.
I'd rather many things in life allow for a more relaxed approach, but I don't see that many current systems are designed to facilitate that.
In the case of games, I play to win but I'm 100% down to allow you to play me with proxied models, 3d prints, and other non-GW tokens that represent a collection of rules. I play for the thrill of the fight, not for the validation of my purchase of specific chunk of trademarked plastic.
Canadian 5th wrote: Why should the player who gets into the hobby on the cheap have a drastically worse play experience than the whale who buys $500 worth of models every month?
The same reason as to why a person who plays sports for leisure gets crushed by a professional athlete?
Differe league, different game. Period.
It is literally meta chaser's job to stay ahead of the competitive edge by spending money to get the new hot stuff that melts stuff by just looking at it. Meta chasing is arguably the highest level of competitiveness in wargaming.
That's a bizarre comparison. A professional athlete isn't better because they spend more, they're paid more because they're better, and therefore can play their respective sport professionally. Winning by spending the most money isn't a competition, it's an auction.
skchsan wrote: The same reason as to why a person who plays sports for leisure gets crushed by a professional athlete?
This doesn't track. In sports raw physical gifts and exceptional talent get you to the pro level. You wear nicer gear because you play the game for a living, but the cost of your gear doesn't make you a pro.
It is literally meta chaser's job to stay ahead of the competitive edge by spending money to get the new hot stuff that melts stuff by just looking at it. Meta chasing is arguably the highest level of competitiveness in wargaming.
I like high-end play more than most here, but the part I hate is the meta chase. I'd much rather see a balanced game where skill beats money which is why I follow a game like League which costs nothing to play and where one of the best players in the world refuses to use skins because he wants to show that anybody can play the game he loves.
I think what skchsan may have been trying to say is that a professional athlete puts loads of time and effort into being at the top of their game. Physical gifts only get you so far so you need to keep training. Also money absolutely comes into getting to be a top athlete. It's rare that a real-life Disney story happens where the kindly rich person/coach gives all their time to an unlucky but gifted athlete.
If someone spends more time and money on Warhammer trying to stay on top of the competitive game then of course a less competitive person who maybe does a couple of games a month and buys a unit a month, if any at all, is going to struggle to beat them.
Karol wrote: Also go and tell a 13-14 year old and tell them they have to wait for 2-3 years for their army to be playable, see what reaction you will get. Specially when they are told that within those 2-3 years, there maybe an edition change that turns their army in to something bad.
Tell that kid to explain to me exactly why he perpetually needs $500 a month to buy toys, and then you and I could continue discussing.
And what does age have to do anything with a game being casual or not? Are you arguing 'high affordability' = 'casual'? If a kid could afford a game, that must mean that the game is very casual?
Meta chasing comes at a cost. If you're not willing to dish out enough money to be a meta chaser, then I don't think there's any grounds to justify your claim that "the game costs too much". It's not that it costs too much, but rather you simply cannot afford it - which brings us back to my point that this is a 'YOU' problem and not one that's about how 'casual' the game can or cannot be.
If you're upset that your current financial situation prohibits you from becoming a meta chaser, then maybe you should just find a higher paying job instead of blaming a company for selling products to make profit (which is quite literally what a company is supposed to do).
I'm literally at a lack of words for what you are advocating for.
Gert wrote: I think what skchsan may have been trying to say is that a professional athlete puts loads of time and effort into being at the top of their game. Physical gifts only get you so far so you need to keep training. Also money absolutely comes into getting to be a top athlete. It's rare that a real-life Disney story happens where the kindly rich person/coach gives all their time to an unlucky but gifted athlete.
If someone spends more time and money on Warhammer trying to stay on top of the competitive game then of course a less competitive person who maybe does a couple of games a month and buys a unit a month, if any at all, is going to struggle to beat them.
In some circles "the person who buys more minis wins" is called "pay to win" and is regarded as a gakky way to write a game.
Gert wrote: I think what skchsan may have been trying to say is that a professional athlete puts loads of time and effort into being at the top of their game. Physical gifts only get you so far so you need to keep training. Also money absolutely comes into getting to be a top athlete. It's rare that a real-life Disney story happens where the kindly rich person/coach gives all their time to an unlucky but gifted athlete.
If someone spends more time and money on Warhammer trying to stay on top of the competitive game then of course a less competitive person who maybe does a couple of games a month and buys a unit a month, if any at all, is going to struggle to beat them.
In some circles "the person who buys more minis wins" is called "pay to win" and is regarded as a gakky way to write a game.
I buy a crap ton, but its mostly to play everything in the book and when doing causal no one cares that I have 6 Ravagers b.c I only play with 1.
Its the people that buys the "new hot thing" like ATV's with other Apoth on bike going DA when they normally don't like bikes.
