It seems to me that GW has been waging a systematic war against competitive 40k gameplay. When you combine a very *meh* non-competitive 6th ed release, increased imbalance between the factions and then add their recent move to stop the tourney friendly Army Builder...to me it just seems that GW is treating the concepts of balanced competition as if it was somehow politically incorrect or morally wrong.
IMO, 40K is turning into an elitist hobby with no real game behind it. Cinematic and Narrative is not a game, it is a movie and/or a book. And we all know that there are much better sources for both, movies and books, than what GW publishes.
My question is this:
If GW succeeds in making 40K a non-competitive game, what will be the long-term impact of such?
SoloFalcon1138 wrote:People will continue having fun, the tournament players will continue the wailing in their tourneys, and life will go on.
You missed the point. What if GW actually succeeds.
TO's stop organizing the events because of the hassle and due to lack of player interest.
The majority of players stop playing because there is no real game, just a couple of individuals playing out a pre-determined storyline of why faction x always wins and that the other factions only serve as a backdrop to emphasize that Faction x always wins.
(Note- faction x = the latest releases or poster army for the company.)
Basically, 40k ends up as an elitist version of Pathfinder or D&D. The models are only there to mark places for the role playing. Imo, there are other companies that can and will do this better.
So again, what will be the long-term impact of competitive based game play going the way of the do-do?
As long as there is more than one person in it, it can still remain competitive to a degree. It'd likely take a more relaxed position, but I don't doubt some would try to continue anyway.
Perhaps we'll see an increase in painting and background, then perhaps that'll only be because those in it for the gaming aspect become less and less in comparison. A balanced rule set wouldn't really have such a negative impact on either of those anyway, as most units and combinations would be on somewhat even grounds. If anything it'd be a benefit on it as a whole, but instead it seems to slowly walk away from that.
If they succeed in making it non-competitive, someone will likely look for how it could be anyway. Even with completely unbalanced rules. There just won't be as many.
of the 40K gamers I know and game with - about 75% have only a passing interest in tournaments and of the 25% that are big tournament players - well to be honest there are the least fun to play with or against.
I think what GW is trying to (apart from make money) is to make a fun hobby for the majority.....
I play the game to have fun, 6th added some interesting elements and I just don't care about the super competitive level(mostly because those people aren't even fun to be around usually).
The game will continue on, I actually noticed an increased interest in tournaments in my area after 6th edition released.
I think for 40k there are a few things these videos make good points about(they are about video games but a lot of this applies to 40k as well):
I cant see how you can justify the premise with the following you have put forward:
A meh non competitive release? You're judging that after 2 months since release and how many major tourneys held/attended?
Sorry I just dont see any hard emperical evidence to back that.
Poor balance in the armies? Of course there is, several codexes need updates, several need total rewrites and others dont gel so well with 6th but it is early days yet. Nothing has changed in that regard, gw were never top of the pile for army balance and these early imbalances have nothing to do with "gws war on tourney play".
Im unfamiliar with gws move against ab but dont see the issue really. At tourneys you are required to have your army codices and rules so building your army on ab whilst convenient should not be a given. Infact I agree that armies should be written from the cidexes with no 3rd party allowances.
And finally how is 6th becoming elite? I cannot fathom where you are getting that from. Infact its widely held in some quarters that tourney players are the elite. Yet you claim gw is punishing them?
Mr Morden wrote:of the 40K gamers I know and game with - about 75% have only a passing interest in tournaments and of the 25% that are big tournament players - well to be honest there are the least fun to play with or against.
I think what GW is trying to (apart from make money) is to make a fun hobby for the majority.....
Yeah, I think this is one of the premises of GW to make a hobby for the majority of the players.
If they had interest in rules for tournament play, they would have made them already. Streamlined RTT rules are missing.
For casual games the rules seem a lot more fun, some of the random terrain features(poor fire warrior squad that ended up in a carnivorous forest with an exploding objective, but they were my opponents so ).
Small things like that can make the game more interesting and when people are less competitive and joking back and forth it's much more fun to play. Don't get me wrong local tournaments can be fun but I have no interest in going to a larger tournament.
TheAvengingKnee wrote:For casual games the rules seem a lot more fun, some of the random terrain features(poor fire warrior squad that ended up in a carnivorous forest with an exploding objective, but they were my opponents so ).
Small things like that can make the game more interesting and when people are less competitive and joking back and forth it's much more fun to play. Don't get me wrong local tournaments can be fun but I have no interest in going to a larger tournament.
In larger tournaments, you have to play about 3 or 4 games per day. Here the rules are not streamlined enough.
Granted but that dosent prove the theory Gw are waging a war on players who enjoy tourneys. In addition barring the official Gw events TOs can tailor/ tweak rules to player needs. Eg only one piece of mysterious terrain, all forests are standard, objs dont use special rules etc.
Mr Morden wrote:of the 40K gamers I know and game with - about 75% have only a passing interest in tournaments and of the 25% that are big tournament players - well to be honest there are the least fun to play with or against.
Note, that you said 75% have a passing interest.
The point that I am encouraging people to consider is that a removal of competitive game play would affect all "players". This is not about the WAAC crowd, this is about GW moving away from a game and towards a narrative role playing system. (As I get older, I'm beginning to view role playing systems as not really being games but more as exercisies in creativity and story-telling.)
The point is, that poeple need to drop all of the assinine competitive players ruin the "game" bs. That is now what this thread is about. The thread is about the game becoming an elitist role-playing system and the impact such will have if GW completely moves in this direction.
TheAvengingKnee wrote:I play the game to have fun, 6th added some interesting elements and I just don't care about the super competitive level(mostly because those people aren't even fun to be around usually).
The game will continue on, I actually noticed an increased interest in tournaments in my area after 6th edition released.
I, also, play the game to have fun. Have been playing my Tau since their first codex, in both good times and 5th ed.
Again, this is not about The omg he's a super-comp waac player that is a jerk even though he buys every fotm army and builds net-lists that happens to help keep the cost of my hobby down.
This is not a thread for bashing super comps or the fluffers, it is about the ramifications of the game going the complete narrative route.
As to increased tourney interest, this happens with every new edition release. A new edition brings the old players out to try the new system for a while and then a percentage of both the old and the current players fall off due to dissatisfaction with the system(Their faction is weak in the particular editition).
Heck, GW used to set-up tournament campiagns to help drive up interest/push the new edition about a year after the release.
BTW, The number of players returning for this release seems a fair bit lower than in previous editions.
Ratius wrote:I cant see how you can justify the premise with the following you have put forward:
A meh non competitive release? You're judging that after 2 months since release and how many major tourneys held/attended?
Sorry I just dont see any hard emperical evidence to back that.
Poor balance in the armies? Of course there is, several codexes need updates, several need total rewrites and others dont gel so well with 6th but it is early days yet. Nothing has changed in that regard, gw were never top of the pile for army balance and these early imbalances have nothing to do with "gws war on tourney play".
Im unfamiliar with gws move against ab but dont see the issue really. At tourneys you are required to have your army codices and rules so building your army on ab whilst convenient should not be a given. Infact I agree that armies should be written from the cidexes with no 3rd party allowances.
And finally how is 6th becoming elite? I cannot fathom where you are getting that from. Infact its widely held in some quarters that tourney players are the elite. Yet you claim gw is punishing them?
1) How can I justify the *meh* non-competitive comment? Don't have to because GW's designers said such in a recent interview.
a) Emperical evidence is the rules themselves. Increased randomness, increased book keeping, longer game times and inconsistant faq's.
2)Unbalance between the factions is not new, the allies matrix is new and completely screws about half of the factions. So yes, there is something new to the level of imbalance. There are also powerful new units that are in the game now that GW has not provided an across the board equivalency to the factions.
3)You may feel that the move against AB is not a big issue and that you prefer hand written lists. Doesn't make them tournament friendly.
I prefer to handwrite my own lists, but AB was a boon for my opponents. I have essential tremors that make my hands shake and my penmanship difficult to decipher for those not used to it.
4)How is GW becoming Elitist?
Only GW themselves having indicated that this is the direction that they want to go. It is one of the justifications of their annual price hikes, their price point and, again, has been stated through their target demographic of individuals/families whose annual earnings are well above the national average.
BTW, I love the nebulous anti-tourney player shot of "It being widely held in some quarters that tourney players are the elite". So, is it widely held or is it in some circles?
Again, this thread is not about Super comp vs fluffers. It is about what happens if GW continues to push until the players stop viewing it as a game.
Ratius wrote:Granted but that dosent prove the theory Gw are waging a war on players who enjoy tourneys. In addition barring the official Gw events TOs can tailor/ tweak rules to player needs. Eg only one piece of mysterious terrain, all forests are standard, objs dont use special rules etc.
In view of the ToS events, local organizers provide some simplifications as described, but not GW itself.
I think that GW did try for a while to make a water-tight set of rules. Chiefly with 4th edition, and Alessio Calvatore at the helm of rules development. But, I think the sales/release model, 'codex-creep' and the sales department-prompted updates of rules are largely unreconcilable with the creation of a game that is as well balanced as possible.
I do think that the more hardcore crowd - those who are after a far more balanced experience, and true test of their skill rather than a reliance on completely random events, will start to take other avenues. Mantic have recently offered a fairly substantial cash prize for one of their official tournaments, and I think that as well as what are regarded as a fairly balanced set of rules might drag a lot of the disillusioned players away from 6th edition 40k. It's interesting to note that Kings of War had Alessio Calvatore as its chief designer, and it might be that he has finally got his wish in having the creative freedom to make a release a game that is well balanced and actually designed to be played in a competitive environment.
So, I wouldn't say they are 'waging war' against competitive play. More, it's a recognition of their target demographic (the casual gamer) and that making a game which is completely balanced is very, very difficult with GW's staggered release model.
Ratius wrote:I cant see how you can justify the premise with the following you have put forward:
A meh non competitive release? You're judging that after 2 months since release and how many major tourneys held/attended?
Sorry I just dont see any hard emperical evidence to back that.
Poor balance in the armies? Of course there is, several codexes need updates, several need total rewrites and others dont gel so well with 6th but it is early days yet. Nothing has changed in that regard, gw were never top of the pile for army balance and these early imbalances have nothing to do with "gws war on tourney play".
Im unfamiliar with gws move against ab but dont see the issue really. At tourneys you are required to have your army codices and rules so building your army on ab whilst convenient should not be a given. Infact I agree that armies should be written from the cidexes with no 3rd party allowances.
And finally how is 6th becoming elite? I cannot fathom where you are getting that from. Infact its widely held in some quarters that tourney players are the elite. Yet you claim gw is punishing them?
1) How can I justify the *meh* non-competitive comment? Don't have to because GW's designers said such in a recent interview.
a) Emperical evidence is the rules themselves. Increased randomness, increased book keeping, longer game times and inconsistant faq's.
2)Unbalance between the factions is not new, the allies matrix is new and completely screws about half of the factions. So yes, there is something new to the level of imbalance. There are also powerful new units that are in the game now that GW has not provided an across the board equivalency to the factions.
3)You may feel that the move against AB is not a big issue and that you prefer hand written lists. Doesn't make them tournament friendly.
I prefer to handwrite my own lists, but AB was a boon for my opponents. I have essential tremors that make my hands shake and my penmanship difficult to decipher for those not used to it.
4)How is GW becoming Elitist?
Only GW themselves having indicated that this is the direction that they want to go. It is one of the justifications of their annual price hikes, their price point and, again, has been stated through their target demographic of individuals/families whose annual earnings are well above the national average.
BTW, I love the nebulous anti-tourney player shot of "It being widely held in some quarters that tourney players are the elite". So, is it widely held or is it in some circles?
Again, this thread is not about Super comp vs fluffers. It is about what happens if GW continues to push until the players stop viewing it as a game.
1) No real argument, but in all fairness GW is going for the casual gamer not the hardcore tournament gamers, if it was always aimed for competitive then we would not see useless units in every codex.
a)From what I have experienced games are actually shorter, the randomness in some ways sucks in others its a boon, inconsistent FAQs is how GW operates
2) Don't be suprised if those factions that got screwed get major buffs where they no longer need allies, but put them on par with alllied armies
3)If only there was access to this strange thing that printed out sheets of paper that have been typed hmmmm.....
4)Its a selective market, and gosh darnit what would we do if the GW employees werent able to buy their Ipads. (in all seriousness here, the pricing turns off so many people that GW may actually do better if they lowered the prices)
5) I don't think GW will push it so far as it is no longer regarded as a game.
What if GW succeeds in its war against competitive 40k gameplay?
It will be a day of great victory. The scum-of-the-earth WAAC netdeck list tournament gamers will be no more, and the casual games - paragons of humanity and virtue that we are - shall rule uncontested.
What a glorious day that will be.
This message brought to you by the Dakka Dakka Casual Gaming Mafia - 'Cause winning is for losers!
What if GW succeeds in its war against competitive 40k gameplay?
It will be a day of great victory. The scum-of-the-earth WAAC netdeck list tournament gamers will be no more, and the casual games - paragons of humanity and virtue that we are - shall rule uncontested.
What a glorious day that will be.
This message brought to you by the Dakka Dakka Casual Gaming Mafia - 'Cause winning is for losers!
Captain Avatar wrote:[The point is, that poeple need to drop all of the assinine competitive players ruin the "game" bs. That is now what this thread is about. The thread is about the game becoming an elitist role-playing system and the impact such will have if GW completely moves in this direction.
Aren't you part of an elitist tournament playing culture then? How can you call out one side as 'bad and if it comes down to them being ascendant then the game is done for' and then call them elitist? Just seems odd.
ZebioLizard2 wrote:So...It'd be like rogue trader again?
My thoughts exactly, if the premise of running competitive completely out of the game were to come to fruition then you would likely end up with the GM running the game and two armies taking part. This would essentially rend all rules disputes moot as the GM would have final ruling on the game to ensure if was both cinematic and fun.
