Of course there is. Plenty of games companies manage to produce a standardised set of rules which includes the standard points values and rules for mission set-up. All of FFG's games do this, for example. Whether it's the 1-mission approach of X-Wing or the more varied way missions work in Armada or Legion, there's no negotiation required at all. Other games have done the same. All it needs is the points limit to be set by the designers and the missions to be included in the rules,
That's awfully restrictive, and the reason why I find X-Wing dull. Since a major part of 40k is the narrative approach (remember, even with the "three ways to play", straight-up competitive play is only one of those ) saying you can only play these three missions at one single points limit rather defeats the point.
And really, if "fancy a game of 40k?" "sure, 1500 points? I've got Orks" "OK, cool. I'll bring Marines. Fancy trying this mission here?" "Yeah, cool" is a chore, then I worry about the future of society.
It may not be your cup of tea, but the comment I was responding to was implying it was impossible to create a situation where no pre-game negotiation was required. Given the existence of games where that negotiation doesn't happen, that's clearly false and seems to be yet another excuse trotted out to explain GW's lack of ability to balance their own game. X-Wing is just one example, and other games exist with multiple missions available that still don't require any pre-game discussion.
I know the infinity guys don't talk much pre game, other then what scenario they play. they very mechanical in their game play too. No talk other then what is happening in the game. They do talk a lot post game though. And MtG people don't talk to each other at all unless they are trading or playing.
Karol wrote: I know the infinity guys don't talk much pre game, other then what scenario they play. they very mechanical in their game play too. No talk other then what is happening in the game. They do talk a lot post game though. And MtG people don't talk to each other at all unless they are trading or playing.
Infinity is one of those games that is much more balanced than 40k. In terms of gameplay, it has so much depth and complexity that in comparison, Kill-Team may as well be two kids with green army men in the dirt making machine gun noises at each other. It's not easy to learn, and you really have to pay attention to what you're doing because if you're not careful your entire strategy with your little squad can be completely derailed because you didn't notice the guy with a rocket launcher has an open lane of fire or your "quarterback" has his back turned and you used your last activation order. That game can end in the first round, the first player's turn. And I've seen it turn 'skilled' 40k players into sulking peebabies.
Don't get it wrong, I'm not saying I'm good at it, but I will say that my experience playing Infinity with some understanding of my units' capabilities led to a much better win/lose ratio and a lot less feeling as if I'd just up and started playing the wrong faction, because overall- the sectorials are all very well-balanced against one another, and even running outright vanilla factions isn't entirely a bad idea much of the time.
One of the reasons the Infinity and M:tG players aren't talking is because despite one being a miniatures skirmish game and the other being a card game- they're both about having tricks up your sleeve and hiding things from your opponent until the perfect opportunity presents itself. Infinity has units that you don't even put on the board or tell your opponent about, just like you wouldn't tell your opponent what cards you have in your hand when playing M:tG.
Of course there is. Plenty of games companies manage to produce a standardised set of rules which includes the standard points values and rules for mission set-up. All of FFG's games do this, for example. Whether it's the 1-mission approach of X-Wing or the more varied way missions work in Armada or Legion, there's no negotiation required at all. Other games have done the same. All it needs is the points limit to be set by the designers and the missions to be included in the rules,
That's awfully restrictive, and the reason why I find X-Wing dull. Since a major part of 40k is the narrative approach (remember, even with the "three ways to play", straight-up competitive play is only one of those ) saying you can only play these three missions at one single points limit rather defeats the point.
And really, if "fancy a game of 40k?" "sure, 1500 points? I've got Orks" "OK, cool. I'll bring Marines. Fancy trying this mission here?" "Yeah, cool" is a chore, then I worry about the future of society.
It may not be your cup of tea, but the comment I was responding to was implying it was impossible to create a situation where no pre-game negotiation was required. Given the existence of games where that negotiation doesn't happen, that's clearly false and seems to be yet another excuse trotted out to explain GW's lack of ability to balance their own game. X-Wing is just one example, and other games exist with multiple missions available that still don't require any pre-game discussion.
The issue isn't whether or not it could, the issue is that a certain bird makes a huge deal out of how this means the designers are all incompetent buffoons who should be fired because Warhammer does encourage (I don't think it "requires" it, but it helps to avoid unfun situations) this while other games don't. To which I say so what? If it's such a big deal to you, go play one of those games where you can just turn up to the store and ask any random person for a game without having to figure out what will be fun for you both. There is nothing inherently wrong with Warhammer wanting to be more social, even if it could not be.
Well I think the problem is that in a lot of places you can either play some sort of warhammer or not play at all. But I could be wrong. We have 4 infinity players, and one of them brings all the terrain for the game, they never play with the GW ones. And they look realy nice, he even has small scifi cars and mini stores and chinese joint that looks like an actual take out box with a naked lady behind the counter.
But you are right that if the designers first assumptions is that the game is suppose to be social first, and rules are secondary or even lower on the totem pole of importance, then getting angry about something being bad only makes sense localy.
Like lets say someone plays only ITC games, with ITC scenarios, such a person could be upset that his army is good when played outside of ITC, or has units that work really well again outside of ITC. But him being upset about it doesn't lend itself as an argument for W40k is bad everywhere around the world. I mean I kind of a get now why some people say that GK are a good army. Good army is not good good, but good to play against. It doesn't even matter what kind of an army is being played as long as the opponent is someone you like to spend time with.
Kind of a does suck for people who dislike spending time with other people in general LoL.
Karol wrote: Well I think the problem is that in a lot of places you can either play some sort of warhammer or not play at all. But I could be wrong. We have 4 infinity players, and one of them brings all the terrain for the game, they never play with the GW ones. And they look realy nice, he even has small scifi cars and mini stores and chinese joint that looks like an actual take out box with a naked lady behind the counter.
But you are right that if the designers first assumptions is that the game is suppose to be social first, and rules are secondary or even lower on the totem pole of importance, then getting angry about something being bad only makes sense localy.
Like lets say someone plays only ITC games, with ITC scenarios, such a person could be upset that his army is good when played outside of ITC, or has units that work really well again outside of ITC. But him being upset about it doesn't lend itself as an argument for W40k is bad everywhere around the world. I mean I kind of a get now why some people say that GK are a good army. Good army is not good good, but good to play against. It doesn't even matter what kind of an army is being played as long as the opponent is someone you like to spend time with.
Kind of a does suck for people who dislike spending time with other people in general LoL.
I do notice there is a vehemence against having to talk to your opponent. Usually, but always, I see this coming from people who like to build competitive style lists and the reason they hate it is because they might get asked to tone down their list or not bring the Castellan because their opponent wouldn't find that a fun game, and then they get all butthurt about it or go on a rant about how the other person needs to git gud and not stop them from fielding their Castallan because it's in the rules.
For me personally my issue is that I am invested in the 40k lore, have spent a lot of money on models, and 40k is one of the only games you can play in town, but the rules balance is so bad that you are forced to play a certain build to have an enjoyable game.
The social contract in my city is to bring whats legal in the rules and git gud.
Having been a deeply invested tourney player that used to place high in the old GWGTs, I understand git gud. What I want is a game that reflects their narrative that doesn't require you to rotate your armies around to have a good game.
If you live in an area where you have players that understand the social construct and go "ok your force has units of chaos space marines because you liked those models, and you want to have an enjoyable game, so I won't bring my Adepticon tourney list" then you may think the game is in a good place.
If you are a GW game designer and live in the Ivory Tower and all of your games are with other GW games designers and white dwarf writers and hobbyists, you'll think the game is in a great place.
If you live in an area whose predominant mindset is git gud, you had better like rotating builds out, or be ok with losing before the game starts. I don't invest time and money into a game that is predetermined before the first turn by lists. Thats kind of an offshoot of professional wrestling IMO.
But that is taken as "pure balance is impossible, get wreckt". There are balance gaffes that points can't tackle, and those are bound to happen. Then there are things where you open the book and 19 seconds into reading unit profiles you bust out laughing because the SPIKE build is so obvious it rolls off the book and onto the table by itself.
We get it... GW wants to cater to the magic the gathering personas, and that means they have to give SPIKE his powergaming so they bake the powergaming into the game by giving OP builds to keep SPIKE spending money. But there has to be a better way.
Karol wrote: But you are right that if the designers first assumptions is that the game is suppose to be social first, and rules are secondary or even lower on the totem pole of importance, then getting angry about something being bad only makes sense localy.
If you ever get a chance to go look at some old Rogue Trader era stuff, you'll see that Warhammer 40k was not designed to be a 'tournament competition' wargame. It was created to be a fairly basic system for moving a few dudes around and making them fight. It was a very flexible system that was really just a tool for people to use, pretty much an excuse to play a game with the cool little spaceman dudes. It was by no means a very innovative or tactically challenging system, in truth it was something that you could have little skirmish battles or you could even play it more like a very simple RPG.
The thing is, over time GW found out that people were having tournaments- which at the time were probably just for fun and the spirit of friendly competition. And then, predictably- just as it is with literally any other kind of competition, it begins to draw in individuals that will obsess over winning to the point where no price is too high... so if these guys are trying to use the system for something it's not really good for, but they're hurling money at it and they're willing to sell their own childrens' organs on the black market to buy it...
Well, let's just say if I'm selling bricks for a dollar each and you come by and tell me that those bricks are delicious and you'll take a dozen more... I'm not going to stop and say you shouldn't eat my bricks, that they're not food. Nope, I will hand you a dozen bricks and say "Enjoy your meal, sir. Do you need any napkins?"
I mean, at the end of the day- the competitive people with fragile egos could be presented with empirical evidence that Warhammer 40k is not designed to be balanced for fair competition... and they won't bat an eye, because that means there's always a way to have the imbalance working in their favor. I could sit here and speculate like some pseudo-psychiatrist that these individuals are absolute failures at every other aspect of their lives so they desperately strive to win at the little game of toy soldiers because if they lose that means they are 100% a loser, but I think that is probably inaccurate (but not by much in a lot of cases).
I mean, if you really want to see what kind of people your local 40k meta is? Host an event, and just watch. Host a doubles tournament for new players to partner with veteran players, and you will see veteran players drag in their disinterested girlfriend to stand there while he plays two of his armies in a tournament soup list. Host an Escalation League and watch some guy have 3 of his friends join it so he can rig all his games. Host a painting competition and wait until someone lets you know that your first place winner paid a painting service to do his model.
The best explanation of Warhammer 40k's Competitive Scene is this: You will find no shortage of people who will spend $500.00 to build a netlist for a tournament and win $50.00 store credit.
Did you ever see that advertisement around the LVO, where that one sleazeball pick-up artist huckster was charging $50.00 for "List Coaching"? I'll bet you my dead grandma's skull that he had quite a few customers, so I can't even be mad at him for exploiting people. After all, the supply meets demand.
I honestly used to not be so jaded, but all it took was hosting a few events at my local FLGS (some were for charity, FFS) to make me realize that the "competitive" community of Warhammer 40k was outright destructive to gaming communities. Even guys that are competitive but still super-friendly and helpful will tell you this, which is usually why they're trying to be so friendly and helpful- so to try and make things better (and I admire that they try to do that).
auticus wrote: For me personally my issue is that I am invested in the 40k lore, have spent a lot of money on models, and 40k is one of the only games you can play in town, but the rules balance is so bad that you are forced to play a certain build to have an enjoyable game.
The social contract in my city is to bring whats legal in the rules and git gud.
Having been a deeply invested tourney player that used to place high in the old GWGTs, I understand git gud. What I want is a game that reflects their narrative that doesn't require you to rotate your armies around to have a good game.
If you live in an area where you have players that understand the social construct and go "ok your force has units of chaos space marines because you liked those models, and you want to have an enjoyable game, so I won't bring my Adepticon tourney list" then you may think the game is in a good place.
If you are a GW game designer and live in the Ivory Tower and all of your games are with other GW games designers and white dwarf writers and hobbyists, you'll think the game is in a great place.
If you live in an area whose predominant mindset is git gud, you had better like rotating builds out, or be ok with losing before the game starts. I don't invest time and money into a game that is predetermined before the first turn by lists. Thats kind of an offshoot of professional wrestling IMO.
But that is taken as "pure balance is impossible, get wreckt". There are balance gaffes that points can't tackle, and those are bound to happen. Then there are things where you open the book and 19 seconds into reading unit profiles you bust out laughing because the SPIKE build is so obvious it rolls off the book and onto the table by itself.
We get it... GW wants to cater to the magic the gathering personas, and that means they have to give SPIKE his powergaming so they bake the powergaming into the game by giving OP builds to keep SPIKE spending money. But there has to be a better way.
The issue here is with that last part and a part earlier: First, the ivory tower. We all know, and GW is upfront about, the fact that they mostly play casual and narrative. They build a unit with one of each type of weapon because it looks cool. They field non-optimal choices because it fits the background. They rarely, if ever, will min/max even to such minor things like taking all combi-plasma on a squad of Terminators; instead you'll find them taking one combi-plasma, one combi-melta and one combi-flamer and a variety of melee weapons. However, the disconnect here is the players seem to want the oppsotie: A heavily competitive min/maxed game where listbuilding is king. Hence why GW turned to the ITC tournament organizers to help them balance the game. So the team writing the rules already have their own idea in their head of how the game is meant to be played, while throwing a bone to the more vocal (and maybe more popular we don't know) crowd that wants them to behave closer to Privateer Press' design team.
The other, perhaps larger, part is what you said about being able to flip open a book and immediatley see the broken combos. This is more intersting because it shows the designers aren't even aware of these combos, otherwise it wouldn't get through playtesting (even if they did very little playtesting, if it was that obvious it'd be caught) . The fact such glaring errors that anyone can see within moments is getting through indicates that the team either isn't aware of their own combos, or just don't care. And the fact their "playtesting" seems to be extremely narrow (it seems to, from people I've talked to who know folks who have done some testing, like white dwarf batreps. Here take this prebuilt army and play it against this other prebuilt army rather than build an army so you can see those broken combos) doesn't help this at all.
Karol wrote: But you are right that if the designers first assumptions is that the game is suppose to be social first, and rules are secondary or even lower on the totem pole of importance, then getting angry about something being bad only makes sense localy.
If you ever get a chance to go look at some old Rogue Trader era stuff, you'll see that Warhammer 40k was not designed to be a 'tournament competition' wargame. It was created to be a fairly basic system for moving a few dudes around and making them fight. It was a very flexible system that was really just a tool for people to use, pretty much an excuse to play a game with the cool little spaceman dudes. It was by no means a very innovative or tactically challenging system, in truth it was something that you could have little skirmish battles or you could even play it more like a very simple RPG.
The thing is, over time GW found out that people were having tournaments- which at the time were probably just for fun and the spirit of friendly competition. And then, predictably- just as it is with literally any other kind of competition, it begins to draw in individuals that will obsess over winning to the point where no price is too high... so if these guys are trying to use the system for something it's not really good for, but they're hurling money at it and they're willing to sell their own childrens' organs on the black market to buy it...
Well, let's just say if I'm selling bricks for a dollar each and you come by and tell me that those bricks are delicious and you'll take a dozen more... I'm not going to stop and say you shouldn't eat my bricks, that they're not food. Nope, I will hand you a dozen bricks and say "Enjoy your meal, sir. Do you need any napkins?"
Also, the game has bloated to the point where it's much harder to be competitive since the game isn't designed for all the things you can now take. Flyers, superheavies etc. are very polarizing. I have played in 2nd and 3rd edition when GW still had sponsored Rogue Trader Tournaments with prize support and more official GTs and it worked fairly alright then because it was a smaller game. IIRC the first GT of 3rd edition was won by a Dark Eldar (who were brand new then) list that was all mounted in Raiders. The game has grown exponentially since then and is unwieldy for competitive play, and even back then due to how the game was set up, it wasn't as bad.
I mean, at the end of the day- the competitive people with fragile egos could be presented with empirical evidence that Warhammer 40k is not designed to be balanced for fair competition... and they won't bat an eye, because that means there's always a way to have the imbalance working in their favor. I could sit here and speculate like some pseudo-psychiatrist that these individuals are absolute failures at every other aspect of their lives so they desperately strive to win at the little game of toy soldiers because if they lose that means they are 100% a loser, but I think that is probably inaccurate (but not by much in a lot of cases).
I mean, if you really want to see what kind of people your local 40k meta is? Host an event, and just watch. Host a doubles tournament for new players to partner with veteran players, and you will see veteran players drag in their disinterested girlfriend to stand there while he plays two of his armies in a tournament soup list. Host an Escalation League and watch some guy have 3 of his friends join it so he can rig all his games. Host a painting competition and wait until someone lets you know that your first place winner paid a painting service to do his model.
The best explanation of Warhammer 40k's Competitive Scene is this: You will find no shortage of people who will spend $500.00 to build a netlist for a tournament and win $50.00 store credit.
Did you ever see that advertisement around the LVO, where that one sleazeball pick-up artist huckster was charging $50.00 for "List Coaching"? I'll bet you my dead grandma's skull that he had quite a few customers, so I can't even be mad at him for exploiting people. After all, the supply meets demand.
This is still going on. Now it's $99/month (yes, per month) for a premium membreship with the group "Nights at the Game Table", who sponsors (yes, sponsors) Nick Nanavanti. The guy who runs that place (some rich business owner guy, he actually got flack a few months ago for doing a patreon or something to raise money to fund something or other when he was revealed he has a Maserati and is like pretty wealthy) is dead set on making 40k a professional sport or some gak. Also before that there was a $500 (I think it was 499?) charge to get, I gak you not, professional 40k coaching from Nick. Professional fething coaching for a fething game.
I honestly used to not be so jaded, but all it took was hosting a few events at my local FLGS (some were for charity, FFS) to make me realize that the "competitive" community of Warhammer 40k was outright destructive to gaming communities. Even guys that are competitive but still super-friendly and helpful will tell you this, which is usually why they're trying to be so friendly and helpful- so to try and make things better (and I admire that they try to do that).
