My primary interest in competitive 40k was the time I would spend list building, investigating and arguing merits of builds and units.

When people post lists that are "non competitive" to the forums I have no idea what kind of feed back I can give. If the list is not meant to be competitive what makes it a good vs a bad list?

In a non competitive meta what is the point of saying this unit is better than that unit for the same point cost or under X or Y circumstance? What exactly do we talk about on the forums? Fluff?

GW is not only killing the tournament scene it is going to reduce the relevancy of forums like this.

I guess you can keep talking about that time you rolled x number for x action which lead to x outcome, up until you realize that 40k is just turning into one really big game of expensive Yahtzee anyway.

Well, there's that whole modelling and painting angle, as well as fluff discussions. And pretty much everything else that isn't hating one some new cheesy build.

There's still background/fluff as well as painting and modelling given that those two are the main basis' of the game that gives it longevity compared to more well-thought through (rules-wise) and competent rule/game sets.

However, given that some of the recent fluff has been going a little stupid in some areas (Horus Heresy stretching far beyond what it should have been, ruining guys like Ollanius Pius) this may not be a good thing.

On the plus side we always have guys like LightKing popping (or I guess spamming) up in the Background forums and give everyone a whirl on the facepalm and rage train

There will always been competitive play. People took a game like Super Smash Brothers which is like the ultimate beer & pretzels party game and made it into a soul-suckingly unfun super-competitive affair. (Final Destination, no items, Fox only... etc)

 j31c3n wrote:
There will always been competitive play. People took a game like Super Smash Brothers which is like the ultimate beer & pretzels party game and made it into a soul-suckingly unfun super-competitive affair. (Final Destination, no items, Fox only... etc)

Says a guy who has no clue about just how deep Super Smash Brothers Melee is, and how fun and creative competitive play actually is.

Here's a hint: people don't play a game for 13 years with any level of dedication if it's not fun.

Tactics still matter even in casual games (casual doesn't mean you don't give a damn about winning), but the discussion will be less dogmatic. Instead of seeing the same old 'take x, it's statistically the best' you'll get 'take x if you like y or want z, but take a if you fancy b'. There will be a lot more freedom in the discussion, rather than less of it, as more people will be open to ideas that are less 'optimised' but more varied and potentially more fun.

I would describe myself as among the most causal of players, but that doesn't mean I give no thought to my lists or tactics. I don't just throw together any odd unit without thinking of how it's going to work, and there's always something new I want to try. That's what the forums would come to be. Rather than people asking 'what's the best for this role'? it will be 'will this work?' or 'what's the best plan for this list?'. To be honest, I'd be happy to be rid of the 'competitive' ideals, as when every discussion ends with 'more vendettas' or 'Anything that isn't taudar is terrible' it gets very boring.

 Fafnir wrote:
Says a guy who has no clue about just how deep Super Smash Brothers Melee is, and how fun and creative competitive play actually is.

Here's a hint: people don't play a game for 13 years with any level of dedication if it's not fun.

I don't play WAAC in any game. Testosterone-laden dominance rituals do not interest me. I play to have fun my way and to tell a story with the aid of a rule system and dice rolls. I'd prefer to have a fluffy army with a fun backstory that stands out from others on the tabletop and is memorable in the minds of my opponents than a dead killy WAAC table-the-enemy-on-turn-three force.

Other people find WAAC gameplay and tournament settings to be fun. That's great for them, and I wish them luck. I don't like that stuff.

You could always talk about OTHER games.

Sometimes people need to be reminded that GW didn't invent wargaming and don't control all aspects of it, and whether they choose to acknowledge it or not, there are other games out there.

blackjack wrote:
My primary interest in competitive 40k was the time I would spend list building, investigating and arguing merits of builds and units.

When people post lists that are "non competitive" to the forums I have no idea what kind of feed back I can give. If the list is not meant to be competitive what makes is a good vs a bad list?

In a non competitive meta what is the point of saying this unit is better than that unit for the same point cost or under X or Y circumstance? What exactly do we talk about on the forums? Fluff?

GW is not only killing the tournament scene it is going to reduce the relevancy of forums like this.

I'm not even sure where to begin. There are so many angles to this game and hobby to discuss that I have run a Podcast about them for nearly four years.... We only occasionally discuss tactics/tournaments and usually don't focus on "this unit is better than that unit". In fact, we actively AVOID talking about that and yet we still have one of the most popular 40k Podcasts out there.

In the words of Kuato... "Open your miiiiinnnnnnnd"

blackjack wrote:
My primary interest in competitive 40k was the time I would spend list building, investigating and arguing merits of builds and units.

Emphasis mine. Your primary interest is list building. Other people have primary interests in painting, modelling, converting, fluff and also actually playing the game.

If the game goes super casual and list building becomes less important, your primary interest will diminish. Your mistake is thinking your primary interest is everyones primary interest.

blackjack wrote:
My primary interest in competitive 40k was the time I would spend list building, investigating and arguing merits of builds and units.

When people post lists that are "non competitive" to the forums I have no idea what kind of feed back I can give. If the list is not meant to be competitive what makes it a good vs a bad list?

In a non competitive meta what is the point of saying this unit is better than that unit for the same point cost or under X or Y circumstance? What exactly do we talk about on the forums? Fluff?

GW is not only killing the tournament scene it is going to reduce the relevancy of forums like this.

I don't know to be honest . On polish forums people talk about painting and converting , selling stuff and playing which is mostly list or tournament talk . What I see on western forums is people claiming the game is B&P , But in the end people always end up saying stuff like escalation , FW, D weapons aren't unbalanced , riptide spam and screamer stars are . Which may or may not be true . What I ask myself is where do those B&P players face those armies , when they all claim they never play against WAAC , which somehow is another word for tournament or good , list or players. So why do they need those counters in the first place . But that question is dwarfed in the face of a bigger one . If the B&P crew claims they play for the narrative and not to win and stuff like that , why do they have so much problem with losing ? I have never seen someone with a tournament say , that he won't play another one , because he is an baby eating fluff player , who dared to paint squad markings on all of his marines.

Remember, a tactics discussion can be more than about the latest internet list or what to spam from the latest codex.

Still, tactics require some competitive form of meta to actually exist. So long as one player is trying to win over another, a competitive metagame will develop, and tactics and strategies around that.
It's a natural evolution of play, and while the internet can aid in reaching such a point faster, copy/pasta and spam lists are going to be the end point in any even slightly competitive meta for a game as poorly designed as 40k.

When you design a game around removing player agency (through an over-emphasis of using dice for player choices and outcomes over informed decisions and actions made by players) and encouraging the use of specific broken units, you end up with a game that can only naturally become as stagnant, degenerate, and ultimately boring as 40k.

 Fafnir wrote:
Still, tactics require some competitive form of meta to actually exist. So long as one player is trying to win over another, a competitive metagame will develop, and tactics and strategies around that.
It's a natural evolution of play, and while the internet can aid in reaching such a point faster, copy/pasta and spam lists are going to be the end point in any even slightly competitive meta for a game as poorly designed as 40k.

When you design a game around removing player agency (through an over-emphasis of using dice for player choices and outcomes over informed decisions and actions made by players) and encouraging the use of specific broken units, you end up with a game that can only naturally become as stagnant, degenerate, and ultimately boring as 40k.

Guess it doesn't say much for me then that I don't find 40k boring.

 Fafnir wrote:

 j31c3n wrote:
There will always been competitive play. People took a game like Super Smash Brothers which is like the ultimate beer & pretzels party game and made it into a soul-suckingly unfun super-competitive affair. (Final Destination, no items, Fox only... etc)

Says a guy who has no clue about just how deep Super Smash Brothers Melee is, and how fun and creative competitive play actually is.

Here's a hint: people don't play a game for 13 years with any level of dedication if it's not fun.

SSB was unequivocably dedicated to the fun party brawler concept. The main creator has expressed his hatred of the very existence of competitive Smash. It still exists. His point isn't wrong, even if his understanding of the scene is.

Nerds will always compete, even if it's just an argument of the hulk vs superman.

People will always want to win, no matter what state the game ends up in.

Which is funny, since Sakurai considers Melee, the most competitive version of the game, to be the finest game in the series, as far as quality of mechanics involved is concerned, and something he wouldn't replicate not for the sake of the competitive factor, but rather because of the work involved being all-consuming. It's also quite clear that he doesn't really know much about the competitive communities that play the game in the first place.

The funny thing is that in his hubris, and desire to make Brawl uncompetitive, he wound up making the most slow, campy, and boring game in the series.

Now, the competitive scene may not be the core audience for the game, but they're the people who are going to keep the game going for well over a decade. The competitive community is why 130,000 people were concurrently watching the Evo stream of a game that is 13 years old. And just because a game is competitive doesn't mean it can't cater to casual play (see: Melee).
I can go to Melee friendlies every week, and play with 20-40 people. I can go to tournaments every month or so, and play against 70 people, and our community could be considered a small one. There's a huge variance in skill level and competitiveness (personally, I'm one of the less skilled players), but every player is having fun with a competitive style of play, and there's a very strong sense of community.

To that extent, Sakurai is wrong. Because for someone who is so much for making games built around simple 'fun,' he seems to do a lot to ignore a lot of the fun going on with people who appreciate his games in a way that no casual player ever would.

Forcing a dichotomy between competitive and casual play is a false one. At the end of the day, it's simply players enjoying different aspects of a game for different reasons, and taking offense at players for enjoying something in a different way than you for something that causes no harm is quite pathetic, and intentionally going to alienate a specific group is even worse.

Tactical discussion is pointless if you're assuming your opponent is going to be tactically incompetent.

There is a difference, I think, between bringing fluffy units and subsequently trying to win, and being tactically incompetent.

 Fafnir wrote:
Which is funny, since Sakurai considers Melee, the most competitive version of the game, to be the finest game in the series, as far as quality of mechanics involved is concerned, and something he wouldn't replicate not for the sake of the competitive factor, but rather because of the work involved being all-consuming. It's also quite clear that he doesn't really know much about the competitive communities that play the game in the first place.

The funny thing is that in his hubris, and desire to make Brawl uncompetitive, he wound up making the most slow, campy, and boring game in the series.

Now, the competitive scene may not be the core audience for the game, but they're the people who are going to keep the game going for well over a decade. The competitive community is why 130,000 people were concurrently watching the Evo stream of a game that is 13 years old. And just because a game is competitive doesn't mean it can't cater to casual play (see: Melee).
I can go to Melee friendlies every week, and play with 20-40 people. I can go to tournaments every month or so, and play against 70 people, and our community could be considered a small one. There's a huge variance in skill level and competitiveness (personally, I'm one of the less skilled players), but every player is having fun with a competitive style of play, and there's a very strong sense of community.

To that extent, Sakurai is wrong. Because for someone who is so much for making games built around simple 'fun,' he seems to do a lot to ignore a lot of the fun going on with people who appreciate his games in a way that no casual player ever would.

Forcing a dichotomy between competitive and casual play is a false one. At the end of the day, it's simply players enjoying different aspects of a game for different reasons, and taking offense at players for enjoying something in a different way than you for something that causes no harm is quite pathetic, and intentionally going to alienate a specific group is even worse.

I completely agree with this. Brood War also persist to this day because of competitive play. Pushing the beer and pretzels angle and denying competitiveness gives you Mario Party, where you need to release a new one every year just to keep people aware it exists. I think *that* game stands as the exemplar of what happens if you actively attempt to make competitive play impossible. You get the guy who wins every minigame and makes every correct decision losing because he landed on a space that made him swap star count with the guy that's been spending more time on his phone texting his girlfriend than paying attention to the game. I've known almost no one that finds 'because random gak invalidates everything' such an appealing component of play that they play the same Mario Party endlessly.

There is always some semblance of competitiveness, unless people like getting tabled or just don't care whether or not they win. If they don't care whether or not they win at least a little bit, they probably aren't going to be playing. On the off chance they are, they are probably just interested in trying different builds just to gain understanding of how they'd work.

I think those claiming competitiveness in the game is gone or is going away are simply crying wolf over nothing. Again. If you REALLY need some convincing, go play some Yahtzee and tell me there is not a single competitive person there.