Firstly you've taken the "buys more stuff" part out of context. A SM player will need fewer minis than a Nid or Guard player but because the Nid/Guard player bought more miniatures then by your logic it must be PTW. What my point actually said was spending more time playing games and money on a greater selection of units will give you a greater understanding of it than someone who's only bought a Starter set or SC box.
Buying into a "hot right now" faction doesn't give you auto wins, you still need to understand and learn to play the army. For example, I started Deathwatch when 9th came out and despite them being a top-tier winner army, I've yet to win a game because my opponent understands his army better than I understand mine. He plays T'au.
Gert wrote: Firstly you've taken the "buys more stuff" part out of context. A SM player will need fewer minis than a Nid or Guard player but because the Nid/Guard player bought more miniatures then by your logic it must be PTW. What my point actually said was spending more time playing games and money on a greater selection of units will give you a greater understanding of it than someone who's only bought a Starter set or SC box.
Buying into a "hot right now" faction doesn't give you auto wins, you still need to understand and learn to play the army. For example, I started Deathwatch when 9th came out and despite them being a top-tier winner army, I've yet to win a game because my opponent understands his army better than I understand mine. He plays T'au.
We are not saying it makes you auto win, we are saying from a casual PoV for most you are see as "that guy" move.
As someone who considers themself a filthy casual, I think people need to not judge people based on the armies they play but how they play them. I'm building two companies of Deathwatch, one Primaris, and one Firstborn, not because it gives me tactical flexibility or meta gaming units but because it looks cool.
A "That Guy" move would be starting DW and only bringing tournament winning lists to a pick-up game at a local store while leaving all the models unpainted because the 10pts for painting them is inconsequential. Then a month later starting the next top tier army with tournament winning lists and unpainted models. Then doing it again and again and again.
Gert wrote: As someone who considers themself a filthy casual, I think people need to not judge people based on the armies they play but how they play them. I'm building two companies of Deathwatch, one Primaris, and one Firstborn, not because it gives me tactical flexibility or meta gaming units but because it looks cool.
A "That Guy" move would be starting DW and only bringing tournament winning lists to a pick-up game at a local store while leaving all the models unpainted because the 10pts for painting them is inconsequential. Then a month later starting the next top tier army with tournament winning lists and unpainted models. Then doing it again and again and again.
Which is what i was saying. Some people see meta buying units all the time as "that guy" but not everyone is "that guy" b.c they buy a lot of models I was trying to tell the person above there is a difference in buying all options out of your book and buying meta units/lists.
Even if 40k was well balanced, the whale will always have an inherent advantage over the casual, if only because they have more miniatures to tailor their list to the meta or even to each opponent.
"Person who does thing more has advantage over person who does it less."
Well, yeah.
So that's why non-comp players tend to lean into the narrative or "the real treasure was the friends we made along the way" camps.
I'm not advocating that everyone should have an equal chance at winning a game. That's boring. If I only had a 50/50 chance of winning every single game then what's the point. Flip a coin.
GW isn't some super-villain, laughing maniacally because it got another player to buy into a top-tier army. They give you tools to play whatever way you want and it's up to you how to use them. Don't like the new Primary/Secondary objectives system? Don't use it. Don't like CP and Strats? Don't use them. What you see as unbalanced might not be the same as someone else. The most important rule is to have fun and GW encourages the use of house-ruling if you disagree or dislike the rules they produce.
Believe it or not writing your own game because GW's doesn't work (or fixing theirs because it doesn't work) isn't a particularly 'casual' thing to do either. It's a lot of work.
Tardy to the conversation, but I would say casual play isn't discussed much because there isn't much to talk about it. In my opinion, ''casual play'' is just playing for fun (so very low stakes) in company of friends or acquaintances. What is there to discuss about? Funny thematic list? Maybe. Anecdotes like that time, back in 3rd edition days when Kharn charged three guardsmen only to slaughter his entire unit of berserker and then got killed by the three guardsmen in a stroke of luck so epic, 20 years later, I'm still telling it. Sure we could do that, but that sort of great anecdote can happen in highly competitive games too. The unremarkable doesn't lead to much discussion. That's probably why the pretty average faction don't get as much press as the very powerful or very weak one. Same thing for average units. They are meh, so they receive a meh treatment.
Gert wrote: ...I'm not advocating that everyone should have an equal chance at winning a game. That's boring. If I only had a 50/50 chance of winning every single game then what's the point. Flip a coin...
I want to call this out as a moronic thing to say. Nobody in the world has ever advocated for a game to have a perfect 50/50 winrate independent of anything anyone does.
Occasionally people advocate for better balance because more balanced armies means that you actually have to play out the game instead of just reading lists and saying "okay, great, you win, you bought better minis" or "okay, I guess I've lost this game of rock-paper-scissors, same time next week?"