In my opinion, competitive 40k in general is toxic as feth and downright cancerous for the hobby. I get a lot of flack for this but the way the competitive people approach the game is such the antithesis tohow the game is intended, that no amount of "sorry for not liking the game the way you do" excuses it. The game isn't able to really be played in this fashion and the fact that you can shoehorn it into it with ITC doesn't suddenly make it a great competitive game.
I do notice there is a vehemence against having to talk to your opponent. Usually, but always, I see this coming from people who like to build competitive style lists and the reason they hate it is because they might get asked to tone down their list or not bring the Castellan because their opponent wouldn't find that a fun game, and then they get all butthurt about it or go on a rant about how the other person needs to git gud and not stop them from fielding their Castallan because it's in the rules.
I think that specific way of talking is why I like to watch infinity being played. Its move, your reaction, move, your reaction. Kind of a like a song with repated paterns of people talking over and over again. GW games don't seem to have much of it. I don't know why, but sometimes I think w40k just sounds wrong when people play it. I don't know why though. MtG is another thing I like to watch, and again I don't know why. There is just non of the extra stuff and the rules of talking are very specific. sometimes when I play w40k, people ask me something non game related or in a strange way and my mind just does a full reset.
I don't even mind people playing with uber lists, it doesn't change much if they try to tone their stuff done or experiment with new stuff. What bothers me is when I am at home or at the store and comparing point costs of stuff vs stuff utility. Social game or not, I still don't know how GW came to the equation of a strike and a DW vet with a SS costing the same. Or maybe they don't have any formula, if w40k is suppose to be just a social event and not a game, the rules don't matter and you can just invent stuff. No testing needed, and considering they have 30 or more years to draw on, they can just copy past units, gear etc.
The thing is, over time GW found out that people were having tournaments- which at the time were probably just for fun and the spirit of friendly competition. And then, predictably- just as it is with literally any other kind of competition, it begins to draw in individuals that will obsess over winning to the point where no price is too high... so if these guys are trying to use the system for something it's not really good for, but they're hurling money at it and they're willing to sell their own childrens' organs on the black market to buy it...
I know my dad played in tournaments way back in the 90s, from his stories the game here was always serious buissnes. It just cost too much vs people income I think. And in the 90s the cost of a w40k to an avarge salary was mind blowing the avarge for 1990 was just a bit 100zl, and that is in todays money a bit over 25$. Kind of a explains why recasting is so popular even know, I think.
Wayniac wrote: I honestly feel that part of the charm of 40k (Warhammer in general) is the fact it enforces/encourages the social contract. You can't just roll up to a complete stranger, grunt out "Hey want to play 40k?" and then start unpacking (people do this, but I find it wrong).
But why is this considered charm instead of failure by GW? If, by some miracle, GW produced a well balanced game with no rules ambiguity such that you could just show up for a pickup game against a random stranger and start playing would you want GW to deliberately errata some stuff to be less balanced so that you have to have pre-game negotiation again?
That's a bizarre criterion for determining failure. How would that even be possible without standardizing both the number of points required for each game and reducing the number of available missions to one? As others have said, there's no rational way to completely eliminate all forms of pre-game negotiation, and what kind of sane person would even want that?
You persistently ignore the difference between selecting options within the game (point level, mission, etc) and negotiating over how to approach the game. Providing 10 missions to choose from is fine game design. Having such poor balance that the players have to negotiate over how many powerful list options they're allowed to take before it is "too WAAC" and "not fun" is not.
This is more intersting because it shows the designers aren't even aware of these combos, otherwise it wouldn't get through playtesting
The designers for both AOS and 40k, as well as their playtester pool, are 100% tournament gamers. I believe that they don't know that these combos exist as much as I believe that the earth is flat.
These are intentionally baked in to appeal to the SPIKE player personality.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
is dead set on making 40k a professional sport or some gak
This has been a thing since 2005 or so. It started with the indy GT circuit when GW folded their GT circuit, and a world championship with professional sponsors etc has always been the end goal.
Its just today its almost realized with streaming. In another 5-10 years, I'm going to call it that there are sponsored players making a good living doing nothing other than breaking 40k and maybe AOS if AOS gets up there.
Ben Curry and co are doing their best to make AOS a professional sport as well.
On one hand I think thats fine. On the other I realize that that just makes the SPIKE personality builds even more prevalent or at least puts them at the forefront.
Wayniac wrote: This is still going on. Now it's $99/month (yes, per month) for a premium membreship with the group "Nights at the Game Table", who sponsors (yes, sponsors) Nick Nanavanti. The guy who runs that place (some rich business owner guy, he actually got flack a few months ago for doing a patreon or something to raise money to fund something or other when he was revealed he has a Maserati and is like pretty wealthy) is dead set on making 40k a professional sport or some gak. Also before that there was a $500 (I think it was 499?) charge to get, I gak you not, professional 40k coaching from Nick. Professional fething coaching for a fXXking game.
That's the exact guy I was talking about, I couldn't remember his name. I know he's got an import-wife and a girlfriend, or maybe the other way around (which I ain't even mad about that, more power to the guy- provided that it's legit and not some stunt so the girls are trying to make him look like an awesome guy that gets two chicks every night).
And I thought the cost of his 40k coaching was $50.00, or maybe my brain saw $500.00 and recalibrated it to $50.00 so it wasn't unbelievably absurd to the point of shattering my sanity.
Then again, one of the many things I learned from a close friend who was a manager of a very high-priced clothing retail store- overpricing a product is very often a marketing tactic by itself. People will see an insanely overpriced price tag and the very audacity of it has an effect on people. A customer sees it, and can't fathom why it would cost such a ludicrous amount of money... but there must be some reason why, perhaps some hidden value he simply isn't aware of. He may ask an employee, "Hey, why are these shirts $100.00?", to which the correct response from the employee is simply "Oh, these are Brofliction shirts!" As if that somehow explains it, and it doesn't, but the customer doesn't want to seem stupid or like some uncultured and uncool slob (something shopping malls are designed to make you feel), so he nods and says "Oh, yeah, well... okay..." and assumes there's some hidden value in it, and is willing to throw down the money. By the time he realizes he's an idiot that got conned into paying $100.00 for a distressed button-down with a skull and another man's name on the back- it's too late. In fact, so he feels less stupid he'll justify it and you're the moron for not understanding why this awesome Brofliction shirt is worth at LEAST $200 and he got it for a steal.
All I can say is this- as scummy and vile as Nick may seem, he's got a supply to meet a demand. And just like I tell the guys who rage about the pretty 'fake geek girls' that make thousands of dollars off donations from incel losers... don't hate the player, hate the game because a fool and his money are soon parted. By all means, if you've got yourself a scheme to bilk pathetic morons of their money- go for it. Anyone who wants to win at spaceman war toys bad enough to throw you enough cash to buy an entirely new army deserves to hate themselves when they eat Ramen noodle dinners for a few months.
Wayniac wrote: This is still going on. Now it's $99/month (yes, per month) for a premium membreship with the group "Nights at the Game Table", who sponsors (yes, sponsors) Nick Nanavanti. The guy who runs that place (some rich business owner guy, he actually got flack a few months ago for doing a patreon or something to raise money to fund something or other when he was revealed he has a Maserati and is like pretty wealthy) is dead set on making 40k a professional sport or some gak. Also before that there was a $500 (I think it was 499?) charge to get, I gak you not, professional 40k coaching from Nick. Professional fething coaching for a fXXking game.
That's the exact guy I was talking about, I couldn't remember his name. I know he's got an import-wife and a girlfriend, or maybe the other way around (which I ain't even mad about that, more power to the guy- provided that it's legit and not some stunt so the girls are trying to make him look like an awesome guy that gets two chicks every night).
And I thought the cost of his 40k coaching was $50.00, or maybe my brain saw $500.00 and recalibrated it to $50.00 so it wasn't unbelievably absurd to the point of shattering my sanity.
There are two different people here, you're confusing them. Nick himself was charging various prices for coaching (ranging from like $15 for a list critique up to I think like a few hundred for coaching). The other guy (Adam something, forget his last name) is the rich dude with the wife and/or girlfriend who is trying to make 40k into a sport with professional sponsorships and who now sponsors Nick and the cost for that is $99/month which includes like a monthly conference call. I don't fault Nick himself for the stuff (although the ridiculous "coaching" part was just silly), because I could actually see if you were going to a tournament like pay a little bit to have legit list advice from a top player. It's the "super secret members-only club" nonsense which feels like taking the piss especially because everything else I saw from that area was just the same sort of stuff you can get for free elsewhere (barring the "advice from the world champion" crap). I had a regular membership ($15/month I think?) for a while when it was just starting out to see what it was all about but nothing was there that I couldn't get for free elsewhere so I unsubbed. I'd rather pay $15/month for an MMO that I'll get use out of than a "members only" site with (at the time) amateur casual batreps and painting/reviews that you can get the equivalent of on Youtube for free.
Also @Auticus, I don't think the 40k team is tournament players. The AOS team yes, but the 40k team is still the same bunch of "forge the narrative" guys from the Kirby era I'm pretty sure. Robin Cruddace, Simon Grant, I forget who else. All the, as our favorite bird might say, CAAC people. It's AOS who has the design team made up of the competitive guys.
Not sure if people find it funny, but "forge the narrative" in my country has a different meaning. Same as power gamer. A power games is a good player with good list, something to be envied. And forge the narrative is used for stuff like making fun of other people that their army doesn't work, or that they don't know how to play.
Makes it funny when you see posts from polish people on the GW face book, sometimes.
Karol wrote: Not sure if people find it funny, but "forge the narrative" in my country has a different meaning. Same as power gamer. A power games is a good player with good list, something to be envied. And forge the narrative is used for stuff like making fun of other people that their army doesn't work, or that they don't know how to play.
Makes it funny when you see posts from polish people on the GW face book, sometimes.
LOL I believe I've mostly seen it used as an insulting term like to excuse the game having gak rules. Just "forge the narrative" is basically saying houserule away all the problems/talk with your opponent to fix the issues.
What makes it funnier is there is a podcast called Forge the Narrative that's like a complete competitive/tournament type podcast, the opposite of what "forge the narrative" means.
Karol wrote: Well I think the problem is that in a lot of places you can either play some sort of warhammer or not play at all. But I could be wrong. We have 4 infinity players, and one of them brings all the terrain for the game, they never play with the GW ones. And they look realy nice, he even has small scifi cars and mini stores and chinese joint that looks like an actual take out box with a naked lady behind the counter.
But you are right that if the designers first assumptions is that the game is suppose to be social first, and rules are secondary or even lower on the totem pole of importance, then getting angry about something being bad only makes sense localy.
Like lets say someone plays only ITC games, with ITC scenarios, such a person could be upset that his army is good when played outside of ITC, or has units that work really well again outside of ITC. But him being upset about it doesn't lend itself as an argument for W40k is bad everywhere around the world. I mean I kind of a get now why some people say that GK are a good army. Good army is not good good, but good to play against. It doesn't even matter what kind of an army is being played as long as the opponent is someone you like to spend time with.
Kind of a does suck for people who dislike spending time with other people in general LoL.
I do notice there is a vehemence against having to talk to your opponent. Usually, but always, I see this coming from people who like to build competitive style lists and the reason they hate it is because they might get asked to tone down their list or not bring the Castellan because their opponent wouldn't find that a fun game, and then they get all butthurt about it or go on a rant about how the other person needs to git gud and not stop them from fielding their Castallan because it's in the rules.
Maybe because we are still fielding a legal list?
Also why are we obligated to tone down? Why can't you bring a good list that will actually give a challenge instead of bland "one of everything!!!!1!" armies?
Karol wrote: Well I think the problem is that in a lot of places you can either play some sort of warhammer or not play at all. But I could be wrong. We have 4 infinity players, and one of them brings all the terrain for the game, they never play with the GW ones. And they look realy nice, he even has small scifi cars and mini stores and chinese joint that looks like an actual take out box with a naked lady behind the counter.
But you are right that if the designers first assumptions is that the game is suppose to be social first, and rules are secondary or even lower on the totem pole of importance, then getting angry about something being bad only makes sense localy.
Like lets say someone plays only ITC games, with ITC scenarios, such a person could be upset that his army is good when played outside of ITC, or has units that work really well again outside of ITC. But him being upset about it doesn't lend itself as an argument for W40k is bad everywhere around the world. I mean I kind of a get now why some people say that GK are a good army. Good army is not good good, but good to play against. It doesn't even matter what kind of an army is being played as long as the opponent is someone you like to spend time with.
Kind of a does suck for people who dislike spending time with other people in general LoL.
I do notice there is a vehemence against having to talk to your opponent. Usually, but always, I see this coming from people who like to build competitive style lists and the reason they hate it is because they might get asked to tone down their list or not bring the Castellan because their opponent wouldn't find that a fun game, and then they get all butthurt about it or go on a rant about how the other person needs to git gud and not stop them from fielding their Castallan because it's in the rules.
Maybe because we are still fielding a legal list?
Also why are we obligated to tone down? Why can't you bring a good list that will actually give a challenge instead of bland "one of everything!!!!1!" armies?
This seems to always be the line in the sand. Who is the one who should compromise? The person who is bringing a competitive tournament list, or the person who is bringing a themed list based around the models they like?
It's AOS who has the design team made up of the competitive guys.
Fair enough but the same issues exist in both games, so if AOS is the competitive tourney guys and 40k is the CAAC guys, they are both producing the same issue which means to me its deliberate. Thats what I get out of it anyway.
Also @Auticus, I don't think the 40k team is tournament players. The AOS team yes, but the 40k team is still the same bunch of "forge the narrative" guys from the Kirby era I'm pretty sure. Robin Cruddace, Simon Grant, I forget who else. All the, as our favorite bird might say, CAAC people. It's AOS who has the design team made up of the competitive guys.
I'm pretty certain its the same "designers" rules writers for both AoS and 40k. The difference is half the team lead one project while the other half do the other project. Cruddace is lead rules for 40k but you have phill kelly, simon grant, jervis johnson and a couple of others. Only 6 of em. The difference is that they pay competitive players from both games to playtest for them and feedback and tweak the rules. For 40k they have a lot of playtesters like Reece and Mike brandt who both comp players and successful tournament organisers. These competitive minded players are responsible for the rules we have now.
A pro 40k circuit is only functional if there is enough people following it and watching live games online. As much as people here appear to hate this idea its not gonna slow this thing down. The numbers of people streaming live games on twitch just keep growing. The number of people attending 40k tournaments just keeps growing. The GW model sales...(you guessed it!) JUST KEEPS GROWING. GW would have to be stupid not to want to tap into this for the revenue it makes. This pro mentality sells models just like sponsoring a famous football player to wear special shoes will sell more shoes.
So many competitive minded players are running podcasts to support the game. Look at best in faction podcast where the host is a card carrying member of Nick Nanavati's coaching secret society. These same podcast hosts are then making money their own money patreon and people are paying! The amount of money spinning around 40k is getting a little crazy now but really, how bad is that? Why it bothers so many people confuses me.
It has little to no impact on my friday night game with my buddies.
"Maybe because we are still fielding a legal list?"
That's perfectly fine, if you're playing a legally-regulated match.
Not so perfectly fine, if you're playing a socially-regulated match.
Imagine going down to a local basketball court. You ask the people to play a pickup game. A bunch of random not-terribly-fit not-terribly-athletic people take you up on it. They agree to play you and your friends. You then bring in Kobe, Jordan, etc.
Sure, those randos might enjoy playing that game once to see how the big-shots play. But they certainly wouldn't enjoy running into that every week, every game.
Now, in this scenario, you didn't break any "legal" rules of basketball. But you ruined the game for everyone involved but you.
40k can be similar. You go to a major tournament? Bring whatever you can to do well. You're playing a PuG against people who just like to throw the ball around? Don't bring an NBA all-star team.
If you do, those randos who want to play pug basketball games will stop showing up. And so you've destroyed the meta.
Automatically Appended Next Post: "Also why are we obligated to tone down?"
You're not obligated to tone down. You're not obligated to play.
But they are not obligated to play you, either.
"Why can't you bring a good list that will actually give a challenge instead of bland "one of everything!!!!1!" armies?"
Because:
a) They want to see *their* army on the table, not some netlist hodgepodge
b) They want a more interesting game than just a rerun of whatever happened at the top tables last tourny
c) They enjoy how the game plays with more spicy unit selection instead of bland netlists repeating the same game every time
d) They don't have / can't reasonably get a FOTM army right now
e) Or maybe they just aren't good.
You're not obligated to play their game. Why would *they* be obligated to play *your* game?
It bothers a lot of people because it further cements the idea that playing properly means playing optimally (which by itself is fine) but which also means ignoring 90% or so of the model line to play optimally (which is where the problem comes in).
If you have a private playgroup that doesn't care about the optimal builds, you are not touched by this.
However if your games come from going down to your FLGS or GW store, and thats the culture there, you have to either do it too, or eat your investment and go away. So that causes issues, and those issues are complained about.
If the game was better balanced, this schism would not be as bad.
External balance is bad because not every faction is viable at all. In both game systems (despite the tourney guys saying AOS is in a great place because the top 10 has a lot of armies, it still is only a fraction of the factions)
Internal balance is even worse because even if your faction does have a solid way to play optimally, the builds are narrow and exclude so much of the game to get there.
Both internal and external need looked at, and seriously. You have dozens of novels highliighting things like Tactical Marines and Chaos Space Marines, but if you use those in the game you are at a huge disadvantage. Things like that. They need to address those issues. Otherwise they are not following their own narrative, and they are perpetuating the schism.
I see we're at the point of the thread where we demonstrate the double standard of rule #1 where insulting CAAC players gets you banned, but feel free to rant about tournament players being "scummy and vile" for selling service or "pathetic morons" for buying it.