Don't worry, it's a wargame of futuristic battles, there is a built-in competitive nature to the game. No need for the QQ.

Or we could talk about cute kittens and flowers and how to make the world a better place

Making the world a better place is easy: eradicate everyone who disagrees with me.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
There is a difference, I think, between bringing fluffy units and subsequently trying to win, and being tactically incompetent.

That's very true, and it's unfortunate that when people try to use a fluffy unit as best they can, they are met with responses of "Lol that unit's trash, use X instead it completely outclasses it."

But using fluffy units competitively is still a type of competitive discussion. I'm talking about the extreme end of the spectrum from WAAC. The guys who will hiss and spit at you just because you've attended a tournament.

Furthermore, there's no need to min/max or be super tryhard when using fluffy units if your opponent is not competitive. Ergo the topic is still redundant UNLESS the presence of competition and min/maxing exists.

If 40k goes full non-competitive the community will finally get off its collective buttcheeks and actually make a long-overdue tournament format, complete with a proper restricted list and not namby-pamby comp.

Considering that no one on the forums have ever seemed to actually like the game in the first place, I expect things will basically stay the same.

If GW plc stops pretending to write a rule set and army lists that are suitable for pick up and play games.
Then people will stop buying GW rule and codex books.

And the world would be a better place, because we would have to use PROPER RULES , written as instructions to play the intended game.And army lists written to provide fun balanced pick up games.
And so players would just play games, and not argue over what they think the rules are supposed to be/mean.

An we could talk ABOUT OUR WAR GAME HOBBIES,not the fething 'GW hobby' of buying gak from GW.

Let me ask a question here, to understand the OP's original point.

There's a lot of talk about 40k being a beer and pretzels game. Is this the opposite of competitive? Is this really to mean that the game is meant to be enjoyed in itself, without an understanding of a competitive arena around it?

There's a lot of talk about 40k being a beer and pretzels game. Is this the opposite of competitive? Is this really to mean that the game is meant to be enjoyed in itself, without an understanding of a competitive arena around it?

This is how I see it.

For me (I run Dark Eldar), the game is about the use and fluff of EVERY model. I mean, don't get me wrong, I obviously try to win when I play, its the nature of the game. However, I want my army to be fluffy, unique, unbroken, and expansive.
I do not want to run 10 vemons, 3 ravagers, beastpack +farseer/fortune on jet bike with allies every game.

Hell, if it wasnt for the store that I play, I would run a Tantalus, Scourges, hell, even Mandrakes! (which look sick). I can play tourneys and win, just refuse too... For me, its about a story, fluff, and if I DO win with a mandrake army, well, its that much more satisfying!

I mean, thats why myself am torn to start 30k Death Guard or Eldar Corsairs. If more people play the FULL game, not just tourney play, then I would have no problem starting both. However, God forbid someone plays forge world or a noncompetetive list. I would get stomped.

Theres a backround and story Ladies and Gentlemen, let us use it.

The thing is, a fluffy army isn't necessary an uncompetitive one. And in some cases, fluffy armies can be the most abusive. You won't find anyone sensible who would say that a Necron flying circus wasn't fluffy. But it sure was abusive as hell.
Neither could you call an Imperial Guard leafblower unfluffy. Or a mechanized Space Marine army (back in the day). Paladinstars were about as close to the oldschool Grey Knight fluff as the new GK codex could allow.

"Fluff" isn't a sudden excuse to run a poor list. Likewise, it's not justifiable to take offense at someone's competitive list for supposedly being 'unfluffy.' Abusive lists don't come from divergence from the fluff, abusive lists come from poor game design on GW's part. And who are you to take offense at someone who's running a list, overpowered as it may be, that might fit in with the fluff that someone likes? And no matter how fluffy you want to be, in a game that's so unbalanced as 40k, a metagame will develop so long as players even attempt to not lose, and it will always revolve around the most dominant armies, fluffy or not.

 techsoldaten wrote:
Let me ask a question here, to understand the OP's original point.

There's a lot of talk about 40k being a beer and pretzels game. Is this the opposite of competitive? Is this really to mean that the game is meant to be enjoyed in itself, without an understanding of a competitive arena around it?

It's not a beer and pretzels game. That would be something like poker, where you have some basic rules, a bit of a grasp of probabilities, and you sit down and play with your mates.

Warhammer 40,000 requires a significant investment of time and money and an almost encyclopaedic knowledge of a large and rather incomprehensible rulebook plus additional codexes.

It's not a good beer and pretzels game, it's also not a good tournament game. Any game you play where there is a winner and loser is competitive by definition.

At the moment WH40k is running on the inertia that comes from being the dominant game system for a long time. If people can find a game that offers a similar army style tabletop wargame experience with more intuitive rules then we may see a reduction in the customer base.

In regards to the original post, I suppose people could come in and talk about the narrative experience they had with their army being shot to death by their friend's allied Tau and Eldar army.

There is plenty to talk about, just not in the list building section.

The real advantage of 40k is its relative ubiquity. You can find a 40k game at any time in most cities; other wargame systems are far more difficult to find opponents to play with.

Seeing people's armies is also a real draw.

"There's a lot of talk about 40k being a beer and pretzels game. Is this the opposite of competitive? Is this really to mean that the game is meant to be enjoyed in itself, without an understanding of a competitive arena around it?"

Well put it this way. I consider myself a competent but not competitive painter. I do not frequent the painting sub forum very much because there is nothing there that really interests me. If we get rid of competitive 40k then the tactics and list building sections become grave yards...

blackjack wrote:
My primary interest in competitive 40k was the time I would spend list building, investigating and arguing merits of builds and units.

When people post lists that are "non competitive" to the forums I have no idea what kind of feed back I can give. If the list is not meant to be competitive what makes it a good vs a bad list?

In a non competitive meta what is the point of saying this unit is better than that unit for the same point cost or under X or Y circumstance? What exactly do we talk about on the forums? Fluff?

GW is not only killing the tournament scene it is going to reduce the relevancy of forums like this.

You got it the wrong way around.

If Warhammer 40.000 would have ever been a competitive game, you would have no lists to discuss, because all lists would have been equally viable.

As long as you can discuss the merits and drawbacks of lists, you know that there are "better lists" and "worse lists".

As long as there are "better lists" and "worse list", the possibility remains that the "more skilled player" with the "worse list" will be beaten by a "worse skilled player" and a "better lists", and since you can never know how "much" / how "many %" of a given win is due to "skill" or due to the "list" the idea of using Warhammer 40K to "compete" is meaningless.

Only when all list-building would stop, and all lists and unit selections are balanced, would such a thing as "competitive 40K" start making sense in the first place.

blackjack wrote:
My primary interest in competitive 40k was the time I would spend list building, investigating and arguing merits of builds and units.

When people post lists that are "non competitive" to the forums I have no idea what kind of feed back I can give. If the list is not meant to be competitive what makes it a good vs a bad list?

In a non competitive meta what is the point of saying this unit is better than that unit for the same point cost or under X or Y circumstance? What exactly do we talk about on the forums? Fluff?

GW is not only killing the tournament scene it is going to reduce the relevancy of forums like this.

you're right. there isn't much point in discussing it.

and ill raise you there isnt much point in playing the game at all. with the direction theyre headed you may as well just push your models around a table making pew pew noises.

Freman Bloodglaive wrote:

 techsoldaten wrote:
Let me ask a question here, to understand the OP's original point.

There's a lot of talk about 40k being a beer and pretzels game. Is this the opposite of competitive? Is this really to mean that the game is meant to be enjoyed in itself, without an understanding of a competitive arena around it?

It's not a beer and pretzels game. That would be something like poker, where you have some basic rules, a bit of a grasp of probabilities, and you sit down and play with your mates.

Warhammer 40,000 requires a significant investment of time and money and an almost encyclopaedic knowledge of a large and rather incomprehensible rulebook plus additional codexes.

It's not a good beer and pretzels game, it's also not a good tournament game. Any game you play where there is a winner and loser is competitive by definition.

At the moment WH40k is running on the inertia that comes from being the dominant game system for a long time. If people can find a game that offers a similar army style tabletop wargame experience with more intuitive rules then we may see a reduction in the customer base.

In regards to the original post, I suppose people could come in and talk about the narrative experience they had with their army being shot to death by their friend's allied Tau and Eldar army.

ding ding ding we have a winner.

In my definition a 'Beer and Pretzels' game is quick to learn and fun to play.

40k rules are far to over complicated, compared to the game play complexity, to be considered quick to learn.
And the lack of proof reading editing and play testing make fun games of 40k a very rare thing indeed.Unless a lot of effort is put in before hand.
(Competitive players limit their options to the most cost effective options ,narrative players develop their own senario/campians.)

The fact that GW plc fails to write clearly defined rules due to lack of professional proof reading and editing.
Does NOT make them 'Beer And Pretzels' games.

The fact GW plc fail to play test the rules enough to provide better game balance for pick up and play games, does not make them more 'Cinematic'.

The rules for 40k are a poor concept poorly produced , but hyped to sell by making the customers argue over what they are supposed to be .And while the customers are arguing about who is playing the game the right way.GW plc laugh all the way to the bank....

 greyknight12 wrote:
Nerds will always compete, even if it's just an argument of the hulk vs superman.

People will always want to win, no matter what state the game ends up in.

I'm with superman here, sorry hulk

I mean that's a no-brainier.

I always saw "Beer and Pretzels" games as ones that don't require a near-Law Degree to be able to keep a mental index of all the rules, rules changes and corrections, Codex minutia, and extra supplements just to play a game correctly.

B&P games are fast and fun, with the minimum possible of the usual mental exercises required to perform all the tasks during the game. That is not 40K, and never has been.

The fact that GW plc fails to write clearly defined rules due to lack of professional proof reading and editing.
Does NOT make them 'Beer And Pretzels' games.

The fact GW plc fail to play test the rules enough to provide better game balance for pick up and play games, does not make them more 'Cinematic'.

The rules for 40k are a poor concept poorly produced , but hyped to sell by making the customers argue over what they are supposed to be .And while the customers are arguing about who is playing the game the right way.GW plc laugh all the way to the bank....

Exactly. Have an Exalt.

I play Epic:Armageddon. The online community, under their own volition and with absolutely no pay, has taken the rules written by GW and produced a better quality game than the "professionals" of "The Hobby", with a rulebook that actually has the errata changed in the rules (rather than many-page long reference document from GW), FAQ's added at the bottom of each page they are important to (with references linked to the above rules they affect) and more than quadruple the army lists as the GW production (17 as of now), all which have all been playtested and voted on by the community. And this is a document that supposedly gets updated yearly.

These are all something that a company that wants to make money should be doing in the first place, before the rules ever go to the printer. Professionals who are supposed to be the leading edge of the field should not have to rely on errata within 24 hours of the 1st printing release. That means that the errata has already been formatted and ready for online release before the first customer even bought their copy. Which is disgusting.


Beer and pretzels games do not need all this work.

 Zweischneid wrote:
If Warhammer 40.000 would have ever been a competitive game, you would have no lists to discuss, because all lists would have been equally viable.

Wow. Every time I think you can't possibly display any more ignorance of how competitive games work you come back and prove me wrong. Having a competitive game does NOT mean that all choices are equal. Even if there is perfect balance between, say, shooting and assault units that doesn't mean that a list with an even mix of both types will be ideal. You can still discuss the optimal mix of the two approaches, how to have a coherent strategy in your list, etc. And guess what: this is what happens in real competitive games.

As long as there are "better lists" and "worse list", the possibility remains that the "more skilled player" with the "worse list" will be beaten by a "worse skilled player" and a "better lists", and since you can never know how "much" / how "many %" of a given win is due to "skill" or due to the "list" the idea of using Warhammer 40K to "compete" is meaningless.

Seriously? Are you really saying that a game is not competitive unless the outcome is determined purely by player skill with absolutely no chance for a less-skilled player to win? So I guess that means that MTG/poker/etc are "not competitive" despite huge competitive communities playing in tournaments with tens of thousands of dollars (or more) in cash prizes?

Only when all list-building would stop, and all lists and unit selections are balanced, would such a thing as "competitive 40K" start making sense in the first place.