AnomanderRake wrote: Believe it or not writing your own game because GW's doesn't work (or fixing theirs because it doesn't work) isn't a particularly 'casual' thing to do either. It's a lot of work.
Yeah because one or two house rules is writing an entire game. Wanna know how "casual" it is to house rule something? "Man this is a bit rubbish, let's not use it." "Ok."
Again conflating "casual" with "not making any effort".
Also the whole "read an army list and immediately give up" thing is so unbelievably rare, in fact, I cannot remember a time where I've done that or even seen it done IRL.
AnomanderRake wrote: Believe it or not writing your own game because GW's doesn't work (or fixing theirs because it doesn't work) isn't a particularly 'casual' thing to do either. It's a lot of work.
Yeah because one or two house rules is writing an entire game. Wanna know how "casual" it is to house rule something? "Man this is a bit rubbish, let's not use it." "Ok."
Again conflating "casual" with "not making any effort".
Also the whole "read an army list and immediately give up" thing is so unbelievably rare, in fact, I cannot remember a time where I've done that or even seen it done IRL.
"Let's not use stratagems." "But I like this one!" "Okay, you can use that one." "Wait, why does he get a stratagem and we don't?" Trying to propagate changes to the rules on the scale of "no stratagems" requires loads of work.
"Read an army list and give up" is hyperbole. Walk away from the table thinking "I/they should have given up after reading that army list" is about 80% of my experience of 8th and 100% of my experience of 9th.
AnomanderRake wrote: Believe it or not writing your own game because GW's doesn't work (or fixing theirs because it doesn't work) isn't a particularly 'casual' thing to do either. It's a lot of work.
Yeah because one or two house rules is writing an entire game. Wanna know how "casual" it is to house rule something? "Man this is a bit rubbish, let's not use it." "Ok."
Again conflating "casual" with "not making any effort".
Also the whole "read an army list and immediately give up" thing is so unbelievably rare, in fact, I cannot remember a time where I've done that or even seen it done IRL.
Oh i have
If somebody dropped the 7th ed terminator/librarian deathstar on the table i would just put away my stuff and walk away. there is no point wasting my time playing against that.
I have also watched people refuse to play the all bike custodes list in 8th. especially after they experienced it once.
I ran into a WAAC player at my FLGS back in early 4th for a friendly pick up game. didn't know he was "that guy". he tailored a list on the spot specifically to defeat my army. the game was over on turn 1. I never played him again.
That is not to say i won't fight silly lists to see what happens at least once, but there is no malice in those games. i know ahead of time what i am going up against and that it is a gag list for funsies to see how stupid it is.
My goal is to have a fun time playing the game, winning is just a bonus if it happens.
"Let's not use stratagems." "But I like this one!" "Okay, you can use that one." "Wait, why does he get a stratagem and we don't?" Trying to propagate changes to the rules on the scale of "no stratagems" requires loads of work.
No it doesn't. Just a casual conversation with those you play with. I can easily imagine the group I play with most often discussing it & coming up with something that suits us all as we're setting up the terrain. Yes, literally minutes before the dice start rolling.
In fact we've had more in depth discussions concerning where to order food from week to week. Delivery/pick up? Who wants what on the pizza. How many pizzas & of what sizes we need to accommodate that mix of toppings? Ooh, can we add an order of_____? How we're splitting the bill this time. THESE are the complex questions that matter come game time. And we routinely resolve them.....
"Let's not use stratagems." "But I like this one!" "Okay, you can use that one." "Wait, why does he get a stratagem and we don't?" Trying to propagate changes to the rules on the scale of "no stratagems" requires loads of work.
No it doesn't. Just a casual conversation with those you play with. I can easily imagine the group I play with most often discussing it & coming up with something that suits us all as we're setting up the terrain. Yes, literally minutes before the dice start rolling.
In fact we've had more in depth discussions concerning where to order food from week to week. Delivery/pick up? Who wants what on the pizza. How many pizzas & of what sizes we need to accommodate that mix of toppings? Ooh, can we add an order of_____? How we're splitting the bill this time. THESE are the complex questions that matter come game time. And we routinely resolve them.....
Canadian 5th 798035 11122567 wrote:
Why should the player who gets into the hobby on the cheap have a drastically worse play experience than the whale who buys $500 worth of models every month?
Loaded question. It depends on how you play. Your expectations need to be realistic.
I mean someone with stuff like Karols in a group like ours won't have anywhere near the issues they'd have in an extremely competitive group like yours (note: not a slur), or a highly toxic group like his (and I've read enough of his anecdotes to regard his local scene as pure poison).