I think that specific way of talking is why I like to watch infinity being played. Its move, your reaction, move, your reaction. Kind of a like a song with repated paterns of people talking over and over again. GW games don't seem to have much of it. I don't know why, but sometimes I think w40k just sounds wrong when people play it. I don't know why though. MtG is another thing I like to watch, and again I don't know why. There is just non of the extra stuff and the rules of talking are very specific. sometimes when I play w40k, people ask me something non game related or in a strange way and my mind just does a full reset.
I play 40k an added in). Also mtg has actual rules and theres no interaction in the game that doesnt have clear rules associated with, there is none of the RAW vs RAI crap that 40k has (also the rules are constantly updated, meaning that you dont get the same problem that 40k has with the rules being split between tons of different books)d MTG and the main difference between the games is that in mtg both players can play during the same turn, interacting with the board is constant. in 40k when its your opponent's turn it basically means that youre waiting (with some minimal dicerolling
Try AOS where they put in a double turn so your opponent can go twice in a row. You get to sit there for two whole turns doing nothing but removing models.
It bothers a lot of people because it further cements the idea that playing properly means playing optimally (which by itself is fine) but which also means ignoring 90% or so of the model line to play optimally (which is where the problem comes in).
In matched play absolutely. Playing a game between two people that are competing to win with objective win conditions laid out in the rules framework then playing properly is unavoidably playing optimally. The fact that so many codexes have so many units that are sub-optimal in the current ruleset is an aspect of legacy issues. GW ostensibly has multiple versions of the game in matched, narrative and open and the codex caters to all of those. It is perfectly reasonable that in matched play some units are garbage but if you want to play them go nuts in narrative and open, thats your game to do it.
It is definitely a problem that new players buying into the game can make choices in the rule of cool that turn out to be bad in competitive meta's but this isn't the fault of competitive gaming. This is where external balance fails us as a community and GW must fix this IMO.
However if your games come from going down to your FLGS or GW store, and thats the culture there, you have to either do it too, or eat your investment and go away. So that causes issues, and those issues are complained about.
There is a third option. If you don't like the game culture and you don't want to eat your investment then do this,
If you have a private playgroup that doesn't care about the optimal builds, you are not touched by this.
If you don't have a like minded group of players and you do not like competitive gaming and you can't find casual players in your local gaming meta the problem might not be the game it might be that you have too many restrictions.
Adeptus Doritos wrote: I honestly used to not be so jaded, but all it took was hosting a few events at my local FLGS (some were for charity, FFS) to make me realize that the "competitive" community of Warhammer 40k was outright destructive to gaming communities. Even guys that are competitive but still super-friendly and helpful will tell you this, which is usually why they're trying to be so friendly and helpful- so to try and make things better (and I admire that they try to do that).
In my opinion, competitive 40k in general is toxic as feth and downright cancerous for the hobby. I get a lot of flack for this but the way the competitive people approach the game is such the antithesis tohow the game is intended, that no amount of "sorry for not liking the game the way you do" excuses it. The game isn't able to really be played in this fashion and the fact that you can shoehorn it into it with ITC doesn't suddenly make it a great competitive game.
Honestly, attitudes like these are the most toxic thing in the 40k community at the moment, as far as I can tell. I'm a competitive player in the UK (I don't play ITC) and I have fun playing down my local FLGS as well as at the big tournaments. I use the most powerful list I can for a tournament and have a great time with a community that I know and like. You get to know your fellow tournament gamers and look forward to seeing them and finding out how they are doing. I've seen some of the attitudes that you guys describe, but not from competitive players that one sees at event after event, they are usually from local level 'big fish' who just like to throw their weight around (from my stance a type of casual player that takes competitive style lists, but doesn't play competitive games).
When playing down my local I take 2 armies, unless I have prearranged a game, as well as my Kill Team force. Depending on what level my opponent wants to play at I break out the appropriate force (one is tournament strong the other is casual ok/weak). I have great games with other competitive players as well as the most narrative-driven, don't care about the rules players we have. I prefer playing competitively and I always play to win, even when toning down my list and I don't see how this makes me toxic as feth and downright cancerous. On the whole, I find the competitive community a pretty welcoming one, with some outliers, much like the casual community.
It bothers a lot of people because it further cements the idea that playing properly means playing optimally (which by itself is fine) but which also means ignoring 90% or so of the model line to play optimally (which is where the problem comes in).
In matched play absolutely. Playing a game between two people that are competing to win with objective win conditions laid out in the rules framework then playing properly is unavoidably playing optimally. The fact that so many codexes have so many units that are sub-optimal in the current ruleset is an aspect of legacy issues. GW ostensibly has multiple versions of the game in matched, narrative and open and the codex caters to all of those. It is perfectly reasonable that in matched play some units are garbage but if you want to play them go nuts in narrative and open, thats your game to do it.
And the issue with this is that Narrative and Open are such a tiny minority that this can't be the norm. Matched Play is, by and large, the default style. The others might as well not exist since they are such a tiny fraction of games played. So what you are basically saying is that it's okay some units are garbage in the vast, vast majority of situations across the majority of games played (and yes, I do agree this is largely a player problem for making Matched Play the go-to default, but it's also GW's fault for trying to push the idea that Matched Play is for any sort of balance, and the others are for not. It's like saying Option A guarantees you a good meal, Option B or C might get you a good meal if you cook it right but it might also be poison. The vast majority will pick Option A). That's just not acceptable. Besides, there is a difference between matched play and competitive play, despite GW lumping them together.
If you have a private playgroup that doesn't care about the optimal builds, you are not touched by this. If you don't have a like minded group of players and you do not like competitive gaming and you can't find casual players in your local gaming meta the problem might not be the game it might be that you have too many restrictions.
This just sounds like another "git gud" argument. e.g. "Don't restrict yourself to liking space marines if they are bad in the game, don't take them even if you like them"
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Maybe because we are still fielding a legal list?
Also why are we obligated to tone down? Why can't you bring a good list that will actually give a challenge instead of bland "one of everything!!!!1!" armies?
Personally, as a competitive player, I relish taking weak lists and learning to play better. If you can do well with only Basic Marines versus a Knight, then you will do even better with a competitive list. So if your opponent wants to play a really weak list, my advice (if you are a competitive player) is bring something even weaker and see if you are up to the challenge. You'll get better at the game and probably have fun at the same time.
To answer your question though, you aren't obligated to do anything, the argument is a simple and logical one:
Premise 1: You want to play 40k Premise 2: You want to have fun
Premise 3: Your opponent wants to play 40k Premise 4: Your opponent wants to have fun
Premise 5: Playing against a competitive list is not fun for your opponent
Conclusion 1: You have a choice of not playing that person or toning down your list.
Let's add:
Premise 6: You can only have fun with a competitive list
Bharring wrote: "Maybe because we are still fielding a legal list?"
That's perfectly fine, if you're playing a legally-regulated match.
Not so perfectly fine, if you're playing a socially-regulated match.
Imagine going down to a local basketball court. You ask the people to play a pickup game. A bunch of random not-terribly-fit not-terribly-athletic people take you up on it. They agree to play you and your friends. You then bring in Kobe, Jordan, etc.
Sure, those randos might enjoy playing that game once to see how the big-shots play. But they certainly wouldn't enjoy running into that every week, every game.
Now, in this scenario, you didn't break any "legal" rules of basketball. But you ruined the game for everyone involved but you.
40k can be similar. You go to a major tournament? Bring whatever you can to do well. You're playing a PuG against people who just like to throw the ball around? Don't bring an NBA all-star team.
If you do, those randos who want to play pug basketball games will stop showing up. And so you've destroyed the meta.
Automatically Appended Next Post: "Also why are we obligated to tone down?"
You're not obligated to tone down. You're not obligated to play.
But they are not obligated to play you, either.
"Why can't you bring a good list that will actually give a challenge instead of bland "one of everything!!!!1!" armies?"
Because:
a) They want to see *their* army on the table, not some netlist hodgepodge
b) They want a more interesting game than just a rerun of whatever happened at the top tables last tourny
c) They enjoy how the game plays with more spicy unit selection instead of bland netlists repeating the same game every time
d) They don't have / can't reasonably get a FOTM army right now
e) Or maybe they just aren't good.
You're not obligated to play their game. Why would *they* be obligated to play *your* game?
All matches are legally regulated as long as you follow the basic rules for list construction. "Social regulation" is merely limits in your own head.
If those basketball players are my friends, so be it.
Also I love the whole "netlist" argument, the ultimate sign of virtue signaling. Spoiler Alert: all "netlists" were original creations, and it isn't like GW said "play this!" and made them. People say down and actually wrote them. It's good to learn how to counter them and play it out. It you don't want that, too bad for you.
It bothers a lot of people because it further cements the idea that playing properly means playing optimally (which by itself is fine) but which also means ignoring 90% or so of the model line to play optimally (which is where the problem comes in).
In matched play absolutely. Playing a game between two people that are competing to win with objective win conditions laid out in the rules framework then playing properly is unavoidably playing optimally. The fact that so many codexes have so many units that are sub-optimal in the current ruleset is an aspect of legacy issues. GW ostensibly has multiple versions of the game in matched, narrative and open and the codex caters to all of those. It is perfectly reasonable that in matched play some units are garbage but if you want to play them go nuts in narrative and open, thats your game to do it.
And the issue with this is that Narrative and Open are such a tiny minority that this can't be the norm. Matched Play is, by and large, the default style. The others might as well not exist since they are such a tiny fraction of games played. So what you are basically saying is that it's okay some units are garbage in the vast, vast majority of situations across the majority of games played (and yes, I do agree this is largely a player problem for making Matched Play the go-to default, but it's also GW's fault for trying to push the idea that Matched Play is for any sort of balance, and the others are for not. It's like saying Option A guarantees you a good meal, Option B or C might get you a good meal if you cook it right but it might also be poison. The vast majority will pick Option A). That's just not acceptable. Besides, there is a difference between matched play and competitive play, despite GW lumping them together.
If you have a private playgroup that doesn't care about the optimal builds, you are not touched by this.
If you don't have a like minded group of players and you do not like competitive gaming and you can't find casual players in your local gaming meta the problem might not be the game it might be that you have too many restrictions.
This just sounds like another "git gud" argument. e.g. "Don't restrict yourself to liking space marines if they are bad in the game, don't take them even if you like them"
The narrative and open play don't exist because the rules for them are written worse than the match play.
If you have a private playgroup that doesn't care about the optimal builds, you are not touched by this.
If you don't have a like minded group of players and you do not like competitive gaming and you can't find casual players in your local gaming meta the problem might not be the game it might be that you have too many restrictions.
This just sounds like another "git gud" argument. e.g. "Don't restrict yourself to liking space marines if they are bad in the game, don't take them even if you like them"
It might sound like it to you but it wasn't my intended point.
If the thing that you loved about 40k changed and the players around you changed to adapt to it and you didn't then you want to blame that change for being the problem. No one is talking about how good anyone else is at 40k. The Git Gud argument only applies to people who try to engage in competitive play and then complain that they couldn't beat anyone because ...XYZ. Thats not the case here.
From the only metric that matters to GW (Sales revenue) the game is in a really good place right now. We on Dakka used to argue that they didn't make any attempts at market research and they didn't engage with their customers and playerbase. That has clearly changed. They are delivering now on the things that the majority of people wanted. They can see directly through their sales that competitive 40k is driving purchases so they are doubling down on that. The vast majority of 40k players are probablly not competitive and play in their own social circles and aren't affected by the changes that much. The next largest groupd play competitively and are for the most part happy with the changes. that leaves the group of people who are stuck in the middle that don't like these changes and its a sad truth for those people that the game no longer fits their expectations. There's a sad truth in it for those players, adapt or quit.
Drager wrote: Honestly, attitudes like these are the most toxic thing in the 40k community at the moment, as far as I can tell...
...On the whole, I find the competitive community a pretty welcoming one, with some outliers, much like the casual community.
Okay, I think Wayniac and I would both say you are one of the 'good competitive guys'. I have a friend that's a bit like you, it's his gig to put down a super-powerful list for a tournament- but he makes it clear he wants to play a tournament list with someone, and if they don't feel like they can go up against that, he'll go and bang up a fun fluffy list or run a narrative game. He's also always willing to help people take their army and get more out of it and show them tricks to help them improve their game. So he, just like you, are not "toxic".
But, overall as a whole- my experience and very likely Wayniac's experience with the community is what is toxic.
Let's put it this way, I'll use a personal anecdote:
Shop A is a casual place with Escalation Leagues and Tournaments being just as common as painting/modeling competitions, narrative story games, and fun goofy scenarios. It was pretty much an "all-rounder" kind of atmosphere, and no matter what you really enjoyed about 40k as a hobby- you could find yourself having fun there.
Shop B was the more competitive place. The store had tournaments often, and the guys that played there took it very seriously and their focus was competitive play. There wasn't very much of a 'hobby' side there- they store owner didn't even allow building or painting in his shop, because that was space that could be used for another game table or more merch. Overall, if you wanted to kick your game up seriously- this is where you went.
Sounds like a great balance, right? Everyone's got their thing, so it seems like everyone's got a place to go to fit in. Well, yeah... but here's the problem...
Shop B had competitive players, and the thing about being competitive is that you want to win. And some of the guys there that weren't winning as often as they'd like began to get fed up with it. So, they decided to gravitate towards a more casual meta at Shop A. Of course, some of these guys were decent and just wanted to get away from the stressful competitive Shop- but they had a very hard time turning down their own competitive nature, and brought it to casual games.
A few others had every intention of playing the same way at Shop B- so they would come in and try to tell casual players they were 'just wanting a friendly game' and 'hated the competitive stuff'... but their list and playstyle said otherwise. They were just trying to get an easy win on an unsuspecting casual player. Not only that, but when new players came in- these guys zeroed in on them, and if the experience didn't drive away the new player it just created another competitive player.
Fast forward a couple of months, and the very same thing that was happening at Shop B was now happening at Shop A. All of the casual and friendly players were simply not playing- it was impossible for them to enjoy a fun game with a friend when you were surrounded by Competitive Players that were trying to coach you or take apart your lists. None of the tournaments were worth playing because the same guys would always haul in some FotM Netlist and score an easy win. Even when players tried to shift over to a different game to get away from them, the competitive players followed because they had to be beating someone at something all the time.
People just stopped going to Shop A. A lot of them went and built their own tables at home in the garage. And when they did that, they stopped buying from the store because it's just as easy to order things to your doorstep. I've not seen some of these people since they competitive infestation happened.
And then there's Shop C. A very much "hobby" focused shop with most games just being an excuse to play with your models after you finish customizing and painting them. Shop C put away their gaming tables to avoid this stuff coming and running them out.
So, while things eventually righted themselves once the Competitive guys had no one but each other to play with once again- it was still very much something that made a lot of players feel like they had been invaded. A lot of them felt like these guys screwed up their own shop and then came over and screwed another one up and it made them feel unwelcome, and they didn't want to waste their recreational time with that kind of environment. The damage has never fully healed.
So, while you and many others are not 'toxic'- what can be brought in with you unintentionally, or following at your heels may very well be. And people know it's not deliberate, but they tend to try and gatekeep a place where they feel comfortable and I can hardly blame them.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Also I love the whole "netlist" argument, the ultimate sign of virtue signaling. Spoiler Alert: all "netlists" were original creations, and it isn't like GW said "play this!" and made them. People say down and actually wrote them. It's good to learn how to counter them and play it out. It you don't want that, too bad for you.
Reading up on a netlist to figure out how to counter it is good.
Using a netlist with the excuse that it's an original creation is like handing in a research paper to your professor that's a copypasta from Wikipedia and saying "Well it was researched, and sourced- it was just done by another person so I still get credit."
Ok, maybe top end tournament lists do require some in depth soul searching and real meta knowladge. But good list for a store, or just seeing what unit could potentially be very good is, I think at least that way, not that hard to spot. Specially if a unit comes with a set of rules that are hot in a given setting.
I mean how long did it take for people to realise that the ravellan is kind of a good. Or when all re-rolling Gulliman was the rage with cheap razorbacks and stormravens.
I can imagine that some rare played armies can have hidden gems or combos too.
Drager wrote: Honestly, attitudes like these are the most toxic thing in the 40k community at the moment, as far as I can tell...
...On the whole, I find the competitive community a pretty welcoming one, with some outliers, much like the casual community.
Okay, I think Wayniac and I would both say you are one of the 'good competitive guys'. I have a friend that's a bit like you, it's his gig to put down a super-powerful list for a tournament- but he makes it clear he wants to play a tournament list with someone, and if they don't feel like they can go up against that, he'll go and bang up a fun fluffy list or run a narrative game. He's also always willing to help people take their army and get more out of it and show them tricks to help them improve their game. So he, just like you, are not "toxic".
But, overall as a whole- my experience and very likely Wayniac's experience with the community is what is toxic.
Let's put it this way, I'll use a personal anecdote:
Shop A is a casual place with Escalation Leagues and Tournaments being just as common as painting/modeling competitions, narrative story games, and fun goofy scenarios. It was pretty much an "all-rounder" kind of atmosphere, and no matter what you really enjoyed about 40k as a hobby- you could find yourself having fun there.
Shop B was the more competitive place. The store had tournaments often, and the guys that played there took it very seriously and their focus was competitive play. There wasn't very much of a 'hobby' side there- they store owner didn't even allow building or painting in his shop, because that was space that could be used for another game table or more merch. Overall, if you wanted to kick your game up seriously- this is where you went.
Sounds like a great balance, right? Everyone's got their thing, so it seems like everyone's got a place to go to fit in. Well, yeah... but here's the problem...
Shop B had competitive players, and the thing about being competitive is that you want to win. And some of the guys there that weren't winning as often as they'd like began to get fed up with it. So, they decided to gravitate towards a more casual meta at Shop A. Of course, some of these guys were decent and just wanted to get away from the stressful competitive Shop- but they had a very hard time turning down their own competitive nature, and brought it to casual games.