Nitros14 wrote:We can only hope. It'll be a lot more fun for the people who still play without obnoxious super-competitive players around.
Really, just stop it with this lame, disingenuous false comparison. The enjoyment of competition - one in which both players are trying to win a more-or-less balanced contest - is a basic part of game-playing. Do you move your models randomly? Do you not try to win a game when you play one? Because unless you do, you're a competitive player.
WAAC players are another kettle of fish entirely, and this edition has done nothing to alleviate the laughably poor game balance that encourages them to field tedious (and unfluffy) spam lists, and to quibble over poorly-phrased rules. Despite GW's claims. exploding objectives and carnivorous forests don't make a narrative-driven game, they just make a less-balanced one.
Nitros14 wrote:We can only hope. It'll be a lot more fun for the people who still play without obnoxious super-competitive players around.
Really, just stop it with this lame, disingenuous false comparison. The enjoyment of competition - one in which both players are trying to win a more-or-less balanced contest - is a basic part of game-playing. Do you move your models randomly? Do you not try to win a game when you play one? Because unless you do, you're a competitive player.
WAAC players are another kettle of fish entirely, and this edition has done nothing to alleviate the laughably poor game balance that encourages them to field tedious (and unfluffy) spam lists, and to quibble over poorly-phrased rules. Despite GW's claims. exploding objectives and carnivorous forests don't make a narrative-driven game, they just make a less-balanced one.
I don't think there's anything wrong with trying to win. Certain people go way too far and drain the fun from the game. You know who I'm talking about.
Personaly, I think it would be a good day for the majority of players. I hate WAAC players, hate them. True I have been to a couple of tourneys, but that was cos a friend asked me to. I want to play the game for fun, not to win.
Sure winning is nice, but it isnt all there is to the game. That is why I have like 27:15:90-odd W:L ratio. I dont care, cos its a game for fun
Both of which posts entirely miss the point. 6th edition has done nothing to discourage WAAC players; it's still every bit as unbalanced and exploitable as its predecessor. The players it will discourage are ones like me, whose enjoyment of the game relies principally upon trying to win in a reasonably balanced contest the outcome of which is decided primarily by player skill, not by a random roll which causes one army to die of plague, be eaten by trees, or fall into some magma they inexplicably hadn't noticed until they stepped in it.
While I am not sure that GW is actively waging a war against competitive play, they sure as hell aren't going out of their way to support it. Every time I see people whining about WAAC, I typically think that it is either more of an issue with the WAAC guy(s) they know being obnoxious or the fact that they get pounded constantly and think that with less power gamers, they can at least break even on wins.
IMO, the reason GW states the game is for casuals and is for movie like play is so they can be lazy and not have to change their Codex release model. Heaven forbid they actually put some effort into the game rules and switch over to the update everyone at once model (PP). Sure there are a lot of armies, but it can't take that long to make the tweaks needed to fix most armies. Hell, most new army books are the same as the previous ones with points moved up or down and a couple new units (sell new models).
If competitive play goes away, PP or another game company would probably eclipse GW and GW games would turn into Flames of War. Like it or not, tournaments help drive the game forward.
The game started and grew in a time period when tournaments never existed. If this is GW's aim and it does succeed then the game will continue on just fine like it did in the 80's and 90's.
We wrote:The game started and grew in a time period when tournaments never existed. If this is GW's aim and it does succeed then the game will continue on just fine like it did in the 80's and 90's.
You do realise that GW ran their own official tournaments from about 1975 onwards? They even published around 1990 in White Dwarf (and gave away for free in their shops) special tournament army lists for 40k which replaced the usual random equipment tables with fixed-cost lists.
Moreover, it's worth pointing-out that despite Rogue Trader's rulebook suggesting games have a GM - essentially because Rogue Trader was, for wholly commercial reasons, a confused mish-mash of RPG and wargame - the game developed significantly over its six-year lifespan, and all mention of GMs had vanished from official 40k material by about 1990.
Nitros14 wrote:We can only hope. It'll be a lot more fun for the people who still play without obnoxious super-competitive players around.
Really, just stop it with this lame, disingenuous false comparison. The enjoyment of competition - one in which both players are trying to win a more-or-less balanced contest - is a basic part of game-playing. Do you move your models randomly? Do you not try to win a game when you play one? Because unless you do, you're a competitive player.
WAAC players are another kettle of fish entirely, and this edition has done nothing to alleviate the laughably poor game balance that encourages them to field tedious (and unfluffy) spam lists, and to quibble over poorly-phrased rules. Despite GW's claims. exploding objectives and carnivorous forests don't make a narrative-driven game, they just make a less-balanced one.
There's a difference between being competitive, and always being in the competitive mindset, which is what most people mean by competitive in this case.
If you can only have fun by beating the other player 100% to the ground, your stuck in a competitive mindset to much and need to relax.
As long as GW games have a winner and a loser there will always be competitive play. To think otherwise is to tell humans to go against what comes to them naturally.
They have tournaments for Rock, Paper, Scissors and I don't think you can get more casual than that.
Also with all the forum browsing I've been doing since I started 40k a year ago I immediately noticed a very strong view among the wargaming community that competitive & casual gameplay are somehow mutally exclusive. Which has then created this imaginary war between the "casuals" who have their fun games ruined by WAAC players and the "competitive" players who have no life and want only to administer soul crushing defeats.
That focusing on one means you have to ignore the other which is completely incorrect, see every video game played at a tournament level. Developers spend lots of resources ensuring that their games are as balanced as possible for high level play which then in turn actually improves the enjoyment of the game for "casual" play.
Captain Avatar wrote:It seems to me that GW has been waging a systematic war against competitive 40k gameplay. When you combine a very *meh* non-competitive 6th ed release, increased imbalance between the factions and then add their recent move to stop the tourney friendly Army Builder...to me it just seems that GW is treating the concepts of balanced competition as if it was somehow politically incorrect or morally wrong.
IMO, 40K is turning into an elitist hobby with no real game behind it. Cinematic and Narrative is not a game, it is a movie and/or a book. And we all know that there are much better sources for both, movies and books, than what GW publishes.
My question is this:
If GW succeeds in making 40K a non-competitive game, what will be the long-term impact of such?
Really?
This is a stretch. You've got literally zero evidence to support your theory. No one is trying to wage war against competitive game play.
On a related topic, of the most obnoxious players I've dealt with, almost all fall into the 'friendly' gamer group that refuses to attend tournaments. Tournament players are almost universally (IMO) nice people who are just out to have fun, and even the ultra competitive ones still take a loss with a smile and a laugh.
ZebioLizard2 wrote:If you can only have fun by beating the other player 100% to the ground, your stuck in a competitive mindset to much and need to relax.
Which is not at all what I was talking about; in any game in which there are victory conditions (so pretty much all games excepting the more simulationist/narrativist RPGs) then the players' fun comes principally from trying to beat the tar out of the other guy while he's trying to do the same to you.
Madcat87 wrote:That focusing on one means you have to ignore the other which is completely incorrect, see every video game played at a tournament level. Developers spend lots of resources ensuring that their games are as balanced as possible for high level play which then in turn actually improves the enjoyment of the game for "casual" play.
It's the unfortunate but inevitable result of GW's recent rhetoric in which they've thrown around "narrative", "cinematic" and "beer and pretzels" as excuses for non-existent balance and poorly-worded/considered rules. Whether the design studio really have the intention of socially-engineering players into a different mindset, I couldn't say; they have, however, succeeded in creating a noticeable rift in the player community along just those lines.
Kaldor wrote:On a related topic, of the most obnoxious players I've dealt with, almost all fall into the 'friendly' gamer group that refuses to attend tournaments. Tournament players are almost universally (IMO) nice people who are just out to have fun, and even the ultra competitive ones still take a loss with a smile and a laugh.
My experience bears out exactly the same; the players I've met at tournaments have been almost uniformly pleasant to play against, probably because the tournament side of the hobby obliges them both to be somewhat sociable and to cope gracefully with defeat.
Kaldor wrote:
On a related topic, of the most obnoxious players I've dealt with, almost all fall into the 'friendly' gamer group that refuses to attend tournaments. Tournament players are almost universally (IMO) nice people who are just out to have fun, and even the ultra competitive ones still take a loss with a smile and a laugh.
This, with over 15 years of experience in GW tourneys from small local events to 300 player GTs. And while I wouldn't quite say that GW is waging war against tournament play, they are certainly being non-supportive of it. Sure, some GW stores and even a few of their retail specialists might support a tourney, if asked and prodded. but GW corporate. Nope. Too bad, cause the old GW US GTs were a blast, drew in lots of new players and spurred sales as people built new armies from the ground up to participate. Take a look at the success of the NOVA Open if you doubt that there is a market for tournament play.
TheAvengingKnee wrote:I play the game to have fun, 6th added some interesting elements and I just don't care about the super competitive level(mostly because those people aren't even fun to be around usually).
The game will continue on, I actually noticed an increased interest in tournaments in my area after 6th edition released.
Tournaments may exist, but they're not necessarily going to be the same. 6th ed has injected more random elements into the game.
If you look at various games along a continuum, at one end you get perfectly random games, like Candyland and Chutes and Ladders, and at the other end, you get perfectly non-random games like Chess, Checkers or Go. In a perfectly random game, each player has an equal chance to win. In a non-random game, player skill will determine the outcome. I can lose at Candyland to a 4-year-old, but I cannot beat a Grandmaster in Chess, ever.
GWs push towards the more random pushes the game further towards the Candyland end of the spectrum, and away from the Chess end. And, from a competitive point-of-view, the only reason to do this is to give poor players more of a chance to beat good players. From GWs perspective, they're probably concerned that they lose customers who are bad players, and so want to give those players a cookie.
What does this have to do with tournaments? I kind of see some of this in Fantasy. From my understanding, the best (most competitive) Fantasy players really stopped playing in tournaments in 8th. But more average players show up, because they have a chance. If you're an average player, the increased randomness gives you a chance to beat a better player, so you're going to tournaments knowing that you're not automatically going to lose to the same guys as always. But if you're an excellent player, the increased randomness means you're more likely to lose games that you should have won - and as a result, have less incentive to show up.
There will always be more average players than really good (or really bad) players - that's kind of the definition of average. So, if you increase the participation among the average, even at the expense of losing the good players, you should see increased tournament participation. But the 6th ed tournaments will be more like Bingo than what we currently see as tournaments. A lot of average players and results swinging on random events, while players who actually want to see skill-based events will look elsewhere.
Elsewhere may still be 40k - there are plenty of tournament organizers discussing how to remove/lessen the randomness of 6th ed in their events. Avoiding warlord traits, random objectives, and rolling for terrain densities are among the more popular solutions.
And, of course, GW-sanctioned events will continue to focus on selling things. The Chicago Bunker is running a 6th ed tournament tomorrow, with the following extra rule: Each player may field a fortification for free, if they bring one.
GWs push towards the more random pushes the game further towards the Candyland end of the spectrum, and away from the Chess end. And, from a competitive point-of-view, the only reason to do this is to give poor players more of a chance to beat good players. From GWs perspective, they're probably concerned that they lose customers who are bad players, and so want to give those players a cookie.
Quite the opposite.
The less random elements are involved, the greater the ultimate result will be determined by the right list or right faction you choose (unless they are perfectly symmetrical, which defeats the point of a multi-faction game.. (though allies improve symmetry between factions and therefore are, as well, a huge step towards making the game more competitive).
The more random elements are included, the less your choice of army will matter and the more players will have to think on their feet in the actual game (as opposed to during the list-building beforehand).
6th Edition has made 40K a much more competitive game compared to the competitive list-building that was 5th edition.
Zweischneid wrote:6th Edition has made 40K a much more competitive game compared to the competitive list-building that was 5th edition.
If the best that can be said for 6th edition is that it's tacked-on, unbalancing randomness mitigates GW's embarrassingly poor list-balancing - something entirely within their power to correct - then that's a pretty damning indictment of its quality as a game.
The less random elements are involved, the greater the ultimate result will be determined by the right list or right faction you choose (unless they are perfectly symmetrical, which defeats the point of a multi-faction game.. (though allies improve symmetry between factions and therefore are, as well, a huge step towards making the game more competitive).
The more random elements are included, the less your choice of army will matter and the more players will have to think on their feet in the actual game (as opposed to during the list-building beforehand).
6th Edition has made 40K a much more competitive game compared to the competitive list-building that was 5th edition.
Wait, you're saying that the addition of random events has decreased the significance of player choices, and that this makes the game more competitive somehow?
A more powerful list is still going to be an advantage, even in 6th. Look at what happens when a Necron flyer army goes against an assault army. If you're trying to claim that it's a good thing that some random die roll will decide the game in favour of an inferior army, well, we're just going to disagree on that. What you bring is a player choice, it's a skill to design a synergistic list, and it's a skill to maneuver it well on the tabletop. Replacing skills with die rolls is never a good thing, in my opinion.
Not supporting Tournaments is not the same as attempting to “Destroy Competitive Game Play”.
Tournaments are about going out and seeing who the best is. This includes Skill, Code of Conduct and even appearance. The term Tournament has been corrupted over the centuries; they should be listed as “Competitions.”
If you want to have a real Tournament you would have to change how the whole thing operates. First the winner is not the guy who beats everybody, but the one who showed the best in Sportsmanship, Fairness, Courage and Showmanship. Then it is the crowds that determine the winner not win/loss, but overall behavior. In a medieval Tournaments if a Knight were to challenge a Squire and won he would not be look on well if he then beat him into the ground, but if the Squire challenged the Knight and then lost, but gave the Knight a good fight, the Squire would declared the better combatant.
In the Warhammer 40k Players World it should be the same. If the 20 year player challenges the Noob and then tables him, that makes him WAAC or TFG. On the other hand if the Noob challenges the same guy and looses badly by Victory Points, but both had a great time, then the Noob is the real winner.
