There is a lot of chat around at the moment about how 40k "isn't a competitive game" or even "has never been a competitive game". I'm just wondering what people mean by this term? To me "competitive" is a term best applied to players, rather than a game system. There are three main factors in a game of 40k, as far as I can see it: list v list, player v player and dice v dice. If people mean that the player v player aspect doesn't matter anymore, they are very wrong. Good players win tournaments, often with "balanced" lists (meaning a variety of units). But dice v dice is always a part if it too. So there is always a random aspect where a good player can get v unlucky or a bad one benefit from freakish good rolls.

What is it that people mean by the term "competitive" when applied to the game of 40k. Cos to me it is neither chess NOR roulette.

Its not balanced and the ruleset is clunky, bloated, and filled with contradictions or holes.

All of that makes it a pretty poor game for competitions/tournaments.

Taking the most competitive army list possible, exploiting rules to gain advantage and not caring if everyone is enjoying themselves, these are things I have seen happen since 2nd ed and still happen, while not all competitive players fit this unfortunately enough I have seen do and it puts me off

Randomness is not the problem.

You can have "competitive games" that include random elements (e.g. Poker). There are plenty of poker tournaments and some very good players out there.

At the same time, you can have "not-competitive games" that have no random elements whatsoever. Rock-Paper-Scissors includes no random elements, yet running a "tournament" for that game seems ludicrous.

In a tournament of 50 poker players playing various matches, the individual games include plenty of random, but the final tournament winner will probably not be in that spot due to luck alone. It's a reasonably repeatable result.

In a tournament of 50 Rock-Scissor-Paper players, the individual games include nothing random, but the final tournament winner will mostly be there due to luck above all. It's not a reasonably repeatable result.


40K simply shares a lot more with the non-competitive nature of Rock-Paper-Scissor, due to the fact it's list-building aspects work, than it does with, say Poker, where, among other things, all players start from the same "basis", luck or no luck.

Frankly, if 40K were "more random", say if armies and units were given out randomly, similar to a hand of cards in poker, rather than the current "list-building pre-game" which skews things "before the tournament starts", it would probably be more competitive.

Sorry for irrelevant contribution, but I in fact have won a rock-paper-scissors tournament of about 100 people. To be fair, it wasn't the main point of what we were all gathered for, just a time-killer, but still...

Edit: And I actually used strategy that a friend had taught me that almost always works except when the opponent is truly being random.

 Formosa wrote:
Taking the most competitive army list possible, exploiting rules to gain advantage and not caring if everyone is enjoying themselves

Pretty much this.

 KommissarKiln wrote:
Sorry for irrelevant contribution, but I in fact have won a rock-paper-scissors tournament of about 100 people. To be fair, it wasn't the main point of what we were all gathered for, just a time-killer, but still...

Edit: And I actually used strategy that a friend had taught me that almost always works except when the opponent is truly being random.

Fair enough. And 40K tournaments also work as a great time-killer, and you can play around with a bit of strategy too. Inversely, a brilliant poker-player might simply get caught out bad against a mediocre player. The extreme points are abstractions.

But the nature of 40K (or Rock-Paper-Scissors) mean, that the "human contribution", the "skill-factor", whatever you want to call it, is far less important overall than it is in other games, thus a "competition of skill" generally means less. The very fact that you won with a "strategy" that took you .. what? ... 5 minutes to master, shows you that there isn't much to it. Try winning a high-stakes Chess tournament with a 5-minute strategy tip.

And that, to say it again, this is purposefully done for 40K, the meta-game is purposefully shaken up time and again to "invalidate old skills".

If it weren't, it wouldn't be a very attractive game for new-comers, early teens and people dabbling in it. If a game like 40K were "Chess-style-competitive", the main implication would be that, Chess-style, you'd have to spend some 20 years learning and mastering old plays, established strategems, etc.. to be even in the running for qualifying for a main tournament. That would serve neither the company trying to sell miniatures nor the "hobbyists" who want to kill some fun time on the weekends with their miniatures and don't want to go through a "hard" learning-curve of a truly competitive game.

People who'd truly want to test their "competitive edge", would play stuff like Chess.

People trying to be "competitive" in 40K are tying to be the biggest shark in a gold-fish bowl. If they had the true stuff, they'd be out in the ocean. But of course, they'd be eaten there in seconds.

Yes. So. Some people talking about competitive players rather than what I was asking about which is really what people mean about the competitive or otherwise nature of the actual game of 40k. Yes, there will always be douches. Yes, people will attend a game of 40k sometimes bringing different expectations of the experience ahead. I've seen this first hand for sure.

I guess what I'm wondering is why people think that Escalation / Formations / etc break some kind of "fairness" the game had.

I relish the idea of a Rock Paper Scissors tournament (though I probably wouldn't pay 26 quid or spend the weekend in Manchester for one). But I do just find games fun. I like to win, and don't like the couple of times when I have been crushed in a game. And I do think that winning a game takes a kind of weird combination of skill and luck. Some of that skill (a lot of it, for sure) is in list building. But that Doesn't just mean putting all the best stuff in a list and taking that. People who are hyper competitive take Eldar and Tau at the moment, but none of them have own at any of the three tournaments I've attended in the last few months. There were LOTS of both armies in attendance but Necrons, White Scars, Imperial Guard and Space Wolves all did better.

The Scars/Space Wolves army at the last tournament I was at did very well based on playing the game. I've learned a lot from both players. They play the missions. It's a game of tactically applying what you can on the table I think.

That all said, I'm super-new to all this and have only been playing for about 6 months. It's just bugging me a bit that everyone keeps saying how my new hobby, which I really dig (and particularly the tournament / list and strategy devising bit, which I dig the most) is "broken". And "not competitive any more". It just has a RPS element (which I think adds to the fun).

For me these are just the games in a local/global tourament.

Kholzerino wrote:


I guess what I'm wondering is why people think that Escalation / Formations / etc break some kind of "fairness" the game had.

Do we really need another one of these threads? Seriously the front page is filled with threads about this topic. Please go contribute to another one before this one turns into a argument about rich vs poor.


Edit: man I'm failing at this quoting thing..

The attitude of trying to bend poor rules in your favour, purposly take what your opponent cannot deal with, blatantly argue in favour of yourself in any rule situation, unable to relax and let things go for the sake of another persons fun and finally viewing the game as only enjoyable when your opponent is crushed and didnt enjoy the game.

A lot of poeple do this on accident but if they dont change after being told i then hold no sympathy for them. Simple put its someone with a tournament attitude all the time.

Competative is fine with the right attitude.

 Swastakowey wrote:
The attitude of trying to bend poor rules in your favour, purposly take what your opponent cannot deal with, blatantly argue in favour of yourself in any rule situation, unable to relax and let things go for the sake of another persons fun and finally viewing the game as only enjoyable when your opponent is crushed and didnt enjoy the game.

A lot of poeple do this on accident but if they dont change after being told i then hold no sympathy for them. Simple put its someone with a tournament attitude all the time.

Competative is fine with the right attitude.

Again. Yes. Totally. But this is is the competitive nature of PLAYERS which is not what I was talking about.

Kholzerino wrote:


That all said, I'm super-new to all this and have only been playing for about 6 months. It's just bugging me a bit that everyone keeps saying how my new hobby, which I really dig (and particularly the tournament / list and strategy devising bit, which I dig the most) is "broken". And "not competitive any more". It just has a RPS element (which I think adds to the fun).

But there is where things get paradoxical.

If you enjoy Warhammer 40K, and play Warhammer 40K because you enjoy playing Warhammer 40K, go ahead and be as good at it as you can and win as many games as you can. Nothing wrong with that. It's Warhammer 40K, warts and all, that is the main motivation. "Playing competitively" is the approach to it.

But if the argument turns around, where people say they wan't to play "competitively", but hate Warhammer 40K for not providing a proper platform for "playing competitively".... well ..... than don't play Warhammer 40k!!! If the main motivation is "playing competitively", and no longer "playing Warhammer 40K" (warts and all), you don't need to play Warhammer 40K.

Kholzerino wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:
The attitude of trying to bend poor rules in your favour, purposly take what your opponent cannot deal with, blatantly argue in favour of yourself in any rule situation, unable to relax and let things go for the sake of another persons fun and finally viewing the game as only enjoyable when your opponent is crushed and didnt enjoy the game.

A lot of poeple do this on accident but if they dont change after being told i then hold no sympathy for them. Simple put its someone with a tournament attitude all the time.

Competative is fine with the right attitude.

Again. Yes. Totally. But this is is the competitive nature of PLAYERS which is not what I was talking about.

"Simple put its someone with a tournament attitude all the time. "

I shall rephrase this for your peace of mind

"Simply put, its the type of game where one player treats it like a tournament setting, bringing the attitude with it."

To me a game is competetive when two or more players compete to reach an objective first weather that be stomping your opponent off the table or reaching the end of the board. Honestly all board games card games and yes 40K are competetive. It's just that a GOOD competetive game have equal and balanced sides. I beilve that is were that constant calls for this is not a competetive game come from 40k is not always a well balanced game. But all miniature games have this problem or really any game were you the player can choose what peices you are useing.

@OP
Well, how you strung up the game is exactly how I did in thread talking about perceptions of competitiveness. I also believe the game is list v list, player v player, dice v dice (ie luck).

Competitiveness to me in 40k terms really comes from that of how I am as a person. I am an honorable person and with that I will not bring the most broken of aspects to a game as what is the point of playing the match if we knew who was going to win based off the fact everything in my list is utterly broken. I believe to be competitive is to bring a list with strong elements and units that strongly contribute to one another so as to disguise weaknesses (So many people see strong as what is popular, what is broken or what is cheesy, but even the most unpopular of units can be made into strong units if someone takes the time out to learn how to build and play a list that can effectively allow them to contribute to the game). I also believe to be competitive is to know how to play your list. like I said in my other thread 66.6% of the game is list building and generalship, the last 33.3% is simply luck of the dice. Finally, at least to me, being competitive is that of a gentle(man's,woman's) agreement to play as close to fair as possible while playing to the best of their abilities while enjoying themselves as they do so.

When I hear "Competitive Game", I think of a game where I can pick a random faction based off fluff/playstyle, and reasonably be able to go up against other players of similar skill level without being screwed because one of them is playing the power army. Basically "Everything in this game is equally competitive in an open environment, meaning player skill is more important than choosing that one power list".

Competitive in 40k means one of two things for me:

You are playing your army in a way that is effective

You are playing an army in a way that is effective

Group A is the everyman player. They show up, enjoy most pickup games, and like the hobby.

Group B is the WAAC netlisting flavor of the month player.

Oh good, and right on schedule the "casual at all costs" crowd shows up to complain about how anyone who cares more about winning than they do is TFG. Haven't we already had this "discussion" enough times?

If anything is right on time it's your usual negative contribution

A competitive game is the opposite of a co-operative game: instead of working together to achieve a common goal players go head-to-head, usually trying to complete some objective before the other players do, and ultimately ending in a clear winner(s) and loser(s).

That's pretty much what it means. Any other definition is incorrect and is more likely a player imposing his own personal bias and/or feeding you bs.

 juraigamer wrote:
Competitive in 40k means one of two things for me:

You are playing your army in a way that is effective

You are playing an army in a way that is effective

Group A is the everyman player. They show up, enjoy most pickup games, and like the hobby.

Group B is the WAAC netlisting flavor of the month player.

Except it is more like...
Group A: shows up with the army and/or units they like. Maybe it will be a good list, maybe a bad. Of might be built around some fluff or some theming. They go to have fun
Group B: shows up wanting a challenging he. They want to test their mettle against a foe that is either very food at the game and/or has a very devestating list. They might bring some sub-par units for surprise or give them a larger challenge (which sadly is almost always just more random). He is there to have fun. He doesn't want to curb stomp a player. He wants to have fun and regards army building to be a part of it.

In other words, they are almost the same. The only difference is that the casual player is more likely to bring a sub-par unit and have a less coherent list. Both have TFG and WAAC players and so too do they have many friendly players. Neither style is wrong and it is a flawed observation to just call every competitive player WAAC.

Blacksails wrote:Its not balanced and the ruleset is clunky, bloated, and filled with contradictions or holes.

All of that makes it a pretty poor game for competitions/tournaments.

Peregrine wrote:Oh good, and right on schedule the "casual at all costs" crowd shows up to complain about how anyone who cares more about winning than they do is TFG. Haven't we already had this "discussion" enough times?

Nothing...nothing...good will come from this thread.

The definition that people have of the term 'competitive' varies so greatly that even attempting to define it is tantamount to starting a fight over it.

For my money, a competitive game is a game that can be (or is) played competitively. (You could play it in a venue that is structured to have a winner, with some manner of reward for said winner.) That includes completely random games like Bingo or Yahtzee, or it could include games with no elements of randomness (despite the harsh comments, there IS a world Rock-Paper-Scissors competition every year), games which are perfectly fair, or games with no fairness at all.

I think 40k works fine in a competitive setting. I enjoy competing with it. I think 40k is a lot more balanced than people give it credit for.

I suppose the difference is in list writing. Competitive 40kers will only take what's good and friendlier gamers will take what they fancy, good or bad.

I don't get why people moan about other players taking good units to a "casual" game. I thought you weren't taking the game seriously.

 Formosa wrote:
Taking the most competitive army list possible, exploiting rules to gain advantage and not caring if everyone is enjoying themselves, these are things I have seen happen since 2nd ed and still happen, while not all competitive players fit this unfortunately enough I have seen do and it puts me off

Last time I checked, Michael Jordan or Joe Montana didn't give a feth if their opponent was enjoying the game. If GW didn't write rules that could be exploited, no one could exploit them. I know this is possible, because I've played very complex games that had very tight rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jimsolo wrote:

Blacksails wrote:Its not balanced and the ruleset is clunky, bloated, and filled with contradictions or holes.

All of that makes it a pretty poor game for competitions/tournaments.

Peregrine wrote:Oh good, and right on schedule the "casual at all costs" crowd shows up to complain about how anyone who cares more about winning than they do is TFG. Haven't we already had this "discussion" enough times?

Nothing...nothing...good will come from this thread.

The definition that people have of the term 'competitive' varies so greatly that even attempting to define it is tantamount to starting a fight over it.

For my money, a competitive game is a game that can be (or is) played competitively. (You could play it in a venue that is structured to have a winner, with some manner of reward for said winner.) That includes completely random games like Bingo or Yahtzee, or it could include games with no elements of randomness (despite the harsh comments, there IS a world Rock-Paper-Scissors competition every year), games which are perfectly fair, or games with no fairness at all.

I think 40k works fine in a competitive setting. I enjoy competing with it. I think 40k is a lot more balanced than people give it credit for.

You, sir, are insane. Look at the Wave Serpent and come back and tell me this game has any balance at all. Go look in our terminator thread about how absolutely crappy they are for 40pts/model.

 Peregrine wrote:
Oh good, and right on schedule the "casual at all costs" crowd shows up to complain about how anyone who cares more about winning than they do is TFG.

Well, as a certain wise old poster on Warseer happened to say: "The purpose of the game is to have fun. The objective of the game is to win. The two should not be confused."

TFG, WAAC... Just wanting to win doesn't deserve that label. But when you bend rules, fail to mention opponent mistakes unless it's favorable to you or even outright cheat you have crossed over. Competitive should IMO mean that those taking part have a chance. Not perhaps a good chance but a chance, and one that doesn't depend just on their physical gear (like the newest most OP army vs the oldest crappiest one).

"But when you bend rules, fail to mention opponent mistakes unless it's favorable to you or even outright cheat you have crossed over. Competitive should IMO mean that those taking part have a chance. Not perhaps a good chance but a chance, and one that doesn't depend just on their physical gear (like the newest most OP army vs the oldest crappiest one)."

I never do that. In fact, I even point out mistakes my opponent is making to help their game. Although Taudar lists have tempted me greatly.

An equitable game of strategy and/or skill with depth to allow more than one winning strategy.

There is the competitive aspect to the game and for players, to many people are confusing the two.

The competitive aspect of players can be broken down into two camps, RAI and RAW. RAI players are the ones who are going to play the game with minimal list abuse and look for the "fluffy" and cinematic games. RAW players are looking to abuse every advantage their codex can give them to win the game. The two camps will never see eye to eye as you can see in this thread. This will carry over to ANY game or any format.

The competitive aspect of a game can be explained with the aforementioned RPS/Poker comparison. This game is RPS except that it includes some instances of dynamite which rock, paper, and scissors all have to beat twice in a row in order to actually win a round. Some armies beat some armies, then there are a few list that in almost all cases just win. Screamstar and Seerstar come to mind. Riptide/Wave Serpent spam come to mind. Certain list just blow every other army out of the water without much of an actual game. Like recently to celebrate the release of the next codex I played what I called the worst Tyranid list possible against my fathers IG. Needless to say, I was picking up entire squads of warriors and raveners each turn from single shots from S8 pie plates. The list I brought had no chance against the list he brought. That is an example of RPS and frankly that IS bad design for a balanced game, by definition having less than a 50% chance to win is unbalanced. But, I could have brought a better list to play against him and if I had, the game would have swung closer to that 50%. That makes the game acceptably balanced. The problem is that 95% of list are not going to have a chance in hell against the current meta winners and the 5% that are left work ONLY against the meta. The idea is not to have perfect balance, that leads to a bland game where everyone is the same, but we can do a hell of a lot better than it is now.

Since we don't have telepathy, RAI is an unknown quantity. All we have is RAW.

Martel732 wrote:
Since we don't have telepathy, RAI is an unknown quantity. All we have is RAW.

And here is an example of what I was talking about. Some people just can not comprehend the fact that it is easy for two people to reach an agreement on what makes the most sense in a given situation without one of the two people attempting to abuse the situation in their favor.

I am not going to discuss this any further, this is off topic. Just agree to disagree.

It's not abuse. It's just reading what is written and not trying to make stuff up. GW should have clearly written what was intended.

These agreements you talk about can't be translated from game to game, and so in essence, everyone has a different rule book.

I don't think this is off topic at all, since RAW is part of the essence of competitive play. In fact, I would argue that RAI is more abusive than RAW.

Competitive gaming = competition.
The pursuit of enjoyment is irrelevant in competition.
Competition is about measuring the best competitor.
Ergo: Competitive gaming = pursuit of victory, or the best possible ranking.

"If winning is not important, why keep the score?" (Lt Cmd. Worf)

Arbiter_Shade wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Since we don't have telepathy, RAI is an unknown quantity. All we have is RAW.

And here is an example of what I was talking about. Some people just can not comprehend the fact that it is easy for two people to reach an agreement on what makes the most sense in a given situation without one of the two people attempting to abuse the situation in their favor.

I am not going to discuss this any further, this is off topic. Just agree to disagree.

I was having this same issue over on you make da call, I agreed that the raw was plain and simple but it was not the way we will play it due to what we saw as rai, they just didn't seem to get the point.