A few others had every intention of playing the same way at Shop B- so they would come in and try to tell casual players they were 'just wanting a friendly game' and 'hated the competitive stuff'... but their list and playstyle said otherwise. They were just trying to get an easy win on an unsuspecting casual player. Not only that, but when new players came in- these guys zeroed in on them, and if the experience didn't drive away the new player it just created another competitive player.
Fast forward a couple of months, and the very same thing that was happening at Shop B was now happening at Shop A. All of the casual and friendly players were simply not playing- it was impossible for them to enjoy a fun game with a friend when you were surrounded by Competitive Players that were trying to coach you or take apart your lists. None of the tournaments were worth playing because the same guys would always haul in some FotM Netlist and score an easy win. Even when players tried to shift over to a different game to get away from them, the competitive players followed because they had to be beating someone at something all the time.
People just stopped going to Shop A. A lot of them went and built their own tables at home in the garage. And when they did that, they stopped buying from the store because it's just as easy to order things to your doorstep. I've not seen some of these people since they competitive infestation happened.
And then there's Shop C. A very much "hobby" focused shop with most games just being an excuse to play with your models after you finish customizing and painting them. Shop C put away their gaming tables to avoid this stuff coming and running them out.
So, while things eventually righted themselves once the Competitive guys had no one but each other to play with once again- it was still very much something that made a lot of players feel like they had been invaded. A lot of them felt like these guys screwed up their own shop and then came over and screwed another one up and it made them feel unwelcome, and they didn't want to waste their recreational time with that kind of environment. The damage has never fully healed.
So, while you and many others are not 'toxic'- what can be brought in with you unintentionally, or following at your heels may very well be. And people know it's not deliberate, but they tend to try and gatekeep a place where they feel comfortable and I can hardly blame them.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Also I love the whole "netlist" argument, the ultimate sign of virtue signaling. Spoiler Alert: all "netlists" were original creations, and it isn't like GW said "play this!" and made them. People say down and actually wrote them. It's good to learn how to counter them and play it out. It you don't want that, too bad for you.
Reading up on a netlist to figure out how to counter it is good.
Using a netlist with the excuse that it's an original creation is like handing in a research paper to your professor that's a copypasta from Wikipedia and saying "Well it was researched, and sourced- it was just done by another person so I still get credit."
This is a great post, that not only illustrates how "solely competitive" players shallow communities, but also how "90% of people only ever play Matched" myth comes to life - I'm willing to bet on that some of those players, that you haven't seen after "shop A infestation" because they left to their garages actually introduced some new people to 40K afterwards and nurture "their way of fun" far away from FLGSs, dakka polls or online communites as a whole, as there is actually very little to discuss with strangers once you disconnect from "the meta". And why, despite all that grind about how narrative content is useless crap that nobody ever touches, FW published so many campaign IA books and GW dedicated a third of their developers time to Narrative.
Drager wrote: Honestly, attitudes like these are the most toxic thing in the 40k community at the moment, as far as I can tell...
...On the whole, I find the competitive community a pretty welcoming one, with some outliers, much like the casual community.
Okay, I think Wayniac and I would both say you are one of the 'good competitive guys'. I have a friend that's a bit like you, it's his gig to put down a super-powerful list for a tournament- but he makes it clear he wants to play a tournament list with someone, and if they don't feel like they can go up against that, he'll go and bang up a fun fluffy list or run a narrative game. He's also always willing to help people take their army and get more out of it and show them tricks to help them improve their game. So he, just like you, are not "toxic".
But, overall as a whole- my experience and very likely Wayniac's experience with the community is what is toxic.
Let's put it this way, I'll use a personal anecdote:
Shop A is a casual place with Escalation Leagues and Tournaments being just as common as painting/modeling competitions, narrative story games, and fun goofy scenarios. It was pretty much an "all-rounder" kind of atmosphere, and no matter what you really enjoyed about 40k as a hobby- you could find yourself having fun there.
Shop B was the more competitive place. The store had tournaments often, and the guys that played there took it very seriously and their focus was competitive play. There wasn't very much of a 'hobby' side there- they store owner didn't even allow building or painting in his shop, because that was space that could be used for another game table or more merch. Overall, if you wanted to kick your game up seriously- this is where you went.
Sounds like a great balance, right? Everyone's got their thing, so it seems like everyone's got a place to go to fit in. Well, yeah... but here's the problem...
Shop B had competitive players, and the thing about being competitive is that you want to win. And some of the guys there that weren't winning as often as they'd like began to get fed up with it. So, they decided to gravitate towards a more casual meta at Shop A. Of course, some of these guys were decent and just wanted to get away from the stressful competitive Shop- but they had a very hard time turning down their own competitive nature, and brought it to casual games.
A few others had every intention of playing the same way at Shop B- so they would come in and try to tell casual players they were 'just wanting a friendly game' and 'hated the competitive stuff'... but their list and playstyle said otherwise. They were just trying to get an easy win on an unsuspecting casual player. Not only that, but when new players came in- these guys zeroed in on them, and if the experience didn't drive away the new player it just created another competitive player.
Fast forward a couple of months, and the very same thing that was happening at Shop B was now happening at Shop A. All of the casual and friendly players were simply not playing- it was impossible for them to enjoy a fun game with a friend when you were surrounded by Competitive Players that were trying to coach you or take apart your lists. None of the tournaments were worth playing because the same guys would always haul in some FotM Netlist and score an easy win. Even when players tried to shift over to a different game to get away from them, the competitive players followed because they had to be beating someone at something all the time.
People just stopped going to Shop A. A lot of them went and built their own tables at home in the garage. And when they did that, they stopped buying from the store because it's just as easy to order things to your doorstep. I've not seen some of these people since they competitive infestation happened.
And then there's Shop C. A very much "hobby" focused shop with most games just being an excuse to play with your models after you finish customizing and painting them. Shop C put away their gaming tables to avoid this stuff coming and running them out.
So, while things eventually righted themselves once the Competitive guys had no one but each other to play with once again- it was still very much something that made a lot of players feel like they had been invaded. A lot of them felt like these guys screwed up their own shop and then came over and screwed another one up and it made them feel unwelcome, and they didn't want to waste their recreational time with that kind of environment. The damage has never fully healed.
So, while you and many others are not 'toxic'- what can be brought in with you unintentionally, or following at your heels may very well be. And people know it's not deliberate, but they tend to try and gatekeep a place where they feel comfortable and I can hardly blame them.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Also I love the whole "netlist" argument, the ultimate sign of virtue signaling. Spoiler Alert: all "netlists" were original creations, and it isn't like GW said "play this!" and made them. People say down and actually wrote them. It's good to learn how to counter them and play it out. It you don't want that, too bad for you.
Reading up on a netlist to figure out how to counter it is good.
Using a netlist with the excuse that it's an original creation is like handing in a research paper to your professor that's a copypasta from Wikipedia and saying "Well it was researched, and sourced- it was just done by another person so I still get credit."
You can't possibly think nobody came up with the same list twice. There's only so many units in this game compared to the number of words to actually claim plagiarism. I worked at a university so I would know.
Also playing a list helps you understand it as well. You do realize that?
nou wrote: This is a great post, that not only illustrates how "solely competitive" players shallow communities, but also how "90% of people only ever play Matched" myth comes to life - I'm willing to bet on that some of those players, that you haven't seen after "shop A infestation" because they left to their garages actually introduced some new people to 40K afterwards and nurture "their way of fun" far away from FLGSs, dakka polls or online communites as a whole, as there is actually very little to discuss with strangers once you disconnect from "the meta". And why, despite all that grind about how narrative content is useless crap that nobody ever touches, FW published so many campaign IA books and GW dedicated a third of their developers time to Narrative.
I can tell you I've met a lot of players who only know 40k as a competitive game, because that's all they've been exposed to. They simply do not know any other way to play the game, because when no other option presents itself, the idea of a "narrative game" or a "made-up scenario using the core mechanics" is an entirely alien concept. I've actually encountered lots of people whose only impression of 40k is the hyper-competitive aspect, and they believed that was simply what 40k was supposed to be and had absolutely no desire to be a part of that- after all, if you want that kind of thing you can just go play M:tG and you don't end up with glue on your fingers.
I am a part of a private club, and despite how much I enjoy being in a private club- I understand fully what being a complete isolationist group does to the overall communities of gamers- if all that's left are the competitive bro-players, then it either turns off new players or creates more competitive bro-players. Due to that, we actively 'scout' local places to find like-minded people and bring them into it, and the look on their faces when they see a completely different aspect of the game- and the absolute relief when you hear one of them say, "You know it's nice to buy and use the models I think are cool, instead of the ones I 'need' to stay competitive". I can honestly say that once I got away from the competitive groups, and started buying the stuff I wanted rather than throwing money into a plastic arms race... I realized "Oh, hey- I can afford to buy some terrain now. I can spend time doing conversions and making fun stuff. My painting is much better when I'm working on models I like."
What really changed my mind was getting my hands on a copy of Rogue Trader and seeing what the game was then, and then realizing that it's completely different from what it became and it lost quite a bit of the original intent. I'll be the first to say a lot of the stuff in Rogue Trader is showing its age, it's silly and kind of dumb in some ways, and there have been a lot of changes since then that really were for the best... but I hate that it drifted away from being a system designed to facilitate basic fun with models.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Also playing a list helps you understand it as well. You do realize that?
I'm sure it does, I simply do not care enough to do so. And the more aggressively you defend it, the more assured I am that what I'm doing is the absolute best thing for my own recreation.
You're welcome to keep going, and keep lashing out- but at this point you're just serving as confirmation and not persuasion.
Drager wrote: Honestly, attitudes like these are the most toxic thing in the 40k community at the moment, as far as I can tell...
...On the whole, I find the competitive community a pretty welcoming one, with some outliers, much like the casual community.
Okay, I think Wayniac and I would both say you are one of the 'good competitive guys'. I have a friend that's a bit like you, it's his gig to put down a super-powerful list for a tournament- but he makes it clear he wants to play a tournament list with someone, and if they don't feel like they can go up against that, he'll go and bang up a fun fluffy list or run a narrative game. He's also always willing to help people take their army and get more out of it and show them tricks to help them improve their game. So he, just like you, are not "toxic".
But, overall as a whole- my experience and very likely Wayniac's experience with the community is what is toxic.
Let's put it this way, I'll use a personal anecdote:
Shop A is a casual place with Escalation Leagues and Tournaments being just as common as painting/modeling competitions, narrative story games, and fun goofy scenarios. It was pretty much an "all-rounder" kind of atmosphere, and no matter what you really enjoyed about 40k as a hobby- you could find yourself having fun there.
Shop B was the more competitive place. The store had tournaments often, and the guys that played there took it very seriously and their focus was competitive play. There wasn't very much of a 'hobby' side there- they store owner didn't even allow building or painting in his shop, because that was space that could be used for another game table or more merch. Overall, if you wanted to kick your game up seriously- this is where you went.
Sounds like a great balance, right? Everyone's got their thing, so it seems like everyone's got a place to go to fit in. Well, yeah... but here's the problem...
Shop B had competitive players, and the thing about being competitive is that you want to win. And some of the guys there that weren't winning as often as they'd like began to get fed up with it. So, they decided to gravitate towards a more casual meta at Shop A. Of course, some of these guys were decent and just wanted to get away from the stressful competitive Shop- but they had a very hard time turning down their own competitive nature, and brought it to casual games.
A few others had every intention of playing the same way at Shop B- so they would come in and try to tell casual players they were 'just wanting a friendly game' and 'hated the competitive stuff'... but their list and playstyle said otherwise. They were just trying to get an easy win on an unsuspecting casual player. Not only that, but when new players came in- these guys zeroed in on them, and if the experience didn't drive away the new player it just created another competitive player.
Fast forward a couple of months, and the very same thing that was happening at Shop B was now happening at Shop A. All of the casual and friendly players were simply not playing- it was impossible for them to enjoy a fun game with a friend when you were surrounded by Competitive Players that were trying to coach you or take apart your lists. None of the tournaments were worth playing because the same guys would always haul in some FotM Netlist and score an easy win. Even when players tried to shift over to a different game to get away from them, the competitive players followed because they had to be beating someone at something all the time.
People just stopped going to Shop A. A lot of them went and built their own tables at home in the garage. And when they did that, they stopped buying from the store because it's just as easy to order things to your doorstep. I've not seen some of these people since they competitive infestation happened.
And then there's Shop C. A very much "hobby" focused shop with most games just being an excuse to play with your models after you finish customizing and painting them. Shop C put away their gaming tables to avoid this stuff coming and running them out.
So, while things eventually righted themselves once the Competitive guys had no one but each other to play with once again- it was still very much something that made a lot of players feel like they had been invaded. A lot of them felt like these guys screwed up their own shop and then came over and screwed another one up and it made them feel unwelcome, and they didn't want to waste their recreational time with that kind of environment. The damage has never fully healed.
So, while you and many others are not 'toxic'- what can be brought in with you unintentionally, or following at your heels may very well be. And people know it's not deliberate, but they tend to try and gatekeep a place where they feel comfortable and I can hardly blame them.
I tink you might be mixing up competitive players and jerks. I've seen the same thing happen in reverse with a shop culture developing of "soft banning" lists that meant I couldn't get any tournament practice as when playing that sort of game (with someone who wanted to) we'd get eye rolling and catty comments from others, which just made it not worth it, as the environment was crap. This doesn't mean I think casual players are toxic, I think jerks are toxic and generalising a group you don't know much about is too.
Competitive players don't seek the easy win, that's WAAC players, competitive players are usually looking to lose, cause that's how you get better. Again I think there is a difference between the local 'big fish in a small pond' and the actual competitive scene and conflating the two isn't really healthy. Your description reads to me like two shops full of casual players, just a bunch of those casual were jerks. A regular player picking up a FotM netlist and playing me (or any other actual competitive player) will get stomped as they won't know what they are doing at a high enough level (I know Dakka tends to think list building is all that matters, but it really isn't). Sure I'll have a nasty list too, though one of my own design, probably just as or more competitive than their netlist, but that just means the playing field is level and that is where you can see the difference between a competitive player and a casual with a netlist. I find the kind of players you described to be toxic too, but from my perspective they are far closer to your end of the spectrum than mine. Which is why I prefer to look at it with nuance, they aren't competitive players ruining your meta, or casuals giving mine a bad name, they are just jerks who are spoiling other people's fun.
auticus wrote: If gameplay counted more than listbuilding
It does.
Not really no. But there's no way to really quantify that which will devolve this into a circular yes it does no it doesn't.
I know in my experience I did very well in tournaments when I was powergaming and now my record is win some lose some and the only thing that changed was my list got weaker. I know in my experience that guys that do poorly without power lists do very well WITH power lists. I know that poor players with power lists at the store hold their own and win enough against proven good players that win local and regional tournaments (with power lists)), but are running poor to middling lists in the game vs the poor player with the power list.
Based off of 20+ years of seeing that every week that is why I feel it is the way it is. That lists > gameplay in 40k. Maybe not grotesquely so, but its enough of an edge where good players with middling lists vs poor players with tournament power lists usually make for at least a close game when the good player should always win every time, and at least in my experience thats rarely if ever the case when I see it (which is what drives players where I am to always feel tournament power lists because they don't like losiing because the lists were uneven so they bring the nuke to every game so they can't be out nuked)
However I will note that there plenty of people that say listbuilding < gameplay, and that is one reason why GW will continue down the path they are. There is no need to balance the game when there are people saying the balance is just fine and gameplay > listbuilding.
If indeed game play trumped listbuilding, it would conclude that the tournament superstar players wouldn't have to mostly rely on the powerlists to win tournaments. They should be able to win the big events with middling lists. However, that is a very rare thing to see.
Drager wrote: Which is why I prefer to look at it with nuance, they aren't competitive players ruining your meta, or casuals giving mine a bad name, they are just jerks who are spoiling other people's fun.
I won't doubt this. I could also say that in a competitive meta, competitive players know how to deal with competitive jerks and keep them under control or run them off. And in the casual meta, when we get our version of the jerk we tend to do the same. Maybe when those folks go to another kind of meta it throws things off a bit.
I just will say that I sympathize with good people who play competitively, because it's not their fault if the competitive jerks either follow them around or take their scummy behavior to some other place and ruin the fun.
The game has become much more tournament friendly in 8th edition. Unless you're playing non-ultramarine or non-deathwatch space marines, you can probably field a list with your army in a tournament and if you play well, and put some thought into your list, you can do well.
The end result is that players who are OK losing games end up just playing in tournaments. Because it's an easy way to get some games in and meet new people. What happened in my local shop was that the guys who really hated losing and couldn't handle it really were pushed out of the tournament scene. Because if you play in tournaments, you will lose games. It is just a fact. And these guys couldn't handle it.
If you don't mind losing, there is 0 downside to playing in a tournament. If you carry the expectation that you should win, or need to win, then tournaments will be a bad experience for you. There are some people who can't handle it for a multitude of reasons (can't socialize, afraid to socialize, severe anxiety, etc) and that's no problem. But if someone says "I'm a casual player, I don't play in tournaments" I have to ask why, and what that means. Usually it revolves around winning or doing well as a pre-requisite to enjoy the game, which is a foundation for toxic behavior.
Marmatag wrote: But if someone says "I'm a casual player, I don't play in tournaments" I have to ask why, and what that means. Usually it revolves around winning or doing well as a pre-requisite to enjoy the game, which is a foundation for toxic behavior.
I'm not gonna pay an entry fee to play a game and do the same thing I can without paying an entry fee and playing outside of the tournament.
Of course, I'm saying this because very, very rarely does a completely new person I don't know show up for a tournament.
"All matches are legally regulated as long as you follow the basic rules for list construction. "Social regulation" is merely limits in your own head."
"Legal regulation" is just as much solely in your head as "social regulation". The "legal regulation" is better documented, but still just a mental construct, and only truly enforced by "social regulation" anyways.
"If those basketball players are my friends, so be it."
If those players just happened to be your friend, sure. If you made friends with them specifically to prove your superiority in said PUG games, not fine at all. That said, if those players were your friend, they'd most likely split up to have a more fun game for everybody. In other words, they'd most likely avail themselves of a social construct to "fix" the situation you're trying to cause.