So I guess the intent of this is to set an impossible standard for a "competitive game" so that people will give up on 40k ever being one and start playing it the way you want them to play it?

blackjack wrote:
My primary interest in competitive 40k was the time I would spend list building, investigating and arguing merits of builds and units.

When people post lists that are "non competitive" to the forums I have no idea what kind of feed back I can give. If the list is not meant to be competitive what makes it a good vs a bad list?

In a non competitive meta what is the point of saying this unit is better than that unit for the same point cost or under X or Y circumstance? What exactly do we talk about on the forums? Fluff?

GW is not only killing the tournament scene it is going to reduce the relevancy of forums like this.

So, in other words, you'd rather spend more.time tweaking and talking about 40k then just.playing? Competitive play is not the only way to play 40k. There is such a thing as playing for fun. Try it sometime.

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
There is such a thing as playing for fun. Try it sometime.

Why are you assuming that they aren't having fun already?

 Peregrine wrote:

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
There is such a thing as playing for fun. Try it sometime.

Why are you assuming that they aren't having fun already?

the OP approached the subject as if GW created 40k with the intent of it being a tournament system. it wasn't. it was made for two people to have fun.

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
the OP approached the subject as if GW created 40k with the intent of it being a tournament system. it wasn't. it was made for two people to have fun.

Why do you keep assuming that they aren't having fun?

For a lot of things, competitive play is often a preferred way for a lot of players to have fun.

 Peregrine wrote:


Seriously? Are you really saying that a game is not competitive unless the outcome is determined purely by player skill with absolutely no chance for a less-skilled player to win? So I guess that means that MTG/poker/etc are "not competitive" despite huge competitive communities playing in tournaments with tens of thousands of dollars (or more) in cash prizes?

No.

I mean that as long as you cannot pinpoint whether the outcome was determined by skill or some pre-game bias towards one player or the other, the idea of competing is meaningless.

It might be "skill" in some cases. It might be skill as often as 90% of the time (though I doubt that in 40K). But as long as reasonable doubt can be raised that it might not have been, and one player had an "in-build" advantage pre-game due to the list, you can never be sure. As long as you cannot be sure, the idea of competing is meaningless.

This doesn't apply to Poker, as no one player holds a structural pre-game advantage (though you might be dealt a better hand for any given play). In the long term, it equals out. It doesn't for 40K, unless you play with "1500 pts. worth of randomly attributed models". Poker wouldn't be "competitive", if some player would enter with a "spades-deck" and some people with a "diamonds-deck", because those with the spades-deck would have a structural advantage.

MTG might have thousands of cash-prizes, but yeah, it suffers the same problem. MTG tournaments are great fun, great sales events, great promotional events, a great way to spend a weekend (as are 40K tournaments, if done right), but they are not "competitive", no.

 Zweischneid wrote:
I mean that as long as you cannot pinpoint whether the outcome was determined by skill or some pre-game bias towards one player or the other, the idea of competing is meaningless.

Which is nonsense, because there are plenty of competitive games that suffer from that problem. And you can say how there's "no point" all you want, but that doesn't change the fact that the competition exists and people enjoy it.

Plus, you're also arbitrarily assuming that the game begins when models are placed on the table and dismissing the importance of list construction as part of the gameplay choices that you make.

This doesn't apply to Poker, as no one player holds a structural pre-game advantage (though you might be dealt a better hand for any given play). In the long term, it equals out. It doesn't for 40K, unless you play with "1500 pts. worth of randomly attributed models". Poker wouldn't be "competitive", if some player would enter with a "spades-deck" and some people with a "diamonds-deck", because those with the spades-deck would have a structural advantage.

Except having a "spades deck" is exactly what you get. Shuffling a pile of cards is a deterministic process with no random element (if you make the necessary effort to analyze the complex physics of the situation). The players might not know what order the cards are in, but which cards each player gets is determined before the game even begins and the only question is how they will react to the unequal distribution of cards they receive. Some players might be in a situation where they are guaranteed to win as long as they make the correct decision, while other players might be in a situation where they are guaranteed to lose unless their opponent makes a stupid mistake.

Now, you could easily resolve this problem by stating that a competitive game is one that minimizes the structural advantages, and then poker would certainly qualify. But that would then force you to back off from your "no game is competitive STOP HAVING FUN THE WRONG WAY" absolutes.

MTG might have thousands of cash-prizes, but yeah, it suffers the same problem. MTG tournaments are great fun, great sales events, great promotional events, a great way to spend a weekend (as are 40K tournaments, if done right), but they are not "competitive", no.

Then your definition of "competitive" is so narrow that it's a useless definition. If no game ever played qualifies as a "competitive game" then you need to change your definition until it draws a meaningful line between competitive games and non-competitive games.

 Peregrine wrote:

Then your definition of "competitive" is so narrow that it's a useless definition. If no game ever played qualifies as a "competitive game" then you need to change your definition until it draws a meaningful line between competitive games and non-competitive games.

So what is your definition of a non-competitive game then?

Where do you draw the line in a "useful" and "meaningful" way?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

Plus, you're also arbitrarily assuming that the game begins when models are placed on the table and dismissing the importance of list construction as part of the gameplay choices that you make.

I "dismiss" the list-building element for games like these (40K, MTG, League of Legends, etc..) because the "top" lists are an ever-changing factor that is influenced by the companies with the intention of keepting things in "flux" and to allow "new players" an easy entry into the game.

The list building part is obviously and purposefully "rigged" to monetize the game, so there is (slightly simplified) no "skill" in the list-building aspect other than being "up-to-date".

That is precisely the part where these companies (not just GW) don't want things to be balanced (or static) in ways that would support "competitive" play, because it would be directly at odds with their bottom line and the ability to easily "recruit" new player into the game.

 Zweischneid wrote:
So what is your definition of a non-competitive game then?

Where do you draw the line in a "useful" and "meaningful" way?

It's more of a spectrum from "bad competitive game" to "good competitive game", but here's a good start:

Competitive play is making gameplay decisions (NOT including cheating/rules lawyering/etc, which are not actions within the rules) primarily based on maximizing your chances of winning the game, and enjoying the satisfaction of out-playing your opponent.

A good competitive game is one that works well when played competitively. Important attributes include good balance, clear rules, and a lot of room for the players to make meaningful strategic and tactical choices to win the game.

So:

Poker is a good competitive game. The game is symmetrical (no "sides" to pick) so balance is good, the rules are perfectly clear with no potential for disputes, and the winner is usually the player who makes the best betting decisions over the length of the game but the luck and hidden information (the other player's cards) factors of individual hands means that there are plenty of interesting decisions to make.

MTG is a good competitive game. Balance at high levels is pretty good, the rules are perfectly clear with no potential for disputes that can't be solved by consulting the appropriate part of the rulebook, and the winner is usually the player who makes the best metagame/deck-building decisions along with the best in-game decisions.

40k is a bad competitive game. Balance is virtually nonexistent, the rules are hopelessly unclear and provoke constant disputes which can't be resolved without resorting to flipping a coin to see who is right, random factors often replace player decisions (for example, random warlord traits), and many of the decisions that do exist often involve very obvious answers, both in list-building and on the table.

I "dismiss" the list-building element for games like these (40K, MTG, League of Legends, etc..) because the "top" lists are an ever-changing factor that is influenced by the companies with the intention of keepting things in "flux" and to allow "new players" an easy entry into the game.

Err, what? If anything this would make list-building more important, because you constantly have to adapt your list to a changing metagame instead of just figuring out the perfect strategy once and playing it every time.

The list building part is obviously and purposefully "rigged" to monetize the game, so there is (slightly simplified) no "skill" in the list-building aspect other than being "up-to-date".

Well yes, this is one of the reasons why 40k is a bad game. Interesting list-building decisions are replaced with a combination of "buy the latest $100 kit" and laughably bad design and playtesting. Wouldn't it be so much better if the game was balanced and you had to make interesting decisions about what to take when building your list instead of just identifying the current overpowered options and taking them?

That is precisely the part where these companies (not just GW) don't want things to be balanced (or static) in ways that would support "competitive" play, because it would be directly at odds with their bottom line and the ability to easily "recruit" new player into the game.

I don't think anyone is disputing that GW is more concerned with short-term sales to newbies than making a high-quality product. But that doesn't mean that the game wouldn't be greatly improved for all players, casual and competitive, if GW decided to instead focus on making a good long-term product.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:
So what is your definition of a non-competitive game then?

Where do you draw the line in a "useful" and "meaningful" way?

It's more of a spectrum from "bad competitive game" to "good competitive game", but here's a good start:

I think that is your problem. You don't acknowledge the existence of a "non-competitive" game, so, games that are just that, are "bad competitive games" in your eyes.

But a definition of "competitive" that includes (almost) all games (though some bad and some good at it), is pretty useless.

 Zweischneid wrote:
I think that is your problem. You don't acknowledge the existence of a "non-competitive" game, so, games that are just that, are "bad competitive games" in your eyes.

I fail to see any relevant difference between a non-competitive game and a game that is so bad as a competitive game that its competitive value is effectively zero. You're just nitpicking the exact wording of the labels for the same concept.

But, if you really insist on having absolute definitions, you can just divide the spectrum at some arbitrary point and break it into competitive games, non-competitive games, and semi-competitive games.

But a definition of "competitive" that includes (almost) all games (though some bad and some good at it), is pretty useless.

But that's not true at all. Ranking games on a scale from 0.000001% competitive to 99.9999% competitive tells us a lot about how competitive a game is. The only "problem" with it is that it doesn't give you the absolutes that you want to use. Contrast this with your definition of competitive games, where you learn nothing from hearing "it's a non-competitive game" because virtually all games get the same label.

Games by definition are either Co-operative.
Where the players work towards a common goal, to beat the objective set by the game.(Last Night On Earth,Star Ship Command,type board games, and RPGS like AD&D where the games master defines what the adventuring group has to achieve.)

OR the games are Competitive, where the objective of the players oppose each other in some way.So that one player reaching his objective first prevents the other player reaching theirs.(Monopoly,Cludo, snakes and ladders,most war games.)

So by the basic definition of the word the 40k game play requirements make it a competitive game.

The fact the rules are so poorly written , and the game play so random/unbalanced , players have to co-operate to AGREE HOW TO FIX the rules to let them enjoy the game before hand. DOES NOT make the game 'co-operative'

It just lets GW use BS excuses NOT to bother with actual game development, or well defined rules writing.

 Peregrine wrote:

Except having a "spades deck" is exactly what you get. Shuffling a pile of cards is a deterministic process with no random element (if you make the necessary effort to analyze the complex physics of the situation). The players might not know what order the cards are in, but which cards each player gets is determined before the game even begins and the only question is how they will react to the unequal distribution of cards they receive. Some players might be in a situation where they are guaranteed to win as long as they make the correct decision, while other players might be in a situation where they are guaranteed to lose unless their opponent makes a stupid mistake.

Now, you could easily resolve this problem by stating that a competitive game is one that minimizes the structural advantages, and then poker would certainly qualify. But that would then force you to back off from your "no game is competitive STOP HAVING FUN THE WRONG WAY" absolutes.

It also helps that most competitive games are played in a series of multiple rounds of some form or another in order to minimize the effect of luck.

A skilled player can slip up at a crucial moment and lose to a less skilled player every once in a while, but that will rarely happen several times in a row.

Lanrak wrote:

So by the basic definition of the word the 40k game play requirements make it a competitive game.

No. By reading just the first 2-3 pages in the rulebook, you learn that it is a cooperative game.

"At its heart, a game of Warhammer 40,000 is a shared experience between two fellow hobbyists - and it should be as enjoyable and fulfilling for both players as possible."

That is the overriding goal of the game. It just happens to be a cooperative game that is "themed" around a confrontational warfare in a fictional universe.

 Zweischneid wrote:
No. By reading just the first 2-3 pages in the rulebook, you learn that it is a cooperative game.

"At its heart, a game of Warhammer 40,000 is a shared experience between two fellow hobbyists - and it should be as enjoyable and fulfilling for both players as possible."