Pure rai can be abused, pure raw IS abused on quite a regular basis, the main issue between the 2 is that rai requires actually talking to your opponent where as a lot (not all) of raw just bludgeon there opponent with poorly written rules untill they just agree in the end or leave the game. Take 10 seconds to look at the rules forum to see the mess raw leaves, of course if it was rai primarily used the issue would still be there, nerds love to argue

Kholzerino wrote:
There is a lot of chat around at the moment about how 40k "isn't a competitive game" or even "has never been a competitive game". I'm just wondering what people mean by this term? To me "competitive" is a term best applied to players, rather than a game system. There are three main factors in a game of 40k, as far as I can see it: list v list, player v player and dice v dice. If people mean that the player v player aspect doesn't matter anymore, they are very wrong. Good players win tournaments, often with "balanced" lists (meaning a variety of units). But dice v dice is always a part if it too. So there is always a random aspect where a good player can get v unlucky or a bad one benefit from freakish good rolls.

What is it that people mean by the term "competitive" when applied to the game of 40k. Cos to me it is neither chess NOR roulette.

In the context I think you mean it - i.e. what would make WH40K a competitive game, the answer is pretty succinct. (1) Player decisions affect the outcome more than randomness of dice rolls. (2) The game in no way requires house-ruling or willing avoidance of units or tactics in order for a game to be fair and tactically interesting.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Spetulhu wrote:
TFG, WAAC... Just wanting to win doesn't deserve that label. But when you bend rules, fail to mention opponent mistakes unless it's favorable to you or even outright cheat you have crossed over. Competitive should IMO mean that those taking part have a chance. Not perhaps a good chance but a chance, and one that doesn't depend just on their physical gear (like the newest most OP army vs the oldest crappiest one).

This is a thread about what would make WH40K a competitive game. The usual argument has sprung up as people appear to criticise those of us who like to play competitively. Now you have waded in with a post that seems to describe such people as cheaters. If that is so, it's downright offensive. I will always tell my opponent if they make a rules mistake. Occasionally, I will even point out to them a tactical mistake if it's silly enough that I think it's down to missing something obvious rather than bad play or if I think they may have mistaken what a particular model of mine is. Do not confuse a player who enjoys the competitive aspect of the game with a cheater. Please do not even liken the two. If anything, as someone who seeks out a challenge, winning through opponent ignorance of the rules, undermines my enjoyment in a way that it would not for someone who was just there for narrative.

 Formosa wrote:

Pure rai can be abused, pure raw IS abused on quite a regular basis, the main issue between the 2 is that rai requires actually talking to your opponent where as a lot (not all) of raw just bludgeon there opponent with poorly written rules untill they just agree in the end or leave the game. Take 10 seconds to look at the rules forum to see the mess raw leaves, of course if it was rai primarily used the issue would still be there, nerds love to argue

The warmachine ymdc board would disagree.

Simply put, this is not how raw works in games like warmachine. "Bludgeoning" your opponents with "poorly written rules" until they give in to your interpretation? Yeah, that doesn't happen.

Don't make the mistake of confusing applying raw with enforcing poorly written rules.

Raw is fine. Shoddy rules are the issue.

Competitive? Being rewarded by playing well. And the mental drive to perform to the best of your ability.

RAW vs RAI is relevant, if the system was built well and written in a professional matter, or hell even just FAQ'd frequently then RAW vs RAI simply would not exist.

If the game designers fail to convey what they mean with their wording it is a bad rulebook. Simple as that.

On a similar note any game that has clearly definable lines dividing 'fluffy' and 'competitive' armies then there is a serious balance problem.

A competitive game, to me, is where both players are going for the win but not always to the exclusion of anything else (though this can happen if winning is ALL they care about, hence the term WAAC player). I think the fact people who want to play to win are always lumped with people who ONLY want to win, by any means necessary, is hugely unfair. Most games are played competitively regardless of army selections as at the end of the day, in a pick up game with no backstory the only motivation players have in game is winning whilst having fun. Indeed, many of the nicest players I've ever played were tournament goers who understood the separation of WAAC and playing to win, whereas some of the least fun to play are the whining crowd who insist that no matter what you bring it's OP (even if it's some relatively poor list, like IG with penal legion troops only) and that if you wanted to make a theme list containing more than 1 of the same unit (say, mech guard, Nidzilla or scarab farm Necrons) then you're "spamming". These people are very obvious though and most players fall somewhere between whining/ and WAAC, playing just because the game is pretty fun. I would go as far as to say most games I've ever played have been somewhat competitive, with very few where either I or the other player just didn't give a single damn about beating the other. It's kinda like saying you're "just playing" in chess or poker - you can be having fun (though how you're enjoying chess I have no idea, too much opening/closing memorisation for me) whilst still looking to win.

A fair and balanced competitive game would be one where the results of players going head to head was skill based (i.e. easily and commonly repeatable) and the rules facilitated a game where any unit can have a list built around it, so that all factions were equally viable; the result of both of these would be to make everyone stand a chance without restricting or name calling other players. A background accurate game would make it so fluffy players and gamers had little to no artificial separation, as the fluff would match the good armies. In an ideal world, 40k would be fluffy, far and balanced. As it stands, it's just about fair in that the better players almost always beat worse players but the balance and fluff are practically non-existent on the tabletop; even with fluffy lists some things are just poor compared to their background which makes me very sad.

Well I guess the thread has confirmed the truth I was squinting at: most people use the same terms to mean very different things. Personally, I'm glad that my FLGS has decided to just allow everything that is in the rules of 40k in the next tournament they run. I think all the escalation stuff etc will actually make the game more equal in many respects in that it will become MORE Rock Paper Scissors. It is harder to buikd a tac list when you are potentially facing such a diversity of opponents.

I don't like douches but don't mind losing some games but like winning games and feeling it's because of something I did. Probably most people are a bit like that?

A competitive game for me is a tournament game where there is a decent prize at stake. If it is a free tournament or simple pick up games I expect fun games with fluffier units and much less rules lawyering.

I tend to assume if the word competitive is mentioned then its tournament related or at last a more serious contest betwen players - often with something at stake, be that prizes or just who is the better player / bragging rights.

Neither better or worse than "lets just blow stuff up" or scenario based games but different......

This is a good thread. Competitive has a lot of meanings to a lot of people.

I don't really agree with most popular definitions of competitive, for the following reasons:

1) It's applied to armies more often than players. No army is, was or ever will be point-and-shoot, and generals matter.

2) When it's intended to describe the quality of the rules for a Codex, which is really only a measure of how it performs at tournaments. There is a difference in how a Codex will perform against a TAC list versus a list that is specifically optimized against that Codex.

3) There is some kind of weird group-think that goes on, where players try to copy the lists they see played at tournaments. This leads to less variety between lists, and diminishes the value of experimentation and imagination. I know 40k is not cheap, but the perceived 'power' of a Codex should only be one factor that goes into how to construct your army.

That said, I respect other people's ideas about what competitive means, even if I don't agree with them. Tournaments are a measuring stick for people who need one, and they provide the only real comparative metric in the world of 40k gamers. Even if the metric is flawed, it has some value in the minds of people in a community.

In baseball, the W/L metric for pitchers was widely considered the most important for about 70 years. It's been debated all this time, but it's only been recently that people started accepting the idea you could be a great pitcher on a good team and have a worse record than a good pitcher on a great team. Metrics are funny that way, there's an element of myth associated with our ability to accept them.

A friend of mine is an actuary for an insurance company and he's one of the best 40k players I know. He keeps a spreadsheet that has a page for every Codex measuring each unit in terms of RAW offensive output relative to points cost. It's not mathhammer, it's his own calculus for surveying the field and understanding what's coming at him. It combines stats at multiple different ranges to provide a single offensive number he uses to determine the value of any specific unit, and he has separate metrics for defense, ability to field, etc. He's explained the math to me enough times for me to know I don't agree with his idea of what competitive is, but I do appreciate this is how he understands and thinks about the game. He would be the first to tell you there are wild imbalances built into each Codex, they roughly correspond with the availability of new models from GW, and the ruleset is designed to reward certain armies over others in very specific situations.

Even with this understanding of how 'unfair' the game is, he keeps playing because he doesn't lose sight of the fact 40k has to be fun to matter. I think that's the most important point for any definition of 'competitive' to have to come to grips with. Until 40k becomes competitive in a way where you could make a living off it, tournament results are really only worth so much.

I'd be VERY interested to see you friend's data sheet and see how it compares with the current thinking re: competitive armies:

Eldar
Tau
Daemons
Necrons

In that order seems to be how most folk delineate the top four. Personally, I think that's kind of simplistic, and I'm sure that in a couple of months everyone will be decrying how OP Tyranids and Guard are, but only time will tell.

Does your friend's system take survivability into account?

To me competitive play is where you play to win first and arent all that worried about how much fun the other player is having.
You dont take "for fun' units and Watch the opponent closely.

 techsoldaten wrote:
That said, I respect other people's ideas about what competitive means, even if I don't agree with them. Tournaments are a measuring stick for people who need one, and they provide the only real comparative metric in the world of 40k gamers. Even if the metric is flawed, it has some value in the minds of people in a community.

You say you respect the position, but you seem not to actually understand it. Whilst there is undoubtedly joy to be had in winning a tournament (I've never played in one, but I don't doubt it), the primary joy for most competitive players is not at all that. The joy is from challenge, pitting yourself against an opponent and doing your best at something. I mean every time I play Squash, I throw myself into it with no regard for whether it is a league match and I far from don't enjoy it if I lose. The pleasure is 90% in the competition itself, not the winning. For you to make a statement like the above just falls into the same maligning stereotype that gets repeated endlessly on this forum by many - that we're some kind of immature people trying to show we are better than other people for some flawed psychological reason.

It's stated over and over again the joy of competitive play, but still come these misunderstandings.

Besides, the logic is quite demonstrable that making the game better for competitive play also makes it better for casual play. The repeated attacks on us (and lets be clear here - Peregrine is quite right to state that there are people here who launch unprovoked attacks - happened in this very thread) for the way we enjoy the game are not on. Nowhere is anyone saying the inverse - that people who enjoy it narratively or whatever are wrong to do so. Making the game more tactically interesting makes it better for everyone.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 EVIL INC wrote:
To me competitive play is where you play to win first and arent all that worried about how much fun the other player is having.
You dont take "for fun' units and Watch the opponent closely.

Case in point - that's just offensive.

Guilty conscience?
i prefer to play 'for fun" games. when you WANT to win but if you do, the world is not going to end.
Tournaments are a good example of competitive play. I play in them when I can but only because it is a guaranteed 3 games in one day and it is a good way to practice against other players you arent used to playing.

knas ser wrote:
Besides, the logic is quite demonstrable that making the game better for competitive play also makes it better for casual play.

This can't be repeated enough. When tournament players complain of broken, shoddy, poorly edited rules we get mocked for taking the game too seriously.
When fixing those issues literally cannot make the "casual" games go down in quality (not because they're at the bottom - rather because if you have no rules issues now, having clearer rules won't change anything) and will likely actually improve one's enjoyment.


Balance between codexes would also be good for the casual player. It's been said over and over that a casual player takes what he likes. Personally, I like the look of 3 Heldrakes and a cultist swarm - it appeals to me. If I brought that to a casual game, however, I'd get (likely) insulted and get called a WAAC player (even though it's really not that good of a list) simply because of the 3 drakes.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 EVIL INC wrote:
Guilty conscience?
i prefer to play 'for fun" games. when you WANT to win but if you do, the world is not going to end.
Tournaments are a good example of competitive play. I play in them when I can but only because it is a guaranteed 3 games in one day and it is a good way to practice against other players you arent used to playing.

No - it is offensive. I consider myself a competitive player and yet, even in tournaments I'm concerned that my opponent is having fun. That's why you shake hands before and after the game and say "Good game." Not because you absolutely destroyed their army, but because it was an enjoyable time.

You know, I'm not actually sure. How do you define a competitive game? Is chess competitive, or monopoly? If those games are competitive, then logically, Wh40k must be as well.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
You know, I'm not actually sure. How do you define a competitive game? Is chess competitive, or monopoly? If those games are competitive, then logically, Wh40k must be as well.

Chess is competitive. Monopoly is competitive only in the very loosest sense as the outcome is very little to do with player decisions and far more to do with random dice rolls. Yes, there's a [very] minor element of tactics in monopoly but only the most desperate of people would say that they are more skilled than the other players if they won at monopoly.

A tactical wargame typically falls somewhere between the two to reach optimum enjoyment. It needs to have enough tactical depth and balance that player decisions will normally be the primary determinant of success, but enough of a random element that there is the fun of risk and gamble. I.e. chess tactics are purely mechanical. Tactics in a wargame are as much about ones ability to weigh risk as they are about overall plans. Monopoly is so absurdly random that there is no skill in weighing risks - you simply cannot. A good tactical wargame typically is like poker or similar in that weighing risks is a skill in itself.

Thus randomness in a game is fine, so long as it is a randomness that leads to player skill in judging that randomness being a factor in outcome.

 EVIL INC wrote:
Guilty conscience?

No, not particularly. You were just offensive to a bunch of people and now you're being offensive to me directly. If you say something that isn't true about someone and they take offense, that doesn't mean it's actually true. Being misrepresented is itself offensive. You know, you could just read what some of us have actually written in order to know how we feel, rather than just casting aspersions.

A competitive game is where I start drugging my opponent's drink to gain an edge.

What I always wonder about "competitive 40K"

- Do people play Warhammer 40K first (i.e. because they like Warhammer 40K), and think that playing "competitively" is the best way to get the most fun out of Warhammer 40K? If so, why is "competitive play" a superior approach to a lore-heavy universe like Warhammer 40K over, say, "narrative" approaches?

Or..

- Do people play competitive first (i.e. for the sake of competing), and think that playing Warhammer 40K is the best game on the market to compete with one another? If so, why is Warhammer 40K of all games out there the game of choice? Even within the narrow field of miniature wargaming, most people seem to think most other games are better suited for the job?

 Zweischneid wrote:
- Do people play Warhammer 40K first (i.e. because they like Warhammer 40K), and think that playing "competitively" is the best way to get the most fun out of Warhammer 40K? If so, why is "competitive play" a superior approach to a lore-heavy universe like Warhammer 40K over, say, "narrative" approaches?

Why do you think they think it's superior?
It's not. It's different fun. I have played narrative games, I just have more fun with tournament games.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:
- Do people play Warhammer 40K first (i.e. because they like Warhammer 40K), and think that playing "competitively" is the best way to get the most fun out of Warhammer 40K? If so, why is "competitive play" a superior approach to a lore-heavy universe like Warhammer 40K over, say, "narrative" approaches?

Why do you think they think it's superior?
It's not. It's different fun. I have played narrative games, I just have more fun with tournament games.

Well, if you have more fun with it, than it is superiour to you, no? Simply wondering why?

 Zweischneid wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:
- Do people play Warhammer 40K first (i.e. because they like Warhammer 40K), and think that playing "competitively" is the best way to get the most fun out of Warhammer 40K? If so, why is "competitive play" a superior approach to a lore-heavy universe like Warhammer 40K over, say, "narrative" approaches?

Why do you think they think it's superior?
It's not. It's different fun. I have played narrative games, I just have more fun with tournament games.

Well, if you have more fun with it, than it is superiour to you, no? Simply wondering why?

It's not "superior" as in "there can be only one" - I recognize that some people enjoy "narrative" play more than I.
I have more fun in tournament games (or casual normal games) as I've never been in a scenario game that has balanced sides. Normally something happens like "And then on turn 3 a meteor strikes right... about... there." and nukes a significant portion of the scenario-designated-loser's force. You can balance the "acts of god" some by changing the victory conditions (to make it "easier" for the "losers" to win) or by reducing the available units on the winning side, but the fact remains that it's a large balancing act and being on the side of "You lose because this page says so - no matter what you do." makes me feel like I've wasted hours of my life.

With tournament/casual normal games there's at least a modicum of pretend balance - both sides have the same amount of points, neither side is going to have an act of god intervene (usually), things like that.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:
- Do people play Warhammer 40K first (i.e. because they like Warhammer 40K), and think that playing "competitively" is the best way to get the most fun out of Warhammer 40K? If so, why is "competitive play" a superior approach to a lore-heavy universe like Warhammer 40K over, say, "narrative" approaches?

Why do you think they think it's superior?
It's not. It's different fun. I have played narrative games, I just have more fun with tournament games.

Well, if you have more fun with it, than it is superiour to you, no? Simply wondering why?

It's not "superior" as in "there can be only one" - I recognize that some people enjoy "narrative" play more than I.
I have more fun in tournament games (or casual normal games) as I've never been in a scenario game that has balanced sides. Normally something happens like "And then on turn 3 a meteor strikes right... about... there." and nukes a significant portion of the scenario-designated-loser's force. You can balance the "acts of god" some by changing the victory conditions (to make it "easier" for the "losers" to win) or by reducing the available units on the winning side, but the fact remains that it's a large balancing act and being on the side of "You lose because this page says so - no matter what you do." makes me feel like I've wasted hours of my life.

With tournament/casual normal games there's at least a modicum of pretend balance - both sides have the same amount of points, neither side is going to have an act of god intervene (usually), things like that.

Superiour. Preferable. Better. More Fun.

Call it whatever.

The question was... if you are in it for "modicum of pretend balance", aren't there better games out there than Warhammer 40K to make sure you don't feel like you "wasted hours of your life"? You're clearly not interested in the story about the Ork Rok hurling towards the planet surface, striking in the middle of the Blood Angel's 4th Companies last stand, by what I read from you?

 Zweischneid wrote:
The question was... if you are in it for "modicum of pretend balance", aren't there better games out there than Warhammer 40K to make sure you don't feel like you "wasted hours of your life"? You're clearly not interested in the story about the Ork Rok hurling towards the planet surface, striking in the middle of the Blood Angel's 4th Companies last stand, by what I read from you?

No - I am interested in the fluff (it's actually the only reason to play this shoddy rule set). I am just not interested in fluff dictating my games. Why show up if I can guarantee that the battle will go like the fluff?

Historical scenario games I rarely enjoy for the same reason. I like historical non-scenario games, however.

To me competitive play is where you play to win first and arent all that worried about how much fun the other player is having.
You dont take "for fun' units and Watch the opponent closely.

For example, whe you see two teams competing in the superbowl do you see the players sitting around saying "I do say old chap, I hope the other team enjoys the experience of playing in the game. Perhaps we should send them some tea and crumpets". You seethe players working out, practicing their hits and plays and talking about how they hope they are on thier "A game" on game day and how they want to bring home the trophy.
likewise, for a tournament, you dont see players saying "I do say old chap, I hope that old (insert random name) beats me today because he really enjoys winning and he could use the prize more than me". You see the players doing their math trying to figure out good combos and even walking about looking at the preset tables saying to themselves... "Well, if I play against daemons, I want that table because the terrain is set up where the enemy is more likely to suffer mishaps and if I'm playing guard, I want that table because it has a lot of LOS blocking terrain.....". In essense, in a "comtetative" game, winning is goal #1. This doesnt mean you dont want the other guy to enjoy himself of course, it means that that goal is secondary. Anyone who claims differently is only lieing to themself.

 Zweischneid wrote:
If so, why is Warhammer 40K of all games out there the game of choice?

Because in many cases 40k is the ONLY game available. Playing competitively with a flawed game is better than playing no game at all. And the simple fact is that many of the better games just don't have 40k's player base and tournaments are pretty much nonexistent.