"Also I love the whole "netlist" argument, the ultimate sign of virtue signaling. Spoiler Alert: all "netlists" were original creations,"
No. "Netlists" are almost always copies or implementations of non-"Netlists" people actually used - but a list that kicks ass isn't a netlist if it wasn't pulled from the "net" community.
"It's good to learn how to counter them and play it out."
*You* believe it's good for *you*. I believe it's not worthwhile *for me*. Different people like different things.
"It you don't want that, too bad for you. "
This vilification of anyone who doesn't feel the need to use this game to prove themselves "best" and "winning" matches in this game is toxic.
Unless you're playing non-ultramarine or non-deathwatch space marines, you can probably field a list with your army in a tournament and if you play well, and put some thought into your list, you can do well.
This may come down to what "do well" means. "Do well" can mean you win a match at least. It can mean you win half your matches. It can mean you place in the top ten. It can mean you place in the top three. To some it means you won the tournament.
So I'll say "do well" means to me placing in the top 10. Are we saying that 40k as it stands now has a diverse top 10 of rainbow armies that are all very different? Because thats not what I'm seeing or hearing, but maybe I don't have the full picture.
What I'm seeing is the same basic builds are predominantly what hits the top 10 of the big events with some outliers.
I used to be a pretty regular tournament player. I traveled North America to do the GWGTs back in the late 90s and early 2000s. I was a top 10 placer, though mainly in fantasy. I did have an eldar build in 1999 that did well and placed top 10.
I dont' play tournaments today because I got tired of riding the meta carousel and I like playing games where gameplay is the most important aspect. 40k was never that of course, my eldar top 10 finish in a GT was geared to slay marines fast, and I played five marine players and one tyranid player (i lost to the tyranid player).
I don't mind losing at all. Losing is great, so long as there was a bad play that I did or my opponent outplayed me. In 40k, outplaying someone is often they took the stronger list, and right now all of my armies that I had before selling them off cannot compete against the tournament meta for me to enjoy going to a tournament, because I'd feel like a jobber there to make my opponents look good. Thats not a fun time for me.
If one of my armies that I had a lot of emotional attachment to had a decent list, I may change my mind.
"You can't possibly think nobody came up with the same list twice."
Nobody's claiming it won't.
"There's only so many units in this game compared to the number of words to actually claim plagiarism."
Number of words to count as plagiarism might be a useful implementation, but isn't accurate. If I write 10,000 words, and Dragar writes the exact same 10,000 words, and neither of us based our writing on the other, no plagirism happened.
"I worked at a university so I would know."
Uni might be a good place to learn their implementation, but it's not the only place it's a concern. And your claim is wrong by definition.
"Also playing a list helps you understand it as well."
Probably. But it's not the only way. Some people think it's bad form. Others just don't want to.
"You do realize that?"
I don't think anyone disputed that.
We're talking about rogue trader tournaments, not GTs. And the competitive scene has deepened by a colossal margin since you last played in it.
At a 6-round tournament, if put real thought and energy into the game (practicing your play in local tournaments, honing your list, playing a wide variety of opponents, really challenging yourself) you should be able to go 3-3, even with a mediocre army. And if you don't, you should be able to trace your losses back to misplays you made against armies that are either tough for you in the first place, or armies you don't know very well. But 6-round tournaments are fundamentally different from 3-round local tournaments, which is what i'm discussing. Traveling to a tournament requires a whole different level of commitment and interest. We're talking about players not playing in a shop because it became "competitive," or something nebulous and anecdotal.
In a 3 round tournament you're going to see a huge variety of models, lists, and concepts. Many of the people will be there to roll dice and have a good time. If a local tournament has you concerned about "riding the meta," and an elaborate definition of what it means to do well, and will you do well, then that sounds like an attitude that is incompatible with a what is a competitive game at its core. 40k even on casual tables is a competition between two sides with a winner and a loser. I actually ran one of your narrative scenarios and it featured games where there was a clear winner and a clear loser. And in casual games people still get blown right out of the water sometimes, because that's 40k.
But it's also worth noting that again, 8th edition is wholly different from previous editions, where there was one, or a tiny few netlists that could stomp everything that wasn't on the meta curve. This isn't the case in 8th edition. There are two overpowered factions (guard, ynnari), but other than that, and if you don't include non-ultramarine non-deathwatch marines, the game is very close to balanced.
Here's a casual game, i'm going to share the rough lists, i would be curious to see how the casual players think this game turned out.
Army 1: Space Wolves Arjac Rockfist Njal Stormcaller Wolf Guard Battle Leader Wolf Priest 2x Units of Blood Claws 1x Unit of Intercessors Murderfang 1x Unit of Long Fangs 1x Unit of Wulfen 1x Unit of Wolf Guard Terminators 1x Unit of 3 Thunderwolf Cavalry
Army 2: Dark Angels Azrael Sammael on Corvex Belial Librarian on Bike 1x Unit of 10 Terminators 1x Unit of Deathwing Knights 1x Land Raider Crusader 3x Units of Ravenwing Bikes 1x Unit of Scouts 2x Units of Intercessors 1x Dark Shroud
I only play in tournaments but as Marmatag says, I'm pretty casual. I don't play to win the tournament, I play to have fun. That means I try to do my best and win as much as I can within the boundaries of my army/list.
All the money of the entry fees goes to the prizes that are then given randomly to the participants. And all the participants normally will go to eat together, be the monthly small (10-16) tournament of my FLGS or even bigger ones with 64-86 people. So playing in a tournament is more of a social event, and is easier to reserve one day from work a month to play a bunch of games that playing a couple of games a week.
If you don't mind losing, there is 0 downside to playing in a tournament. If you carry the expectation that you should win, or need to win, then tournaments will be a bad experience for you. There are some people who can't handle it for a multitude of reasons (can't socialize, afraid to socialize, severe anxiety, etc) and that's no problem. But if someone says "I'm a casual player, I don't play in tournaments" I have to ask why, and what that means. Usually it revolves around winning or doing well as a pre-requisite to enjoy the game, which is a foundation for toxic behavior.
Oh I have an anwser for that. A tournament or event entry costs as much as my monthly bus pass, and I am not going to spend that much money so someone else can get a prize. That is the main thing. The other thing is stuff like a month city fight event, where you have to buy the city fight book and specific unit to partake in it. Or there is a month of events with no monster class models, or no stock +2sv. the last one I skiped was 750pts, but you couldn't take any 3W or higher models, no +2sv and you had to build 5 civilian models that took part in the game scenarios. the tournament before it was 1000pts, but you could only play the game with an army you got with in the last 3 months. But in general I don't like the idea of paying for someone else prize while I lose 6 games and get to go home.
In a 3 round tournament you're going to see a huge variety of models, lists, and concepts. Many of the people will be there to roll dice and have a good time. If a local tournament has you concerned about "riding the meta," and an elaborate definition of what it means to do well, and will you do well, then that sounds like an attitude that is incompatible with a what is a competitive game at its core. 40k even on casual tables is a competition between two sides with a winner and a loser. I actually ran one of your narrative scenarios and it featured games where there was a clear winner and a clear loser. And in casual games people still get blown right out of the water sometimes, because that's 40k.
Nothing like that happens around here. the lists are very samy. IG+castellan+something . Eldar soups, one guy plays tau castel, I know one guy has a huge orc collection, but I don't think I ever saw him play anything else but eldar. Even the people that play only at the store events, have same looking lists. The difference is in optimisation, mostly due to army cost. So a guy with IG and castell is more often then not going to be just that or BA+scouts, then 3 jetbike custodes. Eldars mostly cap at 4 flyers. But the people who go to play in other cities have lists that are almost taken out of LVO or other big tournaments.
I can tell you I've met a lot of players who only know 40k as a competitive game, because that's all they've been exposed to. They simply do not know any other way to play the game, because when no other option presents itself, the idea of a "narrative game" or a "made-up scenario using the core mechanics" is an entirely alien concept. I've actually encountered lots of people whose only impression of 40k is the hyper-competitive aspect, and they believed that was simply what 40k was supposed to be and had absolutely no desire to be a part of that- after all, if you want that kind of thing you can just go play M:tG and you don't end up with glue on your fingers.
I am a part of a private club, and despite how much I enjoy being in a private club- I understand fully what being a complete isolationist group does to the overall communities of gamers- if all that's left are the competitive bro-players, then it either turns off new players or creates more competitive bro-players. Due to that, we actively 'scout' local places to find like-minded people and bring them into it, and the look on their faces when they see a completely different aspect of the game- and the absolute relief when you hear one of them say, "You know it's nice to buy and use the models I think are cool, instead of the ones I 'need' to stay competitive". I can honestly say that once I got away from the competitive groups, and started buying the stuff I wanted rather than throwing money into a plastic arms race... I realized "Oh, hey- I can afford to buy some terrain now. I can spend time doing conversions and making fun stuff. My painting is much better when I'm working on models I like."
What really changed my mind was getting my hands on a copy of Rogue Trader and seeing what the game was then, and then realizing that it's completely different from what it became and it lost quite a bit of the original intent. I'll be the first to say a lot of the stuff in Rogue Trader is showing its age, it's silly and kind of dumb in some ways, and there have been a lot of changes since then that really were for the best... but I hate that it drifted away from being a system designed to facilitate basic fun with models.
I've met both kinds of people you describe as well. I was actually very lucky to be introduced to 40K by a group like yours back in early 2nd ed - a group of enthusiasts running a youth community centre focused on hobby aspects and monthly "apocalypse" night (read it as "2nd ed multiplayer game of magnitude of modern 2000pts" rather than a game with titans, but those were whole night social events that I have very vivid memory of nearly a quarter of century later). You can imagine my shock when some two years later I first attended a tournament only to have my Guardians focused list blown away by Wolf Guard Terminators from a "standard tournament table" with a single, rather symbolic hill as the entire scenery. When 3rd ed hit and the old group finally disbanded I've hit a wall of new players that were solely ficused on competition and quit soon after.
As to "scouting" and nurturing community: two players in my small group come from exact background you describe in the first paragraph - they were board game players with a strong desire to "go hobby" but were driven away by the "fame" of 40K bloat and toxicity. Our little group sparked into existence with me dusting my old 2nd ed minis and showing them that this game can be a great storytelling tool in competent and willing hands.
Small sidenote here to picture how it's also a myth that only "competitive players chasing new hotness" drive GW sales - three years later our combined total of new GW purchases among four people amount to more than 20.000 pts worth of models and a dense table worth of GW scenery. We also do not feed the second hand market as we have no incentive to sell anything as we can and do utilize any unit in our games, no matter how "broken" or "useless crap" it is in the eyes of typical competitive crowd. And I sincerely don't think that we are some sort of an odd exception in the overall GW playerbase - we may not represent the majority, but I don't think that financial contribution of groups like ours in GW overall results is negligible.
In our three round tournaments at the store there isn't much variety in the lists. Pedantically speaking they aren't mirrors of each other, but they are based on the same core concepts with some alternate outside bits that make the lists "different enough" but driven by the same netlist.
Where I am, if you bring a middling list to even casual night, 3-3 is a pipe dream. You have done extraordinarily well if you go 3-3.
When I see guys that go 5-1 and 6-0 regularly with a powerlist suddenly drop to 2-4 and 3-3 with middling lists, that tells me that the listbuilding in this game is heavier than the gameplay component. Because to me... a good player should always beat a player poorer in skill than them given a somewhat balanced game.
Thats at least how I compute listbuilding vs gameplay.
"Casual," and "competitive" are player attudes.GW may prefer their version of "casual" and "narrative," but their own rules do not lead to good casual or narrative games. I enjoy cutthroat, do everything-legal-to-win games. I also enjoy more narration. Why can't my cutthroat game also have the story of that game unfold as it plays? And why the do I have to choose between them, or re-write the rules that I paid for?
If GW wants 40k to be story-driven, unsuited for competition, fine- give up on the large battles, the "rolling dice is fun!" philosophy of mechanical design, and rebrand a new, detailed, character-driven KT as 40k 9th. Or maybe just write a good RPG in the 41st millennium instead. What we have now fails at GW's own stated intentions.
I'm just a college kid, and I recall, back in the mists of time, when people who played games were simply "gamers." None of this "you play the wrong way!" crap we focus on now. For some reason we each seem to think our gaming self-interest is in opposition to everyone else's. It is not. One, amazing, holistic ruleset can accommodate all of us. I would prefer to focus on playing and enjoying 40k, and discussing new army ideas and conversions. Not criticizing yet another boneheaded move by GW; whether it's the rules, their less-than-artistically-gifted sculptors or their awful prices.
when people who played games were simply "gamers." None of this "you play the wrong way!" crap we focus on now
I can assure you that the first internet forums in the late 90s had the same thing in them. There were always constant fights on powergamers vs casual gamers.
my dad told me his first army was space wolfs termintors 20 each one of them with twice as many hvy weapons as a whole squad of normal termintors could take.
Indeed the netlist is a crutch. And I've still seen hundreds of times a poorer player winning or having a close game with a solid player that is using a middling list to know that the crutch is a crutch for a reason - it makes up for lack of skill and keeps them in competition regardless of how bad they are.
Now when they face an actual good player who is ALSO fielding a powerlist, that poorer player is definitely going to get crushed most of the time.
I'm not disputing that. Good player with meh list is on par with Poor player with powerlist and will have a good game most of the time.
Which is in fact what good players to do for teaching purpoes, they play down by taking a weaker list so the poor player has a better game and isn't just getting wiped.
Karol wrote: my dad told me his first army was space wolfs termintors 20 each one of them with twice as many hvy weapons as a whole squad of normal termintors could take.
Hi old veteran here They could. 2nd edition Wolf Guard terminators could take Assault Cannons AND Cyclone Missile Launchers on the same guy, and I think due to weird Wolf Guard rules each guy could do it rather than just 1 in 5 like the other termies. It was bonkers broken if you were a powergamer.
Blastaar wrote: I'm just a college kid, and I recall, back in the mists of time, when people who played games were simply "gamers."
Rose-tinted glasses. There's always been people who desire a reason to look down on everyone else.
I'll have to disagree with you there. It is quite possible to view the past objectively. Invoking "rose-tinted glasses" is merely an acceptable form of dismissing someone's opinion, because people enjoy pretending that history is a linear march where each day is better than the day before, as though nothing from the past can hold any value. And that wasn't really my point (which you ignored) was it? That division is pointless because we all enjoy playing games, and with the poor quality of many games currently in production, becomes unproductive when players blame each other for choices made by the companies producing these games. Yes, people should be held accountable for being donkey-caves. But do not lose sight that the poor rules cause the disparity in power, that the donkey-caves abuse, to exist in the first place. We argue about symptoms too much, instead of discussing the cause.
Karol wrote: my dad told me his first army was space wolfs termintors 20 each one of them with twice as many hvy weapons as a whole squad of normal termintors could take.
Hi old veteran here They could. 2nd edition Wolf Guard terminators could take Assault Cannons AND Cyclone Missile Launchers on the same guy, and I think due to weird Wolf Guard rules each guy could do it rather than just 1 in 5 like the other termies. It was bonkers broken if you were a powergamer.
You also could build an army of nothing else except said terminators, at least at 800 pts. They were probably the first incarnation of static gunline in 40K meta. The guy at this tournament I mentioned earlier did not move any of his (IIRC five or six) minis throughout entire day and won the tournament.
Karol wrote: my dad told me his first army was space wolfs termintors 20 each one of them with twice as many hvy weapons as a whole squad of normal termintors could take.
Hi old veteran here They could. 2nd edition Wolf Guard terminators could take Assault Cannons AND Cyclone Missile Launchers on the same guy, and I think due to weird Wolf Guard rules each guy could do it rather than just 1 in 5 like the other termies. It was bonkers broken if you were a powergamer.
You also could build an army of nothing else except said terminators, at least at 800 pts. They were probably the first incarnation of static gunline in 40K meta. The guy at this tournament I mentioned earlier did not move any of his (IIRC five or six) minis throughout entire day and won the tournament.
Disgusting. Although I did like how in the old days your "Troops" were basically anything not a walker or vehicle. Made for cool ways to theme armies.
Blastaar wrote: I'm just a college kid, and I recall, back in the mists of time, when people who played games were simply "gamers."
Rose-tinted glasses. There's always been people who desire a reason to look down on everyone else.
I'll have to disagree with you there. It is quite possible to view the past objectively. Invoking "rose-tinted glasses" is merely an acceptable form of dismissing someone's opinion, because people enjoy pretending that history is a linear march where each day is better than the day before, as though nothing from the past can hold any value. And that wasn't really my point (which you ignored) was it? That division is pointless because we all enjoy playing games, and with the poor quality of many games currently in production, becomes unproductive when players blame each other for choices made by the companies producing these games. Yes, people should be held accountable for being donkey-caves. But do not lose sight that the poor rules cause the disparity in power, that the donkey-caves abuse, to exist in the first place. We argue about symptoms too much, instead of discussing the cause.
But Melissia is right here - competitive vs casual split is as old as 2nd ed 40K and 2nd ed M:TG, nothing new here. People simply utilize sandbox games for so vastly different goals that subgroups and splits just naturally happen.
Karol wrote: my dad told me his first army was space wolfs termintors 20 each one of them with twice as many hvy weapons as a whole squad of normal termintors could take.
Hi old veteran here They could. 2nd edition Wolf Guard terminators could take Assault Cannons AND Cyclone Missile Launchers on the same guy, and I think due to weird Wolf Guard rules each guy could do it rather than just 1 in 5 like the other termies. It was bonkers broken if you were a powergamer.
You also could build an army of nothing else except said terminators, at least at 800 pts. They were probably the first incarnation of static gunline in 40K meta. The guy at this tournament I mentioned earlier did not move any of his (IIRC five or six) minis throughout entire day and won the tournament.
Disgusting. Although I did like how in the old days your "Troops" were basically anything not a walker or vehicle. Made for cool ways to theme armies.