This is how it should be if we all had Rose Colored Glasses, but his is not going happen, we all know it.
The second example in each is what True Completive Tournaments should be like, but as long as there are points and Victory Conditions and the ability to create your own army exist this can’t exist.
I don’t think Game Workshop sees this the same way [part of me hopes so], but they are large Multi-National Company who is trying to make a quick buck. They looked at all of the Tournaments and probably went “This is not making us as much money as we want.” Then looked at the sales charts and went “So the casual gamer with his Large Disposable Income is a majority of our sales, and we need to cut back somewhere how about Tournaments, they don’t bring us Large Sums of Cash, lets cut back on that expense.”
On the Point of WAAC and SPAM List: Unless they Ban SPAM List, it will always will be there. Look at the Space Wolf Codex, its all about individuality, they even have some rules about it and even tell you more than once “DON’T DO SPAM! It’s not the Space Wolf Way!” It is we the Community that ignored this and started to SPAM Long Fangs. Now, ME who is in the; “If I had a good time I have won camp” is called Cheesy, WAAC and TFG because I am playing the same army I have been since 1989.
In conclusion: It is not GW that is ruining Competition and Tournaments it is us.
Mr Morden wrote:of the 40K gamers I know and game with - about 75% have only a passing interest in tournaments and of the 25% that are big tournament players - well to be honest there are the least fun to play with or against.
I think what GW is trying to (apart from make money) is to make a fun hobby for the majority.....
Honestly this. I have been to like one or two tournaments, didn't really care for them. I know some players that are ultra-competitive, and they would likely be bummed out, everyone else I know would probably be happier overall. As for the tournament players, I can see some tournaments start to be organized using older editions if it means that much to competitive players.
On an added note, the newest faction isn't always best, it is just that armies that are two editions old have everything poorly priced and have crappy wargear. C:SM (and many of the flavour marines), Grey Knights, Guard, Dark Eldar, Necrons are all fairly good armies. The ones that really suck are Tau because they are old and Nids because they have a gakky codex and no potential for allies.
There is competitive play outside tournaments as well. Not in the "I want the trophy" sense, but because people like feeling that their armies have sound footing and alternatives to deal with what is coming out there.
I'm really biased on this, so take my words with a grain of salt. 4 of the 8 new players that were joining our club and and finishing their first army flat out quit the game with 6Th ed, and many others put it on the back-burner to play stuff like Flames of War, Infinity and Mordheim. MORDHEIM.
It's entirely possible that my experience has been worse than the norm and that people buying allied detachments more than makes up for the revenue lost to my pals leaving the game, making the point moot for GW. But it still irks me a lot.
Also, for those going "competitive players just want to ROFLstomp everyone 24/7!", keep in mind that necron airforce and the Vendetta-backed IG aegis gunline, who are akin to spiting in the other guy's face in casual friendly games, are brought to you by the supposedly beer&pretzly new metagame.
Waging war on competitive gamers is really a hyperbolic and ridiculous way of saying they are not really supporting ultra-competitive play...
I brought a really tough list to my last tournament, which I won, and everyone marked down if they'd want to play against you again. My really competitive list, at a tournament? yea, no one wanted to play against that list again.
As for tournaments, custom rules; just remove some of the randomness, its not like its hard. No more warlord traits, random objectives/terrain, 7" (average) charge distance. I mean, if a big tourney removes these things and finds the game to be much more friendly competitively, do you really think GW is going to care?
As a tangent, a few friends of mine a while back really enjoyed playing Smash bros; and we'd always turn off a whole ton of drops because they were random bs and would basically win you the game. The same thing applies to this, 'turn off' the rules you see as too random, and lobby the tournament organizers to do the same, for more competitive play.
Its not like GW is going to tell tournament organizers they aren't allowed to use custom rules.
Sephyr wrote:Also, for those going "competitive players just want to ROFLstomp everyone 24/7!", keep in mind that necron airforce and the Vendetta-backed IG aegis gunline, who are akin to spiting in the other guy's face in casual friendly games, are brought to you by the supposedly beer&pretzly new metagame.
.
This is a problem with players not the edition. Hell, in 5th ed I could run 9-12 razorbacks but I didn't. In this edition you can run 9 fliers. Notice the only people who are doing it are not the "for fun" gamers. They are the WAAC gamers (note I did not say competitive because WAAC != every competitive gamer).
@ the OP, the problem with these what if questions is that we cannot analyze this question in a vacuum. There are simply too many variables/ different types of players to know what would happen if GW did "win its war on competitive gaming" as you put it. To be honest I'm sure it will affect everyone differently, IF it were to happen it wouldn't affect my group minus 1 or 2 people. I'm sure some groups would just give up. On the large scale we can't know.
As it has been mentioned, nothing is stopping TOs from modifying the rules to be more "competitive" friendly.
Zweischneid wrote:6th Edition has made 40K a much more competitive game compared to the competitive list-building that was 5th edition.
If the best that can be said for 6th edition is that it's tacked-on, unbalancing randomness mitigates GW's embarrassingly poor list-balancing - something entirely within their power to correct - then that's a pretty damning indictment of its quality as a game.
GW will not succeed. As long as there is a game, there will be people willing to play competitively. If you ask me, balance in 5th was way worse than in 6th, and yet, there were still tons of competitive players in 5th. No amount of imbalance would make every player unwilling to play competitively.
Captain Avatar wrote:If GW succeeds in making 40K a non-competitive game, what will be the long-term impact of such?
So, to the OP, your concern is very well-justified, but it comes from the wrong scope. As in, it's a reasonable argument from a certain viewpoint, but the point of view itself is inaccurate.
You describe 40k as if it was a competitive game that was then invaded by a bunch of non-competitive rules. As if there is a war between two roughly equal factions, when this is not so. A much better analogy would be to say that 40k is a non-competitive game that has a small, stubborn competitive insurgency against which there is a coordinated police action. Not a war.
The thing you've got to know is that 40k never was a seriously competitive game. It isn't a seriously competitive game, and it never will be a seriously competitive game. 40k started as a hobby, with some rules lightly draped over it so that you could actually do something with all those miniatures you were painting. The game continues today as a game of dice where you get to display your miniatures and make up stories about them.
As redbeard notes, 40k isn't a serious competitive game. The results of almost any given action are determined by dice, so really, it's a dice game. It's not quite candyland level of chance-only, but it's way, way closer to candyland than it is to chess.
This is something that competitive gamers always miss. 40k isn't a game of skill, it's a game of chance, with tiny inroads of skill that allow you to set the odds of the dice you're about to roll. If you're taking 40k as a competitive exercise, you're actually missing the point of 40k in the first place. Really, it's you making war on a beer and pretzels dice game, not the other way around.
TheAvengingKnee wrote:I play the game to have fun, 6th added some interesting elements and I just don't care about the super competitive level(mostly because those people aren't even fun to be around usually).
I think for 40k there are a few things these videos make good points about(they are about video games but a lot of this applies to 40k as well):
I'm 100% with you. Thanks for posting the video. I'm going to have to watch more of that series seeing as it was so informative.
I do wonder at overall sells for GW if the tourney scene dies down (I doubt it really will). Those hardcore tourney guys tend to drop cash on GW products like they have the ability to sweat money from their skin pores.
Captain Avatar wrote:It seems to me that GW has been waging a systematic war against competitive 40k gameplay. When you combine a very *meh* non-competitive 6th ed release, increased imbalance between the factions and then add their recent move to stop the tourney friendly Army Builder...to me it just seems that GW is treating the concepts of balanced competition as if it was somehow politically incorrect or morally wrong.
IMO, 40K is turning into an elitist hobby with no real game behind it. Cinematic and Narrative is not a game, it is a movie and/or a book. And we all know that there are much better sources for both, movies and books, than what GW publishes.
My question is this:
If GW succeeds in making 40K a non-competitive game, what will be the long-term impact of such?
First; have you even played a tournament in 6th? It's just as competitive as ever.
Second; your "war on competitive play" is incredibly abstract. As long as there are two players on opposing sides in ANYTHING, there will be viability for competition.
Ratius wrote:I cant see how you can justify the premise with the following you have put forward:
A meh non competitive release? You're judging that after 2 months since release and how many major tourneys held/attended?
Sorry I just dont see any hard emperical evidence to back that.
Poor balance in the armies? Of course there is, several codexes need updates, several need total rewrites and others dont gel so well with 6th but it is early days yet. Nothing has changed in that regard, gw were never top of the pile for army balance and these early imbalances have nothing to do with "gws war on tourney play".
Im unfamiliar with gws move against ab but dont see the issue really. At tourneys you are required to have your army codices and rules so building your army on ab whilst convenient should not be a given. Infact I agree that armies should be written from the cidexes with no 3rd party allowances.
And finally how is 6th becoming elite? I cannot fathom where you are getting that from. Infact its widely held in some quarters that tourney players are the elite. Yet you claim gw is punishing them?
1) How can I justify the *meh* non-competitive comment? Don't have to because GW's designers said such in a recent interview.
a) Emperical evidence is the rules themselves. Increased randomness, increased book keeping, longer game times and inconsistant faq's.
2)Unbalance between the factions is not new, the allies matrix is new and completely screws about half of the factions. So yes, there is something new to the level of imbalance. There are also powerful new units that are in the game now that GW has not provided an across the board equivalency to the factions.
3)You may feel that the move against AB is not a big issue and that you prefer hand written lists. Doesn't make them tournament friendly.
I prefer to handwrite my own lists, but AB was a boon for my opponents. I have essential tremors that make my hands shake and my penmanship difficult to decipher for those not used to it.
4)How is GW becoming Elitist?
Only GW themselves having indicated that this is the direction that they want to go. It is one of the justifications of their annual price hikes, their price point and, again, has been stated through their target demographic of individuals/families whose annual earnings are well above the national average.
BTW, I love the nebulous anti-tourney player shot of "It being widely held in some quarters that tourney players are the elite". So, is it widely held or is it in some circles?
Again, this thread is not about Super comp vs fluffers. It is about what happens if GW continues to push until the players stop viewing it as a game.
1.
Just becuase GW have said so themselves does not make it true or applicable. Players/TOs and tourneys adapt as they see fit to rulesets. Always has been, always will. That point proves nothing so far.
As mentioned by other posters, having a more random element to the game does not necessarily take away from competitive play. Claiming otherwise this early into an edition release is hubris.
Inconsistent FAQs have always been around and again players adapt. Im unsure of what you mean by increased bookeeping - random terrain, WL traits? Hardly that time consuming or detremental time wise int the grand scheme of things.
2.
Unbalance? Perhaps. Early edition unbalance? Of course but this will be rectified going forward as more FAQs, Codicies and releases get made. Will it ever be perfect? No, its GW but once again its been like that in other editions and does not back up the warmaking on competitive play hypothesis.
3.
I cant comment on personal conditions like yours but tournament after torunament have gone off without a hitch with hand written lists and no AB printouts. Players will adapt and move on. I guarantee if AB does get nerfed by Christmas people wont even remember it.
Its a loss, sure, I love AB but not a gamebreaker.
4.
But that wont stop players collecting, ebaying, 2nd handing models or discount stores. I dont agree with the GW price hikes in many cases but its a sales trend to maximise proifit, not ruin competitive play or tournament environments.
BTW, I love the nebulous anti-tourney player shot of "It being widely held in some quarters that tourney players are the elite". So, is it widely held or is it in some circles?
I was trying to be polite, as demonstrated perfectly in this thread as soon as competitive play is mentioned, it immediatley divides the player base into the "friendluies" and WWACs. I long ago gave up picking a side and can see both point of views.
I was trying to say that in some quarters (aptly shown within this thread) some competitive players are seen as elitiiest.
You knew what I meant, poking holes in my linguistic expression of the point is disingenuous tbh.
I can see that you feel strongly however so will probably just leave it at that and politely disagree with your opinions. I dont believe GW is trying to kill comp/tourney play whatsoever.
Mr Morden wrote:of the 40K gamers I know and game with - about 75% have only a passing interest in tournaments and of the 25% that are big tournament players - well to be honest there are the least fun to play with or against.
Note, that you said 75% have a passing interest.
The point that I am encouraging people to consider is that a removal of competitive game play would affect all "players". This is not about the WAAC crowd, this is about GW moving away from a game and towards a narrative role playing system. (As I get older, I'm beginning to view role playing systems as not really being games but more as exercisies in creativity and story-telling.)
The point is, that poeple need to drop all of the assinine competitive players ruin the "game" bs. That is now what this thread is about. The thread is about the game becoming an elitist role-playing system and the impact such will have if GW completely moves in this direction.
Yeah passing interest - I find the idea vaguely interesting (I have played and won tournaments in other systems) but never got round to it, most of the people at the club have played in one or two at most but have been playing the game for years or like me decades.
I never said Competitive gamers ruin the game - I was replying to your statement that if the game is less competitive it will die........somehow. My point is that GW seem to want a fun game for as many people as possible (and hence make more money) making lists that appeal to competitive gamers only does not do this. Impact that it will have if the game is more fun - err more people play it and GW makes more money...............
I suggest that if you are going to keep calling anyone who does not like tournaments "Elitist rpgers" then you have to accept the counter accusation of Elitist Tournement players........
Again I just talked about people I had met and played with - the "Grand tournament player " at our club is no fun to play against - he gets rules wrong (and wont admit it - just says "I am a grand tournament player I KNOW the rules" even though he does not), has only a "ubber" army that he likes clubbing new players with.
6th ed is not perfect by any stretch but it seems to be heading to the fun zone more than the 5th edition
Wow... an odd moment, I'm actually starting to feel sorry for GW... it;s a very odd emotion. Sort of like the Cattle feeling sorry for the butcher. I shudder to think how much of my money has gone into the all conquering death robot that GW must be building to complete their "Ming the merciless" Reputation but the longer I am part of the wargaming hobby the more I feel sorry for them. I mean in the eyes of their less than adoring fanbase, can they do anything right?