And then of course there's the fact that competition doesn't mean completely ignoring the fluff/models. I can enjoy the theme of the game while trying to crush my opponent through a better list and better tactics, I'm just not going to set up a game with special scenario rules and deliberately make bad decisions because of some bizarre assumption that bad units/lists are "fluffier". And unfortunately 40k is the only 28mm scale scifi game with a full range of models. If you want to play something else you're stuck with either a fantasy/real-world game, a skirmish-scale scifi game that doesn't have 40k's tanks/aircraft/etc, or a game with tiny models that aren't much fun to paint.

This is true. many players at the local shop have tried to branch out into other games. Some with more success than others. generally, we have a LOT of money, time and yes, heart invested. Especially over the last decade or so, players find it hard o scrape up enough $ to start a whole new system. especially, when it is a gamble as to whether or not they will be able to find enough other players willing to do the same to keep it sustained.

To answer the question asked.
A competitive game is a game where the players compete against each other to achive an objective first.
Thus clearly defining a winner and a looser of the game.

Compared to a co-operative game where players work together to achive a COMMON objective.
EG the players beat the game or they get beaten by the game.

A what is game written for competitive play, how do you play a game competitively , or what sort of douche do you hate playing was not the questioned asked.

Its odd that GOOD rule sets allow ALL player types and styles to just play and enjoy the game.

40k requires a HUGE amount of effort from the players to arrive at a passable way to waste a couple of hours.

Hm. I'm pretty sure anyone playing warhammer 40k is kind of interested in the fluff in at least as far as "playing games with pretend sci fi armies using pretend pulse/magical/chainsword weaponry" is fun. Otherwise they'd play something else. Also they like having models and looking at the models and the idea of their daemons/aliens/zombie-robots/librarians all fighting PEWPEWPEW. In space.

Some people don't really care about winning. Some people really care. But everybody is fundamentally doing something really stupid because they grew up on Star Wars and they want to play space fighting.

I guess finding kids that want to play the same way you do can be hard sometimes.

Kholzerino wrote:
I'd be VERY interested to see you friend's data sheet and see how it compares with the current thinking re: competitive armies:

Eldar
Tau
Daemons
Necrons

In that order seems to be how most folk delineate the top four. Personally, I think that's kind of simplistic, and I'm sure that in a couple of months everyone will be decrying how OP Tyranids and Guard are, but only time will tell.

Does your friend's system take survivability into account?

You know, when that time comes, I'll probably That Guy who says: "I started playing Guard before they were super awesome cheese."

Anyways, I admit that I find myself a bit overly-competitive, as some people define it. I have two or three rule disagreements with my friend each game, it seems, but when they pop up, I then realize how silly arguing over what my plastic minis can do and what yours can't. This is not what I think of as competitive. Competitive, from my perspective, is taking any list, from utter fluff to incredibly optimized, and actually thinking through strategies and tactical maneuvers, though this could apply to building your list, too. No cookie-cutter list is the "competitive" that I see so much as clawing for a win without putting in any effort whatsoever.

However, no matter how "competitive" you and your list are, the dice still have the final word. It's really about trying to better your odds without exploiting rules.

 Zweischneid wrote:
What I always wonder about "competitive 40K"

- Do people play Warhammer 40K first (i.e. because they like Warhammer 40K), and think that playing "competitively" is the best way to get the most fun out of Warhammer 40K? If so, why is "competitive play" a superior approach to a lore-heavy universe like Warhammer 40K over, say, "narrative" approaches?

In what way is the game being suitable for competitive play incompatible with it being "lore-heavy" and suitable for narrative approaches? There are two sub-texts to your question - firstly that those of us who like competitive play think we are superior to those who don't. I do not see this (though I do see frequent posts telling us to "get off our crosses" and similar if we complain that it is bad for competitive play). The second sub-text is that it's an either/or. Not only are there no incompatibilities between the game being suitable for competitive play and good for "lore-heavy" and "narrative approaches", but the former actually helps the latter. It's hard to create the narrative story of your choice when you know that the flavourful army you would choose is going to get squashed flat because certain of the units you'd like to use for thematic / style reasons. just aren't effective.

 Zweischneid wrote:

- Do people play competitive first (i.e. for the sake of competing), and think that playing Warhammer 40K is the best game on the market to compete with one another? If so, why is Warhammer 40K of all games out there the game of choice? Even within the narrow field of miniature wargaming, most people seem to think most other games are better suited for the job?

Again, perhaps because I've seen other of your posts on this subject but nonetheless, I'm picking up this sub-text of people being wrong to want WH40K to be a competitive game because you feel that it shouldn't be.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 EVIL INC wrote:
For example, whe you see two teams competing in the superbowl do you see the players sitting around saying "I do say old chap, I hope the other team enjoys the experience of playing in the game. Perhaps we should send them some tea and crumpets".

Actually when I used to play sports more competitively (i.e. squash leagues or on a football team (soccer to you heathen yanks), yes - that was the attitude. Obviously without the mocking re-phrasing you have just done to make it sound stupid, but absolutely I wished my opponent a good game and wanted them to enjoy it. And in squash I'd compliment an opponent on a good rally that they won and vice versa and in no way did it take away from us both trying our best to beat the other and enjoying doing so. What I read from the above is that you are not a sportsman. It is normal to congratulate your opponent on a good game and even to be friendly with them (send them tea and crumpets) pre-match. You even see boxers after a match where they have been doing their best to beat the other senseless, very often speak well of their opponent.

Play some sports before you start promulgating false notions about how we actually are. No, maybe you don't see superbowl players talking about "crumpets" - and quite possibly the media like to hype things up. But I'd be very, very surprised if when talking to the actual players you didn't get a lot of mutual respect and camaraderie between opponents. Have you actually looked? I suspect not.

This is the third time you have told us what you think competitive players are when you have competitive players right here telling you that's not how we are. Instead of talking, listen.

 EVIL INC wrote:

Anyone who claims differently is only lieing to themself.

Firstly, it's "lying". Secondly, don't accuse other people of it without good reason - that's offensive. Thirdly, especially don't tell people you don't know on the Internet that you know how they feel better than they do and are lying about how they think.

40K is the Super Smash Brothers of wargaming.

knas ser wrote:


In what way is the game being suitable for competitive play incompatible with it being "lore-heavy" and suitable for narrative approaches?

Well, mostly it is a question of exclusion vs. inclusion. To make a game more "competitive", presumably more restrictions would be in place (at least that seems to be the general drift I get). Allies should be handled more conservatively, powerful units be available in fewer numbers, the FOC be more restrictive (1999+1 instead of 2000 pts., no "FOC-free" Formations, etc..).

Every restriction,however, will also inhibit a particular story somebody somewhere wants to tell. The more narrative the game, the more freedom there would be for players to pick the models they like based on the narrative, without bothering about "competitive" stuff like FOC, point-values, what army book it comes from, etc..

By and large, these seem incompatible. If "competitive" play is (would be) happy with making their own restriction for the tournaments within a "no-Restrictions" game, we'd not have the problem.

knas ser wrote:


Again, perhaps because I've seen other of your posts on this subject but nonetheless, I'm picking up this sub-text of people being wrong to want WH40K to be a competitive game because you feel that it shouldn't be.

Is it wrong that I like 40K the way it is?

I don't mind people wanting WH40K to be different. But it seems odd that people wish for "WH40K to be more like Warmachine, Infinity, etc..", when there already is Warmachine, Infinity, etc.. out there?

Where would this leave people who like WH40K the way it is?

I see no gain in this.

If WH40K stays the way it is, those who like it the way it is can play WH40K, and those who'd want it to be more like (for example) Warmachine, can play Warmachine. Eveybody wins.

If WH40K becomes more like Warmachine, those who liked WH40K the way it is, would have nothing to play (unless, of course, Warmachine became more like WH40K is now).

 Zweischneid wrote:

knas ser wrote:


In what way is the game being suitable for competitive play incompatible with it being "lore-heavy" and suitable for narrative approaches?

Well, mostly it is a question of exclusion vs. inclusion. To make a game more "competitive", presumably more restrictions would be in place (at least that seems to be the general drift I get). Allies should be handled more conservatively, powerful units be available in fewer numbers, the FOC be more restrictive (1999+1 instead of 2000 pts., no "FOC-free" Formations, etc..).

Every restriction,however, will also inhibit a particular story somebody somewhere wants to tell. The more narrative the game, the more freedom there would be for players to pick the models they like based on the narrative, without bothering about "competitive" stuff like FOC, point-values, what army book it comes from, etc..

By and large, these seem incompatible. If "competitive" play is (would be) happy with making their own restriction for the tournaments within a "no-Restrictions" game, we'd not have the problem.

I disagree. You talk about competitive games needing more restrictions to function, and that these restrictions detract from the story.

This is not the case with games like warmachine and infinity (which you mention). Here's the thing: I'm not talking about turning 40k into either of those games, but in warmachine, everything g can be built into a game winning strategy. In infinity, the community attitude is 'it's not your list, it's you'. Contrary to your assertions, in these games, being competitive does not necessarily come at the expense of the story (or the telling of it) or the background information. In layman terms, I have far more freedom to create accurate, and yet functional armies in these systems, without any house rules, gentleman agreements, self restraint/self policing, social pressure, or terms/conditions imposed by the player base.

I feel your assertion is only correct in the context of gw games, and more specifically, the gw playing community where there is such a huge (and false, IMO) distinction, and mutually exclusive separation between 'fluff/fun' and 'competition'.

Beyond that, then I sorry, but there is no reason in principle to see a competitive-focus, and lore-focus as separate beasts.

 Zweischneid wrote:

Is it wrong that I like 40K the way it is?

I don't mind people wanting WH40K to be different. But it seems odd that people wish for "WH40K to be more like Warmachine, Infinity, etc..", when there already is Warmachine, Infinity, etc.. out there?

Where would this leave people who like WH40K the way it is?

I see no gain in this.

If WH40K stays the way it is, those who like it the way it is can play WH40K, and those who'd want it to be more like (for example) Warmachine, can play Warmachine. Eveybody wins.

If WH40K becomes more like Warmachine, those who liked WH40K the way it is, would have nothing to play (unless, of course, Warmachine became more like WH40K is now).

Not true. 40k has issues, and lists of bugs. Other companies seem to be able to avoid those bugs in the products they offer. it's not that we want 40k to be warmachine or Infinity (as you correctly point out, we have those games already in order to play those games) - it's that I (and folks like me, presumably) see gw constantly being short of the mark in comparison, with regards to game features such as rules clarity, balance, and community support. I don't want 40k to be infinity or warmachine, I simply want it to be a better, more professional, and less hamfisted/awkward game than what it is.

Now, for you zweischneid, I have two questions for you:

You say you like 40k 'as it is'. Fair enough. Firstly, what is it you like about 40k?

And secondly, What is it that you get out of 40k is that is (seemingly) mutually exclusive from what you or I can get out of games like warmachine, and infinity?

Deadnight wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:

knas ser wrote:


In what way is the game being suitable for competitive play incompatible with it being "lore-heavy" and suitable for narrative approaches?

Well, mostly it is a question of exclusion vs. inclusion. To make a game more "competitive", presumably more restrictions would be in place (at least that seems to be the general drift I get). Allies should be handled more conservatively, powerful units be available in fewer numbers, the FOC be more restrictive (1999+1 instead of 2000 pts., no "FOC-free" Formations, etc..).

Every restriction,however, will also inhibit a particular story somebody somewhere wants to tell. The more narrative the game, the more freedom there would be for players to pick the models they like based on the narrative, without bothering about "competitive" stuff like FOC, point-values, what army book it comes from, etc..

By and large, these seem incompatible. If "competitive" play is (would be) happy with making their own restriction for the tournaments within a "no-Restrictions" game, we'd not have the problem.

I disagree. You talk about competitive games needing more restrictions to function, and that these restrictions detract from the story.

This is not the case with games like warmachine and infinity (which you mention). Here's the thing: I'm not talking about turning 40k into either of those games, but in warmachine, everything g can be built into a game winning strategy. In infinity, the community attitude is 'it's not your list, it's you'. Contrary to your assertions, in these games, being competitive does not necessarily come at the expense of the story (or the telling of it) or the background information. In layman terms, I have far more freedom to create accurate, and yet functional armies in these systems, without any house rules, gentleman agreements, self restraint/self policing, social pressure, or terms/conditions imposed by the player base.

I feel your assertion is only correct in the context of gw games, and more specifically, the gw playing community where there is such a huge (and false, IMO) distinction, and mutually exclusive separation between 'fluff/fun' and 'competition'.

Beyond that, then I sorry, but there is no reason in principle to see a competitive-focus, and lore-focus as separate beasts.

I think there is, though. I think it'd be awesome to mix Khador and Cygnar armies to fight against a Hordes opponent, but I can't, because restrictions. I think it'd be awesome for Behemoth to carry a shield in place of one of his armor-piercing fists, but I can't, because restrictions. I'd like to be able to build my own army's warlord, so that I felt more in-tune with him on the battlefield. All of these things, however, you can do in Warhammer 40,000: ally armies, adjust wargear, build your own lord, et cetera.

I don't know that much about infinity, but I do know it is a skirmish game and so is not really the type of gameplay I'm interested in, really, at all.

They both are WAAAY more restrictive in playstyle than 40k is, and I don't like that. I don't even play Warmachine anymore, because it just wasn't engaging enough.

Deadnight wrote:


I disagree. You talk about competitive games needing more restrictions to function, and that these restrictions detract from the story.

This is not the case with games like warmachine and infinity (which you mention). Here's the thing: I'm not talking about turning 40k into either of those games, but in warmachine, everything g can be built into a game winning strategy.

Can't really comment on Infinity, but Warmachine is one of the most restrictive, creativity-inhibiting game-settings/systems I've come across.

As said, there are no allies, no "Khador"-second-founding factions to make your own, no "white spots" on the map to place your own faction based in (an amalgam) of the 4 or 5 (double that with Hordes) pre-made example factions provided by PP.

It's probably the best example where there is absolutely no way to break out of the stuff that's chewed for you and drip-fed to you by the game-making company, and any attempt to do something creative outside that framework, to actually use your imagination as a hobbyist, is dismissed immediately by the "Warmachine-community".

The whole "mental frame" surrounding Warmachine is why I love 40K the way it is. Warmachine is the living proof that "tight competitive" rules stifle experimentation, creativity and freedom.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

I think there is, though. I think it'd be awesome to mix Khador and Cygnar armies to fight against a Hordes opponent, but I can't, because restrictions.

Not really. Because:
(1) why would I, as a khador player wish to ally with those yellow bellied southern dogs.
(2) secondly. Take two armies. Versus 1 hordes army. Apply scenario. Done.
(3) traitor format games. Warcaster (and possibly warjacks) from one faction, units from another.
(4) mercenaries, and certain theme lists (Magnus and his bad seeds springs to mind of a mercnar hybrid army.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

I think it'd be awesome for Behemoth to carry a shield in place of one of his armor-piercing fists, but I can't, because restrictions .

The khadoran mechanics would disagree with you. Armour piercing rocket fists are cooler than any shield.
And yet, whilst you can't customise the behemoth, you can field the behemoth. There is no social pressure against it. You won't get called a tfg, or accused of cheese or being un fluffy if he is in your army. No, there are any number of reasons why the behemoth in a khador army makes sense. And he'll pull his weight. Slap a vendetta on the table, or a few riptides and you'll hear the whining in all corners of the internet within seconds.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

. I'd like to be able to build my own army's warlord, so that I felt more in-tune with him on the battlefield.

I disagree. I see no place for 'my' warcaster. The setting is small. Having 'your' footprint in the game cones at the expense of the shared narrative. Write all you want about 'your' caster and it mean very little to your opponent as he has no connection to them, and no investment. Frankly, I don't care who he is, and neither will a lot of your opponents. It's 'your' caster, in 'your' story, not 'ours'. Talk about a shared character like the butcher, and it's something everyone gets behind. There is a reason people talk about Caine, kromac, eldrad and Calgary, instead of colonel du Gaulle of the 531st warhawks.

I find it easier to engage with a 'name' in a shared story, rather than my own fanfiction. With respect, the same applies to what you bring to the table.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

. All of these things, however, you can do in Warhammer 40,000: ally armies, adjust wargear, build your own lord, et cetera.

I find folks are more interested in the illusion of choices than the choices themselves. Your correct in what you say -you can do all those things, but despite this, of all those options, you only ever see a bare handful of builds. He'll back in fourth, every chaos lord I saw was the same bloody guy, and every chaos army was identical! And sc's still turn up far more regularly than generic commanders in my opinion.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

I don't know that much about infinity, but I do know it is a skirmish game and so is not really the type of gameplay I'm interested in, really, at all.

They both are WAAAY more restrictive in playstyle than 40k is, and I don't like that. I don't even play Warmachine anymore, because it just wasn't engaging enough.

So you know nothing about infinity, and yet are content to say its way more restrictive than 40k? Yeah, pull the other one.

Infinity has a lot of lots of options, lots of variety, very little dead weight, and an experience system in campaign paradiso for creating your own spec ops trooper.

As to restrictive in play style, I disagree. Despite the lack of customisation in warmachine (I see it as a feature, not a bug) I have far more options for valid builds with a khador, or circle army than I do with your 40k factions, my factions carry far less dead weight, since everything can be built into an effective strategy, and since I don't face any social pressure or whining when I put the army I want to play on the table top, I also know it's fully functional, fits the world and it can do well on the table top. Heck with infinity, I can put the models I like on the board and know they'll do well.

 Zweischneid wrote:

Deadnight wrote:


I disagree. You talk about competitive games needing more restrictions to function, and that these restrictions detract from the story.

This is not the case with games like warmachine and infinity (which you mention). Here's the thing: I'm not talking about turning 40k into either of those games, but in warmachine, everything g can be built into a game winning strategy.

Can't really comment on Infinity, but Warmachine is one of the most restrictive, creativity-inhibiting game-settings/systems I've come across.

As said, there are no allies, no "Khador"-second-founding factions to make your own, no "white spots" on the map to place your own faction based in (an amalgam) of the 4 or 5 (double that with Hordes) pre-made example factions provided by PP.

It's probably the best example where there is absolutely no way to break out of the stuff that's chewed for you and drip-fed to you by the game-making company, and any attempt to do something creative outside that framework, to actually use your imagination as a hobbyist, is dismissed immediately by the "Warmachine-community".

The whole "mental frame" surrounding Warmachine is why I love 40K the way it is. Warmachine is the living proof that "tight competitive" rules stifle experimentation, creativity and freedom.

That is entirely fluff. There is NO reason that making the 40k rulebook clearer by setting it out in a professional manner would somehow mean that there are no more 'do it yourself' chapters and everyone suddenly has to play Ultras/DA/BA/SW/GK.

 jonolikespie wrote:


That is entirely fluff. There is NO reason that making the 40k rulebook clearer by setting it out in a professional manner would somehow mean that there are no more 'do it yourself' chapters and everyone suddenly has to play Ultras/DA/BA/SW/GK.

Sure it is.

For most of 5th Edition (and still), I couldn't do the Ultramarines 1st Last Stand on Maccragge, because all-Terminator-Ultramarines are "No-No".