Agreed, running nothing but a bunch of aspect warriors with some (independent) exarch to lead them was very thematic.
Marmatag wrote: But if someone says "I'm a casual player, I don't play in tournaments" I have to ask why, and what that means. Usually it revolves around winning or doing well as a pre-requisite to enjoy the game, which is a foundation for toxic behavior.
I'm not gonna pay an entry fee to play a game and do the same thing I can without paying an entry fee and playing outside of the tournament.
Of course, I'm saying this because very, very rarely does a completely new person I don't know show up for a tournament.
Really, paying the fee is no different than paying money to go to an anime or reptile convention. You can look at reptiles for free at your local pet store after all, but was that the point of the convention in the first place?
There is a quid pro quo that if you play in a shop you should be a patron there. Stores collecting fees and handing out store credit is the perfect way to do this.
And hey, winning is nice too. I won over $100 last weekend for a bigger RTT tournament win. My list is not meta at all. Everyone says "No Ynnari??" like 2 or 3 times during deployment. Kind of funny.
Blastaar wrote: I'm just a college kid, and I recall, back in the mists of time, when people who played games were simply "gamers."
Rose-tinted glasses. There's always been people who desire a reason to look down on everyone else.
I'll have to disagree with you there. It is quite possible to view the past objectively. Invoking "rose-tinted glasses" is merely an acceptable form of dismissing someone's opinion, because people enjoy pretending that history is a linear march where each day is better than the day before, as though nothing from the past can hold any value. And that wasn't really my point (which you ignored) was it? That division is pointless because we all enjoy playing games, and with the poor quality of many games currently in production, becomes unproductive when players blame each other for choices made by the companies producing these games. Yes, people should be held accountable for being donkey-caves. But do not lose sight that the poor rules cause the disparity in power, that the donkey-caves abuse, to exist in the first place. We argue about symptoms too much, instead of discussing the cause.
But Melissia is right here - competitive vs casual split is as old as 2nd ed 40K and 2nd ed M:TG, nothing new here. People simply utilize sandbox games for so vastly different goals that subgroups and splits just naturally happen.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
In what way is Warhammer 40,000 a sandbox game? How is it like Minecraft? Any game can be house ruled or modded, mind you. What tabletop miniatures games are not "sandboxes," and what criteria do we use to differentiate?
FLGS events draw new players. If the events do not bring in money, the store owner won't run them. And, if you're playing in a shop for free, what are you doing to help out the shop? Hobby shops are a tough business and you're getting something and returning nothing. If all the shops around you go under, what good is your collection then?
Honestly, I think that the age of the FLGS needs to come to an end and go back to clubs. I'm tired of seeing the game store become the center of the universe such that any game not stocked/endorsed by the game store is impossible to get people to play, where people who frequent one store to the exclusion of others tend to become like gang members defending their turf and in general to where the gaming community becomes beholden and subservient to the whim of whatever game store they revolve around instead of the other way around. What you have instead of a unified community is a bunch of small fiefdoms based around game stores.
Blastaar wrote: I'm just a college kid, and I recall, back in the mists of time, when people who played games were simply "gamers."
Rose-tinted glasses. There's always been people who desire a reason to look down on everyone else.
I'll have to disagree with you there. It is quite possible to view the past objectively. Invoking "rose-tinted glasses" is merely an acceptable form of dismissing someone's opinion, because people enjoy pretending that history is a linear march where each day is better than the day before, as though nothing from the past can hold any value. And that wasn't really my point (which you ignored) was it? That division is pointless because we all enjoy playing games, and with the poor quality of many games currently in production, becomes unproductive when players blame each other for choices made by the companies producing these games. Yes, people should be held accountable for being donkey-caves. But do not lose sight that the poor rules cause the disparity in power, that the donkey-caves abuse, to exist in the first place. We argue about symptoms too much, instead of discussing the cause.
But Melissia is right here - competitive vs casual split is as old as 2nd ed 40K and 2nd ed M:TG, nothing new here. People simply utilize sandbox games for so vastly different goals that subgroups and splits just naturally happen.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
In what way is Warhammer 40,000 a sandbox game? How is it like Minecraft? Any game can be house ruled or modded, mind you. What tabletop miniatures games are not "sandboxes," and what criteria do we use to differentiate?
Are you really asking me how 40K is a sandbox game? Seriously?
Blastaar wrote: I'm just a college kid, and I recall, back in the mists of time, when people who played games were simply "gamers."
Rose-tinted glasses. There's always been people who desire a reason to look down on everyone else.
I'll have to disagree with you there. It is quite possible to view the past objectively. Invoking "rose-tinted glasses" is merely an acceptable form of dismissing someone's opinion, because people enjoy pretending that history is a linear march where each day is better than the day before, as though nothing from the past can hold any value. And that wasn't really my point (which you ignored) was it? That division is pointless because we all enjoy playing games, and with the poor quality of many games currently in production, becomes unproductive when players blame each other for choices made by the companies producing these games. Yes, people should be held accountable for being donkey-caves. But do not lose sight that the poor rules cause the disparity in power, that the donkey-caves abuse, to exist in the first place. We argue about symptoms too much, instead of discussing the cause.
But Melissia is right here - competitive vs casual split is as old as 2nd ed 40K and 2nd ed M:TG, nothing new here. People simply utilize sandbox games for so vastly different goals that subgroups and splits just naturally happen.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
In what way is Warhammer 40,000 a sandbox game? How is it like Minecraft? Any game can be house ruled or modded, mind you. What tabletop miniatures games are not "sandboxes," and what criteria do we use to differentiate?
Are you really asking me how 40K is a sandbox game? Seriously?
Yes, I am. The claim that 40k is a "sandbox game" has been made several times in this thread. I am not being snarky here, I genuinely do not understand what it is about Warhammer 40,000 8th edition, mechanically speaking, that makes it a "sandbox" game.
Yes, I am. The claim that 40k is a "sandbox game" has been made several times in this thread. I am not being snarky here, I genuinely do not understand what it is about Warhammer 40,000 8th edition, mechanically speaking, that makes it a "sandbox" game.
Basically, the game is designed as a mechanism to move model sales, to allow people to play with their plastic army dudes however they want, as opposed to a deep tactical combat sim. We have everything and the kitchen sink thrown in, where what type of blade a random NCO has on their power weapon is something worth making distinct rules for, while also including superheavy walkers, aircraft, and strategic weapons that couldn't care less. When it comes to playing, the rules basically say "figure out what kind of game you want with your opponent".
GW basically tosses everything in the game universe into a single ruleset, and tells the players to figure it out from there. Even when it comes to background and factions, everything is kept vague, mutable, and malleable. You can make up any subfaction you want and play it against anything. Even among the factions, the factions available are odd and are chosen more by cool factor than how much they make sense. If 40k were a WW2 game, it'd have unique lists for the US Army, US Marines, 101st Airborne, the Tuskegee Airmen, the FBI, the OSI, Force Taffy, and the Secret Service, and trying to play them all in any combination on the same tabletop game engaging in pitched firefights at the platoon or company scale.
Contrast this with something like Flames of War or Infinity or Warmahordes where the scale of units and weapons are much narrower and more clearly defined, the background more limiting, missions are much more detailed, the rules are generally a bit tighter, and forces far more limited.
40k is not a total sandbox, but there are strong elements of it.
Blastaar wrote: I'm just a college kid, and I recall, back in the mists of time, when people who played games were simply "gamers."
Rose-tinted glasses. There's always been people who desire a reason to look down on everyone else.
I'll have to disagree with you there. It is quite possible to view the past objectively. Invoking "rose-tinted glasses" is merely an acceptable form of dismissing someone's opinion, because people enjoy pretending that history is a linear march where each day is better than the day before, as though nothing from the past can hold any value. And that wasn't really my point (which you ignored) was it? That division is pointless because we all enjoy playing games, and with the poor quality of many games currently in production, becomes unproductive when players blame each other for choices made by the companies producing these games. Yes, people should be held accountable for being donkey-caves. But do not lose sight that the poor rules cause the disparity in power, that the donkey-caves abuse, to exist in the first place. We argue about symptoms too much, instead of discussing the cause.
But Melissia is right here - competitive vs casual split is as old as 2nd ed 40K and 2nd ed M:TG, nothing new here. People simply utilize sandbox games for so vastly different goals that subgroups and splits just naturally happen.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
In what way is Warhammer 40,000 a sandbox game? How is it like Minecraft? Any game can be house ruled or modded, mind you. What tabletop miniatures games are not "sandboxes," and what criteria do we use to differentiate?
Are you really asking me how 40K is a sandbox game? Seriously?
Yes, I am. The claim that 40k is a "sandbox game" has been made several times in this thread. I am not being snarky here, I genuinely do not understand what it is about Warhammer 40,000 8th edition, mechanically speaking, that makes it a "sandbox" game.
No matter the edition, 40K has always been about piting freely selectable unit/collection of units against any other unit/collection of units on a freely constructible terrain layout - that is the basic level of 40K as a sandbox. Depending on edition amount of specific rules in your toolkit to represent various force types, terrain features, win conditions, etc. varied greatly, but was always present. In 7th you even had entire 2D version produced by FW for recreating battles inside of structures, including ships in outer space (with decompression and sealing sections mechanics included), that could apply only to a section of the table if you whished so. Moreover, detailed campaign rules with things like permanent injuries and skills also exists for 7th. And you had/have as ultimate sandbox tools as unbound in 7th or open in 8th. In 8th you have four publications to date which give you rules for specific terrain features, special and wildly differing battlezones, character/unit/vehicle development, attacker/defender specific missions and stratagems to utilize etc... Literal crap ton of material existed at any moment in time (except for brief moments after hard reboots of 3rd and 8th) to be freely used at whim, without any need for house ruling (but every iteration actually directly encourages you to houserule anything and everything you whish, whether or not an actual written rule exists). In 8th, just using BRB and CAs allow you to construct myriads of unique games while sticking striclty to written rules only, with Urban Conquest expanding on ways you can link those into an ongoing, open narrative. You can, if you whish, never play a single setup of 40K twice and literally never in your life run out of new options to include, even if you play several times a week. Only counting standard matched play 2000pts faction vs faction matchups you now have more than 400 unique games (this does not in any way include various lists that can be clashed against eachother within two factions selected for a given game). Even with two strict lists you'll get vastly differing games via manipulating terrain layout alone. The only limiting factor with any of the above is mutual consent of players involved. It has always been this way. If this is not an epitome of sandbox then I really don't know what in the gaming world is.
Slayer-Fan123 773029 10396202 wrote:
Really, paying the fee is no different than paying money to go to an anime or reptile convention. You can look at reptiles for free at your local pet store after all, but was that the point of the convention in the first place?
Why not just to a zoo, its is free as long as your under 16 and even over 16 it aint that pricy and cheaper in a group. No idea why anyone ever would pay for anime, but I guess people like different things.
The only limiting factor with any of the above is mutual consent of players involved. It has always been this way.
And because no one is going to agree to a terrain that makes them lose turn 1, both sides of the board are going to have 2-3 buildings, the middle is going to have some smaller terrain and 1-2 large LoS blockers. Terrain ain't even that important in the first place, when armies move 20" or more per turn, or have 24"+ ranges on guns, that sometimes ignore LoS, it just doesn't matter. Plus ton of models are impossible to hide unless someone models them crawling. The NDK for example is maybe not as tall as a knight, but he is tall enough so that no terrain blocks LoS fully to him . And if heed doesn't pop he is way less resilient then a knight. One can only thank God that he doesn't also cost like a knight.
Melissia wrote: Even when you do this, you have to set down some basics. Perhaps in some locales the basics are unquestioned and unstated, but you have to ask stuff like "Matched play? Two thousand points? Use the most up to date errata? Use Forgeworld and other supplements? How should we set up terrain?" and so on.
Unless you're talking beta datasheets (like the 30k Custodes stuff), that shouldn't need to be asked.
Wayniac wrote: Also @Auticus, I don't think the 40k team is tournament players. The AOS team yes, but the 40k team is still the same bunch of "forge the narrative" guys from the Kirby era I'm pretty sure. Robin Cruddace, Simon Grant, I forget who else. All the, as our favorite bird might say, CAAC people. It's AOS who has the design team made up of the competitive guys.
Ah, more reasons to dislike AOS, then - beyond the death of the Old World.
when people who played games were simply "gamers." None of this "you play the wrong way!" crap we focus on now
I can assure you that the first internet forums in the late 90s had the same thing in them. There were always constant fights on powergamers vs casual gamers.
Yeah, as far back as I can recall (late 90's - email distribution lists and the likes of Portent) this was a thing. It ain't a new phenomenon (do do do do do...)
Marmatag wrote: But if someone says "I'm a casual player, I don't play in tournaments" I have to ask why, and what that means. Usually it revolves around winning or doing well as a pre-requisite to enjoy the game, which is a foundation for toxic behavior.
I'm not gonna pay an entry fee to play a game and do the same thing I can without paying an entry fee and playing outside of the tournament.
Of course, I'm saying this because very, very rarely does a completely new person I don't know show up for a tournament.
Really, paying the fee is no different than paying money to go to an anime or reptile convention. You can look at reptiles for free at your local pet store after all, but was that the point of the convention in the first place?
Sounds like a reasonable number of people don't want to deal with the reptiles playing in the tournament, though.
The only limiting factor with any of the above is mutual consent of players involved. It has always been this way.
And because no one is going to agree to a terrain that makes them lose turn 1, both sides of the board are going to have 2-3 buildings, the middle is going to have some smaller terrain and 1-2 large LoS blockers. Terrain ain't even that important in the first place, when armies move 20" or more per turn, or have 24"+ ranges on guns, that sometimes ignore LoS, it just doesn't matter. Plus ton of models are impossible to hide unless someone models them crawling. The NDK for example is maybe not as tall as a knight, but he is tall enough so that no terrain blocks LoS fully to him . And if heed doesn't pop he is way less resilient then a knight. One can only thank God that he doesn't also cost like a knight.
Karol, your gaming environment does not utilize most of the existing rules/units in this game and severly limits what happens on the table. I, for one, don't even remember the last time I've played on symmetrical terrain and I can easily hide a Dimacheron from at least half of the table at most times. Judging from all your posts, you could probably fit an abridged version of all the rules and stats used at your club in a thin notebook. 40K as supplied by GW is vastly bigger than that. It is sad, that your environment doesn't want to use that material, but it does exist and it does get used by people.
nou wrote: If this is not an epitome of sandbox then I really don't know what in the gaming world is.
A game, probably in the RPG genre, that is actually a sandbox? 40k has the same level of customization as a typical RTS. You get to pick your units and you can buy upgrades for them, but you're still building a conventional army within fairly narrow constraints of what units and upgrades you can take. You can choose which "map" to play on, but you're still playing a battle between conventional forces. You can't decide to give your space marine HQ a lascannon and jump pack, you can't play a smuggler trying to sneak xenos artifacts past Imperial security, you can't go off and hijack an enemy warship and fly around looking for trouble, etc. In fact, aside from the inherent differences between a tabletop game and a video game (real-time vs. IGOUGO, etc), the only meaningful difference between Starcraft and 40k is that 40k removes the base-building and tech tree research nonsense in favor of having your whole army start on the battlefield.
Melissia wrote: Even when you do this, you have to set down some basics. Perhaps in some locales the basics are unquestioned and unstated, but you have to ask stuff like "Matched play? Two thousand points? Use the most up to date errata? Use Forgeworld and other supplements? How should we set up terrain?" and so on.
Unless you're talking beta datasheets (like the 30k Custodes stuff), that shouldn't need to be asked.
Wayniac wrote: Also @Auticus, I don't think the 40k team is tournament players. The AOS team yes, but the 40k team is still the same bunch of "forge the narrative" guys from the Kirby era I'm pretty sure. Robin Cruddace, Simon Grant, I forget who else. All the, as our favorite bird might say, CAAC people. It's AOS who has the design team made up of the competitive guys.
Ah, more reasons to dislike AOS, then - beyond the death of the Old World.
when people who played games were simply "gamers." None of this "you play the wrong way!" crap we focus on now
I can assure you that the first internet forums in the late 90s had the same thing in them. There were always constant fights on powergamers vs casual gamers.
Yeah, as far back as I can recall (late 90's - email distribution lists and the likes of Portent) this was a thing. It ain't a new phenomenon (do do do do do...)
Marmatag wrote: But if someone says "I'm a casual player, I don't play in tournaments" I have to ask why, and what that means. Usually it revolves around winning or doing well as a pre-requisite to enjoy the game, which is a foundation for toxic behavior.
I'm not gonna pay an entry fee to play a game and do the same thing I can without paying an entry fee and playing outside of the tournament.
Of course, I'm saying this because very, very rarely does a completely new person I don't know show up for a tournament.
Really, paying the fee is no different than paying money to go to an anime or reptile convention. You can look at reptiles for free at your local pet store after all, but was that the point of the convention in the first place?
Sounds like a reasonable number of people don't want to deal with the reptiles playing in the tournament, though.
Peregrine wrote: ...you can't play a smuggler trying to sneak xenos artifacts past Imperial security, you can't go off and hijack an enemy warship and fly around looking for trouble, etc...
Don't really know why you equate "sandbox" with "RPG", but whatever:
During 2nd: core ruleset, perhaps with some Necromunda elements like injury roll and ammo roll added in are well enough suited for the smuggler part, especially hiding core mechanic
During 3rd: indeed a strong limiting of immersion expectatios are needed to attempt this, but you get BFG for warship part
During 7th: FW Zone Mortalis ruleset with Anphelion campaign elements is enough for that, but you could combine it with BFG for spaceship combat if you fancy.
During 8th: Probably best done with Kill Team ruleset and Rouge Trader expansion but could be approximated enough with BRB+CA18 battlezones and some creative use of "counts as" terrain easily (many, many exaples of rules for interacting with scenery already exist in CAs).