1st ed was too Long
2nd ed was too complicated
3rd ed's CC rules were a minefeild
4th ed was borken
5th ed was too streamlined
6th ed is apparently not streamlined enough
Im starting to think if Chuck Norris, wearing a GW shirt, descended from on high with a set of rules chiseled on a stone tablet from God himself it would take about 11.5 seconds before someone complained about it.
And even if 6th ed is less geared for the tournament setting, so what? your hardly going to alienate your entire WAAC fanbase, after all I'm sorry to point out your alternatives are fairly limited to whether you want to drink at GW;s water hole or Privateer Press'. You might even open the game up so the common or garden variety human could play. Trying to appeal to more than one market does have its advantages both as a business and for the growth of the game itself.
danp164 wrote:
Im starting to think if Chuck Norris, wearing a GW shirt, descended from on high with a set of rules chiseled on a stone tablet from God himself it would take about 11.5 seconds before someone complained about it.
.
English Assassin wrote:Both of which posts entirely miss the point. 6th edition has done nothing to discourage WAAC players; it's still every bit as unbalanced and exploitable as its predecessor. The players it will discourage are ones like me, whose enjoyment of the game relies principally upon trying to win in a reasonably balanced contest the outcome of which is decided primarily by player skill, not by a random roll which causes one army to die of plague, be eaten by trees, or fall into some magma they inexplicably hadn't noticed until they stepped in it.
And people have argued that 6th is poison for WAAC players...where, exactly? Oh that's right, they've not, they've been contesting the idea that 6th is GW's "final solution" for tournament lovers.
WAAC players will never go away, no matter how balanced you make the rules. WAAC'ers exist all the way through from Chess to tabletop RPGs, the rules have nothing to do with it. The question is whether we should deny narrative and casual players options which enrich their gaming experience in a futile attempt to reign in WAAC'ers, and GW have answered "No" - good for them.
If the rules allow you to do something stupid or bring something ridiculously powerful, then of course people are going to do it. That does not mean it is the players fault for doing so. The fault will always lie with the rules for allowing it in the first place. Since the rules allow you to play the super Necron air force, some people will do so. That doesn't make them bad people, though they are certainly not fun to play against.
To the guy who mentioned Space Wolves: Yes SW's are supposed to be individual. But the rules don't really enforce this beyond a few restrictions on your HQ units. Should we then blame the players for bring lots of Long Fangs? No. The rules let you do it - the fault is with the designers, and never the players.
If GW really wants to make a poorly - written game that doesn't do tourneys well ... people will go to other games. There *are* plenty of other games out there that are great for tournaments. GW is only hurting themselves by arbitrarily separating us into Casual and Competitive gamers and then damning the competitive gamers.
And as a side note, I know quite a few very competitive players who normally do very well at tournaments. These people are great fun to play against and know the rules very well. So this false idea that a competitive player equals a WAAC donkey-cave needs to go.
Captain Avatar wrote:It seems to me that GW has been waging a systematic war against competitive 40k gameplay. When you combine a very *meh* non-competitive 6th ed release, increased imbalance between the factions and then add their recent move to stop the tourney friendly Army Builder...to me it just seems that GW is treating the concepts of balanced competition as if it was somehow politically incorrect or morally wrong.
IMO, 40K is turning into an elitist hobby with no real game behind it. Cinematic and Narrative is not a game, it is a movie and/or a book. And we all know that there are much better sources for both, movies and books, than what GW publishes.
My question is this:
If GW succeeds in making 40K a non-competitive game, what will be the long-term impact of such?
Maybe some TO's will simply refuse to run 6th (or later anti-competitive editions) tournaments and go with some previous rule set or combination of rule sets.
People, you don't have to play the latest GW rules dump just because they want you to!
GW is only hurting themselves by arbitrarily separating us into Casual and Competitive gamers and then damning the competitive gamers.
Forgive me, how exactly are Gw seperating the gaming community into casual and competitve gamers and then hurting the competive players?
Between a pretty uncompetitive rule set and a lack of GW supported tournaments I think it is safe to say GW doesn't like competitive players very much.
I agree on their non-support of big tournaments, but the rules themselves I think are much better for competitive play.
Randomness is important, especially where they put it, it allows the players to adapt to a changing battlefield environment. The best general is he who can do this the best.
Overall, as a non-competitive player, I like 6th edition. While the random objectives, mysterious terrain, and archetype artifacts do add a small sense of potentially unfair randomness, it certainly makes things more interesting! The bigger problem I see is in individual army codexes, where everyone keeps getting better and better, at some point, the armies are going to need to be nerfed.
The big point though is those who want to keep playing will make their own house rules to circumvent any trickery gws lays out in future updates, and people will keep playing and having fun in some form or another.
Why do we think tourneys are dead? From the sources I've seen most TOs think that with a few minor tweaks and set terrain 6e is fairly tournament friendly and a lot of fun.
Needing 3 house rules and a few new missions hardly makes a system uncompetitive.
At the end of the day 40k still has an amazing fluff for those that desire, and leaves room for you to fill your own blanks if wanted. People will always play it, and tournaments might become more exclusive or centralized at a certain location, but it will remain. I was born in 91, and didn't pick it up until 2011. I'm obsessed with it, blaring through novels, and when my 2 kids grow up, if 40k is still around they will receive a gifted army of their choice. My point, it's fun, can draw in people of many backgrounds, and is a fun game to play, not a console troll fest. i don't see it dying out anytime soon.
don_mondo wrote:And while I wouldn't quite say that GW is waging war against tournament play, they are certainly being non-supportive of it. Sure, some GW stores and even a few of their retail specialists might support a tourney, if asked and prodded. but GW corporate. Nope. Too bad, cause the old GW US GTs were a blast, drew in lots of new players and spurred sales as people built new armies from the ground up to participate. Take a look at the success of the NOVA Open if you doubt that there is a market for tournament play.
GW Australia canned support for the tournament circuit here a few years ago and while it's a little disappointing, the tournament scene itself barely even noticed. And on the plus side, there's no longer GW restrictions at any events which really opens up the field for conversions and counts-as models.
Redbeard wrote:If you look at various games along a continuum, at one end you get perfectly random games, like Candyland and Chutes and Ladders, and at the other end, you get perfectly non-random games like Chess, Checkers or Go. In a perfectly random game, each player has an equal chance to win. In a non-random game, player skill will determine the outcome. I can lose at Candyland to a 4-year-old, but I cannot beat a Grandmaster in Chess, ever.
It's not a perfectly scalable relationship though. Where, for example, does poker fit in?
I would argue that being good at a perfectly non-random game like Chess requires very little more than knowledge. Since it is completely non-random, if one player knows more about how the pieces can/will move, then that player will win. A good chess player knows the best way to respond to every move his opponent makes, and the best way for his opponent to respond to every move he makes, and after only a couple of moves can already see the outcome of the game.
That encyclopaedic knowledge of how the pieces move translates directly into an ability to predict the outcome of the game, despite not knowing the opponents moves.
After each move, the good chess player can look at the board, and see the thousands of potential outcomes. He can narrow down what moves he has to make in order to reach a favourable outcome, and further narrow that down by what moves will make it difficult or impossible to win. He then moves his pieces, and wins.
I would argue that further to that, being good at chess doesn't require someone to be good at risk evaluation, resource management, or resource allocation. Or to be more accurate, that to depend on those skills when playing chess is not playing it at it's highest level, and a player that depends on those skills will reliable lose to a good player.
Once we introduce a measured dose of random elements, we require other skills to be involved. We require players to start evaluating risk, managing and allocating their resources. We give players the opportunity to use skills other than pure knowledge of the board and the pieces. If we use chess as an example: Currently, moving a piece into an opponents piece results in the opponents piece being taken. The chess player knows this, and has no need to give the matter any more thought. But what if the result was dice based? What if a rook needed a 2+ to remove a pawn for example? Suddenly the chess player has more to consider. He has to evaluate the risk, he has to think about how he stacks the board, since he may waste several pieces trying to take an enemy one, and he has to think about what pieces he uses to attack the enemy, as each will have different rolls required.
At this point we haven't reduced the impact of a players skill on the game, we've simply broadened our definition of 'skill'.
However, too many random elements removes the ability of the player to control their pieces and, as you observe, player skill no longer has any impact on the game.
The debate about 6th edition then centres around: How much random is too much? This thread in particular makes the assumption that there is too many random elements in 6th edition (I disagree) and that GW have deliberately implemented those random elements in order to eliminate competitive play.
Tournaments are a useful (although not entirely accurate) tool to use when we discuss random elements in the rules. Some people insist that the game is totally random, and can be decided simply by rolling the dice.
If that were the case, then all tournament results would also be totally random. We can see that they are not, and that people that score well in tournaments do so consistently across multiple tournaments over time.
Sephyr wrote:Also, for those going "competitive players just want to ROFLstomp everyone 24/7!", keep in mind that necron airforce and the Vendetta-backed IG aegis gunline, who are akin to spiting in the other guy's face in casual friendly games, are brought to you by the supposedly beer&pretzly new metagame.
.
This is a problem with players not the edition. Hell, in 5th ed I could run 9-12 razorbacks but I didn't. In this edition you can run 9 fliers. Notice the only people who are doing it are not the "for fun" gamers. They are the WAAC gamers (note I did not say competitive because WAAC != every competitive gamer).
Razorbacks were good, but not THATgood. And you'd be offering a LOT of kill points to Necrons, Salmanders, IG and other shooty armies with all those razorbacks and rhinos. Flyers, on the other hand, are much safer to spam: they are the hardest targets in the game, tossing everyine down to sub-ork levels of accuracy. There's a difference.
And yes, it's people that abuse the loopholes, but that means nothing. If the system lets itself be gamed so powerfully, it is flawed. Back in World of Warcraft, when they introduced Death Knights and they were severely overpowered enough to face 3 equally-geared enemies and come out on top, they didn't go "Well, some people will abuse the mechanics, what can you do. Some types, huh?" They fixed it in a few months because it detracts from everyone else's game. In a way, it cheats: it lets gamers of casual skill put out a performance worthy of 'competitve' WAAC people based solely on existing imbalances.
I don't see the randomness in 6th Edition as randomness just for the sake of being random. It's risk and reward. Everything in 6th from allies, to preparing for/including fliers, to mysterious objectives, and psychic power charts is all risk and reward.
Kaldor and Flake have the right points, you have to be able to manage the risk and randomness. Aside from that, you can skip a lot of it. Don't like the psychic tables? Don't roll on them, take codex powers. Don't like mysterious terrain? Don't go in it. The only random thing is the rolls, and that can't change. Being a good player is about managing all these things and winning regardless.
Or you can do like my friends and I, and fill the board with mysterious terrain just for kicks to see how badly we get screwed. Random can be a lot of fun if you're not too serious about it.
Flake wrote:I don't see the randomness in 6th Edition as randomness just for the sake of being random. It's risk and reward. Everything in 6th from allies, to preparing for/including fliers, to mysterious objectives, and psychic power charts is all risk and reward.
Managing risk is a skill.
The random elements in 6th ed leave little control in player's hands, so there is actually very little of this "risk management" that you're talking about, most risks are averted the moment you change your tactic from 5th ed to 6th ed, but I wouldn't call that "risk management", more just "adapting to a new edition". But let's begin with warlord traits table, would you build a list around a certain trait? Of course not, because if you didn't get that trait, your list falls apart, so the best course of action here is to ignore it, and there you have it, risk averted. How about random charge distance? Do some numbers crunching, find out the maximum safe distance you could declare a charge at, then do it everytime, risk averted. It's not exactly tactical when the best take is simply to ignore it and play.
A game should have some random elements, but not over-the-top, right now, 6th ed is touching that line, some might say it's well over it.
That said, I'm not totally against the random elements added, assault distance is the only one I'm against, but that's more because that my DE lost the mobility advantage, everyone can charge the same distance, fleet on average gives us 1" further than everyone else. Mystery terrains, mystery objectives, etc kinda add to the fun.
To the poster who posted the "perfect imbalance" video, yes, in a game design sense, this might be the intention, but I wouldn't think so. However, let's leave conspiracy theory(GW is doing this to force people to buy the new army) aside, people have to pay to be a loser in this game, people are paying so poster boys players can feel like big man because the game basically says "If you're playing poster boys, you automatically win, congrats, now go teabag your opponent!", that's pretty bad design, the imbalance should be minimal(ie not everyone has 360 degree arc of fire flyers, or flyers that can disembark while zooming, but every army should have a way to counter that). Do you see other competitive games having such lopsided balance? Take SF4 for example, it started with some characters being outright impossible to beat, but by SSF4, they have brought those characters down to everyone's level, and by SSF4 AE, more balancing, finally by SSF4 AE2012, the game is mostly balanced, even playing bottom tier Dan could beat top tier characters, there isn't one character that is nigh impossible to beat. But even if video games were to use such lopsided setting, the point here is that you wouldn't have to pay again should you wish to play the winning faction.
On topic: I don't think GW is literally on a hunt to murder competitive gameplay, they're just doing what they can to stay afloat, and looking like they're succeeding as people seem to welcome the random elements.
Question: Did 5th ed tournaments require the TO to use homebrew rules to add some competitive elements to the game??
Baronyu wrote:The random elements in 6th ed leave little control in player's hands
I disagree. To use random charge distance as an example: I can charge with units that have a better chance. I can charge from within 2". I can stack the area with multiple units so that if one fails I still have others. I can take an extra turn to close the gap. I can choose units in my army that will not be as exposed to shooting/can close the gap more reliably.
DeffDred wrote:Games are not competitive. People are.
Well, games can encourage competition in certain ways. For example, 40K has had many overpowered builds over the years, and when there are builds that win more than others, that encourages people to use those builds and be more competitive. However, people still have a greater effect on how competitive a game is than the game itself, I'd say.