That is the overriding goal of the game. It just happens to be a cooperative game that is "themed" around a confrontational warfare in a fictional universe.

Clearly you didn't read the definition they offered. 40k, by that definition, is indisputably a competitive game because one player wins by making the other player lose (usually by killing their units and taking their objectives). There is no option for the two players to cooperate and work together to complete the game objectives and win the game. All the quote in the book says is that games are about having fun, which is about as meaningful a statement as starting your book by reminding everyone that the sky is blue.

 Zweischneid wrote:

Lanrak wrote:

So by the basic definition of the word the 40k game play requirements make it a competitive game.

No. By reading just the first 2-3 pages in the rulebook, you learn that it is a cooperative game.

"At its heart, a game of Warhammer 40,000 is a shared experience between two fellow hobbyists - and it should be as enjoyable and fulfilling for both players as possible."

That is the overriding goal of the game. It just happens to be a cooperative game that is "themed" around a confrontational warfare in a fictional universe.

When I go to a Smash tournament and play a set against an opponent, it's a shared experience between myself and said opponent, and we certainly try to make it as enjoyable and fulfilling an experience for each other as possible by playing at our best, but it is certainly a competitive affair.

 Fafnir wrote:


When I go to a Smash tournament and play a set against an opponent, it's a shared experience between myself and said opponent, and we certainly try to make it as enjoyable and fulfilling an experience for each other as possible by playing at our best, but it is certainly a competitive affair.

Yes. Since you are both attending a tournament, your expectations clearly align.

That might not always be the case outside a tournament, so it makes sense to take a minute (or less) before the game to make sure you have a similar "alignment of expectations" outside the tournament framework in order to re-create the same kind of mutual enjoyment.

It's not rocket-science, no?

 Fafnir wrote:
The thing is, a fluffy army isn't necessary an uncompetitive one. And in some cases, fluffy armies can be the most abusive. You won't find anyone sensible who would say that a Necron flying circus wasn't fluffy. But it sure was abusive as hell.
Neither could you call an Imperial Guard leafblower unfluffy. Or a mechanized Space Marine army (back in the day). Paladinstars were about as close to the oldschool Grey Knight fluff as the new GK codex could allow.

"Fluff" isn't a sudden excuse to run a poor list. Likewise, it's not justifiable to take offense at someone's competitive list for supposedly being 'unfluffy.' Abusive lists don't come from divergence from the fluff, abusive lists come from poor game design on GW's part. And who are you to take offense at someone who's running a list, overpowered as it may be, that might fit in with the fluff that someone likes? And no matter how fluffy you want to be, in a game that's so unbalanced as 40k, a metagame will develop so long as players even attempt to not lose, and it will always revolve around the most dominant armies, fluffy or not.

I would be willing to say that the Flying Circus is unfluffy. Unless I'm missing something(and I may be), the only fluff we have that's associated with Newcrons beyond the codices is Fall of Damnos. Incredibly heavy use of flyers isn't something I recall from any Codex where Necrons are mentioned, or from Fall. Just because you CAN take ALL THE FLYERS! doesn't mean that it's something that Necrons regularly do, or even EVER do.

That being said, not all fluffy lists are bad. Not all fluffy lists are good. But, fluffy lists are better than WAAC lists, because they have a connection to something in the game. The game isn't about just winning. I have an army, with a back story(sometimes), and every battle they fight goes into that back story. The lists change, and the story changes with them. If I add a Leman Russ Demolisher to the Guard list I'm building, why am I adding it? Is it part of my regiment, or an attachment? What mission are they undertaking that sees them working with a tank squadron, when they are largely footslogging and mechanized infantry? I like to think about why my soldiers are fighting. I don't like fighting opponents that are unfluffy for them to fight. I'll admit that there could be reasons for an utterly loyal regiment of the Imperial Guard to fight Space Marines or other Guard regiments, but it's not going to be very often. It makes no sense, and I want my battles to fit into my story. So I mostly fight xenos and Chaos. I'll fight Imperium armies from time to time, but I try not to make it a regular thing.

Long story short, I can play a list that does what I want it to do, in the way I want it to do it, and still play to win. Sometimes, they lose. Those battles go into the story too, because nobody wins every fight.

Just because you CAN take ALL THE FLYERS! doesn't mean that it's something that Necrons regularly do, or even EVER do.

In the BL book about necron and SoB their flyers are common as hell and inside the necron tomb there are not only zounds of necron scyths , but also monoliths of various shapes and sizes. Besides the night scyth is the transport choice for necron . One may as well say that rhinos shouldn't be used too offten , because the space marines are old ones and very rare too.

But, fluffy lists are better than WAAC lists, because they have a connection to something in the game

What part of leaf blower in 5th or eldar lists that dominate nowadays isn't fluffy ? and from what I remember both of those were and are still called WAAC . Same with multi vendettas with vets , or demon armies .

Makumba wrote:

Just because you CAN take ALL THE FLYERS! doesn't mean that it's something that Necrons regularly do, or even EVER do.

In the BL book about necron and SoB their flyers are common as hell and inside the necron tomb there are not only zounds of necron scyths , but also monoliths of various shapes and sizes. Besides the night scyth is the transport choice for necron . One may as well say that rhinos shouldn't be used too offten , because the space marines are old ones and very rare too.

But, fluffy lists are better than WAAC lists, because they have a connection to something in the game

What part of leaf blower in 5th or eldar lists that dominate nowadays isn't fluffy ? and from what I remember both of those were and are still called WAAC . Same with multi vendettas with vets , or demon armies .

Haven't read that book yet, and as such I am willing to stand partially corrected.

As to Eldar lists, from everything I have heard, the dominant Eldar list is Taudar. I'm not sure what's so monumentally fluffy about Taudar.

*points to BL Guard novels* Show me the leafblower.

As to Vendetta Vets, that's not a terribly unfluffy list. I would probably take Valkyries, but that's just me.

Daemons can be made fluffy. I built a Tzeentch list at one point where all of the unit counts were focused around being multiples of nine, or adding up to nine, or actually being nine, etc. To the point that I took 54 Horrors, because it was 3 units of 18, which is 3 units of (1+8), totaling (5+4) models, with 18 being 3x6, with 3+6 being nine, and 6 being 3x2, which 3^2 is 9... Everything was nine. And it could smack the piss out of you if it got lucky in the shooting phase. Now, I'll admit it had to get lucky, but it was a fluffy as hell list, and it was fun as anything to play.

MIni MIehm wrote:

 Fafnir wrote:
The thing is, a fluffy army isn't necessary an uncompetitive one. And in some cases, fluffy armies can be the most abusive. You won't find anyone sensible who would say that a Necron flying circus wasn't fluffy. But it sure was abusive as hell.
Neither could you call an Imperial Guard leafblower unfluffy. Or a mechanized Space Marine army (back in the day). Paladinstars were about as close to the oldschool Grey Knight fluff as the new GK codex could allow.

"Fluff" isn't a sudden excuse to run a poor list. Likewise, it's not justifiable to take offense at someone's competitive list for supposedly being 'unfluffy.' Abusive lists don't come from divergence from the fluff, abusive lists come from poor game design on GW's part. And who are you to take offense at someone who's running a list, overpowered as it may be, that might fit in with the fluff that someone likes? And no matter how fluffy you want to be, in a game that's so unbalanced as 40k, a metagame will develop so long as players even attempt to not lose, and it will always revolve around the most dominant armies, fluffy or not.

I would be willing to say that the Flying Circus is unfluffy. Unless I'm missing something(and I may be), the only fluff we have that's associated with Newcrons beyond the codices is Fall of Damnos. Incredibly heavy use of flyers isn't something I recall from any Codex where Necrons are mentioned, or from Fall. Just because you CAN take ALL THE FLYERS! doesn't mean that it's something that Necrons regularly do, or even EVER do.

What could possibly be "unfluffy" about someone wanting to field a Necron airforce? What on Earth suggests that Necrons don't have squadrons of flyers? For that matter, what is unfluffy about the JetSeer? A Warlock Council is an elder fluff thing. They're renowned for their psykers and there's nothing unfluffy about an Eldar player wanting an elite group of Warlocks led by a Farseer. They may well just read the fluff for that and think it's cool. And yet it becomes virtually game-breaking.

There is no universal choice between fluffy and competitive. They are simply two different dimensions that sometimes overlap.

knas ser wrote:

MIni MIehm wrote:

 Fafnir wrote:
The thing is, a fluffy army isn't necessary an uncompetitive one. And in some cases, fluffy armies can be the most abusive. You won't find anyone sensible who would say that a Necron flying circus wasn't fluffy. But it sure was abusive as hell.
Neither could you call an Imperial Guard leafblower unfluffy. Or a mechanized Space Marine army (back in the day). Paladinstars were about as close to the oldschool Grey Knight fluff as the new GK codex could allow.

"Fluff" isn't a sudden excuse to run a poor list. Likewise, it's not justifiable to take offense at someone's competitive list for supposedly being 'unfluffy.' Abusive lists don't come from divergence from the fluff, abusive lists come from poor game design on GW's part. And who are you to take offense at someone who's running a list, overpowered as it may be, that might fit in with the fluff that someone likes? And no matter how fluffy you want to be, in a game that's so unbalanced as 40k, a metagame will develop so long as players even attempt to not lose, and it will always revolve around the most dominant armies, fluffy or not.

I would be willing to say that the Flying Circus is unfluffy. Unless I'm missing something(and I may be), the only fluff we have that's associated with Newcrons beyond the codices is Fall of Damnos. Incredibly heavy use of flyers isn't something I recall from any Codex where Necrons are mentioned, or from Fall. Just because you CAN take ALL THE FLYERS! doesn't mean that it's something that Necrons regularly do, or even EVER do.

What could possibly be "unfluffy" about someone wanting to field a Necron airforce? What on Earth suggests that Necrons don't have squadrons of flyers? For that matter, what is unfluffy about the JetSeer? A Warlock Council is an elder fluff thing. They're renowned for their psykers and there's nothing unfluffy about an Eldar player wanting an elite group of Warlocks led by a Farseer. They may well just read the fluff for that and think it's cool. And yet it becomes virtually game-breaking.

There is no universal choice between fluffy and competitive. They are simply two different dimensions that sometimes overlap.

Well, given that the traditional Necron army is footslogging, and we only see heavy use of flyers in one instance I've been made aware of...

My point is that if you're going to take a list, don't take a list because it's "the competitive necron list". Take it because it's interesting. Have a story. Be original. Don't be that guy with the flying circus, or three riptides, or a dozen helturkeys, or whatever other nonsense you want to do. Have a reason for every unit you have to be in your list, don't jsut go "These are the units that do the best killing. List built." It's boring to play against, and it''s uninspiring. If someone sets down four Heldrakes, I know everything I need to know about them, and I'm just going to walk away and find someone interested in playing a game, not winning at any cost.

I'd imagine more or less what we talk about now.

MIni MIehm wrote:

knas ser wrote:

MIni MIehm wrote:

 Fafnir wrote:
The thing is, a fluffy army isn't necessary an uncompetitive one. And in some cases, fluffy armies can be the most abusive. You won't find anyone sensible who would say that a Necron flying circus wasn't fluffy. But it sure was abusive as hell.
Neither could you call an Imperial Guard leafblower unfluffy. Or a mechanized Space Marine army (back in the day). Paladinstars were about as close to the oldschool Grey Knight fluff as the new GK codex could allow.

"Fluff" isn't a sudden excuse to run a poor list. Likewise, it's not justifiable to take offense at someone's competitive list for supposedly being 'unfluffy.' Abusive lists don't come from divergence from the fluff, abusive lists come from poor game design on GW's part. And who are you to take offense at someone who's running a list, overpowered as it may be, that might fit in with the fluff that someone likes? And no matter how fluffy you want to be, in a game that's so unbalanced as 40k, a metagame will develop so long as players even attempt to not lose, and it will always revolve around the most dominant armies, fluffy or not.

I would be willing to say that the Flying Circus is unfluffy. Unless I'm missing something(and I may be), the only fluff we have that's associated with Newcrons beyond the codices is Fall of Damnos. Incredibly heavy use of flyers isn't something I recall from any Codex where Necrons are mentioned, or from Fall. Just because you CAN take ALL THE FLYERS! doesn't mean that it's something that Necrons regularly do, or even EVER do.