And those are editions I know, probably as easy to do in 5th and 6th as in 7th and in 4th factions like Tyranids had so vast customization options, that bolting on development was trivially easy to do - I'm not familiar with 4th material enough to provide a solution. Of course you won't get as great results for such scenario as using a dedicated pen&paper or dungeon crawler tabletop style RPG engine, but 40K can accomodate such bizarre uses with relative ease and quite entertaining results.
nou wrote: Don't really know why you equate "sandbox" with "RPG", but whatever:
That's just an example, because RPGs are the most obvious instance of sandbox games. A sandbox game is best defined as one where you're free to diverge from the "main quest" and go do your own thing, whatever that may be. So:
Skyrim is a sandbox game. Sure, it has a main quest, but it also has a whole bunch of other stories and many players will create characters that completely ignore the main quest in favor of doing something else. Maybe it's a guild quest line, maybe it's exploration, who knows. And even when doing those things you're free to do them in any order, use alternate methods to accomplish your goals, etc.
Diablo is a linear dungeon crawl. You have a ton of skill tree and item choices for determining how exactly you slaughter monsters by the millions (and how good at it you are), but in the end you're still playing the same monster-slaughtering game and there's no room for doing anything else.
40k is a Diablo-type game. You can pick choices from a list of units and upgrades, for whatever reasons you have, but you aren't doing anything to really leave the "main quest" of battlefield combat between armies. Hell, even a lot of Diablo-style games have more customization than 40k because you're free to use any skill/item you can find while 40k units have very limited lists of upgrades to choose from.
During 2nd: core ruleset, perhaps with some Necromunda elements like injury roll and ammo roll added in are well enough suited for the smuggler part, especially hiding core mechanic
During 3rd: indeed a strong limiting of immersion expectatios are needed to attempt this, but you get BFG for warship part
Ancient history, none of this has anything to do with the modern game. Possibly also wrong, but I don't know enough about ancient history to say for sure.
During 7th: FW Zone Mortalis ruleset with Anphelion campaign elements is enough for that, but you could combine it with BFG for spaceship combat if you fancy.
Zone Mortalis/Anphelion have nothing to do with stealth/persuasion gameplay involving 1-2 characters and 1-10 opponents, where any shots being fired is an absolute last resort. And BFG, while great for spaceship combat, is not 40k.
During 8th: Probably best done with Kill Team ruleset and Rouge Trader expansion but could be approximated enough with BRB+CA18 battlezones and some creative use of "counts as" terrain easily (many, many exaples of rules for interacting with scenery already exist in CAs).
Oh really? Where in any of those rules will you find a way to handle a conversation with a suspicious customs official without firing any shots (because shooting brings attention and you die)? Or how good a character is at using a battleship's control systems?
I read the original statement from the Warhammer Community folks as simple expectation management for the upcoming FAQ. Based on the language I don't expect changes on the order of the Big FAQ last spring with the Rule of Three and Deep Strike changes, nor the fall one.
I am fairly certain that they tracked the top finishers at LVO, but perhaps they understand that different competitive formats may indeed have victory conditions that also skew lists. Perhaps they feel that its not necessarily GW's job to account for those, especially if the format is thriving?
Regarding "sandbox games", if you design a definition that excludes 40K then I guess you will exclude 40K. The term is indeed used for video games, but as a military fellow we used sand tables for years to teach tactics. You molded the damp sand to make a terrain set that you manoeuvred models or markers on. Old miniatures gamers also referred to "sand tables" where you could create new terrain every time. 40K is absolutely flexible - each table is a sandbox that the players mold to their tastes. Its not a role playing game, but there are many ways to play and the players have complete control over the table set up, opponents and missions while staying within the baseline rules mechanics.
Apologies, but my current work doesn't allow me to follow threads that move quickly, so some of this will be 'old'.
Karol wrote:
Sportsmanship is one reason that works rather well. A lot depends on the interactions they have, and some people recognize that ULTIMATE POWAH is not always the reason to play an army. Orks fill this role quite well, in fact.
See I go to a sports school, so I learned to ask this question from expiriance. By sportsman ship you mean acting like a sportsman or acting nice. Because those two are kind of a exclusive. Real sportsman only do nice stuff for show. while nice people do nice stuff, because they seem to be generally nice.
So, apparently it doesn't translate well. Oxford says sportsmanship is, "Fair and generous behaviour or treatment of others, especially in a sporting contest." Telling another player to, "git gud nub," would be considered NOT sportsmanlike behavior. Going back over the game and discussing decisions and possible improvements, including possible list modification for future consideration, would be considered good sportsmanship.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:Uh there's no reptiles typically at a tournament.
Depends on the tournament. Age of Sigmar/Warhammer Fantasy have armies of them. One of the best support pieces in Skorne is a reptile, along with my favorite Gargantuan. Admittedly, 40K is falling short in that department. They need to bring the War in Heaven up to speed so we can get our armies of the Old Ones and get some good reptile fun in 40K.
In what way is Warhammer 40,000 a sandbox game? How is it like Minecraft? Any game can be house ruled or modded, mind you. What tabletop miniatures games are not "sandboxes," and what criteria do we use to differentiate?
Are you really asking me how 40K is a sandbox game? Seriously?
Yes, I am. The claim that 40k is a "sandbox game" has been made several times in this thread. I am not being snarky here, I genuinely do not understand what it is about Warhammer 40,000 8th edition, mechanically speaking, that makes it a "sandbox" game.
No matter the edition, 40K has always been about piting freely selectable unit/collection of units against any other unit/collection of units on a freely constructible terrain layout - that is the basic level of 40K as a sandbox. Depending on edition amount of specific rules in your toolkit to represent various force types, terrain features, win conditions, etc. varied greatly, but was always present. In 7th you even had entire 2D version produced by FW for recreating battles inside of structures, including ships in outer space (with decompression and sealing sections mechanics included), that could apply only to a section of the table if you whished so. Moreover, detailed campaign rules with things like permanent injuries and skills also exists for 7th. And you had/have as ultimate sandbox tools as unbound in 7th or open in 8th. In 8th you have four publications to date which give you rules for specific terrain features, special and wildly differing battlezones, character/unit/vehicle development, attacker/defender specific missions and stratagems to utilize etc... Literal crap ton of material existed at any moment in time (except for brief moments after hard reboots of 3rd and 8th) to be freely used at whim, without any need for house ruling (but every iteration actually directly encourages you to houserule anything and everything you whish, whether or not an actual written rule exists). In 8th, just using BRB and CAs allow you to construct myriads of unique games while sticking striclty to written rules only, with Urban Conquest expanding on ways you can link those into an ongoing, open narrative. You can, if you whish, never play a single setup of 40K twice and literally never in your life run out of new options to include, even if you play several times a week. Only counting standard matched play 2000pts faction vs faction matchups you now have more than 400 unique games (this does not in any way include various lists that can be clashed against eachother within two factions selected for a given game). Even with two strict lists you'll get vastly differing games via manipulating terrain layout alone. The only limiting factor with any of the above is mutual consent of players involved. It has always been this way. If this is not an epitome of sandbox then I really don't know what in the gaming world is.
Spoiler tagged for readability:
Okay. 40k has many options and "ways to play." Peregrine already said it, but my first thought was Starcraft and other RTS games, with pre-game options such as race, number of players, and map. That's just pre-game setup, though. I think the Skyrim comparison is apt, and my general understanding of what "sandbox" means: a game that gives the player a high degree of freedom to play as they wish, including creating your own content. With 40k, regardless of which options players choose on a given day, they're still moving their minis around, rolling to hit, rolling to wound, etc. There is only a main quest. The game's problems are still there, too.
How is the poor balance of the game, or its repetitive simplicity, conducive to "playing as you want?" Pre-game haggling over how broken or weak the players' lists should be doesn't achieve that. The poor balance of the game actively undermines playing as one would like, because unit strength becomes too great a factor in setting up a game. How can one play as one chooses when every game they have to check to make sure their favorite minis aren't too OP/UP for their opponent?
Wayniac wrote: I honestly feel that part of the charm of 40k (Warhammer in general) is the fact it enforces/encourages the social contract. You can't just roll up to a complete stranger, grunt out "Hey want to play 40k?" and then start unpacking (people do this, but I find it wrong).
Ginjitzu wrote: That's a bizarre criterion for determining failure. How would that even be possible without standardizing both the number of points required for each game and reducing the number of available missions to one? As others have said, there's no rational way to completely eliminate all forms of pre-game negotiation, and what kind of sane person would even want that?
Slipspace wrote:Of course there is. Plenty of games companies manage to produce a standardised set of rules which includes the standard points values and rules for mission set-up. All of FFG's games do this, for example. Whether it's the 1-mission approach of X-Wing or the more varied way missions work in Armada or Legion, there's no negotiation required at all. Other games have done the same. All it needs is the points limit to be set by the designers and the missions to be included in the rules, and for the game to be balanced enough that players don't feel the need to do the designers' jobs for them. Attitudes like this are exactly why GW seems to be able to get away with doing barely any balancing at all.
Note that in these other games it's still possible to adapt them and play something different if you want, but they have an agreed upon standard for what a game looks like so that if you turn up at a FLGS/club and ask for a game everyone instantly knows what that means without having to negotiate anything.
---
Slipspace wrote:...the comment I was responding to was implying it was impossible to create a situation where no pre-game negotiation was required...
No. My comment asked,
How would that even be possible without standardizing both the number of points required for each game and reducing the number of available missions to one?
and your response went on to mention
Plenty of games companies manage to produce a standardised set of rules which includes the standard points values and rules for mission set-up. All of FFG's games do this, for example. Whether it's the 1-mission approach of X-Wing or the more varied way missions work in Armada or Legion, there's no negotiation required at all. Other games have done the same. All it needs is the points limit to be set by the designers and the missions to be included in the rules,
You ignored the question I asked & answered one I didn't.
---
Peregrine wrote:You persistently ignore the difference between selecting options within the game (point level, mission, etc) and negotiating over how to approach the game. Providing 10 missions to choose from is fine game design. Having such poor balance that the players have to negotiate over how many powerful list options they're allowed to take before it is "too WAAC" and "not fun" is not.
No.
Wayniac wrote:You can't just roll up to a complete stranger, grunt out "Hey want to play 40k?" and then start unpacking.
and your comment asked
...why is this considered charm instead of failure by GW?
The comment to which I responded to had no mention of "selecting options."
Spoiler:
Peregrine wrote:But why is this considered charm instead of failure by GW? If, by some miracle, GW produced a well balanced game with no rules ambiguity such that you could just show up for a pickup game against a random stranger and start playing would you want GW to deliberately errata some stuff to be less balanced so that you have to have pre-game negotiation again?
See?
It would be a lot clearer if you said what you meant.
Blastaar wrote: I think the Skyrim comparison is apt, and my general understanding of what "sandbox" means: a game that gives the player a high degree of freedom to play as they wish, including creating your own content. With 40k, regardless of which options players choose on a given day, they're still moving their minis around, rolling to hit, rolling to wound, etc. There is only a main quest. The game's problems are still there, too.
If creating your own content becomes valid, then any of Peregrine's hypotheticals become achievable - have a pre-game discussion or two (depending on the complexity of the scenario you want to play), and figure out how to get the game you want. For really complex scenarios, you may need to take the game back to its Rogue Trader roots, and actually bring in a third party to manage neutral elements of the game - and that wouldn't be a sign of failure either.
nou did his best to figure out how to play the hypothetical scenarios presented to him (before they were changed in the reply) using the existing frameworks of rules from various editions. Allow them to expand upon those frameworks with their own material, and I imagine you'd get some damn fine games out of it.
Ginjitzu wrote: It would be a lot clearer if you said what you meant.
But then the remote-controlled goalposts wouldn't get as much use...
Expecting a wargame to handle conversations is of course a perfectly valid and reasonable way to dismiss 40K flexibility...[facepalm]
FW Zone Mortalis rules cover such stealth mechanics like total darkness/fog of war including scanner blips to limit range of fire, operating light in terrain sections and isolating game areas via door control. You can setup a hitman/thief/smuggler scenario without any homebrew with those. And for what it is worth, Zone Mortalis intended scale is close to 2nd ed, with model size capped at dreadnaught, so 1-2 operatives vs 10 sentries is spot on.
If a system primarily intended for mass battles can reasonably handle single operative scenario then I say it’s a damn fine sandbox...
And 2nd ed rules are not ancient history if I’m allowed to use two years old Shadow War: Armageddon rulebook...
On the flip side - RPG systems usually don’t scale up to mass battles all that well either.
See I go to a sports school, so I learned to ask this question from expiriance. By sportsman ship you mean acting like a sportsman or acting nice. Because those two are kind of a exclusive. Real sportsman only do nice stuff for show. while nice people do nice stuff, because they seem to be generally nice.
So, apparently it doesn't translate well. Oxford says sportsmanship is, "Fair and generous behaviour or treatment of others, especially in a sporting contest." Telling another player to, "git gud nub," would be considered NOT sportsmanlike behavior. Going back over the game and discussing decisions and possible improvements, including possible list modification for future consideration, would be considered good sportsmanship.
Yeah I do know the definition of the word. I just never know what people mean, with the words they are using a lot of the time. Specially when same words have opposit meaning. just to give an example in our 2ed junior year just before competitions started, our trained had a "lesson" with us about stuff like how to hit someone in the groin, so he feels it even with a protector and the judges don't notice. How to poke someone in the eye, when your getting out of a strangle hold and make it as if he hit you. how to break someones fingers in a clinch, so it looks as if he broke them himself by falling etc. Stuff like that, is sportsman behaviour too. But because this is not the first time I run in to that problem, I asked. And thank you for explaining.
If creating your own content becomes valid, then any of Peregrine's hypotheticals become achievable - have a pre-game discussion or two (depending on the complexity of the scenario you want to play), and figure out how to get the game you want. For really complex scenarios, you may need to take the game back to its Rogue Trader roots, and actually bring in a third party to manage neutral elements of the game - and that wouldn't be a sign of failure either
Ok, but it all falls apart as soon as the opponent says no. And there is like a milion and one reasons why he could say no. Ranging from not having time to invent a whole scenario pre game and ending with plain not liking you, but wanting a game. You would both more or less had to want to play a special scenario pre game everytime to support such a way of playing. It would be like buying an army, reading stuff on the forums local and world wide, and expecting that narrative play is well establish real way of playing the game, and matched play is just for tournament minority.
somebody wrote:So, apparently it doesn't translate well. Oxford says sportsmanship is, "Fair and generous behaviour or treatment of others, especially in a sporting contest." Telling another player to, "git gud nub," would be considered NOT sportsmanlike behavior. Going back over the game and discussing decisions and possible improvements, including possible list modification for future consideration, would be considered good sportsmanship.
Or otherwise known as, I would like people to continue being willing to play against me, the behavior.
Last game I played I introduced an unsuspecting opponent to the idea of multicharges and and artifact that prevents overwatch. So I explained what I was doing and how I was getting away with it, and he multi-charges me right back a few turns later to try and turn the tide himself.
It's about improving the game environment and helping others refine their skills as you play with them so even if they lose they feel they got something out of it. That way they remain engaged in the community.
Of course the scenarios I gave are bad. That's the point! 40k can't handle them because 40k is not a sandbox game. Even the suggestions involving significant house rules (IOW, not playing 40k because you admit that the game is inadequate for the job) would result in a experience. The real question here is why people are so determined to prove that 40k is a sandbox game, as if "sandbox" means "good", when it's really just a Starcraft-like game with more factions.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Ps: Zone Mortalis is meant to be played in the 500+ point range, it is not a game of 1-2 models vs 10. And BFG/SW:A/etc are not 40k.
Blastaar wrote: It is quite possible to view the past objectively.
It is. You weren't.
People have been separating "casual" vs "competitive" as long as professional sports have existed, and lemme tell ya, that's a long time. The internet's no different. From the very start there were people trying to set aside a place for themselves as better than everyone else, they were more "hardcore" or "1337" than everyone else, etc. The idea that the internet was somehow better in past days is pretty much the best example of rose-tinted glasses one could ask for.
As an aside, it is my hope that with the announcement of Apocalypse, since we will now have separate systems for small-scale 40k (Kill team) and large-scale 40k (Apoc) that GW will over time move 40k proper back to being a company-level game rather than have it try to be everything to everyone and as a result doing all things rather poorly (relatively speaking). 40k could never properly support flyers or superheavies, but if Apocalypse can then it means they can be weaned out of the main game and 40k can be kept at the proper scale where it performs the best.
Wayniac wrote: As an aside, it is my hope that with the announcement of Apocalypse, since we will now have separate systems for small-scale 40k (Kill team) and large-scale 40k (Apoc) that GW will over time move 40k proper back to being a company-level game rather than have it try to be everything to everyone and as a result doing all things rather poorly (relatively speaking). 40k could never properly support flyers or superheavies, but if Apocalypse can then it means they can be weaned out of the main game and 40k can be kept at the proper scale where it performs the best.
The only real out of place/out of scale feel I get with apocalypse level units in "normal" 40K is with supersonic jets moving at cavalry pace and doing helicopter manouvers, being shot by flamers and charged by jumping men. They felt in place only in Epic, making actual fast assault/bombing runs over long distances and circling over outskirts of entire battlefield area, not around a tiny ruin in the middle.
"But if someone says "I'm a casual player, I don't play in tournaments" I have to ask why, and what that means. Usually it revolves around winning or doing well as a pre-requisite to enjoy the game, which is a foundation for toxic behavior."
There are a number of reasons.
For me, I don't like how competitive I get. I'm not too competitive in a non-Tourny game. The last tourny I went to, I was focused on making up points after a by in the first round gave me fewer points than most - so I was playing catchup. After beating the other undefeated list in the second to last round by a single point, I didn't even enjoy the last round - I was far too fixated on how many points i could bleed out of my opponent. That last round was an amazing mission, and a really fun set up; I should have had a blast. But I just didn't care; I had to win.