DeffDred wrote:Games are not competitive. People are.
Well, games can encourage competition in certain ways. For example, 40K has had many overpowered builds over the years, and when there are builds that win more than others, that encourages people to use those builds and be more competitive. However, people still have a greater effect on how competitive a game is than the game itself, I'd say.
That's still not the game being competitive. That's competitive people finding a way to be competitive with the army list.
The two do not mix. In any way. The venn diagram wouldn't work.
They do, the center is the people who have had the list or army before it turned into cheese (My upcoming vlak vendetta spam is going to be cheesy this edition, and it irks me because I just did it for the mobility of the list)
The two do not mix. In any way. The venn diagram wouldn't work.
They do, the center is the people who have had the list or army before it turned into cheese (My upcoming vlak vendetta spam is going to be cheesy this edition, and it irks me because I just did it for the mobility of the list)
I'm sure you're a cool guy and all, but Vendettas were hardly "balanced" in 5th Although I know what you mean. I started collecting Tzeentch Deamons the day before 6th came out. Suddenly my MCs were devestating.
Then a few weeks later, Flamers became one of the most powerful units in the game.
SoloFalcon1138 wrote:People will continue having fun, the tournament players will continue the wailing in their tourneys, and life will go on.
This.
I play for fun, and I sometimes play in tournis but i dont enjoy them unless some effort is made with comp, painting and sportsmanship. Comp ensures that you see lots of different lists instead of the routine spam. Painting scores are nice because they encourage a rudimentary painting effort which really makes the game more fun for me (seeing a painted army is always better than some primer black or grey legion). And i think sportsmanship is nice since the game is meant to be fun. The best games i have had are the ones that were a good contest, played in good spirits and between nicely painted armies on a well put together table.
The worst games i have had have been facing very competative people who merely want to win. They purchase only the most broken, undercosted combinations of units. Hastily glue them together and then after beating the snot out of a few people who are collectors or gamers, proceed to brag about their skill with the net list they fielded and how their codex is so good. Hmm.
If competitive game play disappears and the competitive lot moves to warmachine or some other game, thats fine with me.
What are they supposed to be accomplishing? A fair and balanced game where everyone can win? Have you seen what happened to MtG when tournament play is now the only real priority?
Grow up, get a life, and try and have fun. Games aren't made to be stressful...
We wrote:The game started and grew in a time period when tournaments never existed. If this is GW's aim and it does succeed then the game will continue on just fine like it did in the 80's and 90's.
It's worth remembering that the 80s and the 90s didn't have as many alternatives to tabletop W40K as the 2000s.
I love it. This thread shows the true scope of dysfunction within the player base that GW has fostered. At this moment I have, for the first time in my many years of playing, a negative opinion of my fellow casual gamers. This negative opinion of my fellow payers is due to their having rushed to an innacurate conclusion and an overly hostile position(and posts) that says volumes about how unpleasant it would be like to game with some of them.
I would like all posters to note that I did not call into question the Casual Fluffer versus WAAC player and only brought up tournies in reference to the AB due to its regular use by TO's to help prevent cheating. You, the community did that all by yourselves. I have only replied as to how I see GW waging a war against competitive play.
To help clarify matters, here are some formulas for you guys:
Competitive gameplay /= tournament play
&
Competitive players /= waac players
instead
Competitive play = a game where either a victor, a loser or a draw is determined at the end of the match/battle.(Nothing more, nothing less)
So many of you are jumping to assumed conclusions rather than asking for clarification.
Here is some clarification:
Spoiler:
Wardragoon wrote:
1) No real argument, but in all fairness GW is going for the casual gamer not the hardcore tournament gamers, if it was always aimed for competitive then we would not see useless units in every codex.
a)From what I have experienced games are actually shorter, the randomness in some ways sucks in others its a boon, inconsistent FAQs is how GW operates
2) Don't be suprised if those factions that got screwed get major buffs where they no longer need allies, but put them on par with alllied armies
3)If only there was access to this strange thing that printed out sheets of paper that have been typed hmmmm.....
4)Its a selective market, and gosh darnit what would we do if the GW employees werent able to buy their Ipads. (in all seriousness here, the pricing turns off so many people that GW may actually do better if they lowered the prices)
5) I don't think GW will push it so far as it is no longer regarded as a game.
Thank you for one of the better and on topic posts. Now in reply to yours:
1)The point that I am getting at is, "what if there is a return to the rogue trader style role-playing but even more so?".
1a)Yours and my experience may not be that different. Turns are tasking much longer but people are getting tabled in the early game due to imbalance within the factions and the system as a whole. We are talking about players of equal ability yet one is getting tabled in turn 3 due to the systems randomness and faction imbalance.
2)I wont be. Though I think the imbalances and fotm armies are only going to exasperate the situation. I feel this way due to GW's track record concerning faction balance and codex creep.
3)Ha....ha....ha.... you so funny. Seriously, I can get by without AB, it is just a great conveniance that I will miss if gw continues to push the issue. If they do push the issue, I will take it as another step to remove accurate lists and competitive play.
4)sarcasm noted and I think we pretty much agree.
5)This is the whole point of the thread. The "What if they actually do push it that far?"
motyak wrote:
Captain Avatar wrote:[The point is, that people need to drop all of the assinine competitive players ruin the "game" bs. That is now what this thread is about. The thread is about the game becoming an elitist role-playing system and the impact such will have if GW completely moves in this direction.
Aren't you part of an elitist tournament playing culture then? How can you call out one side as 'bad and if it comes down to them being ascendant then the game is done for' and then call them elitist? Just seems odd.
A swing and a miss. You are so busy trying to be right about something that wasn't said. My above comment was in response to the automatic knee-jerk assumption that either I am a hard-core tourney player or that I was even focused on tournies in the first place.
Remember:
Competitive gameplay /= tournament play
&
Competitive players /= waac players
instead
Competitive play = a game where either a victor, a loser or a draw is determined at the end of the match/battle.(Nothing more, nothing less)
Go back and re-read the original post and you will find that the question is, What if GW removes all competitive elements from the game?.
Yes, I used the "waging war" inflated hyperbole. Why? How better to start a lively discussion on dakka.
As I state elsewhere in this reply, the GW40k developers are playing the game as a role-playing game instead of playtesting the rules for conflicts during development. This is a strong indication of the way they are taking the system. They make use of a battle master (BM) and most of the player skill is sacrificed on the altar of the BMs narrative and cinematic vision.
To me, if they go this route, then there will be no reason to play many of the factions and 40k itself will hold no challenge.
Kaldor wrote:This is a stretch. You've got literally zero evidence to support your theory. No one is trying to wage war against competitive game play.
On a related topic, of the most obnoxious players I've dealt with, almost all fall into the 'friendly' gamer group that refuses to attend tournaments. Tournament players are almost universally (IMO) nice people who are just out to have fun, and even the ultra competitive ones still take a loss with a smile and a laugh.
1)Not that much of a stretch when you read the games day interviews about how the designers play the game.
2)Great way to miss the point and to go off topic. Again, the thread is not about Fluffzies are bad or WAACers are evil. It is about what you think it would mean if GW shifted away from the game completely and made 40k basically a fanboi spank tool for narrative battles that are determined by narrative rather than game play.
Ailaros wrote:
Captain Avatar wrote:If GW succeeds in making 40K a non-competitive game, what will be the long-term impact of such?
So, to the OP, your concern is very well-justified, but it comes from the wrong scope. As in, it's a reasonable argument from a certain viewpoint, but the point of view itself is inaccurate.
You describe 40k as if it was a competitive game that was then invaded by a bunch of non-competitive rules. As if there is a war between two roughly equal factions, when this is not so. A much better analogy would be to say that 40k is a non-competitive game that has a small, stubborn competitive insurgency against which there is a coordinated police action. Not a war.
The thing you've got to know is that 40k never was a seriously competitive game. It isn't a seriously competitive game, and it never will be a seriously competitive game. 40k started as a hobby, with some rules lightly draped over it so that you could actually do something with all those miniatures you were painting. The game continues today as a game of dice where you get to display your miniatures and make up stories about them.
As redbeard notes, 40k isn't a serious competitive game. The results of almost any given action are determined by dice, so really, it's a dice game. It's not quite candyland level of chance-only, but it's way, way closer to candyland than it is to chess.
This is something that competitive gamers always miss. 40k isn't a game of skill, it's a game of chance, with tiny inroads of skill that allow you to set the odds of the dice you're about to roll. If you're taking 40k as a competitive exercise, you're actually missing the point of 40k in the first place. Really, it's you making war on a beer and pretzels dice game, not the other way around.
Thank you for an on topic and clearly stated post. There is food for thought here.
Now, I'd like to hear, "What you think would happen if GW removed all competitive aspects of the game and instead, they made it into narrative role-playing battles where the outcome of the battle is not determined by any player skill but by a third individual that is guiding the narration?".
TheCaptain wrote:
First; have you even played a tournament in 6th? It's just as competitive as ever.
Second; your "war on competitive play" is incredibly abstract. As long as there are two players on opposing sides in ANYTHING, there will be viability for competition.
Yes, I have played. And no, it is not as competitive. The players are still competitive but the system is miles away from being considered suitable for competitive play.
Honestly, I did not care for 5th ed either. It was a tough edition for my Tau, but I played it.
When I got my copy of 6th ed, I loved how GW had returned to tactical movement and was hopeful that we would see lists that had a greater than the sum of their parts synergy.
Then I looked closer and saw that the 5th ed imbalances were still there and in fact, were often worse.
Additionally, They had added increased randomness that hurt assault move based armies, random psychic powers, random leadership traits.
Finally, GW has introduced units that have no effective counter in other armies(Yay, its almost as if we're back to chaos auto-losing to 'nids or DE auto-losing to Harlequins)
"War on competitive play" is not really that abstract if people stop with the knee jerk reactions and maybe read closer or ask for clarification. Its a concept called communication, give it a try some time.
As to what I meant by, "What if GW succeeds in its war against competitive 40k gameplay?". I mean the following:
When the developers are suppossed to be play teasting they are instead engaging in old rogue trader style narratvie missions that require a third individual to play. Lets call this third individual the battle master or more fittingly the BM. Now the BM exercises a great amount of control over the game, so much so that player skill will have nothing to do with the outcome of the battle. Rather, the battle is decided by what makes for the best narrative or cinematic scene in the BMs mind.
When the developers are engaging in such behavior and when combined with comments from recent interviews, a case can be made that the developers are pushing for the game to become a role playing system that requires a lot of dmodels and dice.
So the question all along has not been about tournaments or fluffy game play. It has been about what happens if GW removes the game/competition aspect from 40K and leaves us with an over-priced elitist role-playing system.
Ratius wrote:
1.
Just because GW have said so themselves does not make it true or applicable. Players/TOs and tourneys adapt as they see fit to rulesets. Always has been, always will. That point proves nothing so far.
As mentioned by other posters, having a more random element to the game does not necessarily take away from competitive play. Claiming otherwise this early into an edition release is hubris.
Inconsistent FAQs have always been around and again players adapt. Im unsure of what you mean by increased bookeeping - random terrain, WL traits? Hardly that time consuming or detremental time wise int the grand scheme of things.
2.
Unbalance? Perhaps. Early edition unbalance? Of course but this will be rectified going forward as more FAQs, Codicies and releases get made. Will it ever be perfect? No, its GW but once again its been like that in other editions and does not back up the warmaking on competitive play hypothesis.
3.
I cant comment on personal conditions like yours but tournament after torunament have gone off without a hitch with hand written lists and no AB printouts. Players will adapt and move on. I guarantee if AB does get nerfed by Christmas people wont even remember it.
Its a loss, sure, I love AB but not a gamebreaker.
4.
But that wont stop players collecting, ebaying, 2nd handing models or discount stores. I dont agree with the GW price hikes in many cases but its a sales trend to maximise proifit, not ruin competitive play or tournament environments.
BTW, I love the nebulous anti-tourney player shot of "It being widely held in some quarters that tourney players are the elite". So, is it widely held or is it in some circles?
I was trying to be polite, as demonstrated perfectly in this thread as soon as competitive play is mentioned, it immediatley divides the player base into the "friendluies" and WWACs. I long ago gave up picking a side and can see both point of views.
I was trying to say that in some quarters (aptly shown within this thread) some competitive players are seen as elitiiest.
You knew what I meant, poking holes in my linguistic expression of the point is disingenuous tbh.
I can see that you feel strongly however so will probably just leave it at that and politely disagree with your opinions. I dont believe GW is trying to kill comp/tourney play whatsoever.
1)Actually, it is very true/applicable if the company and its designer/developers are making a strong move to take 40k in the indicated direction.
1a)TO's will at some point find it too much hassle and will give up. Though that is not the point of the thread.
1b)Your belief in the status quo does not stand up to the test of time.
1c)Not hubris, observation.
1d)I understand that some do not play very often. What I meant by increased book keeping is- In game effects that affect a units base stat line for the rest of the game. I don't like having to fiddle with extra markers or keeping notes on which tank had its AV lowered by scarabs or other similar effects.
2)Unbalance rectified? GW has never done so before. If anything the unbalance gets worse as an edition progresses. In fact, I'd venture to say that this is the most unbalanced ruleset GW has ever published.
In the past, a new edition meant a bit of zeroing out on things that had gotten out of hand in the previous edition.
2a)Ahh, I see the problem. You are hung up on the warmaking inflated hyperbole statement I used to spark interest in the thread. Whether I call it a war or a systematic push to remove the competitive elements from the game does not matter. They come down to the same thing, that my question was "What if" GW removes the competitive elements from 40K to turn it into a narrative role-playing system where the outcome of the battle is determined by a third person we can call the BM(battlemaster)?".
3) And more tournies (and casual games for that matter) have been ruined by innaccurate(both accidental and deliberate) hand-written lists than have gone smoothly with said same lists. Again, the wish for clearly written rules and army lists does not diminish the fun in any manner, I can't understand why some believe otherwise.