Expectations need to be realistic understandings need to be grounded. One approach in all likelihood won't lead to a dramatically worse experience, the other probably will.
Now to the crux of the point -
Someone who invests more (in terms of time, effort, money, etc) will go further than someone who invests less. Even on the level of 'I have more stuff, therefore I can field a greater variety of lists, which keeps my interest longer.
It's as true for sports and real life. Why should someone who trains half as hard as everyone else and never invests in decent gear expect to do as well as someone who does? And I don't say this as a slur to either party.
I've ran several marathons and cracked a decent time of under 4 hours. My wife's bestie is a sub-3 hour runner. Top twenty female in a big marathon a few years back. Shes quite extraordinary. And fair play. I put a lot of miles into my times ntil injuries kept me away, and I'm proud of them, but she puts so much more into her running. I don't think it's fair for me to expect to do as well as she does when I'm "in on the cheap' in comparison to her. Now in terms of having a 'dramatically worse experience', I had and have different expectations and desires so no,my experience wasn't 'worse'. If I wanted to do as well as her with half the effort, is that a fair or realistic expectation on my part? At the end of the day, she runs faster than me, but I can deadlift a hell of a lot more than she can. And I can enjoy a kfc and a beer.
And that's the thing with the meta chasing competitive 40k scene. It's pure churn. Its like Magic. It's £££. You're constantly buying new stuff to keep up with the new meta. You want to play at that level, the reality is your expectations for what you'll need to invest need to allign with the reality. Its called chasing the dragon for a reason.Will you have a 'dramatically worse experience' if you try this on the cheap/zero investment? I think its unrealistic to expect otherwise.
And here's the thing with karol. He's a teenager. A school kid. When I was his age I had no money either. It was the bank of mum and dad, and things were tight in Ireland in the 80s and 90s. Xmas and birthdays. In my case in secondary school if I got good grades I'd get something too. Other than that, for most kids you're talking about communion and confirmation if your country is Catholic.
Karol is just unfortunately at the intersection of a lot of rubbish situations.
One argument that's fair is his army doesn't work well and gw dropped the ball. The other side is he got conned into a buy by a predatory and toxic local scene and the local.scene that he is aware of shows zero sense of community spirit or community building and is basically just toxic as hell. Karols own diagnosis and the fact he doesn't enjoy other aspects of the hobby doesn't help. Gw can't write for that! The other side is unlike us grown-ups who can easily sell something online, he's a kid who probsbly doesn't have a bank account or PayPal, so he'll have to wait a year or two before he can move it online, unless he can sell locally. At least here, 'It'll get better when your older' has some truth, even if it's not very comforting now.
Canadian 5th 798035 11122567 wrote:
Why should the player who gets into the hobby on the cheap have a drastically worse play experience than the whale who buys $500 worth of models every month?
Loaded question. It depends on how you play. Your expectations need to be realistic.
I mean someone with stuff like Karols in a group like ours won't have anywhere near the issues they'd have in an extremely competitive group like yours (note: not a slur), or a highly toxic group like his (and I've read enough of his anecdotes to regard his local scene as pure poison).
Karol would do fine in my old group. We'd let him proxy whatever he wanted and encourage him to test out other armies entirely to see if any of them play better for him. Just because I prefer to play hard, doesn't mean I don't also want you to have fun.
Expectations need to be realistic understandings need to be grounded. One approach in all likelihood won't lead to a dramatically worse experience, the other probably will.
Now to the crux of the point -
Someone who invests more (in terms of time, effort, money, etc) will go further than someone who invests less. Even on the level of 'I have more stuff, therefore I can field a greater variety of lists, which keeps my interest longer.
The issue with 40k is that you can invest as much time and effort as you please into it and it'll all be for nothing if you don't buy the right bits of plastic. These right bits of plastic may not even be the most expensive ones, or the ones that were right for that army (let alone the game as a whole) as little as 3 months ago. Few other games have this level of churn as even TCGs often let staples last for at least 18 months and in MtG some staples move on to eternal formats allowing them to hold value even longer.
My group has stopped spending money on MtG by just proxying all of our cards over sleeved lands. I couldn't play my decks in a tournament, not that Commander is a tournament format to start with, but that doesn't matter because removing the financial aspect from the game has let my group explore lists that we'd never have purchased if we'd just stuck to a pool of cards we actually owned.
Karol would do fine in my old group. We'd let him proxy whatever he wanted and encourage him to test out other armies entirely to see if any of them play better for him. Just because I prefer to play hard, doesn't mean I don't also want you to have fun.
Apologies, I wasn't meaning to project negatively- truth be told I wasn't even considering use of proxies in my thoughts. I'm personally wary of proxies but I can appreciate the gesture. We'd probably do something similar, but probably lean towards trying to field opposing lists that are relatively equal in power.