I couldn't do a Rogue Successor Chapter allying with Tau.

I couldn't play the official Space Wolves/Eldar or Blood Angels/Necron team-ups as they appeared in the actual books.

I couldn't have my Black Tempars aquire a Storm Raven (possibly against the AdMech's consent).

I couldn't do this...

I couldn't do that...

Restrictions eveywhere.

Creativity denied.

I still can't do Genestealler Cults, etc.., still can't field an army entirely made of the cool new Ravenwing Knight Models without that ugly old Sammael (Azrael) Finecast trainwreck.

If anything 6th Edition still has far, far, far too many restrictions.

Let me play with the miniatures I want to use. The models I find appropriate for my story. Stop telling me "you can't do that" because of ... what? ... A few hundred tournament players who want to turn 40K into Warmachine?, yet can't be fethed to actually play Warmachine when they want to play Warmachine?

Deadnight wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

I think there is, though. I think it'd be awesome to mix Khador and Cygnar armies to fight against a Hordes opponent, but I can't, because restrictions.

Not really. Because:
(1) why would I, as a khador player wish to ally with those yellow bellied southern dogs.
(2) secondly. Take two armies. Versus 1 hordes army. Apply scenario. Done.
(3) traitor format games. Warcaster (and possibly warjacks) from one faction, units from another.

1) Because sometimes it's better to crush those pesky hordes.
2) You can totally do that - although I'm pretty sure a tournament wouldn't let you. Are there rules for fielding 2 armies? Do you lose if just 1 warcaster dies?
3) I am unfamiliar with this, but sure.

Deadnight wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

I think it'd be awesome for Behemoth to carry a shield in place of one of his armor-piercing fists, but I can't, because restrictions .

The khadoran mechanics would disagree with you. Armour piercing rocket fists are cooler than any shield.
And yet, you can field the behemoth. There is no social pressure against it. You won't get called a tfg, or accused of cheese or being un fluffy. No, there are any number of reasons why the behemoth in a khador army makes sense. And he'll pull his weight.

Whatever the Khadoran mechanics say, I like being able to customize my wargear. Arm 24 imo is better than +1 open fist. Just imo, of course, but at least I'd have the option.

Yes, I can. Its true. But I can also field anything I would want to field with my current 40k group and not be called a TFG. Because I don't want to field TFG things.

Deadnight wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

. I'd like to be able to build my own army's warlord, so that I felt more in-tune with him on the battlefield.

I disagree. I see no place for 'my' warcaster. The setting is small. Having 'your' footprint in the game cones at the expense of the shared narrative. Write all you want about 'your' caster and it mean very little to your opponent as he has no connection to them, and no investment. Talk about a shared character like the butcher, and it's something everyone gets behind. There is a reason people talk about Caine, kromac, eldrad and Calgary, instead of colonel du Gaulle of the 531st warhawks.

I find it easier to engage with a 'name' in a shared story, rather than my own fanfiction.

I disagree. I think out of an entire continent, there are generals out there who haven't yet been named. I would behave, live, breathe differently than every available Khador warcaster, and I cannot identify with any of them - they all have such extremities of character that I am reluctant to put myself in their shoes.

Deadnight wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

. All of these things, however, you can do in Warhammer 40,000: ally armies, adjust wargear, build your own lord, et cetera.

I find folks are more interested in the illusion of choices than the choices themselves. Your correct in what you say -you can do all those things, but despite this, of all those options, you only ever see a bare handful of builds. And sc's still turn up far more regularly than generic commanders in my opinion.

I don't know what 40k you play, but look at my army thread. An Armored Regiment - not a netlist build. And with names for the warlords too! God forbid I don't play one who isn't already in the fluff! And maybe in your meta the SCs turn up everywhere, but I don't use one because there really isn't one that conforms to my vision of what my regiment would have.

Deadnight wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

I don't know that much about infinity, but I do know it is a skirmish game and so is not really the type of gameplay I'm interested in, really, at all.

They both are WAAAY more restrictive in playstyle than 40k is, and I don't like that. I don't even play Warmachine anymore, because it just wasn't engaging enough.

So you know nothing about infinity, and yet are content to say its way more restrictive than 40k? Yeah, pull the other one.

Infinity has a lot of lots of options, lots of variety, very little dead weight, and an experience system in campaign paradiso for creating your own spec ops trooper.

I know that you can't field an armored regiment, which means it doesn't have enough options for me. Because I like tanks.

Deadnight wrote:

As to restrictive in play style, I disagree. Despite the lack of customisation in warmachine (I see it as a feature, not a bug) I have far more options for valid builds with a khador, or circle army than I do with your 40k factions, since everything can be built into an effective strategy, and since I don't face any social pressure or whining when I put the army I want to play on the table top, I know it can do well. Heck with infinity, I can put the models I like on the board and know they'll do well.

 Zweischneid wrote:

Can't really comment on Infinity, but Warmachine is one of the most restrictive, creativity-inhibiting game-settings/systems I've come across.

As said, there are no allies, no "Khador"-second-founding factions to make your own, no "white spots" on the map to place your own faction based in (an amalgam) of the 4 or 5 (double that with Hordes) pre-made example factions provided by PP.
.

You've got mercenaries, and there is no reason you can't write about the 85th regiment of the second khadoran army , the 'wild boars', describe their status (stationed in the the thorn wood, conducting anti cryxian sweeps), their composition (mainly winter guard, with some iron fang support, and a compliment of 60 warjacks) and a list of their commanders, and warcasters most commonly associated with them. Don't assume creativity needs white spots.

There is no reason you can't create your don game formats either - I've seen some really fun rules for things like cage matches etc. also, despite the restrictions on conversions (like for like weapons et ) ive seen some stellar creativity from the community - the storm hammer/assault on sul, Rico stormwall and baby mammoth spring to mind immediately. Beyond thid, I've seen done excellent terrain and board projects.

 Zweischneid wrote:

It's probably the best example where there is absolutely no way to break out of the stuff that's chewed for you and drip-fed to you by the game-making company, and any attempt to do something creative outside that framework, to actually use your imagination as a hobbyist, is dismissed immediately by the "Warmachine-community".

See above. There are some very talented hobbyists involved in the game.

 Zweischneid wrote:

The whole "mental frame" surrounding Warmachine is why I love 40K the way it is. Warmachine is the living proof that "tight competitive" rules stifle experimentation, creativity and freedom.

You have a very skewed opinion of our community my friend. Shame, really.

Deadnight wrote:


You've got mercenaries, and there is no reason you can't write about the 85th regiment of the second khadoran army , the 'wild boars', describe their status (stationed in the the thorn wood, conducting anti cryxian sweeps), their composition (mainly winter guard, with some iron fang support, and a compliment of 60 warjacks) and a list of their commanders, and warcasters most commonly associated with them. Don't assume creativity needs white spots.

And I've seen some very good Tournament formats for Warhammer 40K. A competitive event doesn't need a single official format to exist.


There are some very talented event-organisers involved in the game.

 Zweischneid wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:


That is entirely fluff. There is NO reason that making the 40k rulebook clearer by setting it out in a professional manner would somehow mean that there are no more 'do it yourself' chapters and everyone suddenly has to play Ultras/DA/BA/SW/GK.

Sure it is.

For most of 5th Edition (and still), I couldn't do the Ultramarines 1st Last Stand on Maccragge, because all-Terminator-Ultramarines are "No-No".

I couldn't do a Rogue Successor Chapter allying with Tau.

I couldn't play the official Space Wolves/Eldar or Blood Angels/Necron team-ups as they appeared in the actual books.

I couldn't have my Black Tempars aquire a Storm Raven (possibly against the AdMech's consent).

I couldn't do this...

I couldn't do that...

Restrictions eveywhere.

Creativity denied.

I still can't do Genestealler Cults, etc.., still can't field an army entirely made of the cool new Ravenwing Knight Models without that ugly old Sammael (Azrael) Finecast trainwreck.

If anything 6th Edition still has far, far, far too many restrictions.

Let me play with the miniatures I want to use. The models I find appropriate for my story. Stop telling me "you can't do that" because of ... what? ... A few hundred tournament players who want to turn 40K into Warmachine?, yet can't be fethed to actually play Warmachine when they want to play Warmachine?

Ignoring the bull about people wanting the game to turn into warmachine THE QUALITY OF RULES ARE NOT TO BLAME THERE.

What you are describing has absolutely nothing to do with how clear, and problem free the rules are. You are complaining that there is a structure to the game.

I'll give you that the point you are trying to make is valid, there are restrictions in place to stop you playing the game you want and yes, there are people saying there should be more but that is totally different to what the majority of us mean when we say we want a tighter ruleset.

All we are asking for is wording in the rulebook that doesn't leave any ambiguity about how a special rule from a unit in X codex interacts with a special rule in Y codex. This is super simple stuff here. I just want a ruleset that I can take to a tourney and not have to have to ask a TO about a RAW vs RAI question.

On top of that some balance would be nice. Note that balance does not mean 'hey Riptides are OP, no one should be allowed to take more than 1, it means that Ripetides should either not be that strong or cost more. The game should be built in a way that if someone wants to field.. was 8 the max you could get by allying tau with tau and taking a tau formation? Anyway you should be allowed to bring 8. And that list should have equal odds of winning against wave serpent heavy eldar as it does against... a really bad list. Marine heavy chaos marines with no helldrakes? No one runs that right? Point is if someone wants to bring 12 ripetides they should be allowed, but that list should have a roughly 50/50 chance of beating any other list out there before taking player skill into account.

 jonolikespie wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:


That is entirely fluff. There is NO reason that making the 40k rulebook clearer by setting it out in a professional manner would somehow mean that there are no more 'do it yourself' chapters and everyone suddenly has to play Ultras/DA/BA/SW/GK.

Sure it is.

For most of 5th Edition (and still), I couldn't do the Ultramarines 1st Last Stand on Maccragge, because all-Terminator-Ultramarines are "No-No".

I couldn't do a Rogue Successor Chapter allying with Tau.

I couldn't play the official Space Wolves/Eldar or Blood Angels/Necron team-ups as they appeared in the actual books.

I couldn't have my Black Tempars aquire a Storm Raven (possibly against the AdMech's consent).

I couldn't do this...

I couldn't do that...

Restrictions eveywhere.

Creativity denied.

I still can't do Genestealler Cults, etc.., still can't field an army entirely made of the cool new Ravenwing Knight Models without that ugly old Sammael (Azrael) Finecast trainwreck.

If anything 6th Edition still has far, far, far too many restrictions.

Let me play with the miniatures I want to use. The models I find appropriate for my story. Stop telling me "you can't do that" because of ... what? ... A few hundred tournament players who want to turn 40K into Warmachine?, yet can't be fethed to actually play Warmachine when they want to play Warmachine?

Ignoring the bull about people wanting the game to turn into warmachine THE QUALITY OF RULES ARE NOT TO BLAME THERE.

What you are describing has absolutely nothing to do with how clear, and problem free the rules are. You are complaining that there is a structure to the game.

You are missing the point.

Are the Warhammer 40K rules perfect? No. Far from it. I am not claiming that. It's not what this discussion is about.

This is a discussion about the stupid claim that a "perfectly balanced, competition-friendly game" would have no trade-offs for narrative gaming. It's about this constantly perpetuated myth that making the game more competitive would benefit narrative player just as much.

That is horsegak.

If you make a game to target (more-or-less) competitive "gamers" first and foremost, narrative "storytellers" will have to take the back-seat, work within the narrow confines of "official" fluff or houserule.

If you make a game to target (more-or-less) narrative "storytellers" first and foremost, you'll need a more free-form system, than competitive player will most likely have to add a few houserules of their own to make the game "tournament-viable".

I hope the miniature wargaming scene will always have both types of game.

But... it will never have both represented perfectly in the same game. It's impossible, because there are, in fact, trade-offs (unless you have a horribly limited, stifled view of "narrative" gaming).

Now, whether or not Warhammer 40K does either of these goals well (enough) is another discussion.

 Zweischneid wrote:
You are missing the point.

Are the Warhammer 40K rules perfect? No. Far from it. I am not claiming that. It's not what this discussion is about.

This is a discussion about the stupid claim that a "perfectly balanced, competition-friendly game" would have no trade-offs for narrative gaming. It's about this constantly perpetuated myth that making the game more competitive would benefit narrative player just as much.

That is horsegak.

If you make a game to target (more-or-less) competitive "gamers" first and foremost, narrative "storytellers" will have to take the back-seat, work within the narrow confines of "official" fluff or houserule.

If you make a game to target (more-or-less) narrative "storytellers" first and foremost, you'll need a more free-form system, than competitive player will most likely have to add a few houserules of their own to make the game "tournament-viable".

I hope the miniature wargaming scene will always have both types of game.

But... it will never have both represented perfectly in the same game. It's impossible, because there are, in fact, trade-offs (unless you have a horribly limited, stifled view of "narrative" gaming).

Now, whether or not Warhammer 40K does either of these goals well (enough) is another discussion.

Ok, let me see if I can make this any clearer.

I've just jumped over to the you make da call forum and the first big discussion I saw was about whether or not someone can fire both interceptor and overwatch in their opponent's turn. The poll seemed very close and as far as I saw 8 pages of discussion hasn't led to a consensus one way or the other.

Having a note in the rulebook next to interceptor or overwatch that says 'A unit can/cannot use this and [the other] in the same turn' or a note next to the rule about only shooting once per turn that says 'with the exception of/including overwatch and skyfire' can't possibly hurt narrative play, but it would do wonders for the competitive scene.

 jonolikespie wrote:


Ok, let me see if I can make this any clearer.

I've just jumped over to the you make da call forum and the first big discussion I saw was about whether or not someone can fire both interceptor and overwatch in their opponent's turn. The poll seemed very close and as far as I saw 8 pages of discussion hasn't led to a consensus one way or the other.

Having a note in the rulebook next to interceptor or overwatch that says 'A unit can/cannot use this and [the other] in the same turn' or a note next to the rule about only shooting once per turn that says 'with the exception of/including overwatch and skyfire' can't possibly hurt narrative play, but it would do wonders for the competitive scene.

Now, but throwing out stupid and restrictive crutches like the FoC would help make it easier to collect the models they like, rather than being forced to buy, say, two units of Firewarriors or Kroot, even though the model I "want" and think is cool is the Riptide. And it would help remove the stigma for somebody bringing their 100 meticulously painted Ultramarines 1st Company Terminators to play, only to have some TFG tell them "nooooo you need two troop-choices and they cannot hold objectives and you're 50 points over the "limit" and yadda, yadda, yadda, yadda, yadda, yadda,....)

 Zweischneid wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:


Ok, let me see if I can make this any clearer.

I've just jumped over to the you make da call forum and the first big discussion I saw was about whether or not someone can fire both interceptor and overwatch in their opponent's turn. The poll seemed very close and as far as I saw 8 pages of discussion hasn't led to a consensus one way or the other.

Having a note in the rulebook next to interceptor or overwatch that says 'A unit can/cannot use this and [the other] in the same turn' or a note next to the rule about only shooting once per turn that says 'with the exception of/including overwatch and skyfire' can't possibly hurt narrative play, but it would do wonders for the competitive scene.

Now, but throwing out stupid and restrictive crutches like the FoC would help make it easier to collect the models they like, rather than being forced to buy, say, two units of Firewarriors or Kroot, even though the model I "want" and think is cool is the Riptide. And it would help remove the stigma for somebody bringing their 100 meticulously painted Ultramarines 1st Company Terminators to play, only to have some TFG tell them "nooooo you need two troop-choices and they cannot hold objectives and you're 50 points over the "limit" and yadda, yadda, yadda, yadda, yadda, yadda,....)

I'm curious, if you're just interested in collecting the models you like and telling a story why don't you just play a RPG? The Fantasy Flight ones cover a decent chunk of the 40k universe.

I'm not trying to tell you go away and play an RPG, wargaming is for comp play only, I'm legitimately curious. Is finding a group that much harder than finding a game of 40k, or does it not interact with the universe on a big enough scale for you (I could definitely understand how 3-5 characters might not be enough when what you want is a marine company, but then with a good GM you could be 3-5 characters leading a marine company).
I understand where you are coming from when you say you want to tell a story and all that but it sounds like you only have any interest in telling the story, which makes me wonder why you're trying to do that with a wargame and not an RPG.

 jonolikespie wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:


Ok, let me see if I can make this any clearer.

I've just jumped over to the you make da call forum and the first big discussion I saw was about whether or not someone can fire both interceptor and overwatch in their opponent's turn. The poll seemed very close and as far as I saw 8 pages of discussion hasn't led to a consensus one way or the other.

Having a note in the rulebook next to interceptor or overwatch that says 'A unit can/cannot use this and [the other] in the same turn' or a note next to the rule about only shooting once per turn that says 'with the exception of/including overwatch and skyfire' can't possibly hurt narrative play, but it would do wonders for the competitive scene.

Now, but throwing out stupid and restrictive crutches like the FoC would help make it easier to collect the models they like, rather than being forced to buy, say, two units of Firewarriors or Kroot, even though the model I "want" and think is cool is the Riptide. And it would help remove the stigma for somebody bringing their 100 meticulously painted Ultramarines 1st Company Terminators to play, only to have some TFG tell them "nooooo you need two troop-choices and they cannot hold objectives and you're 50 points over the "limit" and yadda, yadda, yadda, yadda, yadda, yadda,....)

I'm curious, if you're just interested in collecting the models you like and telling a story why don't you just play a RPG? The Fantasy Flight ones cover a decent chunk of the 40k universe.

I'm not trying to tell you go away and play an RPG, wargaming is for comp play only, I'm legitimately curious. Is finding a group that much harder than finding a game of 40k, or does it not interact with the universe on a big enough scale for you (I could definitely understand how 3-5 characters might not be enough when what you want is a marine company, but then with a good GM you could be 3-5 characters leading a marine company).
I understand where you are coming from when you say you want to tell a story and all that but it sounds like you only have any interest in telling the story, which makes me wonder why you're trying to do that with a wargame and not an RPG.

Because, as you say but seemingly fail to grasp, an RPG does not allow me to make a story with 30 Leman Russ tanks, 6 Baneblades, two Commissar tanks, ten stormtroopers, thirty one guardsmen, three Chimeras, three Hydras, a Recovery tank, six Techpriests and thirty Servitors, a Thunderbolt fighter, and a Vendetta gunship as the characters.

 jonolikespie wrote:


I'm curious, if you're just interested in collecting the models you like and telling a story why don't you just play a RPG? The Fantasy Flight ones cover a decent chunk of the 40k universe.

I'm not trying to tell you go away and play an RPG, wargaming is for comp play only, I'm legitimately curious. Is finding a group that much harder than finding a game of 40k, or does it not interact with the universe on a big enough scale for you (I could definitely understand how 3-5 characters might not be enough when what you want is a marine company, but then with a good GM you could be 3-5 characters leading a marine company).
I understand where you are coming from when you say you want to tell a story and all that but it sounds like you only have any interest in telling the story, which makes me wonder why you're trying to do that with a wargame and not an RPG.

Fair enough. I often do, but I am also excited to see 40K moving away from a restrictive game, leaving things like FoC behind. It's a good development, is all.