4) The point is that with a game system GWs stuff is over-priced. If you remove the game and replace it with a narrative story telling system, then the models are even more over-priced. A role-playing system for only the elite as it were.
Until I saw the Fluffzies reaction to my question, I had an on the fence approach. After seeing the knee-jerk reactions by the CGM, I am now leaning toward the competitive players who have remained fairly calm.
And no, I did not know what you meant. you did not use orkmoticons and when taken as written, your statement was self-contridicting to the point of being evasive.
Yes, we can agree to disagree, though that was not the point of the thread. The point is, "What if" GW moves the game to being like how the developers play it. Where all competitive elements and challenges are gone and only story telling remains.
Mr Morden wrote:
Captain Avatar wrote:
The point that I am encouraging people to consider is that a removal of competitive game play would affect all "players". This is not about the WAAC crowd, this is about GW moving away from a game and towards a narrative role playing system. (As I get older, I'm beginning to view role playing systems as not really being games but more as exercisies in creativity and story-telling.)
poeple need to drop all of the assinine competitive players ruin the "game" bs. That is now what this thread is about. The thread is about the game becoming an elitist role-playing system and the impact such will have if GW completely moves in this direction.
I never said Competitive gamers ruin the game - I was replying to your statement that if the game is less competitive it will die........somehow. My point is that GW seem to want a fun game for as many people as possible (and hence make more money) making lists that appeal to competitive gamers only does not do this. Impact that it will have if the game is more fun - err more people play it and GW makes more money...............
I suggest that if you are going to keep calling anyone who does not like tournaments "Elitist rpgers" then you have to accept the counter accusation of Elitist Tournement players........
Again I just talked about people I had met and played with - the "Grand tournament player " at our club is no fun to play against - he gets rules wrong (and wont admit it - just says "I am a grand tournament player I KNOW the rules" even though he does not), has only a "ubber" army that he likes clubbing new players with.
6th ed is not perfect by any stretch but it seems to be heading to the fun zone more than the 5th edition
1)You are making a fallacious argument/assumption that competitive play /= fun.
1a)My "question" was, What if GW removes all competitive aspects of the game and only leaves an over-costed role-playing system in its place? A system that requires a third individual to be a BM(battle master) that directs(controls) the battle and the outcome is determined by what the BM views as most cinematic.
2)Never called anyone an elitist RPGer. Said that the game is headed toward being an elititist role-playing system. If you can not understand the difference here then I will have to assume that you are either deliberately misreading or are so emotional on the issue that further discussion is pointless. Though I do find you trying to label me as a tourney elitist very amusing.
3)I will see your grand tourney player and raise you 2 rage quitting players (1 BA and 1 'Nids)when I killed their big deathstar/mc units with my tau by bottom of turn 3. Then add a casual player with cheater dice to the mix and you have what I have seen in just the last month. My point, TFG can be a WAAC, a Fluffer a rules lawyer.
LordOfTheSloths wrote:Maybe some TO's will simply refuse to run 6th (or later anti-competitive editions) tournaments and go with some previous rule set or combination of rule sets.
People, you don't have to play the latest GW rules dump just because they want you to!
1)If it gets to be to much trouble, I definitely see TO's just dropping 40k.
2)Yes, quitting 40k is definetly an option. An increasingly attractive option at that, when considering the amount of poor sportsmanship that you see these days.
3) Neither of your statements are on topic. The Topic is, "What if gw removes all competitive aspects of the game and leaves in their place a role-playing system where the battles outcome is determined by the whims of a BM(battle master)?".
TheDamnedOne wrote:At the end of the day 40k still has an amazing fluff
*snip*
I'm obsessed with it, blaring through novels, and when my 2 kids grow up, if 40k is still around they will receive a gifted army of their choice.
Uh yeah. 40Ks fluff is under-developed, inconsistent and not the topic. The topic is," What would it mean to you if the system lost all of its game aspects and just became an over-priced role-playing system?".
Flake wrote:I don't see the randomness in 6th Edition as randomness just for the sake of being random. It's risk and reward. Everything in 6th from allies, to preparing for/including fliers, to mysterious objectives, and psychic power charts is all risk and reward.
Managing risk is a skill.
Risk management is not the same thing as gambling.
Random dice rolls are gambling.
Risk management is about minimizing risks.
A Risk management specialist would then avoid gambling.
Ergo, risk management would dictate that the general would never engage in the battle in the first place if faced with the level of gambling that is present in the 40k system.
Captain Avatar wrote:Not that much of a stretch when you read the games day interviews about how the designers play the game.
No, it's a complete stretch. You've got nothing to back up your theory.
Summarise your position, and support it with evidence, and we can have ourselves a debate. At the moment your just throwing around a whole bunch of opinions as if they were facts.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Alkasyn wrote:
We wrote:The game started and grew in a time period when tournaments never existed. If this is GW's aim and it does succeed then the game will continue on just fine like it did in the 80's and 90's.
It's worth remembering that the 80s and the 90s didn't have as many alternatives to tabletop W40K as the 2000s.
I think 40Ks main draw card is it's unique and established background. And in that regard, there are still no real alternatives to 40K.
We wrote:The game started and grew in a time period when tournaments never existed. If this is GW's aim and it does succeed then the game will continue on just fine like it did in the 80's and 90's.
It's worth remembering that the 80s and the 90s didn't have as many alternatives to tabletop W40K as the 2000s.
Battletech was out in 1984, and while I didn't start it at that time, was a fun game.
SoloFalcon1138 wrote:What are they supposed to be accomplishing? A fair and balanced game where everyone can win? Have you seen what happened to MtG when tournament play is now the only real priority?
WH40K does actually remind me more and more of those collectible card games. Not the shoddy rules (the card games are often pretty tight) but the way there's always the next expansion set with new powers and if you can't afford it you're screwed.
1)You are making a fallacious argument/assumption that competitive play /= fun.
1a)My "question" was, What if GW removes all competitive aspects of the game and only leaves an over-costed role-playing system in its place? A system that requires a third individual to be a BM(battle master) that directs(controls) the battle and the outcome is determined by what the BM views as most cinematic.
Your assumptions were:
You state that GW is "waging war" - how is that not overly emotional and inflamatory?
You stated that the Hobby was becoming elitest by actually catering for non tournament players - again over the top statement.2)
Never called anyone an elitist RPGer. Said that the game is headed toward being an elititist role-playing system. If you can not understand the difference here then I will have to assume that you are either deliberately misreading or are so emotional on the issue that further discussion is pointless. Though I do find you trying to label me as a tourney elitist very amusing.
I did not lable you - you have did that all by yourself - best read your own statement back to yourself here.
I said if you are going to label people / a gaming style even as elitest then it cuts both ways and as you know veyr well many people consider the mainly tournament players as elitest who disdain non competative army lists and those who use them as ametaurs. Also note I did not use the somewhat imflamatory WAAC abreviations etc
You state that GW is "waging war" - how is that not overly emotional and inflamatory?
You stated that the Hobby was becoming elitest by actually catering for non tournament players - again over the top statement.[/color]2)
Could it be he was employing a metaphor or otherwise colorful language? We're not writing quarterly reports here, you know.
And it could be just me, but a game favoring those with the cash to buy more multiples of $45-60 models around the cheap 100-point mark than the other guy leans both toward elitism and anti-competitiveness.
TheAvengingKnee wrote: For casual games the rules seem a lot more fun, some of the random terrain features(poor fire warrior squad that ended up in a carnivorous forest with an exploding objective, but they were my opponents so ).
Small things like that can make the game more interesting and when people are less competitive and joking back and forth it's much more fun to play. Don't get me wrong local tournaments can be fun but I have no interest in going to a larger tournament.
I had an extra immortal gauss blaster, so I gave it to my friend who plays space wolves. He had to remove one of the tubes to get it to fit on his marine, so we made a story for it. The phase out (or self destruct) system in an immortal defected causing him to stay on the battle field. The wolf marine gave the blaster to a space wolf scientist. Being a space wolf scientist, he was an idiot and said that the tube was useless and the weapon was lighter without it. That was the tube that supplied stabilizing plasmas. Now on a roll to hit of 1 the gun explodes with the small blast and everyone under it takes a Str4 AP5 gauss rule hit. The wolf is then unarmed for the rest of the game, assuming he survives, other than his bolt pistol. (This is my happy face!) (this is my laughing face!) (this is my equivalent of the top right orkmoticon with glasses!)
You state that GW is "waging war" - how is that not overly emotional and inflamatory?
You stated that the Hobby was becoming elitest by actually catering for non tournament players - again over the top statement.[/color]2)
Could it be he was employing a metaphor or otherwise colorful language? We're not writing quarterly reports here, you know.
And it could be just me, but a game favoring those with the cash to buy more multiples of $45-60 models around the cheap 100-point mark than the other guy leans both toward elitism and anti-competitiveness.
Maybe but when he also says to me - I will have to assume that you are either deliberately misreading or are so emotional on the issue that further discussion is pointless" I kind of feel like calling a pot kettle black
If you are playing non competative games peope, are normally fine with reasonable proxies - I know I am - Hell i lend people one of my armies if then need them armies- its the tournament scene that specifically requires the outlay of specific models to win
Not just the tournament, no. My club and others in my region disocurage prozying that is not actual conversion work. Though it is true that many of the rules from tournaments bleed down into club and store play.
Also, the line for 'reasonable' proxying is a blurry one. I've seen rhino proxies made of legos and plasticard vendettas in play. Some of my friends are appalled, others don't much care.
personally, if GW does "succeed" in making 40k a narrative RPG, then it will actually force players to think about how to construct their army to fit with the story (i.e. battle) at hand instead of just net-building and playing the same game every time. the thing i enjoy most about 40k is that if you are playing with the right people, every single game is different! and with all of the options GW has given us already (the entire catalog of models + our own conversions + using models from other games, etc) why should there ever be 2 armies that are the same?
granted, i played magic for 12 years competitively and non, and if i learned anything from that, it is that the rogue always wins (if he has planned accordingly). when things get overly competitive, you then run into situations where everyone is playing the same thing and the game becomes a static, sad excuse for a game until the update arrives.
i am all in for competitive role-playing, where even if you lose the battle, you could still end up winning the war (don't know how tourneys really work, but award points for story, uniqueness, etc)
i think for a lot of players, it is a hobby first anyway and a GAME second. note that it is really just a game, and one that is so unique and personal, that you can really play it however you'd like (pending opponent). to sit here and worry about it becoming more than a game, a more in depth story-telling game that invokes the imagination and inspires people to come together to have fun and be involved in something more, well, that is just foolish and ignorant. creativity, in any area of life, whether it be a game or a job or a hobby, should always be rewarded greater than he/she who "wins" otherwise.
besides, it is still based on rolling dice and random chance events. even the most experienced and competitive of players can still lose to a noob. i've done it and i have had it happen to me plenty of times as well. the only competition there should ever be is to see who can have the most fun with it :]
This is a fallacy through and through; army balance is at its best in the new edition thanks to allies and forts.
Captain Avatar wrote: and then add their recent move to stop the tourney friendly Army Builder
Exactly how is AB a tournament software? It is no different no matter what type of player you are.
Captain Avatar wrote: If GW succeeds in making 40K a non-competitive game, what will be the long-term impact of such?
They won't succeed because (a) it never was a competitive game, and (b) they are not stupid and they wouldn't discourage people from buying their product and using it whatever the purpose is.
allibator wrote: personally, if GW does "succeed" in making 40k a narrative RPG, then it will actually force players to think about how to construct their army to fit with the story (i.e. battle) at hand instead of just net-building and playing the same game every time.
Yesss. I'll ge to -really- flesh out my Archon's House and lineage, the rivals he bested on his way to power, his manic dreams of conquest and the byzantine web of intrigue and epic woe that he both unleashes upon others and finds crashing back on himself...
...before he is curb-stomped by a random termi with a power fist os insta-killed by a nameless GK with a psycannon .
The two do not mix. In any way. The venn diagram wouldn't work.
Staggeringly wrong; to a degree close to a loss of all credibility.
40k can be played as a competition or as a narrative. How it is played is up to the parties involved before each gaming venture. I can play a tournament one day, and that night play a totally fluffy narrative game for pure and raw fun.
The two do not mix. In any way. The venn diagram wouldn't work.
Staggeringly wrong; to a degree close to a loss of all credibility.
40k can be played as a competition or as a narrative. How it is played is up to the parties involved before each gaming venture. I can play a tournament one day, and that night play a totally fluffy narrative game for pure and raw fun.
Facts.
Heck, sometimes it can be a competition AND a narrative. I know, the mind boggles! One of my friends was planning a 40k campaign baed on Planetaru Empires where all the generals would start on a map-grid and then battle each other to take control on the planet's regions and strategic assets until one finall wins.
But I guess that being somewhat balanced across all armies would really ruin the narrative immersion! Alas, such a fleeting muse, cinematics!
Sephyr wrote: But I guess that being somewhat balanced across all armies would really ruin the narrative immersion! Alas, such a fleeting muse, cinematics!
We wrote:The game started and grew in a time period when tournaments never existed. If this is GW's aim and it does succeed then the game will continue on just fine like it did in the 80's and 90's.
It's worth remembering that the 80s and the 90s didn't have as many alternatives to tabletop W40K as the 2000s.
Battletech was out in 1984, and while I didn't start it at that time, was a fun game.
The general consensus that I'm seeing is that 40k can't be turned into a narrative game, because it is one already. But at the same time, it's a competitive table-top game. I see no conflict here, my friends and I play to win, but I have a made-up craftworld and paint scheme, as my ork friend has made a new clan (and colors). Tournament circuits won't fade, and players won't stop making up things. Life goes on. Gws can imbalance things all they want, but we'll still keep playing, if only in an effort to survive until the next update
I think GW is simply the most cynical gaming company in the industry, and realizes that despite being a pretty lousy tournament game, people will want to try to play 40k as such. They're commited customers.