And remember, according to some, any kind of accomodations on your part make you a white knight/beaten spouse and co-responsible for all the bad things in the hobby and isn't something you should do. *rolls eyes*
The issue with 40k is that you can invest as much time and effort as you please into it and it'll all be for nothing if you don't buy the right bits of plastic.
It depends on how you play though. You're letting your conpetitive streak cloud your perspective. Plenty of the types of lists and models we build and use would be rubbish in your meta, they're absolutely fine in ours.
In any case as someone who loves the hobby aspect, even if they're crap on the board, if I enjoyed painting them, I still consider that a 'win'.
Few other games have this level of churn as even TCGs often let staples last for at least 18 months and in MtG some staples move on to eternal formats allowing them to hold value even longer.
Oh I don't deny the churn. I just refuse to chase it. That style of play is self destructive, I ain't got time for that! Its just not worth it. 40k and the specialist games are better in the grass leagues in my mind.
The issue with 40k is that you can invest as much time and effort as you please into it and it'll all be for nothing if you don't buy the right bits of plastic. These right bits of plastic may not even be the most expensive ones, or the ones that were right for that army (let alone the game as a whole) as little as 3 months ago.
Exactly. I don't think anyone's saying someone who invests just enough to have a 2k army should get the same experience and results as someone with more choice of models. There's some minimum amount of choice/spend that it's probably reasonable to expect before you have a "good" experience. I think the problem is when people think it's OK for that spend to be higher than it has any reason to be, either because of high prices in general or because of atrocious balance and churn.
The two biggest problems we see in 40k, IMO, are the price and the balance. I've seen first-hand how the two combine to turn people away from the game. I've seen people invest money in Tau because they love the aesthetic of Fire Warriors and Crisis Suits, then get really disheartened when the models they've spent money and time on turn out to be terrible because GW suck at balance. These aren't ultra-competitive players either. They're just people who want to feel like they have some chance of competing with what should be a reasonable army. Other games manage to achieve much better balance and avoid the churn, usually because they're much better-designed games where skill matters more than how much you spend and how quickly you can put the new brokenness on the table. There's some minimum investment required to start but they don't usually end up with players having to spend large amounts of money to keep up and there are many, many fewer bad options that result in wasted money.
So much of the GW ballance issues would be fixed if they let there game design staff have a bit of freedom.
With this new no model no rules, it really means the game has to warp around some poor fitting miniatures, and some get left in limbo probably selling badly as they needed miniature support for the rules to ever really be in a playable state.
The two biggest problems we see in 40k, IMO, are the price and the balance.
You Make some very valid points and you’re not wrong, but you’re also ignoring the third of the three biggest problems we see in 40k, with the third being the community itself, with its differing expectations and incompatible approaches, and more specifically, you often find the balance vampires of the communitys who are more than happy and willing to feed off of the imbalance and bludgeon others with it,which only exacerbates the issues. These are Not always bad things or deliberately malicious thinga done by bad peopleeither though sometimes they are. You might not be intending it, but not including community here is basically just a handwaiving away of our own responsibilities and contributions to the issues we all face.
I've seen first-hand how the two combine to turn people away from the game. I've seen people invest money in Tau because they love the aesthetic of Fire Warriors and Crisis Suits, then get really disheartened when the models they've spent money and time on turn out to be terrible because GW suck at balance. These aren't ultra-competitive players either..
I don’t deny this is a thing – gw drop the ball and they don't care. I’ve seen it myself. I’ve done this! Hell, I ultimately walked away from 4th and 5th ed 40k because my tau, despite how much I loved the look, simply could not compete on the level of some of the other codices at the time. But let’s turn this point on its head and look at it from another perspective. The players in your anecdote might not be ultra competitive players, but is it fair to suggest they might have run up against ultra competitive players or even WAAC types who ruined the experience? I did. It’s exactly what happened to me. Sadly, it only takes one WAAC player to poison a community and while anecdotes are not data, there’s enough anecdotes of this exact issue that you cant just ignore it either.
You can turn it around again and say those types wouldn’t be able to do what they do if the game was balanced, and you’d not be wrong, however I’d turn it around again and say it wouldn’t be an issue if they didn’t abuse the hell out of the sharp edges of a game - I’ve yet to find a game that couldn’t be gamed and was proof against these types of players – it goes back to the notion that a good group can work around bad rules, a dodgy group will abuse bad rules. Frankly, at the end of the day, I’d have lasted a lot longer in 40k if I’d ended up playing against more casual players than the hardcore iron warriors spamming tourney players of my group.
In my mind, and I stress this -you are not wrong in what you say, and I don't disagree, its just would add that I think your point is a little bit incomplete - in my mind, players and rules are different sides of the exact same coin, they can’t be separated and this needs to be acknowledged. Ultimately, ‘play with like minded players’ goes a long way.