What could possibly be "unfluffy" about someone wanting to field a Necron airforce? What on Earth suggests that Necrons don't have squadrons of flyers? For that matter, what is unfluffy about the JetSeer? A Warlock Council is an elder fluff thing. They're renowned for their psykers and there's nothing unfluffy about an Eldar player wanting an elite group of Warlocks led by a Farseer. They may well just read the fluff for that and think it's cool. And yet it becomes virtually game-breaking.

There is no universal choice between fluffy and competitive. They are simply two different dimensions that sometimes overlap.

Well, given that the traditional Necron army is footslogging, and we only see heavy use of flyers in one instance I've been made aware of...

My point is that if you're going to take a list, don't take a list because it's "the competitive necron list". Take it because it's interesting. Have a story. Be original. Don't be that guy with the flying circus, or three riptides, or a dozen helturkeys, or whatever other nonsense you want to do. Have a reason for every unit you have to be in your list, don't jsut go "These are the units that do the best killing. List built." It's boring to play against, and it''s uninspiring. If someone sets down four Heldrakes, I know everything I need to know about them, and I'm just going to walk away and find someone interested in playing a game, not winning at any cost.

Then it sucks to be a poor kid who thinks Heldrakes or a Revenant TItan are just really cool and suddenly finds people say they "know all they need to know about them" and no-one will play with them. Why are you against us wanting to avoid such situations?

And yeah - I still don't see anything unfluffy about a Necron strike force of flyers. Sounds great in the fluff to me. You skipped over the fact that a Seer Council is very fluffy as well. And the TItan. And for someone who loves heavy armour to build a heavily mechanized IG force (can't say that's not fluffy - it's one of the things they're legendary for). And on and on... Face it - you're just flat out wrong to say that an overpowered force cannot also be very fluffy.

What's unfluffy is when a chaos player brings out his Word Bearers army which consists of nothing but plague marines and helldrakes and maybe an oblit or two. That's when it gets pants.

 Zweischneid wrote:

Yes. Since you are both attending a tournament, your expectations clearly align.

That might not always be the case outside a tournament, so it makes sense to take a minute (or less) before the game to make sure you have a similar "alignment of expectations" outside the tournament framework in order to re-create the same kind of mutual enjoyment.

It's not rocket-science, no?

Would you like us to get married before we play as well?

MIni MIehm wrote:

 Fafnir wrote:
The thing is, a fluffy army isn't necessary an uncompetitive one. And in some cases, fluffy armies can be the most abusive. You won't find anyone sensible who would say that a Necron flying circus wasn't fluffy. But it sure was abusive as hell.
Neither could you call an Imperial Guard leafblower unfluffy. Or a mechanized Space Marine army (back in the day). Paladinstars were about as close to the oldschool Grey Knight fluff as the new GK codex could allow.

"Fluff" isn't a sudden excuse to run a poor list. Likewise, it's not justifiable to take offense at someone's competitive list for supposedly being 'unfluffy.' Abusive lists don't come from divergence from the fluff, abusive lists come from poor game design on GW's part. And who are you to take offense at someone who's running a list, overpowered as it may be, that might fit in with the fluff that someone likes? And no matter how fluffy you want to be, in a game that's so unbalanced as 40k, a metagame will develop so long as players even attempt to not lose, and it will always revolve around the most dominant armies, fluffy or not.

I would be willing to say that the Flying Circus is unfluffy. Unless I'm missing something(and I may be), the only fluff we have that's associated with Newcrons beyond the codices is Fall of Damnos. Incredibly heavy use of flyers isn't something I recall from any Codex where Necrons are mentioned, or from Fall. Just because you CAN take ALL THE FLYERS! doesn't mean that it's something that Necrons regularly do, or even EVER do.

So you're saying that the Necrons would not partake in an campaign that contained an attempt at air superiority (when they have established THE reputation for it, see Battlefleet Gothic)? Just because something isn't explicitly outlined in a horribly written codex doesn't mean it's not fluffy. You can only sum up so much of an entire fictional race's history and battle tactics in 100 overpriced pages.

It only makes sense to run an air force such as the flying circus would be, even in fluff terms. And the Necrons are nothing if not pragmatic.

That being said, not all fluffy lists are bad. Not all fluffy lists are good. But, fluffy lists are better than WAAC lists, because they have a connection to something in the game.

First of all, I'm glad you enjoy the game for a specific reason. But that does not make your method of enjoyment inherently more valid than any other. What's more, the statement that they "have a connection to something in the game" is asinine. What connection? A list built to win has as much 'connection to the game' as a list built around the fluff written around it.
Hell, when you consider just how far from the fluff the rules are divorced (just look at the basic marine statline), and that statement sounds even sillier.

 Fafnir wrote:


Would you like us to get married before we play as well?

No. Only the most basic of social skills are required.

 Zweischneid wrote:

 Fafnir wrote:


Would you like us to get married before we play as well?

No. Only the most basic of social skills are required.

I don't know. Having some poor kid turn up with their army and telling them they have to remove models any models I don't approve of or they can't play without making myself appear to be a complete arsehole, I think would take some quite adroit social skills. But that's because I am very polite and think it rude to tell someone else what they can and cannot choose from actual published books.

Anyway, we've once again returned to Zw's favourite and flawed premise - that if the game causes problems, it's an inadequacy on our part that is the issue because we should all be able to resolve everything with "social skills". Really Zw - it's transparent to all that the reason you keep coming back to this is because trying to put the blame on the players is the only defense you have against flaws in the rules.

knas ser wrote:


I don't know. Having some poor kid turn up with their army and telling them they have to remove models any models I don't approve of or they can't play without making myself appear to be a complete arsehole, I think would take some quite adroit social skills. But that's because I am very polite and think it rude to tell someone else what they can and cannot choose from actual published books.

Then don't do it. Who's forcing you to be rude against your own desire?

And nobody is asking you to resolve any flaws in the game by talking beforehand. Games Workshop is asking you to resolve different expectations, which might spoil the game between two strangers who go into it expecting different things.

The great variety of players and the incredible richness of the hobby is not a "flaw", it's the very thing that makes this hobby great.

 Zweischneid wrote:

knas ser wrote:


I don't know. Having some poor kid turn up with their army and telling them they have to remove models any models I don't approve of or they can't play without making myself appear to be a complete arsehole, I think would take some quite adroit social skills. But that's because I am very polite and think it rude to tell someone else what they can and cannot choose from actual published books.

Then don't do it. Who's forcing you to be rude against your own desire?

Well a few posts above what I wrote, MIni MIehm said they will walk away from a player who brings certain things because "they know all they need to know about them" and you yourself keep advocating players saying what they will and wont play against as a means of resolving balance problems. In fact, solving balance problems through pre-game negotiation is pretty much your core argument. Well this is what it looks like in practice: someone turns up with something perfectly allowable by the rules and army lists, and you say don't use that if you want a game. That's the reality of it however many times you dress it up as "lacking social skills" on the part of any of us if we don't like holding whether or not the game happens hostage until the opponent is only using models we would like them to use.

 Zweischneid wrote:
And nobody is asking you to resolve any flaws in the game by talking beforehand

Again, that's pretty much your entire schtick - to tell anyone complaining about rules or balance that they shouldn't be concerned about them because it's all resolvable by pre-game negotiation. All that's happened is I stripped away the abstract nature of what you've been arguing and showed you how it commonly plays out in practice when you meet a stranger at a store and fancy a quick game. And now you have to pretend that this doesn't match what you've actually been saying to do.

 Zweischneid wrote:
The great variety of players and the incredible richness of the hobby is not a "flaw

Well there's enough straw there to put Edward Woodward inside it and set light to him. No-one is arguing that they want fewer players or less variance amongst them and you have yet to remotely convince that better rules and better balance will result in such. In fact, it's the other way around.

knas ser wrote:
Well this is what it looks like in practice: someone turns up with something perfectly allowable by the rules and army lists, and you say don't use that if you want a game. That's the reality of it however many times you dress it up as "lacking social skills" on the part of any of us if we don't like holding whether or not the game happens hostage until the opponent is only using models we would like them to use.

It's a possible (if sub-optimal) outcome. Yes.

All in all, it's not necessarily worse (or less rude) than wasting 2-4 hours of an afternoon playing against something you don't enjoy playing, legal or not (unpainted miniatures, Forge World, "power-lists", stupid proxy-miniatures, etc..).

Either way, in all cases, if no consensus can be found, it is preferable that people find out that they don't "match" before they start playing the game, giving everyone the time to do something more enjoyable instead, than either party having to sit through several hours of a game they don't enjoy and walk away frustrated after the fact, no?

 Zweischneid wrote:

knas ser wrote:
Well this is what it looks like in practice: someone turns up with something perfectly allowable by the rules and army lists, and you say don't use that if you want a game. That's the reality of it however many times you dress it up as "lacking social skills" on the part of any of us if we don't like holding whether or not the game happens hostage until the opponent is only using models we would like them to use.

It's a possible (if sub-optimal) outcome. Yes.

A grudging concession. Thank you.

 Zweischneid wrote:

All in all, it's not necessarily worse (or less rude) than wasting 2-4 hours of an afternoon playing against something you don't enjoy playing, legal or not

No, it's not necessarily worse than that. But this is a false dichotomy. The question isn't whether having to tell an opponent not to use models they'd like to use is worse than keeping quiet and playing against those models. The question is whether either is worse than not being put in that position in the first place. To which the answer of course is 'yes - they're both inferior to not having the problem in the first place'.

 Zweischneid wrote:
Either way, in all cases, if no consensus can be found, it is preferable that people find out that they don't "match" before they start playing the game, giving everyone the time to do something more enjoyable instead, than either party having to sit through several hours of a game they don't enjoy and walk away frustrated after the fact, no?

See above - false dichotomy. The Either / Or you propose only comes about under the scenario in which your argument is correct - that poor rules and bad balance are necessary. If we don't assume that then we don't arrive at having to make the above forced choice.

knas ser wrote:


No, it's not necessarily worse than that. But this is a false dichotomy. The question isn't whether having to tell an opponent not to use models they'd like to use is worse than keeping quiet and playing against those models. The question is whether either is worse than not being put in that position in the first place. To which the answer of course is 'yes - they're both inferior to not having the problem in the first place'.

No. Because "having put in that position" costs you nothing and will change nothing if both players will enjoy the game.

If you one player would not have enjoyed the game, but would have suffered through it, "having been in that position" to say "no, sorry", is an improvement for both.

That is why creating this "position", as you call it, is a win-win situation for everyone and everybody at all times, with the sole exception of those who want to win at the detriment of their opponent's enjoyment.

 Zweischneid wrote:

knas ser wrote:


No, it's not necessarily worse than that. But this is a false dichotomy. The question isn't whether having to tell an opponent not to use models they'd like to use is worse than keeping quiet and playing against those models. The question is whether either is worse than not being put in that position in the first place. To which the answer of course is 'yes - they're both inferior to not having the problem in the first place'.

No. Because "having put in that position" costs you nothing and will change nothing if both players will enjoy the game.

If you one player would not have enjoyed the game, but would have suffered through it, "having been in that position" to say "no, sorry", is an improvement for both.

That is why creating this "position", as you call it, is a win-win situation for everyone and everybody at all times, with the sole exception of those who want to win at the detriment of their opponent's enjoyment.

Ah, the Chewbacca Defense...

It's a possible (if sub-optimal) outcome. Yes.

All in all, it's not necessarily worse (or less rude) than wasting 2-4 hours of an afternoon playing against something you don't enjoy playing, legal or not (unpainted miniatures, Forge World, "power-lists", stupid proxy-miniatures, etc..).

Because if you came to a shop you wasted 2 hours getting there anyway and it is not like there are people walking around shops with armies ready to play. Also out the two people who reserved the table who gets it ? then one who finds an opponent first , maybe dudes from another system that are waiting in line have the dibs on an unused table etc

If someone is stupid enought to buy FW stuff and expect people to let him use it , specialy of the eldar titan type . Then he has to learn that stupidy hurts on his own .