You don't grow a brand by getting people that will always buy your product to like it more. You grow it by getting more people to buy it.
There is nothign in 6th edition that tournament play won't fix over time. If casual players like it more, than GW sells more, and gets Nova and Adepticon to do a lot of the heavy lifting.
As an aside: I make this plea in everything thread along these lines, and it's rarely heeded. Tournament players, and the guys at clubs and shops that bring nasty net-lists to demolish newbs, are rarely the same guys. An actually skilled tournament player gets nothing out of spending two hours wiping the floor with a palooka. They want a challenge and they want to get better. Guys that bring that kind of game to 40k night at the FLGS are no more "competive" 40k players than the hardcore guy on the company softball team is a professional ballplayer.
One thing I've always wondered about this whole 'net-list' mentality. Can someone please point in the direction of where one could find these so called net-lists.
I've scoured many 40k forums and have not once come across this magical repository of super hard, ultra-competive army lists. I've seen plenty of threads where people discuss what is good/bad about codex and I've seen people post army-lists and get comments/criticism. What I have not yet seen are these supposed 100% win rate, cookie cutter army lists that people always complain about.
Compared to say an MMORPG talent tree where it is simple enough to just google your class and you'll immediately get a breakdown for where every single skill point should be placed for maximum benefit. As well as a guide for what type of gear/stats you should aim for and DPS/healing/tanking rotations for a variety of situations whether it be survivability, endurance, burst, etc.
Or is net-list just a catch all term for any army list created that uses information from people on forums.
The two do not mix. In any way. The venn diagram wouldn't work.
Staggeringly wrong; to a degree close to a loss of all credibility.
40k can be played as a competition or as a narrative. How it is played is up to the parties involved before each gaming venture. I can play a tournament one day, and that night play a totally fluffy narrative game for pure and raw fun.
Facts.
I don't play for competition or narrative. I play for fun. I am the 99%
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Madcat87 wrote: One thing I've always wondered about this whole 'net-list' mentality. Can someone please point in the direction of where one could find these so called net-lists.
6th is still too young, but in 5th the archetype was Draigowing (Draigo+pimped out paladins).
Netlist doesn't nessarily mean over-powered. The archetypal chaos netlist was plague marines with maxed out obliterators. It wasn't particularly OP, it was just endemic.
Testify wrote:6th is still too young, but in 5th the archetype was Draigowing (Draigo+pimped out paladins).
Netlist doesn't nessarily mean over-powered. The archetypal chaos netlist was plague marines with maxed out obliterators. It wasn't particularly OP, it was just endemic.
Yes I know the names and general strategies of many armies used in 5th, I personally was a fan of Fatecrusher but what I'm after is the "this exact list has been perfectly refined for 100% victory" that the term net-list seems to imply. I've seen plenty of guides to building a list with a set list of design decisions to follow but there is still a lot of personal input.
Infact as I googled Fatecrusher one of the first results gave me this.
If you google Fatecrusher you'll find a lot of different variations of the list.
...
The rest of the list is up to personal preference, usually using Plaguebearers as troops to claim objective.
Even googling Draigowing you will be hard pressed to find 2 lists that are identical.
To me what a net-list really seems to be is any army list that is built using the input of others from the net, but is drawing on the experience of 1000s of generals fighting millions of battles really such a bad thing? People ask for painting, converting and collecting tips all the time but when someone wants gaming tips all of a sudden they're doing something wrong.
To me what a net-list really seems to be is any army list that is built using the input of others from the net, but is drawing on the experience of 1000s of generals fighting millions of battles really such a bad thing? People ask for painting, converting and collecting tips all the time but when someone wants gaming tips all of a sudden they're doing something wrong.
Well it's complex.
For example, I used to run mech guard. Was I running a leafblower netlist? Yes and no.
Yes because by some definitions of leafblower, any mechanised guard list is a netlist. This is obviously stupid. However, there was some truth - running as many vendettas as you can, plus mechvets, stank of cheese. It never appealed to me, and not just because I could never afford so many flyers. I ran things that I knew were sub-optimal - Russes instead of Manticores for one, but were still powerful because hey, they're Russes.
I also run Fateweaver Tzeentch lists. Note Fateweaver, NOT Fatecrusher. I run mono-Tzeentch lists. I know that plaguebearers are probably better than horrors (or they were when I started in 5th), but I want to run a fluffy list, so I only use Tzeentch models. However, I also want to be powerful, so I still run Fateweaver. If I was running a netlist, I'd swap my MOT Deamon Princes for MOK, and my pink horrors for plague marines.
I haven't explained myself very well, but basically when people mean "netlist", they don't mean a list that has incorporated the strategic observations of "the community", they mean a list that has little/no thought in it, and is simply copied off somewhere on the internet.
Usually anyone who has a netlist lacks knowledge of their own codexes, and outside of a few specific power builds (Draigo in 5th for example) probably won't do very well.
Polonius wrote: As an aside: I make this plea in everything thread along these lines, and it's rarely heeded. Tournament players, and the guys at clubs and shops that bring nasty net-lists to demolish newbs, are rarely the same guys. An actually skilled tournament player gets nothing out of spending two hours wiping the floor with a palooka. They want a challenge and they want to get better. Guys that bring that kind of game to 40k night at the FLGS are no more "competive" 40k players than the hardcore guy on the company softball team is a professional ballplayer.
On the other hand, most tournament players I know (myself included) like to get in as many practice games before an event as possible, and so will often bring their tournament lists to regular club/shop gaming nights.
I was replying to your statement that if the game is less competitive it will die........
that is because your from the UK . Imagine countries which are not small without a dense net of GW and non GW shops , no or very few table top gaming clubs . Which is more or less how most of europe looks like . tournaments and shop games is what keeps the community playing any game there. If a firm , doesnt matter which one , stops supporting tournament play and it doesnt mean prizes . it is just that few people want to play in enviroment where you cant do much againt one type of army [like necron scythwing] . It isnt fun for tournaments and it isnt fun for casuals . fewer people playing means less support from shops for tournaments , in some cases shops going bankrupt [FLGS cant go the way GW and keep shops no matter what] , sometimes it is whole communities dieing out ,because no one wants to play mirror matches with their GK or SW or necrons. Tournaments are realy a very important part of the community , if they are at cons they are free advertising . Shop tournaments bring new players and generat sells for those shops , just like leagues . Without all of that vets would soon find themselfs in a position where there is no where to play save maybe for a few big tournaments per year.
I remember what happened to warmhordes after PP showed eastern europe the finger . Ultra dynamic system that was having 100+ tournaments and many large 50-60 people local tournaments per month , droped dead within a year.
On the other hand, most tournament players I know (myself included) like to get in as many practice games before an event as possible, and so will often bring their tournament lists to regular club/shop gaming nights.
True . In eastern europe there isnt such a thing as non tournament armies or non tournament games . Everyone uses the same build for tournaments and normal games . lists are divided in to good and bad , not fluffy/not fluffy. what does that even mean unfluffy , if it is legal from a GW supported codex then it is automaticly fluffy . Specialy as most of the ultra brutal builds since 2ed were all totaly fluffy.. 3ed mecha guard ? fluffy . 2ed SW? totaly fluffy. . eldar cirucus ? perfectly fluffy . draigo wing ? same . scyth wing ? same , etc etc etc.
Somehow this is still going... can be summed up in one sentence imo.
Custom Competitive rules, already done by the major tournaments.
With custom rules, you can eliminate some of the more unbalancing randomness in the game (warlord traits, mysterious objectives/terrain, or even random charge distance).
This is so simple, yet such a hyperbolic discussion.
People who are into tournaments are almost invariably horrible people to play against, with few exceptions. I believe home gaming with friends and a few beers has always been what the hobby is about.
The occasion tournament at an independent centre is a lot of fun, but the GW sponsored and/or big regional/national events just attract the absolute scum of he Earth. Those WAAC types who bring cheese lists and cry and moan if they don't win and contest absolutely every rule which bogs the game down pointlessly...Horrible.
I hope the 'war on competitive gaming' (aka as*holes) is victorious for GW.
And this is just as hyperbolic, just in the other direction
People who like to play competitively are not automatically TFG.
I think it's a great move by GW in starting a war on competitive gaming.
People who are into tournaments are almost invariably horrible people to play against, with few exceptions. I believe home gaming with friends and a few beers has always been what the hobby is about.
The occasion tournament at an independent centre is a lot of fun, but the GW sponsored and/or big regional/national events just attract the absolute scum of he Earth. Those WAAC types who bring cheese lists and cry and moan if they don't win and contest absolutely every rule which bogs the game down pointlessly...Horrible.
I hope the 'war on competitive gaming' (aka as*holes) is victorious for GW.
I've invested in excess of $2000 on 40k and WHFB and have not entered a single tournament for either. If tournaments 'die', the game will go on and a lot of people won't care.
I don't think 40k was ever made for competitive play. The company wanted to sell miniatures and made a rules set to facilitate that and has never been completely finished.
Editions come and go every time the company wants to sell something new, or re-focus gameplay on a certain line of figures. There is really no regard for 'fair' competition even though fans of the game wail constantly for something resembling faction equity. Doing this though really puts the tabletop game at odds with the fluff and creates irate fans trying to bend the game to their will.
Madcat87 wrote: I've scoured many 40k forums and have not once come across this magical repository of super hard, ultra-competive army lists. I've seen plenty of threads where people discuss what is good/bad about codex and I've seen people post army-lists and get comments/criticism. What I have not yet seen are these supposed 100% win rate, cookie cutter army lists that people always complain about.
There are some tournaments where people supposedly make the hardest list they can, be that in blowing away enemies or just refusing to die or budge from objectives. Ofc everyone else enters with the same objective and fights are in rounds so there will be few or no lists with a 100% win score. Many of them seem to be a list with the hardest HQ from the codex, followed by a copy-pasted number of the most points-effective troops/elites/fast/heavy choices with transports or not as it may be. The GK list with as many Psy-ammo TL-HB Razorbacks as possible and three Psy-ammo dual-TL-Autocannon dreadnoughts spring to mind...
What "net-list" refers to is a player just copying one of those tournament armies since it did good or was very common, despite him not necessarily knowing why or how that list is good.
People who are into tournaments are almost invariably horrible people to play against, with few exceptions. I believe home gaming with friends and a few beers has always been what the hobby is about.
The occasion tournament at an independent centre is a lot of fun, but the GW sponsored and/or big regional/national events just attract the absolute scum of he Earth. Those WAAC types who bring cheese lists and cry and moan if they don't win and contest absolutely every rule which bogs the game down pointlessly...Horrible.
I hope the 'war on competitive gaming' (aka as*holes) is victorious for GW.
People who are into tournaments are almost invariably horrible people to play against, with few exceptions. I believe home gaming with friends and a few beers has always been what the hobby is about.
The occasion tournament at an independent centre is a lot of fun, but the GW sponsored and/or big regional/national events just attract the absolute scum of he Earth. Those WAAC types who bring cheese lists and cry and moan if they don't win and contest absolutely every rule which bogs the game down pointlessly...Horrible.
I hope the 'war on competitive gaming' (aka as*holes) is victorious for GW.
Too often actually, your point is wrong. I find it is usually the casual players coming off as 'waac' (stupid term, really) in complaining and contesting rules, simply because they don't know them. Tourney players more often than not are VERY VERY clear on their rules, because if not, it can lead to their disqualification.
I once played against a kid, must have been about 16, and he was clearly a casual. He spent a good 10 minutes adamantly asserting that a Chaplain's Liturgies of Battle allowed his squad to reroll all failed rolls to hit ALL THE TIME.
Yes, that is just one example, but my point stands; if a competitive player is questioning a rule, he's usually right and knows this, because chances are he's had it come up before, or researched it so he doesn't get screwed over in a tournament. If he is making one up or being an arse about it, he should not be lumped in with competitive player; you have stumbled across what we on earth call "A douche." He is not a representation of the tournament environment, and you should not stereotype it as such, especially when I expect you've never ACTUALLY been to a national event.
Edit: Not to mention, GW has made no crusade against competitive gaming. They (albeit pretty passively) support it. Why would they want to get rid of a whole part of their client-base? No, the war has been 'declared' by overreactive casuals who can't stand their poorly written list getting slapped around by good players. Frankly, I don't even think competitive gamers care, either. It's a pretty one-sided hissy-fit that competitive gamers just tend to ignore. Notice there's no thread about how much competitive players hate casual gamers. Not much of a war at all.
I used to regularly play in tournaments but I won't be for probably a year as the meta balances with 3-4 new books. Still playing 40k and about to kick off a map based campaign here at home while playing other games. The money saved in gas and extra GW purchases is going toward new board games and other miniatures to paint. I guess it could be said that GW is succeeding at two things: making competition harder to organize and making being a retailer for their product harder. I'll be keeping it at home, enjoying some beverages and reconquering Vogen for the 4th(?) time now using Cities of Death, Cityfight, Battle Missions, and 6th Edition. Looking forward to the Chaos releases but that still won't get me playing tournaments again for a long time.
I think experiences with tournaments is very individual, the same as with game shops. Hard to judge a company philosophy by each of our own small windows into the game.
TheCaptain wrote:Run nine flyers man. Six Vendettas, Three Valks. That stuff is cray. I run a 11 flyer list for Elysians sometimes; just to haze kids at the FLGS.
Go ahead and weep about it, fluffers.
TheCaptain wrote:
Too often actually, your point is wrong. I find it is usually the casual players coming off as 'waac' (stupid term, really) in complaining and contesting rules, simply because they don't know them. Tourney players more often than not are VERY VERY clear on their rules, because if not, it can lead to their disqualification.
TheCaptain wrote:Run nine flyers man. Six Vendettas, Three Valks. That stuff is cray. I run a 11 flyer list for Elysians sometimes; just to haze kids at the FLGS.