They're just people who want to feel like they have some chance of competing with what should be a reasonable army.
All well and good, and again, you are not wrong, but are they going up against what can be considered a ‘reasonable’ army in the first place? Or are they being bludgeoned by bleeding edge tourney lists?
Other games manage to achieve much better balance and avoid the churn, usually because they're much better-designed games where skill matters more than how much you spend and how quickly you can put the new brokenness on the table.
Theres games that are ‘better’, for sure, but in some ways this is academic. ‘better’ is relative. I’ve yet to find a game that was proof against WAAC, or where net-listing and ‘crutch’ options wasn’t an aspect of the game or where the new hotness completely overrode the meta. You won’t need to look longer than 10 minutes online to find guides stating ‘take these, spam those, leave them at home, build your list like XYZ not ABC’. And ultimately, even if a game has ‘fewer’ issues, the nature of competitive play will always zoom in on those outliers at the expense of everything else. WMH was a far better balanced game, but it sure as hell didn’t stop epic haley, epic gaspy or Harbinger being a negative play experience for a hell of a lot of people. And churn was definitely a thing – my khador lists early in Mk2 looked totally different to those in end-era Mk2 or mk3.
Disheartening for sure, but partially an unavoidable consequence of the nature of TTGs – they’re limited systems.
I reckon the reason "casual play" doesn't get discussed more on here is that every time it comes up it devolves into the sort of argument you get here where people railroad the conversation into being their own personal anti-GW axe-grinding session.
Nazrak wrote: I reckon the reason "casual play" doesn't get discussed more on here is that every time it comes up it devolves into the sort of argument you get here where people railroad the conversation into being their own personal anti-GW axe-grinding session.
A lot of the big issues with the casual play Dilemma is GW created.
Others are not.
WAAC is a attitude problem and doesn’t really have anything to do with lists. But can be a huge issue with casual play vs none casual play.
Net listing is unfixable as any choice in any game will effect that game in some way. And players can reach the same conclusion completely unrelated to the internet. To fix it would be to remove what makes the games interesting.
You can mitigate its effect with good game design pushing new players to learn fundamentals of the gameplay and picking units that compliment each other within a faction.
This also ties into a meta and not designing meta breakers in isolation. >.<
Casual play is actually discussed a lot on dakkadakka. If you join any faction dedicated thread you'll see people discussing about their own personal experience about their own real local meta. How to improve or simply a feedback about specific interactions that happened in some of their games are the real goals of those threads, and several posters partetipate very frequently. The 9th ork thread alone is almost 150 pages now, for a faction that doesn't even have a 9th edition codex.
What we're discussing there it's not just a flat analys about data that come from tournaments played on the other side of the world . Just read an article from a site like Goonhammer for that.
No it doesn't. Just a casual conversation with those you play with. I can easily imagine the group I play with most often discussing it & coming up with something that suits us all as we're setting up the terrain. Yes, literally minutes before the dice start rolling.
In fact we've had more in depth discussions concerning where to order food from week to week. Delivery/pick up? Who wants what on the pizza. How many pizzas & of what sizes we need to accommodate that mix of toppings? Ooh, can we add an order of_____? How we're splitting the bill this time. THESE are the complex questions that matter come game time. And we routinely resolve them.....
But then it boils down to, if you play with people that like you, you can do what ever you want. Fixs nothing for people who are not in a situation like that.
It depends on how you play though. You're letting your conpetitive streak cloud your perspective. Plenty of the types of lists and models we build and use would be rubbish in your meta, they're absolutely fine in ours.
And the this way of playing only functions in a situation where it is impossible for people to get locked in to a bad army for a longer time. If people own multiple armies, or even play multiple games. The risk of buying a less efficient army is a lot smaller. If your GSC are bad at the moment, maybe it is time to play some AoS with an army which is good and fun to play right now. It is a huge problem if you are locked in to one army, specially if even buying more doesn't fix the army problem. If someone imperial knights right now, buying 2000pts more of knights won't change the fact the army is bad in 9th. This , because of how GW implements changes, means that people who are locked in to one army tend to buy in to the stuff that is the best for the money they have. Which then generates a meta where people to have fun playing more or less have to buy in to what is considered good, because A no one is going to invest money just for 1 person to have fun B the person that does end up buying the wrong things will probably just quit, and it is very hard to sell a bad army in a place were people focused on buying stuff that works in general.
But then it boils down to, if you play with people that like you, you can do what ever you want. Fixs nothing for people who are not in a situation like that.