 -Loki- wrote:

blackjack wrote:
My primary interest in competitive 40k was the time I would spend list building, investigating and arguing merits of builds and units.

Emphasis mine. Your primary interest is list building. Other people have primary interests in painting, modelling, converting, fluff and also actually playing the game.

If the game goes super casual and list building becomes less important, your primary interest will diminish. Your mistake is thinking your primary interest is everyones primary interest.

Agreed with Loki.

I find building random lists that I never intend to field fun from time to time, but I'd much rather build and paint.

How much of this web site is devoted to painting and building?

At least half or more of it is devoted to tactics and lists....

 Zweischneid wrote:
No. By reading just the first 2-3 pages in the rulebook, you learn that it is a cooperative game.

"At its heart, a game of Warhammer 40,000 is a shared experience between two fellow hobbyists - and it should be as enjoyable and fulfilling for both players as possible."

That is the overriding goal of the game. It just happens to be a cooperative game that is "themed" around a confrontational warfare in a fictional universe.

If I were to punch you in the face, that, at its heart, would be a shared experience between two fellow hobbyists too.

Doubt you'd be having much fun.

While I'm sure that would fail on the "enjoyable and fulfilling" clause of that statement from your side, that is an assumption on my part, you might enjoy getting punched in the face. Either way, if I'm allowed to punch you in the face, whether you enjoy it or not, because the framework allows me to, then that framework has failed.

The game being more competitive does not penalize casual gamers in any way. So saying "if 40k got more casual, then haha, competitive players, sucks to be you!" shows what a douchebag sentiment this is.

If the game got BETTER for competitive play, it could STILL be played casually, and a tighter and more balanced rules system does not detract from casual play whatsoever. If anything it improves it. And for everything else, casual gamers still have the houserules and custom modifications that have been hallmark to beer and pretzels 40k.

So I have to ask, why deny one party what they want and need at no expense to yourself? That's called being an donkey-cave.

 Tyberos the Red Wake wrote:
The game being more competitive does not penalize casual gamers in any way. So saying "if 40k got more casual, then haha, competitive players, sucks to be you!" shows what a douchebag sentiment this is.

What gets me is those posters that, realizing it makes them sound like jerks, attempt to create post-fact rationales why improving the game rules and balance would cause problems for casual gamers - none of which stands up to any examination and the most extreme of which being that people should be able to use any models they like at any time and thus a ruleset is 'restrictive'. A jerk attitude of the highest order and ultimately a damaging one for the hobby and well-being of GW as the attitude would (and no doubt does) drive away those that like to play competitively.

Could the game be better?

Sure. Every game could be better.

But for me (and a lot of other people), Warhammer 40K is the best game out there, and has been getting even better over the last few months. Of all the miniature games in existence, Warhammer 40K is the "least in need" of "getting better", as all the others are relatively worse.

If you want to test your magic "this-makes-any-game-better-without-hurting-anyone"-formula, try it on some other game. Certainly, Warmachine, Infinity, Malifaux, etc.. are all infinitely less enjoyable than Warhammer 40K. These games need your miracle-solution a lot more than Warhammer 40K does.

I am sorry you don't like the direction it is taking, but that doesn't make that direction bad or a mistake.

Who is "driving away" people from the game? The person trying to show people the upside of this fantastic game, the best miniatures game in the world and the best iteration of Warhammer 40K that ever existed, or the whiners who keep trying to convince GW's happy customers that the thing they enjoy is supposedly gak, just because one or two "competitive types" don't like it and try to drag everyone down with them into their jaded nerd-rage?

Again, it's your god-given right to not like the game. If that is the case, leave it to the people that do like it. Why are you trying so hard to destroy a good thing for people who enjoy it?

 Zweischneid wrote:

Who is "driving away" people from the game?

 Zweischneid wrote:

leave it to the people that do like it.

knas ser wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:

Who is "driving away" people from the game?

 Zweischneid wrote:

leave it to the people that do like it.

Well, I tried very hard to convince you of the positives. To no avail, it seems. I'd still prefer if you'd come around and enjoy 40K for what it is. But you seem dead-set to bite off the nose just to spite the face.

 Zweischneid wrote:

knas ser wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:

Who is "driving away" people from the game?

 Zweischneid wrote:

leave it to the people that do like it.

Well, I tried very hard to convince you of the positives. To no avail, it seems.

I was just pointing out that all of us here arguing for better rules and balance are doing so because we believe it is inclusive and stops a large segment of players being put off or having a less enjoyable experience, whilst in the very same post that you demand to know who is driving away players, you express the attitude that those who don't like it how it is should "leave". Kind of answers your own question, imho.

Not 100% certain how your reply relates to that but no, you haven't generally tried to convince anyone of "positives", you've only argued why the negatives we highlight are not a concern to "people with basic social skills" or argued that there are negatives to improving the rules and balance without ever building a supportable case for that unlikely position.

As far as "positives", all you've ever done is talk vaguely about narrative battles and agreeing with your opponent to use non-standard lists, Well I can do all that just as easily with a good rules system and better balance as I can with the current system. Better in fact.

Things are getting a little heated here. Relax yall.

Me, when I play with strangers, I act more competitively. But when I play with friends or family we do house rules and make a story up as we go along. Very non-competative. If a rule gets in the way of fun, we toss it. But if I'm at a store playing a pick up game, then that doesn't fly. Try to be friendly and professional and above all have fun.

knas ser wrote:


I was just pointing out that all of us here arguing for better rules and balance are doing so because we believe it is inclusive and stops a large segment of players being put off or having a less enjoyable experience, whilst in the very same post that you demand to know who is driving away players, you express the attitude that those who don't like it how it is should "leave". Kind of answers your own question, imho.

And it was a good catch. Put it down to my bewilderment how somebody could spend so much effort and energies to badmouth something good and enjoyable. It was a personal reaction. If I'd be so dissatisfied with something, anything, I'd personally would walk away. It was not a "logically coherent argument", admittedly.

knas ser wrote:

Not 100% certain how your reply relates to that but no, you haven't generally tried to convince anyone of "positives", you've only argued why the negatives we highlight are not a concern to "people with basic social skills" or argued that there are negatives to improving the rules and balance without ever building a supportable case for that unlikely position.

Different argument, but yeah. Anybody who thinks that spending a minute to ensure/improve your fellow-hobbyist's enjoyment is a "bad thing" has some issues going on.

knas ser wrote:

As far as "positives", all you've ever done is talk vaguely about narrative battles and agreeing with your opponent to use non-standard lists, Well I can do all that just as easily with a good rules system and better balance as I can with the current system. Better in fact.

 Zweischneid wrote:
.

But for me (and a lot of other people), Warhammer 40K is the best game out there, and has been getting even better over the last few months. Of all the miniature games in existence, Warhammer 40K is the "least in need" of "getting better", as all the others are relatively worse.

Opinion. You're fully entitled to yours, but Plenty folks will happily disagree with you that other games are 'relatively worse'. I pointed out previously a whole slew of flaws in the actual in game mechanics of the game of 40k. I don't face these issues in other games. So the argument that other games are relatively worse is seriously flawed to begin with.

 Zweischneid wrote:
.

If you want to test your magic "this-makes-any-game-better-without-hurting-anyone"-formula, try it on some other game. Certainly, Warmachine, Infinity, Malifaux, etc.. are all infinitely less enjoyable than Warhammer 40K. These games need your miracle-solution a lot more than Warhammer 40K does.

Certainly? Really?Are they? By what objective analysis? I, and many others find warmachine, infinity, flames of war etc infinitely more enjoyable than 40k. It's why I've seen whole gaming scenes in Ireland and Scotland drop 40k like a rock and move on. 'Miracle solution' indeed.... Whether it's straight up competitive, or (gasp!) narratives, I can have fun with any if these games. Just none of the issues with sloppy rules or poor balance that plague 40k.

Please, don't confuse 'opinion' with what you're stating as fact.

At the end if the day,

 Zweischneid wrote:
.

I am sorry you don't like the direction it is taking, but that doesn't make that direction bad or a mistake.

Arguable. If it doesn't benefit me, it's hardly practical for me to think the direction is good. this is entirely subjective though.

 Zweischneid wrote:
.
Who is "driving away" people from the game? The person trying to show people the upside of this fantastic game, the best miniatures game in the world and the best iteration of Warhammer 40K that ever existed, or the whiners who keep trying to convince GW's happy customers that the thing they enjoy is supposedly gak, just because one or two "competitive types" don't like it and try to drag everyone down with them into their jaded nerd-rage?

What is driving people away? Lots of varied reasons.

Take me. Easy. Two Main reasons.

Shocking levels if balance, and utter contempt for playtesting and proofreading. Very much hurts the game as a whole.
clunky, counter intuitive, bloated, excessive and badly thought through game mechanics. Fundamentally this is my problem with the 'game' of 40k. I just can't view it's OS as anything less than rubbish.

The 'whiners' pointing out flaws? Yeah, heaven forbid people point and discuss some of the glaring issues in the game. And it's far more than one or two competitive types, bud. Folks on all sides of the spectrum have pointed out and discussed these issues. Don't lay it at the doorstep of folks you don't like. the Objective analysis. Enjoy it all you want, but after playing warmachine and infinity, no one on gods green earth will be convincing me that 40ks mechanics are anything other than shoddy.

And funnily enough, I play great narrative games with infinity and flames of war

 Zweischneid wrote:
.
Again, it's your god-given right to not like the game. If that is the case, leave it to the people that do like it. Why are you trying so hard to destroy a good thing for people who enjoy it?

We're not seeking to destroy it. All I want is less of the issues that plague 40k - see my previous post, and better, more fundamentally sound game mechanics and balance. Thus won't hurt your games either bud.

@Zweischneid
Lets see.
'At its heart, a game of Warhammer 40,000 is a shared experience between two fellow hobbyists - and it should be as enjoyable and fulfilling for both players as possible.'

Is a simple modification of the definition 'what a good two player game should be.'

'At its heart ANY TWO PLAYER GAME is a shared experience between two PLAYERS , and should be as enjoyable and fulfilling for both players as possible.'

So we can agree 40k is a game.

We can also see it is a competitive game .

We can also see the 40k 6th ed rules are NOT well defined ,and are poorly written and implemented.(Compared to other games.)

The fact you CAN spend time trying to fix a car crash of a rule set to get some sort of enjoyable experience at the end of it.And may even enjoy this process.

Does NOT mean every other gamer out there is happy to do this.When other rule sets tend to deliver much better rules in terms of clarity brevity and elegance.

Lanrak wrote:




Does NOT mean every other gamer out there is happy to do this.When other rule sets tend to deliver much better rules in terms of clarity brevity and elegance.

I am not claiming every other gamer out there is happy. I am claiming some gamers out there are happy, and NOT every gamer would be happy if Warhammer 40K were to change "back" (or more to be other rule sets) because they enjoy the current direction. They play Warhammer 40K because of the very things that set it apart from the other rule sets you ask it emulate.

And, while I hope you see the positives of Warhammer 40K and I certainly don't want to drive anyone away, I don't get the logic why anyone would want to change 40K to be like "other rule sets" when other rule sets with the qualities you seek already exist. It would simply diminish the gaming scene, as now we have A (Warhammer 40K as it currently is) and B ("other rule sets that appeal to you"), whereas afterwards we'd only have B ("other rule sets that appeal to you, including the revised Warhammer 40K"), leaving all the people that enjoy A out in the cold.

 Zweischneid wrote:

I am not claiming every other gamer out there is happy. I am claiming some gamers out there are happy, and NOT every gamer would be happy if Warhammer 40K were to change "back" (or more to be other rule sets) because they enjoy the current direction. They play Warhammer 40K because of the very things that set it apart from the other rule sets you ask it emulate.

And, while I hope you see the positives of Warhammer 40K and I certainly don't want to drive anyone away, I don't get the logic why anyone would want to change 40K to be like "other rule sets" when other rule sets with the qualities you seek already exist. It would simply diminish the gaming scene, as now we have A (Warhammer 40K as it currently is) and B ("other rule sets that appeal to you"), whereas afterwards we'd only have B ("other rule sets that appeal to you, including the revised Warhammer 40K"), leaving all the people that enjoy A out in the cold.