Go ahead and weep about it, fluffers.
TheCaptain wrote:
Too often actually, your point is wrong. I find it is usually the casual players coming off as 'waac' (stupid term, really) in complaining and contesting rules, simply because they don't know them. Tourney players more often than not are VERY VERY clear on their rules, because if not, it can lead to their disqualification.
Irony thy point is made.
While you have a point, he did clarify in the thread that he was trolling the OP with hyperbole.
The only people that I have played are competitive players, and none of them have been douches yet. Just being a competitive player doesn't make you TFG.
TheCaptain wrote:Run nine flyers man. Six Vendettas, Three Valks. That stuff is cray. I run a 11 flyer list for Elysians sometimes; just to haze kids at the FLGS.
Go ahead and weep about it, fluffers.
TheCaptain wrote:
Too often actually, your point is wrong. I find it is usually the casual players coming off as 'waac' (stupid term, really) in complaining and contesting rules, simply because they don't know them. Tourney players more often than not are VERY VERY clear on their rules, because if not, it can lead to their disqualification.
Irony thy point is made.
While you have a point, he did clarify in the thread that he was trolling the OP with hyperbole.
The only people that I have played are competitive players, and none of them have been douches yet. Just being a competitive player doesn't make you TFG.
'He used the words "cray, haze, and fluffers"...he MUST be serious!"
TheCaptain wrote:Run nine flyers man. Six Vendettas, Three Valks. That stuff is cray. I run a 11 flyer list for Elysians sometimes; just to haze kids at the FLGS.
Go ahead and weep about it, fluffers.
TheCaptain wrote:
Too often actually, your point is wrong. I find it is usually the casual players coming off as 'waac' (stupid term, really) in complaining and contesting rules, simply because they don't know them. Tourney players more often than not are VERY VERY clear on their rules, because if not, it can lead to their disqualification.
Irony thy point is made.
While you have a point, he did clarify in the thread that he was trolling the OP with hyperbole.
The only people that I have played are competitive players, and none of them have been douches yet. Just being a competitive player doesn't make you TFG.
'He used the words "cray, haze, and fluffers"...he MUST be serious!"
But really, welcome to the internet ZebioLizard2
Thanks! Even if sarcastic in intent.
Though to be honest I don't have a belief that there's a war vs anything. So long as you aren't a douche ingame or out of it it's all good. Though I do have a soured attitude towards competitive types after playing 4th edition thanks to a nearby store where everyone seemed intent on "Breaking" everyone they could to prepare for tournaments.
Though I wish some casuals would learn the rules, I don't care if you don't mind if you win or lose, LEARN THE RULES.
TheCaptain wrote:Run nine flyers man. Six Vendettas, Three Valks. That stuff is cray. I run a 11 flyer list for Elysians sometimes; just to haze kids at the FLGS.
Go ahead and weep about it, fluffers.
TheCaptain wrote:
Too often actually, your point is wrong. I find it is usually the casual players coming off as 'waac' (stupid term, really) in complaining and contesting rules, simply because they don't know them. Tourney players more often than not are VERY VERY clear on their rules, because if not, it can lead to their disqualification.
Irony thy point is made.
While you have a point, he did clarify in the thread that he was trolling the OP with hyperbole.
The only people that I have played are competitive players, and none of them have been douches yet. Just being a competitive player doesn't make you TFG.
'He used the words "cray, haze, and fluffers"...he MUST be serious!"
But really, welcome to the internet ZebioLizard2
Thanks! Even if sarcastic in intent.
Though to be honest I don't have a belief that there's a war vs anything. So long as you aren't a douche ingame or out of it it's all good. Though I do have a soured attitude towards competitive types after playing 4th edition thanks to a nearby store where everyone seemed intent on "Breaking" everyone they could to prepare for tournaments.
Though I wish some casuals would learn the rules, I don't care if you don't mind if you win or lose, LEARN THE RULES.
*Sigh.*
People like TheCaptain is why I am gradually switching to more friendly alternative 40k forums; I am sick of having to siv through all the crap people like him post (even if is trolling)...I'm glad his other thread got locked. No offence or anything. He is unfortunately a drop in the ocean...
Well, someone in the other thread did just call 'Hammerhand Halberds' exploitative... I'm not really sure how that works at all.
So using psychic powers in conjunction with higher initiative weapons so you strike first and with a higher strength is 'being a douche competitive player' now?
Funny, I thought that was using your rules/powers/equipment to your advantage.
People like TheCaptain is why I am gradually switching to more friendly alternative 40k forums; I am sick of having to siv through all the crap people like him post (even if is trolling)...I'm glad his other thread got locked. Oh woe is me the mean man said something I don't like. No offence or anything. He is unfortunately a drop in the ocean...
I'm so famous! So famous that you know exactly how I am, and enough of my characteristics that you can judge who is "like" me. Considering all the viable, informative posts I make, I think you can "siv through all the crap"
<3
(Saying no offense after rudeness doesn't really work.)
People like TheCaptain is why I am gradually switching to more friendly alternative 40k forums; I am sick of having to siv through all the crap people like him post (even if is trolling)...I'm glad his other thread got locked. No offence or anything. He is unfortunately a drop in the ocean...
Dakka is actually a pretty decent forum. Threads like these attract strong opinions, and are not representative of the forum as a whole.
Testify wrote: Honestly I don't care about tournament play. I only ever play with my friends.
So if you want to take 9 Vendettas to a battle, so be it. I'm not the poor bastard who has to play you .
40k is a lot like religion. It's fine in moderation, but people who take it *really* seriously should probably be avoided.
What if they take 9 Valkyries with 3 Vultures? And call themselves Elysians, will you play those armies? In all honesty I probably won't play in any form of true tournament due to the encouraged behaviour of WAAC. I want to state the have no real issue with some WAAC lists, but remember this is a 2+ player game, if you are a douche nozzle and always pull out Doomscythe spam, and wanting exact precision and rules lawyering (you moved 6.2368 of an inch, or my constant favorite of needing to rush at every moment even if you dont have plans, just to try and throw me on my rear foot )in a 'friendly' game, then I won't play with you very often, and that same note I am willing to play the list in a no holds barred type game, as long as we are having fun doing so.
Please note, I am a strong advocate of beerhammer, in otherwords drinking and having fun in general while playing
Testify wrote: Honestly I don't care about tournament play. I only ever play with my friends.
So if you want to take 9 Vendettas to a battle, so be it. I'm not the poor bastard who has to play you .
40k is a lot like religion. It's fine in moderation, but people who take it *really* seriously should probably be avoided.
I just want to mention that, IMO, you're much more likely to encounter someone who takes Warhammer *really* seriously at a games club, than at a tournament.
I used to really enjoy tournaments back in the day. And I'm talking, back in the GT days when you got trohpies for placing tops in each category.
However, around 2004-05 I started to notice a disturbing trend, one in which trophies dissapeared and product or outright cash was instead offered up for placing tops in the various categories. Then it became very disproportionate, so for example 'Best General' got a battlefore, but 'Best Sportsmanship' only got a $25 blister or box set. Finally, most tournaments started doing away with the 'soft scores' altogether and then only thing that mattered was winning games.
Thus became the animal that's now the "Mercenary's 40k Tournaments" which I have come to utterly despise.
No more fun, no more sportsmanship, not even the decency to put in the effort to put 3 basic colours on your models for feth's sake!!! Nope, now it seems like most tournaments just reward payers for being giant donkeycaves and a contest of who can break the game the best or run the world's most boring spam army?
Once actual money is on the line, I find that in general people's basic manners go out the window and it's all about being the biggest and loudest bully in the room. Why the hell would I pay money to attend that kind of crap?!
So now I don't play in tournaments outside of Astronomi-con which is one the very few events that fully encompasses and encourages the entire hobby. So the competitive guys can go beat the crap out of eachother for best general, the painters can make everyone else utterly jealous of their mad skills, the 'nice guys' can see who's the most fun to play against, hell, even the 'fluff bunnies' can get an award for their army list & background while the crazy modelers can win an award for 'best terrain'!
It's something for everyone, and best of all, all the actual GW product is raffled off as door prizes, so if you really, really, really want that one specific set, you can buy a craptonne of raffle tickets and likely land it!
And after 5 Astro's, I have yet to see any game devolve into ruthless name-calling or outright fist-fights! And imho, it's mainly because Astro doesn't offer up cash for prizes.
Testify wrote: Honestly I don't care about tournament play. I only ever play with my friends.
So if you want to take 9 Vendettas to a battle, so be it. I'm not the poor bastard who has to play you .
40k is a lot like religion. It's fine in moderation, but people who take it *really* seriously should probably be avoided.
I just want to mention that, IMO, you're much more likely to encounter someone who takes Warhammer *really* seriously at a games club, than at a tournament.
People are different so yeah it will vary - you will have nice tournament players and idiot friendly players.
however - the tournament players at out club have tremendous difficulty in fielding anything opther than finally tuned lists - even if their opponent is new to the game or just looking to enjoy their evening off.
What really annoys me about one of them is that not only does he do this but he can not and will not accept that he is ever wrong and when proved that he is makes no appology.
So apparently moving Flat out means " you must move 18" no more , no less". Laser pointers are not straight enough to judge compared to his eyes. Oh and of course his downloaded copy codex is almost never with him.
Anything you quesition is met with "I AM a Grand Tournament player - I know the rules" or even worse when shown the rule he is using is wrong "Well we always played it like that in tournaments so it must be right"
Mr Morden wrote: People are different so yeah it will vary - you will have nice tournament players and idiot friendly players.
however - the tournament players at out club have tremendous difficulty in fielding anything opther than finally tuned lists - even if their opponent is new to the game or just looking to enjoy their evening off.
What really annoys me about one of them is that not only does he do this but he can not and will not accept that he is ever wrong and when proved that he is makes no appology.
So apparently moving Flat out means " you must move 18" no more , no less". Laser pointers are not straight enough to judge compared to his eyes. Oh and of course his downloaded copy codex is almost never with him.
Anything you quesition is met with "I AM a Grand Tournament player - I know the rules" or even worse when shown the rule he is using is wrong "Well we always played it like that in tournaments so it must be right"
I question why people would play someone like that. I'd be hard-pressed not to walk from the game after a bit of it, myself.
TheCaptain wrote:Run nine flyers man. Six Vendettas, Three Valks. That stuff is cray. I run a 11 flyer list for Elysians sometimes; just to haze kids at the FLGS.
Go ahead and weep about it, fluffers.
TheCaptain wrote:
Too often actually, your point is wrong. I find it is usually the casual players coming off as 'waac' (stupid term, really) in complaining and contesting rules, simply because they don't know them. Tourney players more often than not are VERY VERY clear on their rules, because if not, it can lead to their disqualification.
Irony thy point is made.
While you have a point, he did clarify in the thread that he was trolling the OP with hyperbole.
The only people that I have played are competitive players, and none of them have been douches yet. Just being a competitive player doesn't make you TFG.
'He used the words "cray, haze, and fluffers"...he MUST be serious!"
But really, welcome to the internet ZebioLizard2
Thanks! Even if sarcastic in intent.
Though to be honest I don't have a belief that there's a war vs anything. So long as you aren't a douche ingame or out of it it's all good. Though I do have a soured attitude towards competitive types after playing 4th edition thanks to a nearby store where everyone seemed intent on "Breaking" everyone they could to prepare for tournaments.
Though I wish some casuals would learn the rules, I don't care if you don't mind if you win or lose, LEARN THE RULES.
*Sigh.*
People like TheCaptain is why I am gradually switching to more friendly alternative 40k forums; I am sick of having to siv through all the crap people like him post (even if is trolling)...I'm glad his other thread got locked. No offence or anything. He is unfortunately a drop in the ocean...
because it means you just wasted 1-2 hours time to get to the shop 1-2 hours to get back home , gas and probably a day in a weekend you could have spent doing something else , maybe it is that?
Then it became very disproportionate, so for example 'Best General' got a battlefore, but 'Best Sportsmanship' only got a $25 blister or box set.
Disproportionate ? how , because to get best general you have to win X games , sometimes through 2 days and to get best sportsmanship you have to come with the biggest crew who will vote for you .
That's why I don't go to games clubs
Ok so what would be your advice to places in the world where there are no clubs ?
Mr Morden wrote: People are different so yeah it will vary - you will have nice tournament players and idiot friendly players.
however - the tournament players at out club have tremendous difficulty in fielding anything opther than finally tuned lists - even if their opponent is new to the game or just looking to enjoy their evening off.
What really annoys me about one of them is that not only does he do this but he can not and will not accept that he is ever wrong and when proved that he is makes no appology.
So apparently moving Flat out means " you must move 18" no more , no less". Laser pointers are not straight enough to judge compared to his eyes. Oh and of course his downloaded copy codex is almost never with him.
Anything you quesition is met with "I AM a Grand Tournament player - I know the rules" or even worse when shown the rule he is using is wrong "Well we always played it like that in tournaments so it must be right"
I question why people would play someone like that. I'd be hard-pressed not to walk from the game after a bit of it, myself.
Its difficult to walk away when you have travelled some distance to have a game in the evening - perhaps your only game of the week. And by the time the game is half over and the irritation level has been reached - thats your evening ruined :( The game with most of the above quotes ended when both players gave up - and one went home (1/2 hour drive) and the problem player then kept wandering around the remaining players in the club moaning to us!
We normally arrange games on the club forum in advance and whilst it was obvious from his first few games there was issue with this player - people were trying to give him a fair shake at our club. To be honest he is pretty close now to be being banned.......
).
Great comment as always.
(This is my happy face!) 
I'm so famous! So famous that you know exactly how I am, and enough of my characteristics that you can judge who is "like" me. Considering all the viable, informative posts I make, I think you can "siv through all the crap"
Nope, now it seems like most tournaments just reward payers for being giant donkeycaves and a contest of who can break the game the best or run the world's most boring spam army?