Yeah but then *that* boils down to "why on earth are you spending a chunk of your limited time on this planet making yourself miserable by interacting with people who don't like you, when there is no actual imperative to do so?" From everything I've seen from you on here, I really think you need to, at the very least, have a break from the hobby for the good of your mental health. And please don't come back with some sunk-cost fallacy excuse for not doing so (in fact, I suggest you read up on the sunk-cost fallacy if it's a concept you're not already familiar with). You don't even have to get rid of your models if you don't feel like you're ready to; just stick them in a box for a while and try and find something less psychologically damaging to occupy yourself with for a while.
Funny thing about that, when I was thinking about starting w40k, me and my mom talked to my therapist and he decided that starting a hobby would be a great idea, because I would be around people and my life wouldn't be limited to school and training, and that this was suppose to help my mental health.
Plus there is no way for w40k to be less damaging to me. Each day I have to look at my sister having fun with her tablet, which she bought with her confirmation money. For that not to happen I would have to move out, and that is not going to work, not with avarge Pole living with his parents till 28.
Karol wrote: Funny thing about that, when I was thinking about starting w40k, me and my mom talked to my therapist and he decided that starting a hobby would be a great idea, because I would be around people and my life wouldn't be limited to school and training, and that this was suppose to help my mental health.
Plus there is no way for w40k to be less damaging to me. Each day I have to look at my sister having fun with her tablet, which she bought with her confirmation money. For that not to happen I would have to move out, and that is not going to work, not with avarge Pole living with his parents till 28.
This is exactly why I think, if you're not in a position – for whatever reason – to be able to approach it in a way where you're actually *enjoying it*, the best thing is to just take a break from it, and to try not to dwell so much on what could have been. Sometimes you gotta let those hard-to-reach chips go.
Karol wrote: Funny thing about that, when I was thinking about starting w40k, me and my mom talked to my therapist and he decided that starting a hobby would be a great idea, because I would be around people and my life wouldn't be limited to school and training, and that this was suppose to help my mental health.
Plus there is no way for w40k to be less damaging to me. Each day I have to look at my sister having fun with her tablet, which she bought with her confirmation money. For that not to happen I would have to move out, and that is not going to work, not with avarge Pole living with his parents till 28.
Try playing some small solo games, like, 500-750 points, use books/boxes/VHS tapes as terrain. You don't need much space for small games, heck you can play on a bed if need be, I have.
This is exactly why I think, if you're not in a position – for whatever reason – to be able to approach it in a way where you're actually *enjoying it*, the best thing is to just take a break from it, and to try not to dwell so much on what could have been. Sometimes you gotta let those hard-to-reach chips go.
I won't, I wasn't raised to quit anything. I may quit w40k if GW gives me a year or two of fun, and then I can sell mystuff and forget about it.
Try playing some small solo games, like, 500-750 points, use books/boxes/VHS tapes as terrain. You don't need much space for small games, heck you can play on a bed if need be, I have.
Right now I play at a store with good amount of terrain, before I played in my original first store, that had good tables too. Plus I don't think my step dad would be okey with me inviting a 20-30y old dude to play in room I share. I also don't think that other players would want to come to my home, in the first place, I only make trips to my new store, because the old store in my town went bankrupt because of covid. There is no way I would be able to covince an adult guy to to spend time and gas money to play 500 pts games at my home, when he can play normal games at the store.
Try playing some small solo games, like, 500-750 points, use books/boxes/VHS tapes as terrain. You don't need much space for small games, heck you can play on a bed if need be, I have.
Right now I play at a store with good amount of terrain, before I played in my original first store, that had good tables too. Plus I don't think my step dad would be okey with me inviting a 20-30y old dude to play in room I share. I also don't think that other players would want to come to my home, in the first place, I only make trips to my new store, because the old store in my town went bankrupt because of covid. There is no way I would be able to covince an adult guy to to spend time and gas money to play 500 pts games at my home, when he can play normal games at the store.
I was suggesting playing solo games. Play against yourself. It's a bit different,but I've found it really rewarding, considering COVID and such.
No it doesn't. Just a casual conversation with those you play with. I can easily imagine the group I play with most often discussing it & coming up with something that suits us all as we're setting up the terrain. Yes, literally minutes before the dice start rolling.
In fact we've had more in depth discussions concerning where to order food from week to week. Delivery/pick up? Who wants what on the pizza. How many pizzas & of what sizes we need to accommodate that mix of toppings? Ooh, can we add an order of_____? How we're splitting the bill this time. THESE are the complex questions that matter come game time. And we routinely resolve them.....
But then it boils down to, if you play with people that like you, you can do what ever you want. Fixs nothing for people who are not in a situation like that.
The "fix" to this is to make friends.