So you want 40k to be a game that contains: excessive rules(how many movement types do we have, and how many of these have their own unique exceptions? As compared to a' movement stat?), excessive dice rolling (roll to hit, wound, armour save, fnp/etc)- 4 rolls to resolve an issue ( and three of those answer the sane bloody question - does what hit you kill you?) when other games (warmachine, infinity, heck even dnd!)use 2 rolls to accomplish this, excessive bloated, abstract and counter intuitive mechanics (how you use ap to determine if you get through infantry armour, but strength to get through vehicle armour, and how an s10 ap6 lance weapon will melt a land raider, but will in all likelihood bounce off a fire warrior or guardsman) while other games use a universal damage system that is both intuitive, and yet works for all unit types. Then you've got the multiple saves thing. Marine in cover uses either his cover or his armour. He uses armour, and his cover disappears. He uses cover,and armour no longer exists. What? One would assume that cover and armour would stack and would be greater than the sum of their parts. Other games integrate cover in a far better and more intuitive manner? Infinity does it. Warmachine does it. Flames of war does it. 40k used to, and they got rid of it fir the current clunky and counter intuitive monstrosity. Yeah, cheers. Compared to the streamlined beauty that is infinity, the gw systems are dinosaurs.

Deadnight wrote:


So you want 40k to be a game that contains: excessive rules(how many movement types do we have, and how many of these have their own unique exceptions? As compared to a' movement stat?), excessive dice rolling (roll to hit, wound, armour save, fnp/etc)- 4 rolls to resolve an issue ( and three of those answer the sane bloody question - does what hit you kill you?) when other games (warmachine, infinity, heck even dnd!)use 2 rolls to accomplish this, excessive bloated, abstract and counter intuitive mechanics (how you use ap to determine if you get through infantry armour, but strength to get through vehicle armour, and how an s10 ap6 lance weapon will melt a land raider, but will in all likelihood bounce off a fire warrior or guardsman) while other games use a universal damage system that is both intuitive, and yet works for all unit types. Then you've got the multiple saves thing. Marine in cover uses either his cover or his armour. He uses armour, and his cover disappears. He uses cover,and armour no longer exists. What? One would assume that cover and armour would stack and would be greater than the sum of their parts. Other games integrate cover in a far better and more intuitive manner? Infinity does it. Warmachine does it. Flames of war does it. 40k used to, and they got rid of it fir the current clunky and counter intuitive monstrosity. Yeah, cheers. Compared to the streamlined beauty that is infinity, the gw systems are dinosaurs.

Well, "complexity" is often what makes a game and what people enjoy about a game.

People brought up X-Wing several times. X-Wing clearly has "needlessly" convoluted rules with all those silly movement templates and ship-facings, etc.. Could movement in X-Wing by redesigned "in terms of clarity brevity and elegance" by simply placing ships "Warhammer-40K-style" within 6" and don't bother about facing?

Probably.

But it would surely gut the game of what makes the game the game it is. It would take away the very thing that people who enjoy X-Wing enjoy about the game, even though they might appear "excessive bloated, abstract and counter-intuitive" to a gamer who just wants to place their models where they like without using 20 silly templates.

But that doesn't give anyone the right to go into the X-Wing forums to preach on and on about how X-Wing should change their "bloated" movement rules to the "streamlined beauty" of Warhammer 40K "just put your mini anywhere in 6 inch", because that would be "better for everyone".

While simpler alternatives to movement than the rules currently used in X-Wing are readily available, it's the more complex movement rules that X-Wing uses, that make it the game it is and the reason many people enjoy it.

Same with Warhammer 40K.

So you enjoy excessive, cluttered and counter intuitive rules. And this is a good thing? Objectively, now?

Complexity =\= Complicated.

Complex rules allow for many interactions, options and outcomes, complicated rules are ponderous, counter intuitive, and needlessly dense.

40K in its current incarnation is probably the most complicated mainstream ruleset around, which pretty much decimates any complexity it might offer.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh, and that X Wing "example" is so painfully thin in merit, it isn't even worth discussing, as anyone who thinks you have a point is probably unable to figure out how to turn a computer on to get involved in the discussion.

Deadnight wrote:
So you enjoy excessive, cluttered and counter intuitive rules. And this is a good thing? Objectively, now?

I enjoy Warhammer 40K 6th Edition. I am not the only one that does, or GW would be bankrupt. Are the rules perfect? No, but they are better than most other games. Certainly better than Infinity, for example.

Even if you disagree, I see no reason why we cannot have both Warhammer 40K and Infinity to cater to both type of players, rather than turning Warhammer 40K into Infinity (or Infinity into Warhammer 40K) and make the wargaming hobby a smaller, lesser place for everyone.

@ Zweischneid.
You do realize everyone wants to keep the cool 40k artwork and narrative.
And everyone wants the game play to be in synergy with the inspiring background.

We just want to change the instructions to play the game to make the experience of playing the game MORE enjoyable for everyone.

IF newbs have more enjoyable pick up games that means MORE people stick around to become vets.This means more diversity in opponents and armies in the pool of the 40k games actually played. And with more players, there would be an increase in sales volumes, and a slowing down in price increases.

How can this be a bad thing for anyone?


Simple examples of 40k rules improvements.

Writing clearly defined rules.
Current 40k.
'Well if you do this action, this ALWAYS happens sometimes.But sometimes this other thing will ALWAYS happen instead.'

Revised 40k
When you perform action X,event Y will happen.However,if in specific situation W, an exception is made and event Z happens instead.


Writing inclusive rules.
Current 40k
Core Rules for standard infantry, with 148 exceptions for the other 14 unit types.(Special rules for every unit, does not make every unit special, just the rules overly complicated. )

Revised 40k.
Core rules that cover ALL basic unit interaction.(Movement , shooting assault.etc.)
Special abilities expressed as LIMITED special exceptions to the core rules.

Just for clarity can we use the following definitions.
Complexity, the amount of functions within a system.(How much you can choose to do in a game.)

Complication, the amount of instructions/operations required to achieve a specific function.

Current 40k has lots of complication.(lots of pages of rules to cover single game functions.)
And not a lot of game play complexity.

It is very possible to reduce the level of complication in 40k 6th ed rules,without loosing ANY game play complexity.
(In fact if you reduce the level of complication in the rule set, you could INCREASE the level of game play complexity.)

 Zweischneid wrote:

Deadnight wrote:
So you enjoy excessive, cluttered and counter intuitive rules. And this is a good thing? Objectively, now?

I enjoy Warhammer 40K 6th Edition. I am not the only one that does, or GW would be bankrupt. Are the rules perfect? No, but they are better than most other games. Certainly better than Infinity, for example.

I'd really like to see your criteria for the definition of "better."

Or do you actually mean "I prefer them" which is so far away from what you appear to be trying to say to be ludicrous?

Even if you disagree, I see no reason why we cannot have both Warhammer 40K and Infinity to cater to both type of players, rather than turning Warhammer 40K into Infinity (or Infinity into Warhammer 40K) and make the wargaming hobby a smaller, lesser place for everyone.

Sigh.

Nobody, NOBODY, is trying to turn 40K into anything but 40K. People are saying, including you, that improvements could be made to make it better for everyone, whether they wish to play casually or competitively. How on earth are you failing to grasp this?

 azreal13 wrote:


Nobody, NOBODY, is trying to turn 40K into anything but 40K. People are saying, including you, that improvements could be made to make it better for everyone, whether they wish to play casually or competitively. How on earth are you failing to grasp this?

And I am telling you that a rule-set design to better cater to "competitive play" has, both in other games and in Warhammer 40K, created a very unhealthy and enjoyable mindset among gamers that put slavish adherence to the rules over and above all considerations, including narrative, mutual enjoyment and, in some rare cases, basic manners and social awareness. Strict "competitive-RAW" game-play should be one variant among many, but not the default (because there should never be one default) way to play the game.

The recent changes to Warhammer 40K have greatly improved the game (with the game being far more than "just the rules"). Similar changes would, in my humble opinion, also greatly improve Infinity, Malifaux, etc.., (though I am gonna leave Infinity, Malifaux, etc.. fans to make up their minds about that one).

That's the simple observation.

Warhammer 40K in 2002 to 2012 = dying, dry, boring, overrun by players who lack tact and imagination, approaching games with an uninspired disregard for the richness of the universe.
Warhammer 40K in 2013/2014 = awesome. Not perfect (what ever is "perfect"?), but still pure awesome.

If you think the current Warhammer 40K isn't awesome and your "vision" of what Warhammer 40K "should be" is coloured by 4th or 5th edition or other dry games like Infinity, than I want no part of that.

And again, I am not trying to "convince you". You're free to disagree with me. Just don't be so arrogant to assume that your preferences are the "universal good" and your dislikes are the "universal bad". They are not.

 Zweischneid wrote:

Warhammer 40K in 2002 to 2012 = dying, dry, boring, overrun by players who lack tact and imagination, approaching games with an uninspired disregard for the richness of the universe.
Warhammer 40K in 2013/2014 = awesome. Not perfect (what ever is "perfect"?), but still pure awesome.

Are you contending that changes in the game from the first case to the latter case have driven off players? Because that's exactly how your post reads.

Really, this and the other thread you betray a very snobbish attitude with comments along the lines of those who want the game should just leave, other players are lacking in imagination, tact and uninspired. Your exclusive and superior attitude is really doing nobody any favours, least of all the hobby itself.

 Zweischneid wrote:

Just don't be so arrogant to assume that your preferences are the "universal good" and your dislikes are the "universal bad". They are not.

And yet again, no-one you're attacking is basing their desire for better rules and better balance on setting their desires above other types of players. They're basing it on the reasonable idea that better rules and better balance don't negatively affect anyone.

All you keep doing is asserting that they do, but failing to build any convincing case as to why that should be. Repeatedly.

Dude, if you need the most complicated, bloated, poorly written, wooly ruleset that has ever existed for 40K in order to railroad players into playing the game "your way" and have up until this point, been unable to find anyone with just the smidge of intelligence and creativity needed in order to mix things up, try different things and make the game more "cinematic" in previous editions, I feel sorry for you, but that speaks more to the players in your vicinity.

Your complete failure to grasp that literally everything you cite as good about 6th would still be possible with a more clearly written, balanced set of rules and codexes? That suggests you personally lack the creativity and need Workshop to do your thinking for you.

I love how you cite Infinity as a "dry" ruleset, yet it allows for situations and actions of greater depth and storytelling than 40K comes close to, despite all its protestations of being the cinematic edition.

Just for full disclosure, how much Infinity, Warmachine, Malifaux or X Wing have you played? Or are you "doing an xruslanx" and merely claiming 40K's superiority with little or no knowledge of those other games and how they play? Please note I mean actual, real world, first hand experience, not information you've gleaned from the Net and incorporated into your views.

knas ser wrote:


And yet again, no-one you're attacking is basing their desire for better rules and better balance on setting their desires above other types of players. They're basing it on the reasonable idea that better rules and better balance don't negatively affect anyone.

All you keep doing is asserting that they do, but failing to build any convincing case as to why that should be. Repeatedly.

I am basing my argument on the reasonable idea that a bit of civil pre-game communication doesn't negatively affect anyone, while simultaneously broadening the spectrum of play-styles the game can cater too immensely,

Yet you keep saying that this is somehow hurting you or people who would want to use the game to go at it in a tooth-and-nails competitive tournament, but fail to build any convincing case as to why that should be. Repeatedly.

I have no objection to you doing whatever you like with the rules. In a broad, open-minded and diverse 40K-community, facilitated by a bit of pre-game chat to clarify mutual expectations, you can do with the rules whatever you please.

Your idea of a bit of civil pre-game communication is a fallacy.

Firstly, it shouldn't be needed at all.

Secondly, what's your plan B when we both have valid but contradictory interpretations of the same rule?

Oh. Right. 4+ it.