Also, I do enjoy "competitive games" too. I am even a half-descent chess-player (at least I like to think so of myself). I've won the England South-West Regional for DreadBall not to long ago (not Chess, admittedly). I dabble in X-Wing. Etc... But when I want to play "competitively", I simply don't think reaching for my 40K collection is the smart decision. It's not what the game wants to be.

Again, it comes back down to picking the "right game" to "scratch the right itch".

Maybe 40K is the wrong game for what I am looking for. Most likely though, 40K is also the wrong game for a lot of "competitive gamers" out there too.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


1) Because sometimes it's better to crush those pesky hordes.
2) You can totally do that - although I'm pretty sure a tournament wouldn't let you. Are there rules for fielding 2 armies? Do you lose if just 1 warcaster dies?
3) I am unfamiliar with this, but sure.

(1) aye, and I'm not doing it by dishonouring myself by allying with those southern pigs.
(2) who said anything about a tournament? Us warmachine players do friendly pick-up games all the time as well. And they have rules for loss of warcasters in multiple warcaster games. I'd go with them.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Whatever the Khadoran mechanics say, I like being able to customize my wargear. Arm 24 imo is better than +1 open fist. Just imo, of course, but at least I'd have the option.
.

The 'option' or the best possible option, because that is all it boils down to. Arm24 is a significant skew (arm 27 on harkevich's feat turn) and extremely problematic for a lit of armies. No, I prefer pp's rather more effective approach of making sure the game is actually balanced, rather than worrying about options that could break it.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


I disagree. I think out of an entire continent, there are generals out there who haven't yet been named. I would behave, live, breathe differently than every available Khador warcaster, and I cannot identify with any of them - they all have such extremities of character that I am reluctant to put myself in their shoes.

Would you? Or would you be as patriotic and as unbending as the rest of your comrades, having grown up in a state that emphasises aggressive nationalism, expansion, and khadoran is best to the extent that khador does?

You'd behave, live and breathe differently to all other khadoran caster? Then you're being disrespectful to the fluff. That Kinda reads like having 'nice marines who believe in friendship, love and democracy' in 40k. Beyond that, how about characters like kromac? Kromac is, by definition, the only tharn warlock. He shouldn't exist. Having other special snowflake tharn warlocks simply does not work.

Honestly, I find characters like the butcher to be both engaging, fascinating and deeply tragic. Who honestly cares about who 'I' write, other than myself? This is a shared universe, and a single player experience detracts from that. Like I said, it's easier to get behind shared characters than personal, and private ones. Feel free to disagree though.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

I don't know what 40k you play, but look at my army thread. An Armored Regiment - not a netlist build. And with names for the warlords too! God forbid I don't play one who isn't already in the fluff! And maybe in your meta the SCs turn up everywhere, but I don't use one because there really isn't one that conforms to my vision of what my regiment would have.
.

Like I said, of the thousands of options available, you only ever see a handful of builds. Especially beyond local metas. Back In Ireland, in fourth Ed, wherever I went, all I saw was daemon prince, nike lord, 2x infiltating squads, basic, 3x3 obliterators and 3x tank hunting auto cannon havok squads. When I played tau, every list was 80% identical. And im sorry to say, but 40k has always been this way. Third ed boiled down to a handful of effective builds, as did fourth and fifth. All those options? I never saw them.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

I know that you can't field an armored regiment, which means it doesn't have enough options for me. Because I like tanks.
.

There is mire to wargaming than just tanks try the game, I'd genuinely recommend it.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

I see the lack of customization as a feature as well - but not a feature in which I am interested. So why would you try to foist that feature upon me by reducing the customization in 40k? And I disagree - I think there are fewer units in the entire Khador army list than there are in my armored battlegroup army list alone. And I haven't faced too much social pressure in Real Life (tm). I see it all the time on the internet, but when it comes down to it, people are usually willing to compromise from either direction to have a wonderful game.

Here's the thing - I'm not seeing the lack of customisation as the end of the road to the extent you do. But I do feel I have far more variety, and far more choice in the unit selection of my khador and circle armies than I ever did with my tau. Tau for me boiled down to one decently powerful build with a lot of dead weight (fire warriors, vespids, stealth suits. Sniper drone teams, gun drones, sky rays, about 90% of crisis suit options! etherials, etc) and only some situationally useful units. With khador, all my casters bar zerkova are viable. I don't feel suckered with any of the jacks (bAr sheer preference) and in terms of unit validity, I have huge choice in what I take, and what I take alongside them. There is no one way to build a good, so.id khadoran army. To be, that takes precedence over whether I give my jacks a shield or an axe.

Feel free to differ though, you're fully entitled to your pov

I feel like you're missing my point. Some people don't care about running the very few competitive options that are available. Some people (myself) would rather run stuff that's fun to use.

This means that I'm like a kid in a candy store with Warhammer 40,000. There's tens of thousands of options (probably), and I get to pick the ones I like best for a truly unique army and hobby experience.

I feel that Warmachine, lacking as many options, is basically the same thing as 40k if you limited yourself to only taking good options, i.e. watering down the 10,000 odd options to only Tau with allied Chaos (or whathaveyou).

And I recognize that warmachine players play pickup games, but every time I bring my warmachine to the FLGS I get told that they're practicing for a tournament and I am unwelcome.

Yes, in a competative game, you might want the other team to enjoy the game but your lying to yourself if you dont say that winning is the top of the priority list.you never hear someone going into a tournement saying " i sure hope i lose today". you might hear someone say " If I dont win, i hop you do". but those are two totally seperate statements and even in the second, you get the qualifier 'If I dont win,"

 EVIL INC wrote:
Yes, in a competative game, you might want the other team to enjoy the game but your lying to yourself if you dont say that winning is the top of the priority list.you never hear someone going into a tournement saying " i sure hope i lose today". you might hear someone say " If I dont win, i hop you do". but those are two totally seperate statements and even in the second, you get the qualifier 'If I dont win,"

Third time, then I'm just reporting you as a troll. Stop telling people what they really think after they flat out tell you that they don't. There's nothing incompatible about wanting the other person to enjoy the game and wanting to win. Enjoyment of competing is not dependent on winning. It is dependent on trying to win. Some of the most fun matches (sports and gaming) I have ever had, I have lost. Which quite simply demonstrates that the pleasure of winning and the pleasure of competing are not the same thing. And there is nothing at all in the latter that requires one put someone else's enjoyment higher or lower or anywhere else on the "priority" scale. You are clearly not a sportsperson. That is fine. But just because you do not understand a mindset, does not mean you get to dismiss it. If you call me a liar one more time - as you do every time you post that people of my position are "lying", or tell me that you know how I feel better than I do, then we are done here.

knas ser wrote:

 EVIL INC wrote:
Yes, in a competative game, you might want the other team to enjoy the game but your lying to yourself if you dont say that winning is the top of the priority list.you never hear someone going into a tournement saying " i sure hope i lose today". you might hear someone say " If I dont win, i hop you do". but those are two totally seperate statements and even in the second, you get the qualifier 'If I dont win,"

Third time, then I'm just reporting you as a troll. Stop telling people what they really think after they flat out tell you that they don't. There's nothing incompatible about wanting the other person to enjoy the game and wanting to win. Enjoyment of competing is not dependent on winning. It is dependent on trying to win. Some of the most fun matches (sports and gaming) I have ever had, I have lost. Which quite simply demonstrates that the pleasure of winning and the pleasure of competing are not the same thing. And there is nothing at all in the latter that requires one put someone else's enjoyment higher or lower or anywhere else on the "priority" scale. You are clearly not a sportsperson. That is fine. But just because you do not understand a mindset, does not mean you get to dismiss it. If you call me a liar one more time - as you do every time you post that people of my position are "lying", or tell me that you know how I feel better than I do, then we are done here.

This I agree with. While I love the choice of 40k and consciously choose an army which is suboptimal, winning remains on my priority list for each individual game (even if it is not the top!) and I do try to play with grace, skill, and victory in mind.

 Zweischneid wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:


That is entirely fluff. There is NO reason that making the 40k rulebook clearer by setting it out in a professional manner would somehow mean that there are no more 'do it yourself' chapters and everyone suddenly has to play Ultras/DA/BA/SW/GK.

Sure it is.

For most of 5th Edition (and still), I couldn't do the Ultramarines 1st Last Stand on Maccragge, because all-Terminator-Ultramarines are "No-No".

I couldn't do a Rogue Successor Chapter allying with Tau.

I couldn't play the official Space Wolves/Eldar or Blood Angels/Necron team-ups as they appeared in the actual books.

I couldn't have my Black Tempars aquire a Storm Raven (possibly against the AdMech's consent).

I couldn't do this...

I couldn't do that...

Restrictions eveywhere.

Creativity denied.

I still can't do Genestealler Cults, etc.., still can't field an army entirely made of the cool new Ravenwing Knight Models without that ugly old Sammael (Azrael) Finecast trainwreck.

If anything 6th Edition still has far, far, far too many restrictions.

Let me play with the miniatures I want to use. The models I find appropriate for my story. Stop telling me "you can't do that" because of ... what? ... A few hundred tournament players who want to turn 40K into Warmachine?, yet can't be fethed to actually play Warmachine when they want to play Warmachine?

Why can't you do those things? Because they're against the rules?
So... Ignore those restrictions and do it anyway? It's a narrative game. I don't understand what you're actually objecting to - can you clarify?

rigeld2 wrote:

Why can't you do those things? Because they're against the rules?
So... Ignore those restrictions and do it anyway? It's a narrative game. I don't understand what you're actually objecting to - can you clarify?

He's objecting to having to change the rules to play the game, in the same way that Warhammer 40,000 competition players lament having to change the rules to play the game.

EDIT: To rephrase:

Why can't you play competitively? Because the game isn't balanced?
So... ignore the unbalanced units and do it anyway? It's a competitive game. I don't understand what you're actually objecting to - can you clarify?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I feel like you're missing my point. Some people don't care about running the very few competitive options that are available. Some people (myself) would rather run stuff that's fun to use.

This means that I'm like a kid in a candy store with Warhammer 40,000. There's tens of thousands of options (probably), and I get to pick the ones I like best for a truly unique army and hobby experience.

Oh I understand, I just disagree

Here's the thing - you talk about folks only using the top options, as being distinct from other stuff that's 'fun'. Why must there be different levels. Why can't they be one and the same? Why are they mutually exclusive?

40k has lots of options, but with a lot of them you simply suffer. Unless you build in house rules, arbitrary social pressure as to what's 'ok', and the rely on strict self policing and enforcement. Why can't I just roll up, and play a game? You feel like a kid in a candy store with all the options in 40k and fair deuce, if it's what you enjoy, go fir it. Me? I feel simple frustration as so much of what I'd like yo do simply isnt practical. I simply dislike all the terms ad conditions that are associated with both the game and some members of the community when it cones to putting my stuff on the board (stuff, as opposed to 'casual' stuff or 'competitive' stuff, and yet know it'll still be good) and having a go
.

rigeld2 wrote:

Why can't you do those things? Because they're against the rules?
So... Ignore those restrictions and do it anyway? It's a narrative game. I don't understand what you're actually objecting to - can you clarify?

Why can't you add your own restrictions to make it tournament-viable? I don't understand what people are actually objecting to either.

As said before, both type of games can exist.

1) "Competitive games" that make their rules more restrictive (putting the onus on the narrative people to house-rule).
2) "Narrative games" that make their rules more freeform (putting the onus on the competitive people to house-rule).

Both are viable. 40K, trying primarily to sell more to the narrative side of things probably falls (increasingly) to the former.

The things I object to are (a) the assumption that a single game could be both 1) and 2) at the same time and that (b) Warhammer 40K is objectively worse because it goes for 2) over 1), while other games (e.g. Warmachine) go for 1) over 2). It's not. It's simply setting different priorities.

Deadnight wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I feel like you're missing my point. Some people don't care about running the very few competitive options that are available. Some people (myself) would rather run stuff that's fun to use.

This means that I'm like a kid in a candy store with Warhammer 40,000. There's tens of thousands of options (probably), and I get to pick the ones I like best for a truly unique army and hobby experience.

Oh I understand, I just disagree

Here's the thing - you talk about folks only using the top options, as being distinct from other stuff that's 'fun'. Why must there be different levels. Why can't they be one and the same? Why are they mutually exclusive?

40k has lots of options, but with a lot of them you simply suffer. Unless you build in house rules, arbitrary social pressure as to what's 'ok', and the rely on strict self policing and enforcement. Why can't I just roll up, and play a game? You feel like a kid in a candy store with all the options in 40k and fair deuce, if it's what you enjoy, go fir it. Me? I feel simple frustration as so much of what I'd like yo do simply isnt practical. I simply dislike all the terms ad conditions that are associated with both the game and some members of the community when it cones to putting my stuff on the board (stuff, as opposed to 'casual' stuff or 'competitive' stuff, and yet know it'll still be good) and having a go
.

They're mutually exclusive because in a game with 10,000 options, it's simply impossible to balance them all, I would argue. I haven't seen a game that does it well yet, without reducing the number of options.

I don't suffer, despite using a crapton of the 'suboptimal' options. I don't know why you would say one 'suffers'. One might not win lots of games, but that's hardly 'suffering.' As for the arbitrary social pressure and whatnot, I personally haven't faced any of that and so can't comment, but your group sounds like a bunch of jerks.

Deadnight wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


I feel that Warmachine, lacking as many options, is basically the same thing as 40k if you limited yourself to only taking good options, i.e. watering down the 10,000 odd options to only Tau with allied Chaos (or whathaveyou).
.

Heh, we wont be agreeing here, but fair deuce. If you ask my honest opinion, I'll say this: Bad options aren't worth the paper they're printed on. They're an illusion, if you ask me, and their presence adds nothing. I'd rather have ten good, valid options than two or three great, and ninety terrible ones that I have to rely on tedious terms and conditions in order to be fieldable in the first pace. like I said, the illusion of choice.

And to be fair, warmachine has a lot more valid options than tau allied with chaos

Well, we'll agree to disagree. I think that options are always good, because some people like me will field the 'bad options' and have a blast doing it. Which makes the paper they're printed on worth it, in my opinion. Their presents adds an otherwise unavailable option, again one with which some people somewhere might be enjoying the hell out of themselves with, as I do.

And anything in the game rules is fieldable - you don't need terms and conditions to field a Techmarine or a Leman Russ, despite them being 'subpar.' Again, you may not win every game, but eh, no biggie. I got to field some badass-looking, well-painted, fun units.

You're right, the Tau + Chaos was a bit unfair - my bad

Deadnight wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

And I recognize that warmachine players play pickup games, but every time I bring my warmachine to the FLGS I get told that they're practicing for a tournament and I am unwelcome.

That's... Kinda harsh. And it's not very welcoming. I'm glad my group isn't like that. Me? Yeah, I'd have a go and try and tempt you with that game of infinity while I'm at it. Cheers

I'm not advocating for different rules (I think allies are more or less okay, Escalation can be ignored entirely).
I advocate for a better written rule set. I'm all for tournaments clarifying what books are ignored... But there's no reason for the rules to be written as poorly as they are.

Edit to add: Balance isn't trivial to achieve, but it is possible to get near balanced internal to a codex at least.

rigeld2 wrote:
I'm not advocating for different rules (I think allies are more or less okay, Escalation can be ignored entirely).
I advocate for a better written rule set. I'm all for tournaments clarifying what books are ignored... But there's no reason for the rules to be written as poorly as they are.

That we can all agree with, but that wasn't the point against which zweischneid and I are arguing.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
I'm not advocating for different rules (I think allies are more or less okay, Escalation can be ignored entirely).
I advocate for a better written rule set. I'm all for tournaments clarifying what books are ignored... But there's no reason for the rules to be written as poorly as they are.

That we can all agree with, but that wasn't the point against which zweischneid and I are arguing.

That's not how he presented his argument to me at all. Not how it came across anyway.

A better written rule set benefits everyone. A more balanced rule set benefits everyone. Narrative games (typically) make up all kinds of rules anyway, true?

rigeld2 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
I'm not advocating for different rules (I think allies are more or less okay, Escalation can be ignored entirely).
I advocate for a better written rule set. I'm all for tournaments clarifying what books are ignored... But there's no reason for the rules to be written as poorly as they are.

That we can all agree with, but that wasn't the point against which zweischneid and I are arguing.

That's not how he presented his argument to me at all. Not how it came across anyway.

A better written rule set benefits everyone. A more balanced rule set benefits everyone. Narrative games (typically) make up all kinds of rules anyway, true?

A better written rule set benefits everyone.

A more balanced rule set necessarily removes options, therefore limiting narrative gamers. It does not benefit everyone.

I have played plenty of narrative games of Warhammer 40,000 without making up any rules at all.

Competitive games typically restrict all kinds of rules anyway, true?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

A more balanced rule set necessarily removes options, therefore limiting narrative gamers. It does not benefit everyone.

Not true at all. Simply changing the point values of units is all that'd be required.
And where's my option to put an Impaler Cannon on my Hive Tyrant?

I have played plenty of narrative games of Warhammer 40,000 without making up any rules at all.

Why is that a "narrative" game and not just a casual (ie not tournament) game?

Competitive games typically restrict all kinds of rules anyway, true?

Not really, no.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

A more balanced rule set necessarily removes options, therefore limiting narrative gamers. It does not benefit everyone.

Not true at all. Simply changing the point values of units is all that'd be required.
And where's my option to put an Impaler Cannon on my Hive Tyrant?

I normally would agree that simply changing the points value of units is required, except that 40k has SO MANY options that you may find a time when something should be "worth more than a Storm Shield for this one guy, but less than a Plasma Cannon for this other guy" which means you'd need a finer-grained system than the already ridiculously fine-grained system we have. It would take an entire overhaul, imo, which inevitably would lead to some options getting slashed.
And your Hive Tyrant lacks an Impaler Cannon because the rules for 40k, while great for narrative gaming, are not perfect.

rigeld2 wrote:

I have played plenty of narrative games of Warhammer 40,000 without making up any rules at all.

Why is that a "narrative" game and not just a casual (ie not tournament) game?

Because every game is narrative for me. I just started writing down online battlereports - you can see them in my army's thread. But I've written offline narratives of every. single. battle. for years.

rigeld2 wrote:

Competitive games typically restrict all kinds of rules anyway, true?

Not really, no.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

A more balanced rule set necessarily removes options, therefore limiting narrative gamers. It does not benefit everyone.

Not true at all. Simply changing the point values of units is all that'd be required.
And where's my option to put an Impaler Cannon on my Hive Tyrant?

I normally would agree that simply changing the points value of units is required, except that 40k has SO MANY options that you may find a time when something should be "worth more than a Storm Shield for this one guy, but less than a Plasma Cannon for this other guy" which means you'd need a finer-grained system than the already ridiculously fine-grained system we have. It would take an entire overhaul, imo, which inevitably would lead to some options getting slashed.

I don't think you will - or that if you do, you could change other point values or stats for the base unit and not remove options.

And your Hive Tyrant lacks an Impaler Cannon because the rules for 40k, while great for narrative gaming, are not perfect.

So every model should have access to every option for narrative gaming?
That makes sense to you?

rigeld2 wrote:

I have played plenty of narrative games of Warhammer 40,000 without making up any rules at all.