Or at least be on friendly terms & be be generally accepted at the shop. I mean, there's a # of people at the local shops that I wouldn't call friends. But we're not real life enemies or such. Some might become actual friends in time, others never will. Hopefully none move into the RL-foe category. For the most part though if we're not actual friends we're just people who enjoy these games & can have reasonable conversations about what'll make for a better/more interesting/challenging game.
Karol wrote: And the this way of playing only functions in a situation where it is impossible for people to get locked in to a bad army for a longer time. If people own multiple armies, or even play multiple games. The risk of buying a less efficient army is a lot smaller. If your GSC are bad at the moment, maybe it is time to play some AoS with an army which is good and fun to play right now. It is a huge problem if you are locked in to one army, specially if even buying more doesn't fix the army problem. If someone imperial knights right now, buying 2000pts more of knights won't change the fact the army is bad in 9th. This , because of how GW implements changes, means that people who are locked in to one army tend to buy in to the stuff that is the best for the money they have. Which then generates a meta where people to have fun playing more or less have to buy in to what is considered good, because A no one is going to invest money just for 1 person to have fun B the person that does end up buying the wrong things will probably just quit, and it is very hard to sell a bad army in a place were people focused on buying stuff that works in general.
Again, this is why it's important to form friendships or at least be on friendly/acceptable terms with the people your playing with.
This lets you negotiate more enjoyable games.
Yes, you might have a bad army. You might not have the resources of the next guy. You might not have the means to change those things.
But the others? They have a choice in how they'll play games with you. They don't HAVE to hit you as hard as they would were it a tourney.
So why are they?
At the local shop? We've got a high school kid (16, going on 17) very much in your position. They're all kinds of eager to play 40k with us. But they're armed with a bit over 1k pts of AdMech, mostly from a start collecting box I think, the copter thing, and a pair of auto-cannon armigers. They got this stuff as Birthday/Christmas gifts. They've got no $ to improve their force (they are getting a job though!) And prior to coming to the shop? Their only play experience was vs their brothers very similarly limited SW force.
But as is? They are NOT a serious challenge for the rest of us. If I made the best Necron force I could out of my stuff & only matched them pts wise? I'd table them on turn 2 max & with minimal losses. It'd make clubbing baby seals look like a sport. And if we all did this to them week after week? We'd lose them as a player (and the store would lose a future customer).
So we play team games. We handicap ourselves pts wise. We set up missions/scenarios where their AdMech could actually succeed. Most importantly? We gear or lists down. This is the person I pull out the Ophidian Destroyers & such against.
(Now if I'm playing my buddy Joe? He's getting something stronger than a squad of Ophidians. And when I wup him he gets to pay for the pizza )
Well there were over 20 people that started w40k at the same time as I did, but right now only 4 of those still play, and that is including me. 1 guy I haven't seen in a year, and the other two play with their older brother and his group.
There hasn't been, or at least I haven't seen, any new player in 9th ed. There were some older players coming back though. At least 4 people have sob armies, with one guy having not recasts but an actual metal sob armies, which cost blew my mind. there is some eldar players that started to play start january.
I think the closet to my age person at the store is one of the guys that work there and he is over 10 years older then me.
Plus I don't really like interacting with people, I don't understand half the stuff they say. In that what they say is not what they mean. For example only last year, I found out that just because someone asks a question, it doesn't mean they actually want an anwser to it. Plus there is the whole humour thing, which just goes way over my head. I think the last time I tried to have friends was in early school, and it ended so bad I had to change schools. Although in my defence my parents were divorcing back then, which made me stop understanding the world at all for some time.
That is why I like this place. It is impersonal and people are in general smarter then me, so even if I disagree about something with them, at least I learn new stuff. I learned some mind blowing stuff, to me at least, which I think are going to be important in my adult life, which I wouldn't have learned else where.
As to why people here play the way they do. I think for a lot of people it is just that they have this one army. For those that don't it is just a waste of time to change stuff. In my old store I had this problem at the end of 8th ed. People just no longer wanted to play against me, and when I asked why they said it makes no sense to pay for a game they know they will win anyway. Haven't had such problems in the new store yet. But then again I also play there for less then a year, so I am not even counted as a regular. And I would really not want to get a store ban, because the other next store is too far to go to without a car.
I was suggesting playing solo games. Play against yourself. It's a bit different,but I've found it really rewarding, considering COVID and such.
hm that is an idea, I have not thought of. And I could do it in my head without actually puting any stuff out of the box. Would just need to randomise the rolls somehow. Thank you very much. As I said I would not have thought about it myself.
You could either use an online dice roller or use your real dice (although if playing at home that could make a bit of noise).
If you want to play without your physical stuff you could even use a paint program or something to keep track of where everything is. Before I bought Tabletop Simulator I used roll20, since that has dice and measurement tools built in + a virtual tabletop.
am I even here".
)