Zweischneid wrote:

I enjoy Warhammer 40K 6th Edition. I am not the only one that does, or GW would be bankrupt. Are the rules perfect? No, but they are better than most other games. Certainly better than Infinity, for example.

they're "better"? may i respectfully disagree, and point out you are stating an opinion as a fact. For what its worth, infinity is a technically brilliant game, with hug depth, tactics and options. its well FAQed, and its rules set are both well written, and clear/precise. All of which GW fails at with regard to their games. its "got" that cinematic flair in spades without needing to try. the rules, aside from the clunky translation (its originally a spanish game) are brilliant, intuitive, and the interactive nature of the game (AROs, and the fact that "its always your turn") mean you are always a part of the game. i can walk away from a game of 40k for the best part of an hour while my opponent plays his stuff and i do nothing but look at it. No thanks. Infinity engages on all levels.

Zweischneid wrote:

Even if you disagree, I see no reason why we cannot have both Warhammer 40K and Infinity to cater to both type of players, rather than turning Warhammer 40K into Infinity (or Infinity into Warhammer 40K) and make the wargaming hobby a smaller, lesser place for everyone.

We are not turning 40k into infinity. or vice versa. But if Corvus Belli can produce a brilliant, thoughful, interactive, tactically deep and cinematic game with great balance ((and note, its a game that functions as both a competitive game, and as a narrative experience), i fail to see why its "wrong" to ask for GW to approach their own rules writing in the same manner. Clear rules will help. Less clunky mechanics will help. Less of the counter-intuitive logic-fails in game design will help. having the game engine not based on a napoleonic port from the 1980s will help. Better proofreading, and playstesting will help. None of that will prevent 40k from being 40k. None of that stops your Space Marines from engaging in a heroic last stand. None of that stops you from trying to tell a story. How does having a better, more proffessional, and more "serious" attitude to game desgn make the wargaming a smaller, lesser place for everyone. bad games frustrate people, drive people away, and fail to attract more.

I repeat: taking the game design seriously, and sorting out a proper engine to work it with will not subtract from 40k in any way. and everyone benefits.

Saying anything else is both snobbish, short sighted and extremly narrow minded.

Zweischneid wrote:
And I am telling you that a rule-set design to better cater to "competitive play" has, both in other games and in Warhammer 40K, created a very unhealthy and enjoyable mindset among gamers that put slavish adherence to the rules over and above all considerations, including narrative, mutual enjoyment and, in some rare cases, basic manners and social awareness. Strict "competitive-RAW" game-play should be one variant among many, but not the default (because there should never be one default) way to play the game.

how about a more professional rules set? You know, one without the shoddy game mechanics that litter 40k?

as to an "unhealthy" attitude, thats entirely down to perspective, not fact, and its uite a skewed one, if you ask me.

I'll agree. competitive games should be one type of game among many. I play them as one type of game, among many. But saying that focusing on professional "serious" quality rules, with a proper Quality approach, and solid mechanics that dont cause confusion and issues hurts narrative, mutual enjoyment, basic manners etc is false. If you ask me, its the shocking lack of direction within the game, backed up with an equally poor foundation of rules mechanics that has contributed hugely to the fault lines within the community. when i got into 40k, there was a line between "fluff", and "power". Its only since i played other games that i realsed that both these separate things were only artificially separated by the shocking design that created them. fluffy, narrative games that tell cool stores, and competitive games dont have to come at each others expense. a solid, serious and proper professional Quality approach to rules design helps both. and thats what we're asking for.

Zweischneid wrote:

Warhammer 40K in 2002 to 2012 = dying, dry, boring, overrun by players who lack tact and imagination, approaching games with an uninspired disregard for the richness of the universe.
Warhammer 40K in 2013/2014 = awesome. Not perfect (what ever is "perfect"?), but still pure awesome.

so i, as a player who started in 2003 "lacked tact and imagination", and "approached games with an uninspired disregard for the richness of the universe"? that takes the snob right up to 11 bud. Seriously not cool. this comes across as an extremely narrow minded, dismissive and an utterly contemptible opinion of thousands of players who you dont even know. Yeah, after this im not bothering with you any more. Frankly, your attitude stinks.

Zweischneid wrote:
If you think the current Warhammer 40K isn't awesome and your "vision" of what Warhammer 40K "should be" is coloured by 4th or 5th edition or other dry games like Infinity, than I want no part of that.

40k could be awesome. its just let down by horrible game mechanics and lack of balance. If anything, games like warmachine and infinity have shown me how far short of the mark GW falls, and everything it could be. i still dream about Andy Chambers flawed but brilliant Starship Troopers game that was what he wanted 40k to be for 4th ed. We got what we got. In comparison, its a let down. just with these basic mechanics, you'd have a far more interesting game.

Zweischneid wrote:
And again, I am not trying to "convince you". You're free to disagree with me. Just don't be so arrogant to assume that your preferences are the "universal good" and your dislikes are the "universal bad". They are not.

And yet, heres you constantly stating opinion as fact as well. So touche.

EDIT: Firstly, you skipped my question to you. Please answer it:

 Zweischneid wrote:

Warhammer 40K in 2002 to 2012 = dying, dry, boring, overrun by players who lack tact and imagination, approaching games with an uninspired disregard for the richness of the universe.
Warhammer 40K in 2013/2014 = awesome. Not perfect (what ever is "perfect"?), but still pure awesome.

Are you contending that changes in the game from the first case to the latter case have driven off players? Because that's exactly how your post reads.

In light of your barbed comment about "who is driving players away?", I think the above is very interesting.

EDIT EDIT: Also, whilst on the subject of skipping over the questions people are asking you, I'd be really interested in you answering this one from Azrael13 that you also skipped over:

Just for full disclosure, how much Infinity, Warmachine, Malifaux or X Wing have you played? Or are you "doing an xruslanx" and merely claiming 40K's superiority with little or no knowledge of those other games and how they play? Please note I mean actual, real world, first hand experience, not information you've gleaned from the Net and incorporated into your views.

Please give us an honest answer to the above. You've made many, many dismissive comments to other games and actually based arguments on their perceived lack of quality (by you). So you should answer the above.

 Zweischneid wrote:

knas ser wrote:


And yet again, no-one you're attacking is basing their desire for better rules and better balance on setting their desires above other types of players. They're basing it on the reasonable idea that better rules and better balance don't negatively affect anyone.

All you keep doing is asserting that they do, but failing to build any convincing case as to why that should be. Repeatedly.

I am basing my argument on the reasonable idea that a bit of civil pre-game communication doesn't negatively affect anyone, while simultaneously broadening the spectrum of play-styles the game can cater too immensely,

No, you're repeatedly implying that problems with the rules or balance are not significant because they can be mitigated by players fixing issues themselves by negotiating what to play with and how before each game. Furthermore, you keep saying that improvements to the rules and balance will negatively affect things without showing any remotely convincing case as to why this should be. What you just wrote above, is very far from an accurate summation of what you've actually been arguing throughout this thread and others.

 Zweischneid wrote:

Yet you keep saying that this is somehow hurting you or people who would want to use the game to go at it in a tooth-and-nails competitive tournament, but fail to build any convincing case as to why that should be. Repeatedly.

You parody my words, but without the sense behind them. I can back up what I wrote about your position and have done throughout this thread. Now lets see you back up how you just described my position. Show me anywhere in this thread or the others where I have said:

Pre-game discussion is hurting me or other people.

All I've ever argued is that it is not a substitute for poor rules and strongly objected to your dismissing anyone who doesn't agree with you that it is as "lacking social skills".

Said that I'm talking only about "tooth-and-nails competitive tournament".

I've been explicitly inclusive throughout, saying that I want to improve things for both competitive and casual players.

Where I haven't backed up my position with a reasoned case why it is so.

There's nothing I've said anywhere that I haven't given explanation for unless it is a trivial fact that anyone here would know or quickly grasp.

Come on. You copy my words and try to turn it around on me. But that doesn't work because I'm not guilty of these things. Back it up. You've made an accusation above. Try and prove it. Try. I invite it! Show me where I have done what you say I've done.

 Zweischneid wrote:

I have no objection to you doing whatever you like with the rules.

White man speak with forked tongue! What you mean is you have no objection to small groups of individuals doing things there own way so long as nothing changes in the actual published rules. But you've been objecting hugely and dogmatically to any suggestion of changes to the published rules.

 Zweischneid wrote:
Even if you disagree, I see no reason why we cannot have both Warhammer 40K and Infinity to cater to both type of players, rather than turning Warhammer 40K into Infinity (or Infinity into Warhammer 40K) and make the wargaming hobby a smaller, lesser place for everyone.

The point you keep missing (or deliberately ignoring) is that many of the things that make 40k a bad game for competitive players don't make it better for other types of players. Having ambiguous rules that lead to constant arguing (or 4+ rolls to decide who gets to be right) don't make the game better for anyone. Casual and narrative players would benefit just as much from clear rules like other games have. Likewise for game balance. A version of 40k that had better balance like other games would be better for competitive play and better for casual/narrative/whatever play.

Your argument here is essentially "I don't see why we can't have a restaurant that serves rotting food with shards of broken glass in it, why does everyone have to be the same and serve edible food". And the sad thing is I'm not sure if you actually believe it, or if you just enjoy annoying everyone with it.

 Zweischneid wrote:
And I am telling you that a rule-set design to better cater to "competitive play" has, both in other games and in Warhammer 40K, created a very unhealthy and enjoyable mindset among gamers that put slavish adherence to the rules over and above all considerations, including narrative, mutual enjoyment and, in some rare cases, basic manners and social awareness. Strict "competitive-RAW" game-play should be one variant among many, but not the default (because there should never be one default) way to play the game.

So your argument here is that the game should be as broken as possible so that the players have to work together to fix it instead of just saying "hey, let's play a game of 40k" without the ritual pre-game masochism of trying to agree on which version of the game they want to play? How exactly is this better than a game where two players with different mindsets can just sit down and play a game together and each get what they want out of it?

 Zweischneid wrote:
People brought up X-Wing several times. X-Wing clearly has "needlessly" convoluted rules with all those silly movement templates and ship-facings, etc.. Could movement in X-Wing by redesigned "in terms of clarity brevity and elegance" by simply placing ships "Warhammer-40K-style" within 6" and don't bother about facing?

This is a joke, right? Even for you this is just bad. The maneuver templates and ship facings are a fundamental part of X-Wing's gameplay. Taking them out would be like taking the entire shooting and assault phases out of 40k and just having the game consist of moving models around the table. Contrast this with 40k, where GW's guiding principle seems to be "never use one rule if you can make five rules to do the same thing".

Same with Warhammer 40K.

No, it's not at all the same with 40k. What exactly is the point of having a USR that literally does nothing besides grant two other USRs? What is the point of having the Fear rule and then giving the only armies that don't already get slaughtered in combat anyway ATSKNF, which ignores Fear entirely. What is the point of having a wound allocation system that seems to exist for the sole purpose of enabling barrage sniping (and don't say realism, because it isn't realistic)? Why do we need both MCs and walkers when whether a given model gets rules as a MC or a walker seems to be decided by a coin flip? Etc. These things aren't important parts of 40k's gameplay, they're just extra clutter that gets in the way of the fun parts.

 Peregrine wrote:
And the sad thing is I'm not sure if you actually believe it, or if you just enjoy annoying everyone with it.

I've been giving this some serious consideration too. The only other poster I've seen make this argument to a similar extent is on record as saying they deliberately take contrary positions in discussions to get a rise out of people.

I'm willing to extend the benefit of the doubt in this case (Zwei doesn't disappear periodically only to reappear with a new identity for instance) but at this point I can only attribute his opinion to a lack of information on his part (because the alternative is too horrible to contemplate)

I wonder if 40k generates a sort of 'Stockholm Syndrome '.(Defending the people that 'wronged 'you.)

I spent a small fortune on these bits of plastic,glue, paint, brushes and books, being told it would result in letting me play an awesome game.
However, it turns out either we have been conned by smarmy salesman, OR I just did not try hard enough to have fun...

If I spend more time and money I am SURE I will get the fun I was promised.

Now I try REALLY hard , like hours and hours of extra work fixing the game so its fun for me.
See everyone , they did not sell me a 'dud' after all !

Whew - this sure got off topic!