Why is that a "narrative" game and not just a casual (ie not tournament) game?

Because every game is narrative for me. I just started writing down online battlereports - you can see them in my army's thread. But I've written offline narratives of every. single. battle. for years.

You're not understanding the distinction then.
Narrative battles are dictated by a story. Your example is making a story from a battle. See the difference?

rigeld2 wrote:

Competitive games typically restrict all kinds of rules anyway, true?

Not really, no.

Could've fooled me - all I see all over the internet is complaints that some pretty major tournaments are restricting certain rules. Weird.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

A more balanced rule set necessarily removes options, therefore limiting narrative gamers. It does not benefit everyone.

Not true at all. Simply changing the point values of units is all that'd be required.
And where's my option to put an Impaler Cannon on my Hive Tyrant?

I normally would agree that simply changing the points value of units is required, except that 40k has SO MANY options that you may find a time when something should be "worth more than a Storm Shield for this one guy, but less than a Plasma Cannon for this other guy" which means you'd need a finer-grained system than the already ridiculously fine-grained system we have. It would take an entire overhaul, imo, which inevitably would lead to some options getting slashed.

I don't think you will - or that if you do, you could change other point values or stats for the base unit and not remove options.

And your Hive Tyrant lacks an Impaler Cannon because the rules for 40k, while great for narrative gaming, are not perfect.

So every model should have access to every option for narrative gaming?
That makes sense to you?

Not really. But if you want it for your narrative, and can't have it, I'm either going to tell you your narrative is wrong and then we can discuss that, or I'm going to tell you that the game is wrong. In this case, I decided it narratively wouldn't be such a bad thing to have a Hive Tyrant with an Impaler Cannon, and so I decided the rules were lacking in this case. Now if you asked me why it couldn't have a Lascannon, I would tell you your understanding of the narrative of 40k is flawed.

rigeld2 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

I have played plenty of narrative games of Warhammer 40,000 without making up any rules at all.

Why is that a "narrative" game and not just a casual (ie not tournament) game?

Because every game is narrative for me. I just started writing down online battlereports - you can see them in my army's thread. But I've written offline narratives of every. single. battle. for years.

You're not understanding the distinction then.
Narrative battles are dictated by a story. Your example is making a story from a battle. See the difference?

Yep. But in order to make a story from the battle, I have to be fighting with units that I consider my own, that I identify with and can understand their motivations for the battle and why they're there. I, personally, wouldn't be able to write a narrative-from-a-battle about a Tyranid army, because I simply do not identify with them enough to understand. My army has to be my own before I can really start writing good narratives (rather than nonsense - anyone can come up with nonsense).

rigeld2 wrote:

Competitive games typically restrict all kinds of rules anyway, true?

Not really, no.

Could've fooled me - all I see all over the internet is complaints that some pretty major tournaments are restricting certain rules. Weird.

You mean recently? Sure. There's a lot of panic over 2++ rerollable saves. But in general that hasn't been true.

I disagree. Playing Flames of War with my friends in Austin often had rules changes for tournaments. Regular 40k tournaments for some time changed the rules "for the better" through a comp system, until a big fight in fifth put a stop to that (although it's back apparently). The only ruleset I've played that didn't change the rules to make tournaments better was Field of Glory, and that was designed from the ground up to be only a tournament rule set, and in the eyes of the rules a Swiss Pike Block and a Macedonian Phalanx are indistinguishable.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

And your Hive Tyrant lacks an Impaler Cannon because the rules for 40k, while great for narrative gaming, are not perfect.

So every model should have access to every option for narrative gaming?
That makes sense to you?

Not really. But if you want it for your narrative, and can't have it, I'm either going to tell you your narrative is wrong and then we can discuss that, or I'm going to tell you that the game is wrong. In this case, I decided it narratively wouldn't be such a bad thing to have a Hive Tyrant with an Impaler Cannon, and so I decided the rules were lacking in this case. Now if you asked me why it couldn't have a Lascannon, I would tell you your understanding of the narrative of 40k is flawed.

With such a subjective method of "correctness" are you surprised there aren't rules for it?

Yep. But in order to make a story from the battle, I have to be fighting with units that I consider my own, that I identify with and can understand their motivations for the battle and why they're there. I, personally, wouldn't be able to write a narrative-from-a-battle about a Tyranid army, because I simply do not identify with them enough to understand. My army has to be my own before I can really start writing good narratives (rather than nonsense - anyone can come up with nonsense).

And what does that have to do with the rule set? That's still a "casual" game that you wrote a story about. There's nothing wrong with that, but it's not really a narrative game.

I disagree. Playing Flames of War with my friends in Austin often had rules changes for tournaments. Regular 40k tournaments for some time changed the rules "for the better" through a comp system, until a big fight in fifth put a stop to that (although it's back apparently). The only ruleset I've played that didn't change the rules to make tournaments better was Field of Glory, and that was designed from the ground up to be only a tournament rule set, and in the eyes of the rules a Swiss Pike Block and a Macedonian Phalanx are indistinguishable.

I'll admit to being ignorant about FoW tournament rules (I've only done historical games with a loose scenario with that system, but I'd like to know more).
I've only been involved in the tournament scene from about mid 2010 - relatively recent I guess.
Also, I don't see comp as "changing the rules of the game".

rigeld2 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

And your Hive Tyrant lacks an Impaler Cannon because the rules for 40k, while great for narrative gaming, are not perfect.

So every model should have access to every option for narrative gaming?
That makes sense to you?

Not really. But if you want it for your narrative, and can't have it, I'm either going to tell you your narrative is wrong and then we can discuss that, or I'm going to tell you that the game is wrong. In this case, I decided it narratively wouldn't be such a bad thing to have a Hive Tyrant with an Impaler Cannon, and so I decided the rules were lacking in this case. Now if you asked me why it couldn't have a Lascannon, I would tell you your understanding of the narrative of 40k is flawed.

With such a subjective method of "correctness" are you surprised there aren't rules for it?

Not really, but if there was an option, I would be happier. It would mean a lot to someone who needs it for their army, however, and I would not be the one to tell them they're wrong.

rigeld2 wrote:

Yep. But in order to make a story from the battle, I have to be fighting with units that I consider my own, that I identify with and can understand their motivations for the battle and why they're there. I, personally, wouldn't be able to write a narrative-from-a-battle about a Tyranid army, because I simply do not identify with them enough to understand. My army has to be my own before I can really start writing good narratives (rather than nonsense - anyone can come up with nonsense).

And what does that have to do with the rule set? That's still a "casual" game that you wrote a story about. There's nothing wrong with that, but it's not really a narrative game.

The fewer options there are, the less I identify with the army because the less it is mine uniquely. I don't feel like I'm ever able to write a narrative about a Warmachine battle, for example, because the army isn't mine. I don't really understand the Butcher's motivations well enough to write him to my satisfaction, and I don't really understand why the Behemoth wouldn't deflect a certain blow with a shield - except that he arbitrarily can't have one. If he can't have one for some reason in the background, then sure, whatever. But there really isn't a fluffy reason.

rigeld2 wrote:

I disagree. Playing Flames of War with my friends in Austin often had rules changes for tournaments. Regular 40k tournaments for some time changed the rules "for the better" through a comp system, until a big fight in fifth put a stop to that (although it's back apparently). The only ruleset I've played that didn't change the rules to make tournaments better was Field of Glory, and that was designed from the ground up to be only a tournament rule set, and in the eyes of the rules a Swiss Pike Block and a Macedonian Phalanx are indistinguishable.

I'll admit to being ignorant about FoW tournament rules (I've only done historical games with a loose scenario with that system, but I'd like to know more).
I've only been involved in the tournament scene from about mid 2010 - relatively recent I guess.
Also, I don't see comp as "changing the rules of the game".

So your issue is more that the fluff doesn't support the rules in Warmachine, not nessecarily that the rules don't support writing a story.

knas ser wrote:
Third time, then I'm just reporting you as a troll. .

Reported.
Baseless name calling and attempts to instigate arguments as well as generally being impolite break several of the site rules.

The O, asked what we thought of as a "competitive" game. I posted mine. If your idea of a competitive game differs from my own, by all means post your idea of a competitive game. making personal attacks towards others because they see a competitive game as being different from your own is not permitted according to the site rules.
So yes, I WILL re-iterate my view of a "competitive" game...
To me, it consists of several part...
1. The number one reason is to win or come out on top. See a definition of competition...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competition
2. To wan to enjoy the game and enjoy the company of other players as they enjoy themselves. Keeping in mind #1 as being the primary reason you are playing that particular game. A tournament for example. on rare occasions, a player may actually want somone else to win (that person is ultra poor and just cant afford models while the player wanting them to win has all they need or just to boost the ego of someone who is discouraged) but more often hopes someone else places directly behind them so that they still "get stuff".
3. Where the list is designed to win. and you dont usually take "just for giggles) units (although i often do this when going to tourneys. I'm just not as competitive a player as others) and you usually stick to lists and units that have proved themselves or are optimized.

As i have said before, others may have different ideas or concepts and those ideas and concepts are just asvalid as this is an "opinion" question. If we ALL had the same opinion, or view of every issue, not only would the world be a boring place but the OP would not have had to ask the question as he would 'already know" how we all felt towards competitive games as they would have mirrored his own.

rigeld2 wrote:
So your issue is more that the fluff doesn't support the rules in Warmachine, not nessecarily that the rules don't support writing a story.

Well, both. I believe that there are certain things (tactics, units, whathaveyou) available to generals fighting in the Iron Kingdoms that are inexplicably unavailable on the tabletop, hindering the ability of a battle narrative to reflect the 'reality' of the fight.

Right - so your gripes entirely revolve around fluff (essentially - depending on the issue either fluff doesn't support rules or. Ice versa).

My point is that fluffy lists should have a chance of winning against non-fluffy lists, and that it's absolutely possible to get there.

In addition, since many "narrative" games (note - not "normal" games you use to write a story) change or make up significant rules, they would not be harmed by making the rules "more competitive".

 EVIL INC wrote:

knas ser wrote:
Third time, then I'm just reporting you as a troll. .

Reported.
Baseless name calling and attempts to instigate arguments as well as generally being impolite break several of the site rules.

You're being repeatedly offensive by belittling anyone who describes themselves as a competitive player and stating that we are liars. And you repeatedly disregard statements from actual competitive players saying how we view things and tell us we're lying and then proceeding to say what we actually think on our behalf. A thread asking what "competitive game" means is not a licence to repeatedly bad mouth competitive players.

if you have a personal issue with me, take it to PM rather than clutter the thread. The OP asked a question who answer will be different from person to person based on their own opinions, views and experiences. Having a different answer than yourself for an opinion question is not being offensive. it is simply having a different view of what a competitive game is than yourself. I notice that you are not breaking the rules by personally attacking anyone other than myself for merely have a different answer to an opinion based question and I am not going to break the rules by returning the favor.

To once more re-iterate my answer to the OPINION based question...
To me, it consists of several part...
1. The number one reason is to win or come out on top. See a definition of competition...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competition
2. To wan to enjoy the game and enjoy the company of other players as they enjoy themselves. Keeping in mind #1 as being the primary reason you are playing that particular game. A tournament for example. on rare occasions, a player may actually want somone else to win (that person is ultra poor and just cant afford models while the player wanting them to win has all they need or just to boost the ego of someone who is discouraged) but more often hopes someone else places directly behind them so that they still "get stuff".
3. Where the list is designed to win. and you dont usually take "just for giggles) units (although i often do this when going to tourneys. I'm just not as competitive a player as others) and you usually stick to lists and units that have proved themselves or are optimized.

As i have said before, others may have different ideas or concepts and those ideas and concepts are just asvalid as this is an "opinion" question. If we ALL had the same opinion, or view of every issue, not only would the world be a boring place but the OP would not have had to ask the question as he would 'already know" how we all felt towards competitive games as they would have mirrored his own.

EDIT:By the way, i ama competative player myself so why would I insult myself?. i prefer "for fun' games but it is a RARE time when I get to have those games due to living in BFE and my old friendly players just no longer have armies. So I am forced to play competatively only against other competative players. Even within the small sub-group of competative players i usually play, we all have different views of what a "competative" game is and we respect each other's opinions and views. None are "wrong" as they are purely opinion based.

Fluffy lists totally have a chance to win against non-fluffy. Biker army is a fluffy build. So is a Necron Flyer army. So is. Beaststar. Good narrative fun behind all of them. One if the guys at my local club has made an Adeptus Mechanicus army using all unique models and taking using the rules to play them as Tau/Space-Marines. He has found a way to use the framework of the game to put together a giant robot/mechanical battlesuit list. It's a great looking army. It's super fluffy. It's also super hard to beat.

There is a clear difference between saying that an army with a good narrative foundation - fluff (Tau and Eldar forces uniting in an understanding of the Greater Good) should be able to win and saying that all 1850/1750/1500 point armies should have an exactly equal chance of winning.

Use your imagination. Make the fluff and the build work together. Surely this can be very rewarding. Yes, some of the 5th edition armies haven't been balanced in 6th yet, but allies are there to make up for anyone's shortcomings. And you can find a way to make your creative ideas competitive in the format of the game. If you want. Or not, if you

Just a point of view. I do know it's hard. Like Blood Angels are not mad strong in the current meta. And if you love BA and want to play in tournaments, or be able to face opponents with optimized lists you are going to find it tricky to win games. I'd be surprised if that doesn't change when the codexes are all revisited for 6th edition.


And then they'll bring out 7th.

many competative players play 'fluffy" armies and many of us do well. my armies are always fluffy. I'll occasionally purposely use fluff units just because i want to be different or because it is fluffy and I just finished painting it ad want to show it off.
i dont always win and I usually only average 3rd(winning a small prize) or 4th but occasionally, I will do better.
Fluffy does not automatically = weak. Sometimes it = more challenging.

GENERAL IN THREAD WARNING TIME

Seriously.

Please read the rules of this site - focus on Rule #1.

Also keep in mind that people should not be aiming to antagonize and or inflame others here.

The site has an excellent IGNORE feature - please use this if for some reason you are unable to interact with others in accordance with the rules of this site.

Thanx for responding Alpharious.
LOL, Your right there. I woulda missed that missing word.
This is a GAME we are talking about. As gamers we have to face a lot of flack (not as much as we did back in the 80s of course (that was a nightmare decade for us). We should be more friendly with one another and treat each other with dignity and respect and be polite and courteous to one another.
being from the generation where you were branded a "satanist" if you played D&D or listened to heavy metal, I make it a point to always be polite and courteous to other gamers.

This not only goes for here but also in competitive games. While we are all there trying to win (I have YET to se a competative gamer go to a tourney and TRY to lose (if i did, the TO woulda been informed as having players in a tourney throw games alters the end outcome of the tourney), we are also there to enjoy ourselves and have fun. of course, in real life compeative games, this is much easier to do where you are literally face to face with one another instead of just looking at a name on a screen as we are her but the principle remains the same.This is something that some, but not all by any means, competative gamers forget.e

 EVIL INC wrote:
many competative players play 'fluffy" armies and many of us do well. my armies are always fluffy. I'll occasionally purposely use fluff units just because i want to be different or because it is fluffy and I just finished painting it ad want to show it off.
i dont always win and I usually only average 3rd(winning a small prize) or 4th but occasionally, I will do better.
Fluffy does not automatically = weak. Sometimes it = more challenging.

No idea about what all else went down earlier in the thread, but this I agree with. IMO, it is most fun when you try your hardest with a fluffier list, and try to win without spoiling the sportsmanship. The IG sentinels look damn cool but really aren't great at all in game-- I field mine occasionally anyways, and make the best use of it when I do.

In the interest of having happy holidays (and just a better time online), let's not try to gak on each other's opinions. If you're not force feeding me your thoughts, I'll likely give them merit without any "assistance".

 KommissarKiln wrote:

 EVIL INC wrote:
many competative players play 'fluffy" armies and many of us do well. my armies are always fluffy. I'll occasionally purposely use fluff units just because i want to be different or because it is fluffy and I just finished painting it ad want to show it off.
i dont always win and I usually only average 3rd(winning a small prize) or 4th but occasionally, I will do better.
Fluffy does not automatically = weak. Sometimes it = more challenging.

No idea about what all else went down earlier in the thread, but this I agree with. IMO, it is most fun when you try your hardest with a fluffier list, and try to win without spoiling the sportsmanship. The IG sentinels look damn cool but really aren't great at all in game-- I field mine occasionally anyways, and make the best use of it when I do.

In the interest of having happy holidays (and just a better time online), let's not try to gak on each other's opinions. If you're not force feeding me your thoughts, I'll likely give them merit without any "assistance".

Both of these sound perfectly reasonable to me. No need to bash someone just because they put up a different answer.
Before reading this thread, I would have just said, it's a game where you play to win but this other guy expanded that in a way to explain it much better.

Competitive/WAAC players not caring about fluff is a fallacy.

The only reason they/we sacrifice fluff is because it's not feasible for tournament play when there will inevitably be someone with a min/max WAAC list.

The goal should be to make fluffiness and competitiveness both equally viable, AT ALL TIMES. Unfortunately, many systems that achieve this goal are called boring or lack variety, such as Warmahordes. That is the price you pay if every unit is equally viable. They are bound to be similar.

It seems like it's either a choice of fluff or competitiveness. After all, if GW merely said Riptides weren't super rare but were a very common new tech, then all of a sudden Riptide spam becomes fluffy. The "fluffy" units like Rough Riders just need massive buffs. You shouldn't have to handicap yourself just so you can enjoy certain models in GW's range.

I would say that competative and WAAC are not the same thing. I would say that they WAAC players are at the FAR extreme end of the spectrum and are not really representative of the average competative player at all.
an "average' competative player like myself is willing to take fluffy units. i dont usually go for rough riders as thier nerfing was just too much, but i will sometimes use penal legion.

 Tyberos the Red Wake wrote:
Competitive/WAAC players not caring about fluff is a fallacy.

The only reason they/we sacrifice fluff is because it's not feasible for tournament play when there will inevitably be someone with a min/max WAAC list.

The goal should be to make fluffiness and competitiveness both equally viable, AT ALL TIMES. Unfortunately, many systems that achieve this goal are called boring or lack variety, such as Warmahordes. That is the price you pay if every unit is equally viable. They are bound to be similar.

It seems like it's either a choice of fluff or competitiveness. After all, if GW merely said Riptides weren't super rare but were a very common new tech, then all of a sudden Riptide spam becomes fluffy. The "fluffy" units like Rough Riders just need massive buffs. You shouldn't have to handicap yourself just so you can enjoy certain models in GW's range.

I would agree with this. I think that, where possible, it should always be possible to be both fluffy and competitive with every list out there.

I just don't think it's possible for a game with as grand a scale as Warhammer 40,000.

I think the real problem is the 'having to be told to do everything by GW attitude.'

Most other games companies, simply focus on writing the instructions to play the game , that results in a well defined , intuitive game that is fun to play.
This usually involves a reasonable level of game balance for pick up and play games.

So for these type of pick up and play games some level of restriction on options is required.As this IS THE HARDEST THING TO DO , to arrive at a game balanced for competitive play.

Most people buy the rules and army lists to KNOW what is balanced , to give them a base line to develop their own narrative senario /campain driven game if they want to.

Any gaming group can knock up narrative senarios and cool lists .(it just needs some imagination.)

So buying a bunch of cool ideas and fun things INSTEAD of a rule set that is a clearly defined instruction to play a game , seems pointless to me.

IT IS YOUR HOBBY, NOT GW s.

So having a well defined , intuitive rule set that defines a level of balance suitable for competitive play.IS GOOD FOR EVERYONE.
As then ANYONE can house rule narrative cool stuff with the other players agreement, IF they want to.

Having a solid foundation to build on , is much better than a sand pit filled with quick sand to drown in.(Rules arguments, play style confrontation etc.)

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I just don't think it's possible for a game with as grand a scale as Warhammer 40,000.

I don't see any reason to believe that. Will every single option be perfectly balanced and always have exactly a 50% chance of winning? Of course not. But balance can be much better, and the only reason it isn't is that GW is too lazy and/or incompetent to do a better job.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I just don't think it's possible for a game with as grand a scale as Warhammer 40,000.

I don't see any reason to believe that. Will every single option be perfectly balanced and always have exactly a 50% chance of winning? Of course not. But balance can be much better, and the only reason it isn't is that GW is too lazy and/or incompetent to do a better job.

Welll, I'm certainly not against trying. As long as the number of options doesn't go down, I, of course, have no problem with balancing a game as well as possible.

It's just that, unlike some people, I am unwilling to make certain sacrifices for the sake of balance, whereas other people are doing things like banning D weapons (removing an option) or restricting the double-FoC at 2000 (removing options) or whathaveyou.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
It's just that, unlike some people, I am unwilling to make certain sacrifices for the sake of balance, whereas other people are doing things like banning D weapons (removing an option) or restricting the double-FoC at 2000 (removing options) or whathaveyou.

But those options never should have been included in the first place. What you're proposing is a completely broken system where every random idea GW publishes has to be included in the game forever, regardless of whether it is good for the game.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I just don't think it's possible for a game with as grand a scale as Warhammer 40,000.

I don't see any reason to believe that. Will every single option be perfectly balanced and always have exactly a 50% chance of winning? Of course not. But balance can be much better, and the only reason it isn't is that GW is too lazy and/or incompetent to do a better job.

Welll, I'm certainly not against trying. As long as the number of options doesn't go down, I, of course, have no problem with balancing a game as well as possible.

It's just that, unlike some people, I am unwilling to make certain sacrifices for the sake of balance, whereas other people are doing things like banning D weapons (removing an option) or restricting the double-FoC at 2000 (removing options) or whathaveyou.

The thing you're missing is that banning D weapons and double force org is not people saying GW should do that to balance the game, that's people trying to fix the mess GW made.

The ideal solution here is not to get rid of those option, the ideal solution is for GW to balance the game in such a way that D weapons and double force org are not broken. If GW did a better job with the rules there would be no need for restrictions.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
It's just that, unlike some people, I am unwilling to make certain sacrifices for the sake of balance, whereas other people are doing things like banning D weapons (removing an option) or restricting the double-FoC at 2000 (removing options) or whathaveyou.

But those options never should have been included in the first place. What you're proposing is a completely broken system where every random idea GW publishes has to be included in the game forever, regardless of whether it is good for the game.

Why shouldn't they have been included? And what do you mean by "good for the game"? Do you mean 'good' as in 'won't kill the game'? Because it seems to me the game is alive and well despite the available options.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jonolikespie wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I just don't think it's possible for a game with as grand a scale as Warhammer 40,000.

I don't see any reason to believe that. Will every single option be perfectly balanced and always have exactly a 50% chance of winning? Of course not. But balance can be much better, and the only reason it isn't is that GW is too lazy and/or incompetent to do a better job.

Welll, I'm certainly not against trying. As long as the number of options doesn't go down, I, of course, have no problem with balancing a game as well as possible.

It's just that, unlike some people, I am unwilling to make certain sacrifices for the sake of balance, whereas other people are doing things like banning D weapons (removing an option) or restricting the double-FoC at 2000 (removing options) or whathaveyou.

The thing you're missing is that banning D weapons and double force org is not people saying GW should do that to balance the game, that's people trying to fix the mess GW made.

The ideal solution here is not to get rid of those option, the ideal solution is for GW to balance the game in such a way that D weapons and double force org are not broken. If GW did a better job with the rules there would be no need for restrictions.

I get that's what everyone is saying. I just don't think that it's possible for GW to balance the game such that every single option (out of the howevermanythousand are available) is balanced. I think that's asking for the impossible. You will have to remove options at some point.

But I wouldn't have a problem with trying.

But if a game is balance for tournaments it is balanced for everyone . The fluff player will pick models he wants and thinks are fluffy , even if being in a codex automaticly makes stuff fluffy and it will work and will do good . While the tournament player will take the build he likes the most and play with it .

And not what we have now , where the tournament players has 2-3 codex to pick from and the fluff player whines about stuff that isn't that good at all , but blast his footslogging scout army off the table turn 2.

Makumba wrote:
But if a game is balance for tournaments it is balanced for everyone . The fluff player will pick models he wants and thinks are fluffy , even if being in a codex automaticly makes stuff fluffy and it will work and will do good . While the tournament player will take the build he likes the most and play with it .

And not what we have now , where the tournament players has 2-3 codex to pick from and the fluff player whines about stuff that isn't that good at all , but blast his footslogging scout army off the table turn 2.

1) It is balanced for everyone. But I don't care about balance, I want to push my man-dolly tanks across the field making putputput noises (I mean, it's somewhat more complex and involving than that, but whatever) while still conforming to the narrative of the game.

2) The fluffy players will pick fluffy stuff, yes, but they have more available stuff to pick in the current ruleset than ever before.

3) I don't whine about crappy stuff. I will happily pick my never-wins-games armored battlegroup off of the table time and again, but I will have a helluva time doing it.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

1) It is balanced for everyone. But I don't care about balance, I want to push my man-dolly tanks across the field making putputput noises (I mean, it's somewhat more complex and involving than that, but whatever) while still conforming to the narrative of the game.

What you are saying there is "this problem you speak of doesn't effect me personally so there is no need to fix the problem".

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

2) The fluffy players will pick fluffy stuff, yes, but they have more available stuff to pick in the current ruleset than ever before.

But blancing the game doesn't mean that suddenly gets taken away, it just means 'fluffy' lists aren't pretty much auto lose to 'competitive armies'.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

3) I don't whine about crappy stuff. I will happily pick my never-wins-games armored battlegroup off of the table time and again, but I will have a helluva time doing it.

See 1). Because this doesn't effect your enjoyment of the game we are just supposed to shut up about it, is that it?
Some of us are greatly put off the game when the list we built out of the fun, fluffy units have no chance of winning.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
But I don't care about balance, I want to push my man-dolly tanks across the field making putputput noises (I mean, it's somewhat more complex and involving than that, but whatever) while still conforming to the narrative of the game.

Of course you care about balance. Would you enjoy a game where your army is entirely destroyed on the first turn and there's nothing you can do about it? Where your only option to avoid that situation is to refuse to play against that list/player again? Of course not. Narrative games are much better when the rules are balanced and player choices matter more than which unit happens to have the most overpowered rules.

2) The fluffy players will pick fluffy stuff, yes, but they have more available stuff to pick in the current ruleset than ever before.

Except they don't, because there's a long list of "options" that are only viable if you have extensive house rules that ban everything that's more powerful. Simplifying the number of options (in the process of fixing balance) would mean less stuff to pick from in theory, but would greatly increase the amount of choices you have in a random pickup game. And fluff games are a lot more enjoyable when you can bring that awesome fluffy army you've invested those countless hours into and still have a fair chance of winning and a lot of confidence in your chances of enjoying the game. This is a much better situation than having lots of options but never getting to play anything besides a baby seal clubbing if you ever use any of them.

Also, having lots of options isn't necessarily better for fluff, even if you ignore balance. It's better to have a smaller number of good options that are all very fluffy than a giant pile of bland ones. Reducing the number of options allows you to spend more effort on making the ones you keep more interesting.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Why shouldn't they have been included?

Because they add nothing to the game. D-weapons are just completely broken and the basic concept of "titan killer" could easily be represented by something saner (like STR 10 AP 1 armorbane) along with a reduction in the template size and/or number of shots for titan D-weapons. Double FOC is just plain bad for the list-building aspect of the game and favors spamming your best units in the extra FOC slots instead of having to get creative and try to get good options out of every slot in a single FOC. There was no reason at all to add those rules, so we shouldn't be reluctant to get rid of them just because it means fewer rules in the game.

And what do you mean by "good for the game"? Do you mean 'good' as in 'won't kill the game'? Because it seems to me the game is alive and well despite the available options.

I mean that their presence in the game produces a more enjoyable experience than an alternative game in which those rules don't exist. And that's not the case here. Double FOC and D-weapons made the game less fun for a lot of people, which means they should not have been included.

You will have to remove options at some point.

Well yeah, but that's because GW's rules are a bloated mess. You need to get rid of options, especially useless options that exist just for the sake of having options. It's much better to have an elegant game with fewer options that are all interesting than a game with lots of boring options-for-the-sake-of-options.

 jonolikespie wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

1) It is balanced for everyone. But I don't care about balance, I want to push my man-dolly tanks across the field making putputput noises (I mean, it's somewhat more complex and involving than that, but whatever) while still conforming to the narrative of the game.

What you are saying there is "this problem you speak of doesn't effect me personally so there is no need to fix the problem".

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

2) The fluffy players will pick fluffy stuff, yes, but they have more available stuff to pick in the current ruleset than ever before.

But blancing the game doesn't mean that suddenly gets taken away, it just means 'fluffy' lists aren't pretty much auto lose to 'competitive armies'.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

3) I don't whine about crappy stuff. I will happily pick my never-wins-games armored battlegroup off of the table time and again, but I will have a helluva time doing it.

See 1). Because this doesn't effect your enjoyment of the game we are just supposed to shut up about it, is that it?
Some of us are greatly put off the game when the list we built out of the fun, fluffy units have no chance of winning.

1) No, I am simply saying it is possible to have fun in the current rules environment. The crux of my argument is 2.

2) It does mean that it suddenly gets taken away. People are slashing options, cutting out huge portions of official rules, and gutting 40k in ways that are appalling in an effort to find this sacred 'balance'

3) No, you can talk about it. But just like any discussion, there will be input. My input is that it is possible to have fun with the game, and that it could be fixed with a change in the game (which might be good or bad) or a change in personal mindset. I know which one of the two is easier to change for an individual though.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
1) No, I am simply saying it is possible to have fun in the current rules environment.

Sure, but that's not saying very much. It's possible to have fun despite the bad rules if you love the fluff/models/other players enough. But that doesn't mean that you wouldn't have more fun if the game had better balance.

2) It does mean that it suddenly gets taken away. People are slashing options, cutting out huge portions of official rules, and gutting 40k in ways that are appalling in an effort to find this sacred 'balance'

Again, those options shouldn't have existed in the first place. Options are not good just because they're options, they're only good if they add something constructive to the game. And the simple fact is the things that are targeted most frequently for removal don't just fail to improve the game, they actively make it worse. Reducing the effectiveness of screamerstar lists is technically removing an option (or at least making it less appealing), but doing it makes the game a lot more enjoyable. If nothing else there's now a standard rule that everyone agrees on and you don't have to negotiate your list before every game.

3) No, you can talk about it. But just like any discussion, there will be input. My input is that it is possible to have fun with the game, and that it could be fixed with a change in the game (which might be good or bad) or a change in personal mindset. I know which one of the two is easier to change for an individual though.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
But I don't care about balance, I want to push my man-dolly tanks across the field making putputput noises (I mean, it's somewhat more complex and involving than that, but whatever) while still conforming to the narrative of the game.

Of course you care about balance. Would you enjoy a game where your army is entirely destroyed on the first turn and there's nothing you can do about it? Where your only option to avoid that situation is to refuse to play against that list/player again? Of course not. Narrative games are much better when the rules are balanced and player choices matter more than which unit happens to have the most overpowered rules.

Thanks for telling me what I would and would not enjoy. I had no idea you could control my brain in such ways!

But seriously - the example of a game you gave me would be unfortunate, but not really unenjoyable - as long as I could shoot back (i.e. if I had the top of first turn) it would be an interesting challenge to see what these horribly outclassed Imperial tanks can do to stop whatever inexorable force has happened upon them! And if I didn't get the top of the turn, we'll roll off next game - it's not always going to be the bad guys!

 Peregrine wrote:

2) The fluffy players will pick fluffy stuff, yes, but they have more available stuff to pick in the current ruleset than ever before.

Except they don't, because there's a long list of "options" that are only viable if you have extensive house rules that ban everything that's more powerful. Simplifying the number of options (in the process of fixing balance) would mean less stuff to pick from in theory, but would greatly increase the amount of choices you have in a random pickup game. And fluff games are a lot more enjoyable when you can bring that awesome fluffy army you've invested those countless hours into and still have a fair chance of winning and a lot of confidence in your chances of enjoying the game. This is a much better situation than having lots of options but never getting to play anything besides a baby seal clubbing if you ever use any of them.

Also, having lots of options isn't necessarily better for fluff, even if you ignore balance. It's better to have a smaller number of good options that are all very fluffy than a giant pile of bland ones. Reducing the number of options allows you to spend more effort on making the ones you keep more interesting.

I'm not sure we're on the same page. Because I don't limit myself to what's "viable." No army does that in the narrative. Someone who wishes to do that is de-emphasizing the fluff in favor of chance-of-victory on the tabletop, which is ok - but not my thing, and if you impinge upon my thing in your quest for the sacred "balance" I will have problems.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Why shouldn't they have been included?

Because they add nothing to the game. D-weapons are just completely broken and the basic concept of "titan killer" could easily be represented by something saner (like STR 10 AP 1 armorbane) along with a reduction in the template size and/or number of shots for titan D-weapons. Double FOC is just plain bad for the list-building aspect of the game and favors spamming your best units in the extra FOC slots instead of having to get creative and try to get good options out of every slot in a single FOC. There was no reason at all to add those rules, so we shouldn't be reluctant to get rid of them just because it means fewer rules in the game.

They add nothing to the game? They give me a framework in which I can field superheavies. Why is that nothing? The problem with your implementation of D is that it does a single wound to an Ork Nob while having a high chance of half-killing a Titan. Not fluffy. As far as rate of fire, sure, nerf it. Whatever - as published they do need tweaking, just not removal. As for double FOC sure it allows spamming. But spamming is fluffy - armies tend to have lots of the same type of tank, etc, lying around.

 Peregrine wrote:

And what do you mean by "good for the game"? Do you mean 'good' as in 'won't kill the game'? Because it seems to me the game is alive and well despite the available options.

I mean that their presence in the game produces a more enjoyable experience than an alternative game in which those rules don't exist. And that's not the case here. Double FOC and D-weapons made the game less fun for a lot of people, which means they should not have been included.

They also make the game more fun for some people. I like the double FOC because I can have a Command Tank where a real Imperial Guard Armored Company would have a Command Tank. D weapons I'm not that keen on, but I think removing them would cripple a lot of the Eldar superheavies and in the fluff their superheavies are some of the most fearsome, and I feel GW chose to reflect that with their rules for D weapons. Also, a D weapon really should evaporate anything it hits....

 Peregrine wrote:

You will have to remove options at some point.

Well yeah, but that's because GW's rules are a bloated mess. You need to get rid of options, especially useless options that exist just for the sake of having options. It's much better to have an elegant game with fewer options that are all interesting than a game with lots of boring options-for-the-sake-of-options.

I disagree with your definition of better. For me, a better game is one where I can make my force feel truly 'mine.' And if that includes putting armored track guards on my Leman Russ tanks for 10 points, then why shouldn't I be able to?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
1) No, I am simply saying it is possible to have fun in the current rules environment.

Sure, but that's not saying very much. It's possible to have fun despite the bad rules if you love the fluff/models/other players enough. But that doesn't mean that you wouldn't have more fun if the game had better balance.

2) It does mean that it suddenly gets taken away. People are slashing options, cutting out huge portions of official rules, and gutting 40k in ways that are appalling in an effort to find this sacred 'balance'

Again, those options shouldn't have existed in the first place. Options are not good just because they're options, they're only good if they add something constructive to the game. And the simple fact is the things that are targeted most frequently for removal don't just fail to improve the game, they actively make it worse. Reducing the effectiveness of screamerstar lists is technically removing an option (or at least making it less appealing), but doing it makes the game a lot more enjoyable. If nothing else there's now a standard rule that everyone agrees on and you don't have to negotiate your list before every game.

3) No, you can talk about it. But just like any discussion, there will be input. My input is that it is possible to have fun with the game, and that it could be fixed with a change in the game (which might be good or bad) or a change in personal mindset. I know which one of the two is easier to change for an individual though.

But personal mindset is only part of the problem. Yes, making a conscious effort to reduce the power of your lists helps if the problem is a person who is too competitive for the group and only makes their choices based on what wins games. But it doesn't help at all if you happen to enjoy units/lists that are overpowered. For example, if your armored company list suddenly got D-weapons on all of its tanks in the new codex would you really be happy that now you have a choice between games of baby seal clubbing or abandoning your beloved fluffy army and replacing it with a bunch of infantry platoons so that you don't dominate games?

(And that's not just a hypothetical, that's exactly what happened with my Tau. They were my first army, and now I can't enjoy them because they're so overpowered.)

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
But seriously - the example of a game you gave me would be unfortunate, but not really unenjoyable - as long as I could shoot back (i.e. if I had the top of first turn) it would be an interesting challenge to see what these horribly outclassed Imperial tanks can do to stop whatever inexorable force has happened upon them! And if I didn't get the top of the turn, we'll roll off next game - it's not always going to be the bad guys!

No, I'm talking about a game where nothing you do matters. If you get the first turn, you roll some meaningless dice and then your opponent wins the game during their turn. If your opponent gets the first turn you lose before you ever get a turn. Nothing you do has any impact on the outcome of the game, and there is no reasonable expectation that the game will go any differently if you play it a few more times. I seriously doubt you're going to enjoy this game at all.

I'm not sure we're on the same page. Because I don't limit myself to what's "viable." No army does that in the narrative. Someone who wishes to do that is de-emphasizing the fluff in favor of chance-of-victory on the tabletop, which is ok - but not my thing, and if you impinge upon my thing in your quest for the sacred "balance" I will have problems.

Except that "viable" matters because in a random pickup game you either take viable options or you expect to be on the wrong end of a baby seal clubbing. Sure, you might be masochistic enough to enjoy it, but that's the kind of fun-destroying experience that drives a lot of people to quit the game.

They give me a framework in which I can field superheavies.

Superheavies are not D-weapons. I've already said that big tanks in normal games is an idea with some potential and the biggest problem is the execution of the idea, especially D-weapons.

The problem with your implementation of D is that it does a single wound to an Ork Nob while having a high chance of half-killing a Titan.

STR 10 is instant death to virtually all infantry models. Bring back the old system where bikes and similar equipment don't raise your toughness for ID purposes and STR 10 destroyer weapons are only failing to kill a rare few special characters and similar unique units.

But spamming is fluffy - armies tend to have lots of the same type of tank, etc, lying around.

It's also incredibly boring. Games are a lot more fun when you have to play with a diverse range of choices instead of just copying the same unit a dozen times. The single FOC offers a good balance between the two: enough space to take a good theme list with duplicate units (especially with variant lists like the armored company that emphasize certain aspects of an army), but not so much space that you only have to look at part of your codex to build an army.

I like the double FOC because I can have a Command Tank where a real Imperial Guard Armored Company would have a Command Tank

What does that have to do with double FOC? Your command tank is an HQ unit (and even in the codex it should be an HQ unit, not your fifth heavy support choice).

For me, a better game is one where I can make my force feel truly 'mine.' And if that includes putting armored track guards on my Leman Russ tanks for 10 points, then why shouldn't I be able to?

Because those track guards add more rules to the bloated mess without actually making the game more interesting. Imagine a hypothetical alternate world in which that upgrade was never added to the army list. Do you really think that you'd be unhappy in that alternate world? Or would you have lots of fun playing your army and never even consider that something could be missing? Now imagine in that hypothetical alternate world removing the option made the game more balanced AND allowed some of the other remaining options to be more interesting because the designers could spend more time on each option instead of obsessively adding lots of options to everything.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Because they enjoy the challenge of seeing how far they can get towards defeating the list before being wiped out. That's a great mindset! Losing games isn't unfun.

You really are a bunch of masochists. Struggling against the odds is interesting as an occasional story game maybe, but I can't imagine having any fun when the best I can possibly hope for is to maybe do a little more damage than last time before getting mercilessly wiped off the table with no hope of victory. Losing games can still be fun, but there has to be a reasonable chance of victory for both players and a reason to care about the outcome, not just a baby seal clubbing where you're doomed before the game even begins because the rules aren't balanced.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
But seriously - the example of a game you gave me would be unfortunate, but not really unenjoyable - as long as I could shoot back (i.e. if I had the top of first turn) it would be an interesting challenge to see what these horribly outclassed Imperial tanks can do to stop whatever inexorable force has happened upon them! And if I didn't get the top of the turn, we'll roll off next game - it's not always going to be the bad guys!

No, I'm talking about a game where nothing you do matters. If you get the first turn, you roll some meaningless dice and then your opponent wins the game during their turn. If your opponent gets the first turn you lose before you ever get a turn. Nothing you do has any impact on the outcome of the game, and there is no reasonable expectation that the game will go any differently if you play it a few more times. I seriously doubt you're going to enjoy this game at all.

I wouldn't enjoy that game at all. I haven't encountered that yet, though, so until then...

 Peregrine wrote:

I'm not sure we're on the same page. Because I don't limit myself to what's "viable." No army does that in the narrative. Someone who wishes to do that is de-emphasizing the fluff in favor of chance-of-victory on the tabletop, which is ok - but not my thing, and if you impinge upon my thing in your quest for the sacred "balance" I will have problems.

Except that "viable" matters because in a random pickup game you either take viable options or you expect to be on the wrong end of a baby seal clubbing. Sure, you might be masochistic enough to enjoy it, but that's the kind of fun-destroying experience that drives a lot of people to quit the game.

People really define 'fun' as whether or not they can win? Derp.

 Peregrine wrote:

They give me a framework in which I can field superheavies.

Superheavies are not D-weapons. I've already said that big tanks in normal games is an idea with some potential and the biggest problem is the execution of the idea, especially D-weapons.

The problem with your implementation of D is that it does a single wound to an Ork Nob while having a high chance of half-killing a Titan.

STR 10 is instant death to virtually all infantry models. Bring back the old system where bikes and similar equipment don't raise your toughness for ID purposes and STR 10 destroyer weapons are only failing to kill a rare few special characters and similar unique units.

What about MCs? My Leman Russ tank is no match for a D weapon, but the similarly priced Tervigon is like, eh, whatever, I probably am T9 with IWND anyways because psyker.

 Peregrine wrote:

But spamming is fluffy - armies tend to have lots of the same type of tank, etc, lying around.

It's also incredibly boring. Games are a lot more fun when you have to play with a diverse range of choices instead of just copying the same unit a dozen times. The single FOC offers a good balance between the two: enough space to take a good theme list with duplicate units (especially with variant lists like the armored company that emphasize certain aspects of an army), but not so much space that you only have to look at part of your codex to build an army.

Eh, I don't find it that boring, but that's a subjective judgement so I'll drop it. I don't mind the FoC itself, because it reflects fluffy organization of armies within the setting. Doubling it reflects twice that same organization - that doesn't really seem bad to me.

 Peregrine wrote:

I like the double FOC because I can have a Command Tank where a real Imperial Guard Armored Company would have a Command Tank

What does that have to do with double FOC? Your command tank is an HQ unit (and even in the codex it should be an HQ unit, not your fifth heavy support choice).

Squadron command tanks (of which there are 3 in a company) are command tanks, and of course the company command tank is a fourth, making exactly the double FOC worth of command tanks.

 Peregrine wrote:

For me, a better game is one where I can make my force feel truly 'mine.' And if that includes putting armored track guards on my Leman Russ tanks for 10 points, then why shouldn't I be able to?

Because those track guards add more rules to the bloated mess without actually making the game more interesting. Imagine a hypothetical alternate world in which that upgrade was never added to the army list. Do you really think that you'd be unhappy in that alternate world? Or would you have lots of fun playing your army and never even consider that something could be missing? Now imagine in that hypothetical alternate world removing the option made the game more balanced AND allowed some of the other remaining options to be more interesting because the designers could spend more time on each option instead of obsessively adding lots of options to everything.

It's more interesting for me. And I wouldn't be unhappy but I would be less happy, in such an alternate world. After losing Armored Track Guards in the 4th-5th Armored Company-Armored Battlegroup list changeover, I missed Armored Track Guards considerably. If removing the option made the game more balanced - keep the option. There are other games where people like balance can go. And the remaining options are all interesting in their own way, and I'm sure someone out there puts Extra Armor on Leman Russes (I don't) and I wouldn't take that away from them either.

 Peregrine wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Because they enjoy the challenge of seeing how far they can get towards defeating the list before being wiped out. That's a great mindset! Losing games isn't unfun.

You really are a bunch of masochists. Struggling against the odds is interesting as an occasional story game maybe, but I can't imagine having any fun when the best I can possibly hope for is to maybe do a little more damage than last time before getting mercilessly wiped off the table with no hope of victory. Losing games can still be fun, but there has to be a reasonable chance of victory for both players and a reason to care about the outcome, not just a baby seal clubbing where you're doomed before the game even begins because the rules aren't balanced.

Your definition of fun and ours are different. And there's always a chance of victory; the game hasn't gotten so bad that a single list has won 100% (or even over 75%) of its games in our local area.

Eh, I don't find it that boring, but that's a subjective judgement so I'll drop it. I don't mind the FoC itself, because it reflects fluffy organization of armies within the setting. Doubling it reflects twice that same organization - that doesn't really seem bad to me.

until some faction can self ally with their own codex , BB with formations . Then one side has like 1 , maybe 2 options which don't even synergise so well , while other can cherry pick from 8+ codex/formations.

Your definition of fun and ours are different. And there's always a chance of victory; the game hasn't gotten so bad that a single list has won 100% (or even over 75%) of its games in our local area.

We have 2 people using the eldar titans right now , they both havn't lost a single game in 7 rounds of two team tournament, they came first and second in the christmas tournament and have not lost a game while they were testing their armies . If it was 5-6 games I would say yes , no army before escalation had a 100% win ratio , not even taudar , even if they did cross the 75% easily . Right now they are clearly dominating the field and people know their list , they play against them daily in our FLGS , so there is no suprised aspect to playing against them . The armies play like clockwork and do almost the same things no matter what builds opponent brings , aside maybe for those rare reserv lists .

Ok I have to disagree with Peregrine on the matter of including things like allies in the game. They are, in theory, a nice addition and I would like to see them stay.

Having said that the way they are implemented is stupid. I am not saying balance the game by removing allies, removing D weapons and limiting riptides to 1 per army.
I am saying GW need to overhaul the entire game and make it so that D weapons are not as OP as they are, either by raising the points on them or by lowering their effectiveness. Same with allies and OP units like the Riptide. Nothing needs to be removed, nothing needs to be restricted, but the game does need to be balanced if they want to appeal to anything other than the hardcore fluff players.
Like it or not there is a significant number of players who want the rules to operate better in a competitive environment and what I am proposing here would not restrict the fluffy players in any way unless you want to make an idiot out of yourself and say that because it's fluffy some units cost a lot less points than they are worth because X army is better than all others in the fluff and the game should reflect that by giving them a leg up.

Makumba wrote:

Eh, I don't find it that boring, but that's a subjective judgement so I'll drop it. I don't mind the FoC itself, because it reflects fluffy organization of armies within the setting. Doubling it reflects twice that same organization - that doesn't really seem bad to me.

until some faction can self ally with their own codex , BB with formations . Then one side has like 1 , maybe 2 options which don't even synergise so well , while other can cherry pick from 8+ codex/formations.

It's true; in the fluff, some armies are more flexible than others as far as combat formations go. I'm glad that's reflected in the game, though - I wouldn't want an organization as diverse and flexible as the Imperial Guard having the same rules as the hierarchical organization and unitary-mind of the Tyranids.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jonolikespie wrote:
Ok I have to disagree with Peregrine on the matter of including things like allies in the game. They are, in theory, a nice addition and I would like to see them stay.

Having said that the way they are implemented is stupid. I am not saying balance the game by removing allies, removing D weapons and limiting riptides to 1 per army.
I am saying GW need to overhaul the entire game and make it so that D weapons are not as OP as they are, either by raising the points on them or by lowering their effectiveness. Same with allies and OP units like the Riptide. Nothing needs to be removed, nothing needs to be restricted, but the game does need to be balanced if they want to appeal to anything other than the hardcore fluff players.
Like it or not there is a significant number of players who want the rules to operate better in a competitive environment and what I am proposing here would not restrict the fluffy players in any way unless you want to make an idiot out of yourself and say that because it's fluffy some units cost a lot less points than they are worth because X army is better than all others in the fluff and the game should reflect that by giving them a leg up.

Now this kind of balance I agree with. If you can balance the game without removing options, that's fething awesome.

It's true; in the fluff, some armies are more flexible than others as far as combat formations go. I'm glad that's reflected in the game, though - I wouldn't want an organization as diverse and flexible as the Imperial Guard having the same rules as the hierarchical organization and unitary-mind of the Tyranids.

explain to me how tau are battle brothers with eldar or how eldar who have a super vendetta war against dark eldar bb with each other . Or how SM who are known for their low respect for human troops are the same as those space marines that are viewed as humanities protectors ? How BT fluff says they work offten view sisters and have a big respect for each other are less an ally which sisters view as marines who claim that the God Emperor isn't realy a god.

Makumba wrote:

It's true; in the fluff, some armies are more flexible than others as far as combat formations go. I'm glad that's reflected in the game, though - I wouldn't want an organization as diverse and flexible as the Imperial Guard having the same rules as the hierarchical organization and unitary-mind of the Tyranids.

explain to me how tau are battle brothers with eldar or how eldar who have a super vendetta war against dark eldar bb with each other . Or how SM who are known for their low respect for human troops are the same as those space marines that are viewed as humanities protectors ? How BT fluff says they work offten view sisters and have a big respect for each other are less an ally which sisters view as marines who claim that the God Emperor isn't realy a god.

1) The Eldar created the Tau according to some theories, and even discounting those, they're both perfectly rational races with comparable fighting styles who would be interested in mutual defense. I can see a pair of company-sized forces getting along quite well, actually.

2) Not all SM look down on human troops, and in fact some of them will lash out against other Marines who suggest that human lives are worthless - as for the protectors part, when most of your nation relies on myth and legend for stories about its protectors, they're bound to be pretty unreal.

3) I played BT (now Iron Hands) and I haven't seen the fluff where they work often with sisters. Even so, you can "work often" with someone and still "not like" them. The rest of your third point I can't parse because of grammar errors.

EDIT: If by "which" you meant THAN:

The Codex: Space Marines represents several different chapters. Some of them may believe the Emperor is a God, some may not. Either way, it would be unfair to the ones that do believe in the godhood of the Emperor to not be able to ally with sisters because of the ones that don't. It's better to have the option to ally as BB than to remove the option, when confronted with contradicting fluff.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I just don't think it's possible for a game with as grand a scale as Warhammer 40,000.

I don't see any reason to believe that. Will every single option be perfectly balanced and always have exactly a 50% chance of winning? Of course not. But balance can be much better, and the only reason it isn't is that GW is too lazy and/or incompetent to do a better job.

Welll, I'm certainly not against trying. As long as the number of options doesn't go down, I, of course, have no problem with balancing a game as well as possible.

It's just that, unlike some people, I am unwilling to make certain sacrifices for the sake of balance, whereas other people are doing things like banning D weapons (removing an option) or restricting the double-FoC at 2000 (removing options) or whathaveyou.

Banning D-weapons is a result of the rules for them being unbalanced and badly thought out. If you're in favour of variety and narrative options in the game, then you should be in favour of it being changed to be better written and thought out. Were it so then, in your example, you would find D-weapons not being banned by players and groups and tournaments, thus fewer people objecting to you fielding them if you thought they were narratively appropriate to your army.

This is the point. I frequently see the same people arguing against better balance and more tactically deep rules also being the first to complain about "spam" or "cheese" lists. Fix the problems with the rules and you'll see more variety and thematic choices. People are forced to choose between flavourful armies and effectiveness. Make it not such a hard choice and you'll see more of the former because players wont be penalized as much for choosing what is thematic or aesthetically interesting to them. Do you see?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

People really define 'fun' as whether or not they can win? Derp.

I would say that uncertainty of outcome is very engaging to me. I'd also say that variety of outcome is very engaging to me. I'd also say that achievement is satisfying to me. I'd also say that these things are also true of my opponents. And if whether or not a side can win is already pretty much pre-determined by unbalanced lists and rules, then each of these factors is removed from the game.

Aside from the fact that no-one you're arguing against actually said the above or implied that it was the whole definition of fun, and that you just phrased it in such a way that you can look down on people for it (Derp? really?) then even if you really are personally so immune to these aspects of the game, you should at least appreciate that most people like the uncertainty and therefore you will get more games with people that way because more people will play. If you have zero interest in uncertainty of outcome, then you might as well sit alone without any rules and just move figures around the table as you will without any framework at all.

Think of a typically "fluffy" Marine army. A half company.

Captain
Command Squad in Razorback
3 Tactical Squads in Rhinos
1 Assault Squad
1 Devastator Squad

The game will approach balance when such an army can fight against a Tau army heavy in battlesuits and Riptides or an Eldar army with a titan, with perhaps a 40% chance of victory. As it currently stands I'd say it's closer to 1%.

Freman Bloodglaive wrote:
Think of a typically "fluffy" Marine army. A half company.

Captain
Command Squad in Razorback
3 Tactical Squads in Rhinos
1 Assault Squad
1 Devastator Squad

The game will approach balance when such an army can fight against a Tau army heavy in battlesuits and Riptides or an Eldar army with a titan, with perhaps a 40% chance of victory. As it currently stands I'd say it's closer to 1%.

Considering that's about 1285 with a reasonable build, I would say it wouldn't do that shabbily against a 900 point titan + gribblies (provided terrain works) and against random tau spam.

You're overestimating the performance of those units. Significantly.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Freman Bloodglaive wrote:
Think of a typically "fluffy" Marine army. A half company.

Captain
Command Squad in Razorback
3 Tactical Squads in Rhinos
1 Assault Squad
1 Devastator Squad

The game will approach balance when such an army can fight against a Tau army heavy in battlesuits and Riptides or an Eldar army with a titan, with perhaps a 40% chance of victory. As it currently stands I'd say it's closer to 1%.

Considering that's about 1285 with a reasonable build, I would say it wouldn't do that shabbily against a 900 point titan + gribblies (provided terrain works) and against random tau spam.

I'm not that convinced to be honest. It seems to me that against a revenant, what you'd see would be first turn it goes, the Devastator and Command Squad would get D-weaponed. The Farseer and a couple of small squads of Eldar jetbikes would be tucked away somewhere out of harms way (but with the farseer close enough to boost the titan). Anyway, once any threats to it had been removed, the game should still be long enough for the titan to mop up what's left.

Not that I'm necessarily advocating for a game where the above configuration ought to win against a revenant titan, just that it starts to become more possible. Titans are a bit of a special case and hard to balance, but certainly the game ought to let it be viable against the Tau example and at least playable against the Titan example. If it were, then that would be great as it would open up more narrative and flavourful options, too.

i'm lost. Is this a fluffy army-v-competitive army, which is better thread or a thread asking what we see as a competitive game?

I can respect people not willing to ban Escalation in order to keep invasive custom rules to a minimum, but not banning Escalation because "I don't see the problem with it"? That's kinda whack.

Voorn wrote:
i'm lost. Is this a fluffy army-v-competitive army, which is better thread or a thread asking what we see as a competitive game?

I think it's a bit of both.

I see a competitive game as one where both parties can bring the units they like from their respective Codexes, and (assuming similar player skill) have a fair chance (no worse than 33%) of winning.

I would like to see a game that fluff bunnies and tournament players can both enjoy, because as it stands even if fluff bunnies play other fluff bunnies, if one fluff bunny happens to like Tau or Eldar, and the other likes something else, then the Taudar bunny is going in with a significant advantage.

Any game where the players are not co-operating to arrive at a common goal is competitive game.

Eg if there is an objective a player has to achive to win the game that stops the opposing player form reaching his objective and winning the game .

Lots of competitive war games use PV and FOC to allow enough balance for fun and entertaining pick up and play games.
So new and in experiance players can simply bring the same number of points using appropriate army lists and arrive at a fun and interesting engagement.

Games that have rules written specifically for the intended game play , and size and scope of the game. Have a much easier time of achiving this level of BASIC game balance.

Because the rules are written inclusively, so cover far more game play with much fewer pages of rules.(Clarity Brevity and Elegance. )


The discussion between Unit and Peregrin sort of highlights this IMO.

Peregrin is right to point out the slap dash way things have been thrown into 40k with poor concept and implementation being ignored over the level of possible short term inspiration.
(Make the latest releases sound cool, and hope no one finds out how game breaking any of it turns out to be...)
And IF you were to continue to use bastardized WHFB in SPAACE rules , with lots of poorly applied patches.
A great deal of cutting away of poorly conceived and implemented ideas would be needed to refine any level of meaningful balance...

However, IF a new rule set was written to cover the current game play with ALL the diverse units 40k currently has.
The much easier to balance INCLUSIVE rules , would allow similar levels of diversity without the monumental levels of over complication and imbalance 40k currently has.

However, a more tactical focused rule set would not appeal to GW plc current demoghraphic.
BUT as I am not an 'enthusiastic teenager goobering over the latest releases', or 'a collector first and foremost, gamer second if at all'.
A cleaner more tactically focused rule set would appeal to me.

The only reason ALL gamers can not enjoy 40k together is because the rules infer balance that is NOT present.