(I won that last round, but not by enough. The list I played against in the second-to-last-round milked a DEMSU spam for killpoints in the first round, where I got a by - and so had far too many more VP than I did. I got second.)
It's not about being afraid of losing. I aim for a 60/40 W/L ratio in casual games - losing isn't infrequent with the lists I run. I can, and do, enjoy the game win or lose. But when in a tourny, *I* get too competitive for *my* tastes. So I prefer non-tournies.
Another reason is you're less likely to run into the "standard lists" or the hypercompetitive people in non-tourny games. So you can typically have a much more fun time with a much less optimized list. In a PUG game, I can still take a standardish demicompany style Marine list, and have an interesting game that could go either way. In a tournament, the games are much less likely to be interesting.
Yet another reason is that smashing your list into mostly-the-same lists in back-to-back games all weekend. Win or lose. PUGs have much more diversity than you see in tournies.
I'm sure there are some people who don't want to do tournies because they need to win every time to have fun - but that's certainly not the only reason to prefer not playing in tournaments.
Blastaar wrote: It is quite possible to view the past objectively.
It is. You weren't.
People have been separating "casual" vs "competitive" as long as professional sports have existed, and lemme tell ya, that's a long time. The internet's no different. From the very start there were people trying to set aside a place for themselves as better than everyone else, they were more "hardcore" or "1337" than everyone else, etc. The idea that the internet was somehow better in past days is pretty much the best example of rose-tinted glasses one could ask for.
This goes both ways. There are people who tell us that we aren't actually playing the game the right way because we focus on the analytical aspects, because we like systems and don't place the same value on the pretty pictures and badly written lore.
Seriously, try reading a Black Library novel, they're terrible.
Isn't it the funniest thing that if they could get over losing, and the love of drama, Tournaments are Casual gamer's dream land?
Fun people, having a great time, that appreciate good modeling and painting, with prizes, that want to geek out over the game, with minimal drama, while playing games!
And if you still want your Drama, be a TO.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bharring wrote: Claiming that people are enjoying the hobby wrong because they're competitive is wrong.
Claiming that people are enjoying the hobby wrong because they're not competitive is wrong.
IN general I don't see Competitive players speaking to much about Casual player affairs. Very few that care enough to say anything about Casual play.
As long as they get over everything else about tournaments:
-The samey lists (I prefer my games varied)
-The back-to-back games - I want to play 1 or 2 games in a day, then do something else. Not 4 in a row all on the ame day
-The samey mission formats
-The codified and bland table layouts (variety, once again, is really important)
-The same list - I like changing up my list more often than once every half dozen games. I like changing points levels, too.
-The playing against an opponent instead of with another hobbyist
-The boxed-in game
There are a *lot* of reasons to prefer casual PUGs over tournaments.
Automatically Appended Next Post: "IN general I don't see Competitive players speaking to much about Casual player affairs. Very few that care enough to say anything about Casual play."
Then read a few other threads. Apparently I'm wrong to ever consider using ASM. And my opinion is worthless because I might not be Alaitoc. And that there's no point or value in anything that isn't competitive. And that the units/armies we enjoy that aren't competitive must be removed from the game.
You might not be one of the people saying that gak, but it's certainly around.
Automatically Appended Next Post: For things that get said:
"Really, paying the fee is no different than paying money to go to an anime or reptile convention. You can look at reptiles for free at your local pet store after all, but was that the point of the convention in the first place?"
"All matches are legally regulated as long as you follow the basic rules for list construction. "Social regulation" is merely limits in your own head. "
"Also I love the whole "netlist" argument, the ultimate sign of virtue signaling."
"The narrative and open play don't exist because the rules for them are written worse than the match play."
"Why can't you bring a good list that will actually give a challenge instead of bland "one of everything!!!!1!" armies?"
""Casual" people are against imbalance because they secretly like fielding broken units, because there's no other explanation with being okay with OP units. "
That's just from a few pages of this thread.
The equivelent quotes exist the other way, too (people vilifying competitive players), of course.
Honestly, and I don't like to use this analogy, the real difference between casual and competitive is:
* One group is playing the game very laid back, not serious way and meshes with how the GW design studio themselves approach the game, and how the game was always intended to be when it was first conceived. This group plays much closer to the designer's intent.
* The other group, while not playing the game wrong, has deviated so far from how the game was designed and how the people designing the game are playing it that it has to have adjustments made specifically to allow it to function as a playable level as well as having outside people look at it to figure out what needs to be adjusted.
Everyone can play the game how they want, as it's meant to be flexible, but really only one group is doing it in the same way as the guys writing the rules. The other is technically playing the same game but in a decidedly different way.
IN general I don't see Competitive players speaking to much about Casual player affairs. Very few that care enough to say anything about Casual play.
I suppose this is very subjective but my experience is the opposite. Well... there are plenty of casual players that slam the tournament players yes. But in my neck of the woods some of the tournament players are just as nasty to anyone not bringing their A game all the time and will say things to shame casuals too.
Its really a two way street, not just one tribe does it while the other tribe is just the victim going about their merry way and enduring.
-One side, the [Casual] side, has some people who look down on and are dicks to [Competitive] players.
-On the other side, the [Competitive] side, has some people who look down on and are dicks to [Casual] players.
But that's true of almost every dichotomy out there.
Also true, is that there are many members of $group who are respectful of $otherGroup, and try to have productive, reasonable conversations. But $otherGroup hears the donkey-caves more than the non-donkey-caves, because that's the nature of $otherGroup.
I'm just gonna jump into a 24 page discussion without having read it and throw my opinion out there.
I don't think it's so much that people talking about casual vs competitive think the other is playing wrong it's that competitive level discussion by and far dominates discussion of the topic.
If I were to make a thread asking how to play necrons for example I would immediately be told that they aren't good and if I want to at all stand any chance of winning I should take destroyers and immortals. Which is all well and good but people don't start armies to take one or two units, they take armies because they like them as a whole (usually). There's no balanced opinions and general army advice is distilled down to it's most efficient units and that's all anyone talks about. If even the slightest hint of trying to make sub-par units work somewhat it just results in arguments about how much of a CP investment they are or how a unit from the same (often another army entirely) does the same thing better.
I consider myself semi-competitive I guess? I'm not a total fluff bunny but I do like to build lists around themes while trying to win which I think is what a majority of players do, but I basically never ask for advice online because it will always result in "drop X because Y is better". If I like sicarian duststalkers I don't want to be told to not take them and take more kastellans instead, I want to know how I can take my weird robot men and how to use them.
If I were to make a thread asking how to play necrons for example I would immediately be told that they aren't good and if I want to at all stand any chance of winning I should take destroyers and immortals. Which is all well and good but people don't start armies to take one or two units, they take armies because they like them as a whole (usually). There's no balanced opinions and general army advice is distilled down to it's most efficient units and that's all anyone talks about. If even the slightest hint of trying to make sub-par units work somewhat it just results in arguments about how much of a CP investment they are or how a unit from the same (often another army entirely) does the same thing better.
.
Thats because the assumed default of any discussion on the internet in relation to warhammer or 40k is competitive tournament mode. You have to explicitly state that winning Adepticon is not your goal somewhere in your request.
The argument coming out of casual players is typically something like...."It's just a game"
There is nothing more frustrating than that because it is a self defeating argument. The argument is literally saying it is "just" a game - as in it doesn't warrant an amount of seriousness be applied.
Most of the problems in this game that affect even casual players are due to the fact seriousness isn't applied when making the rules.
auticus wrote: Thats because the assumed default of any discussion on the internet in relation to warhammer or 40k is competitive tournament mode. You have to explicitly state that winning Adepticon is not your goal somewhere in your request.
Bolded & underlined for hilarity.
I think non-competitive threads should just state that in the title. might have to start.
I have in several forums suggested tags where one could put "competitive" or "casual" or whatever. So you could just tag your posts as casual when asking a question.
At least let the people understand your perspective when creating a post.
Because as we know, going [Competitive] Help me build a necron list is a lot different than [Narrative Campaign] Help me build a necron list.
Hell even [Competitive] Post on Table setup is going to be different than [Casual] Post on Table setup.
Some do. Maybe many do. But I know a *lot* of threads I post in where someone has asked, I have to ask "are you asking to win tournaments, or are you asking to play casual games with your friends" because its just "help me make a list"
A lot of those coming from brand new players that have no idea that there is a difference and that there are casual and competitive lists instead of just lists because of the balance issues.
I feel like 8th is becoming too rock-paper-scissors.
GWs idea of balancing seems to be "if X list can counter Y list then we're balanced" but so many armies don't have access to the tech that X list has (vect for example) that it doesn't make Y (double shooting oblits/lootas for example) balanced outside of that.
There are too many faction specific abilities (death to the false emperor) that make some matchups (morty vs imperium) an imbalanced mess (his offensive capabilities double with a few strats/spells vs non-imperium armies).
I also think that GW isn't in a good place because list construction maters so much. A lot of the problem with "WAAC" players driving off "CAAC" players is the power difference between an optimized list (of any faction) vs a non-optimized list is mind boggling. GW has too many crap units out there and broken combos that are just too good. The internal balance of the codexes is sooooo off that two players of the same faction can put down armies and one list that has no chance of winning vs another casual list because the internal balance of the dex is so bad (gulliman sm vs non-gulliman sm easy example but there are so many).
I don't think GW should get a pass on this. Maybe the codexes are hard to balance against one another but getting the internal balance of a codex right is something that GW really needs to pay attention to.
Wayniac wrote: * One group is playing the game very laid back, not serious way and meshes with how the GW design studio themselves approach the game, and how the game was always intended to be when it was first conceived. This group plays much closer to the designer's intent.
* The other group, while not playing the game wrong, has deviated so far from how the game was designed and how the people designing the game are playing it that it has to have adjustments made specifically to allow it to function as a playable level as well as having outside people look at it to figure out what needs to be adjusted.
If this was an attempt at a neutral statement it was a pretty spectacular failure.
Translation:
You system people are ruining the game for everyone else and not playing the way GW intended.
In response, I would argue that GW opened themselves up to systemic criticism the moment they slapped the word tournament on a game event. Otherwise, call it an RPG, call it a painting competition, call it a masturbatory tribal dance, whatever.
Sim-Life wrote: I'm just gonna jump into a 24 page discussion without having read it and throw my opinion out there.
I don't think it's so much that people talking about casual vs competitive think the other is playing wrong it's that competitive level discussion by and far dominates discussion of the topic.
If I were to make a thread asking how to play necrons for example I would immediately be told that they aren't good and if I want to at all stand any chance of winning I should take destroyers and immortals. Which is all well and good but people don't start armies to take one or two units, they take armies because they like them as a whole (usually). There's no balanced opinions and general army advice is distilled down to it's most efficient units and that's all anyone talks about. If even the slightest hint of trying to make sub-par units work somewhat it just results in arguments about how much of a CP investment they are or how a unit from the same (often another army entirely) does the same thing better.
That's because Dakkanaughts view discussion as a competitive sport. Dakkanaughts could give a flying feth about the actual topic, as long as a they win the argument.
"There is nothing more frustrating than that because it is a self defeating argument. The argument is literally saying it is "just" a game - as in it doesn't warrant an amount of seriousness be applied. "
There are scads of things I find more frustrating than that.
First, it's not a self defeating argument. It defeats several structures of argument, but defeats neither itself nor the general concept of discussing the game or even tactics/strategies.
Second, a great deal of weight(/seriousness) can be payed to concerns other than winning tournies. Some people put weight into fluff. Others, style. Visuals. Environments. Storytelling. Socialization. There are way more than one aspect for which this game/hobby can be enjoyed. This dismissal of non-competitive concerns asserts - demands - that no weight/seriousness is *allowed* to be payed to any concern beyond competitiveness.
Third, putting the game into perspective does demand that you not violently overthrow the world order to win a game, but it doesn't limit how much thought/energy of *your own* you put into the game or the discussion - up until the point where you're impugning on someone else. In other words, "it's just a game" is a reminder not to be an donkey-cave to the person/people you're disagreeing. And is a reminder to consider if competitiveness is worth whatever it is you're giving up to do it. But it is *not* a demand that you not discuss competitiveness any further. That's just being obtuse.
Third, I find being shouted down when discussing the finer points of how best to use ASM, in a conversation specific to how best to use them assuming you *will* use them, based on the argument that nobody is allowed to use them because they're a bad choice more frustrating.
I find being told that I'm a liar when claiming a highschool friend of mine was good at math, but lazy enough to pull out a calculator to add a bunch of random numbers - because apparently there is no possibility that anyone could decide they don't want to do something they could actually do - more frustrating.
I find being told that there exists no Eldar player who isn't a cheesemongering WAAC more frustrating.
(I find being told that there exists no RealMarine player who isn't a fluffbunny CAAC just as frustrating as the Eldar one above.)
Saying "It's just a game" is a suggestion that you make sure you've got a handle on perspective. There are many, many things that get said (to casuals and competitive players alike) that are *much* more offensive / worse /frustrating.
Fortunately, there's also a lot of interesting things people say here, too. I'm a casual player, but there are plenty of competitive players I've read interesting and insightful posts from. It's really just a few toxic individuals who go way too far.
(Edit: And, finally, fifth, I find off-by-one errors to be the most frustrating of them all.)
Reemule wrote: IN general I don't see Competitive players speaking to much about Casual player affairs. Very few that care enough to say anything about Casual play.
Offline, sure. I see plenty of sneering here on Dakka.
Reemule wrote: IN general I don't see Competitive players speaking to much about Casual player affairs. Very few that care enough to say anything about Casual play.
Offline, sure. I see plenty of sneering here on Dakka.
this is so painfully obvious but those who do are oblivious.
Blastaar wrote: It is quite possible to view the past objectively.
It is. You weren't.
People have been separating "casual" vs "competitive" as long as professional sports have existed, and lemme tell ya, that's a long time. The internet's no different. From the very start there were people trying to set aside a place for themselves as better than everyone else, they were more "hardcore" or "1337" than everyone else, etc. The idea that the internet was somehow better in past days is pretty much the best example of rose-tinted glasses one could ask for.
I was speaking more broadly, not of online forums specifically. And I really wouldn't know about forums "way back when," because I didn't spend time in them until much more recently. It was here on dakka that I discovered that gamers now exist within two factions constantly at war with each other because those people play the game "wrong." And it is immensely counterproductive.
This maybe a stupid question, but besides of nerfing one thing so people buy something else, why does GW give units bad rules. Am not speaking about GK. But lets say they make a good codex like eldar, and it has something in it like, I don't know storm guardians.
Karol wrote: This maybe a stupid question, but besides of nerfing one thing so people buy something else, why does GW give units bad rules. Am not speaking about GK. But lets say they make a good codex like eldar, and it has something in it like, I don't know storm guardians.
Nobody is sure, and GW's design team isn't transparent so they don't give their reasoning.
"This maybe a stupid question, but besides of nerfing one thing so people buy something else, why does GW give units bad rules."
Mistakes
Short sightedness
Oversight
Downplay things
Design is hard. Really hard. It always seems like there's an easy fix, but if you played a dozen games, and for each game you applied one "well thought out" popular change suggestino from the Proposed Rules section, you'd have a lot of poorly balanced games.
40k has a lot of moving parts. There is a lot to keep track of. It's not enough just to pay attention to every stat on every model in every unit in every faction - an already very-large area. You need to keep track of that *for every game condition*, *against every other stat/model/unit/faction*, *with every possible buff/stratagem/faction trait/etc*.
It's not nearly as simple as most people think. And this isn't unique to 40k - look at almost any profession, you see the same thing. "How could MIcrosoft miss this kernal panic?" "How could Intel miss this security vulnerability?" "How could Bioware miss this bug?" "How could Blizzard not realize this skill is worthless?" "How could senator X not notice loophole Y?"
If you drill into it, you could take almost anything and it'd be true of that profession too. Digging a hole seems easy. But there are people who spend absurd amounts of effort on doing it better - and they *do* do it better.
Things are hard. The higher quality you want it to be, the harder it is. Perfection beyond the nontrivial is nearly impossible.
Consider Chess.
First player has 20 options for first turn. Second player has 20 options first turn.
How many states are there for the first two moves? 400.
After the second turn? 197,742.
(Note: I had to look up the second turn number.)
The simplicity of each individual *piece* of the system makes it all seem so simple. However, it really isn't. Anyone who tells you that it is should try fully understanding every option in Chess - a much simpler game. Which nobody has done.
For another example, consider software. For any given computer, we only have like 5 "real" things:
-On (1)
-Off (2)
-NAND(a, b)
-Not(a)
-Execute
Every piece of software can be broken down into a collection of those. Each of those is incredibly easy to understand. But who, here, fully understands every single piece of even the original Unix?
Even when each piece is simple, the sum of all the simple pieces is not.
Automatically Appended Next Post: (Side note: most important point of the thread: that is *not* a stupid question. Stupid is assuming an answer. Smart is questioning an answer.)
Bharring wrote: Design is hard. Really hard. It always seems like there's an easy fix, but if you played a dozen games, and for each game you applied one "well thought out" popular change suggestino from the Proposed Rules section, you'd have a lot of poorly balanced games.
This. This is also why you don't throw an entire game system out before making a truckload of small tweaks to see what can be done to bring it into line with expectations. Because the moment you roll out a new system you're at ground zero again.
Reemule wrote: IN general I don't see Competitive players speaking to much about Casual player affairs. Very few that care enough to say anything about Casual play.
Offline, sure. I see plenty of sneering here on Dakka.
this is so painfully obvious but those who do are oblivious.
Some have the same approach: look at the rules and play to win.
Some like to look at the rules as a 40k scenario simulator to act out some event in the fluff or at least something interesting.
I like to try to find something in the middle.
Where it becomes the "bad place" is when those who want to win and are bad at it , they claim they are "casual": they are not being honest.
While some actually casual player looking for a game on the low side of competitiveness gets clobbered mistakenly taking on a competitive player.
It is quite the setup for hurt feelings.
One could say that possibly the best use for power levels is to signal to your opponent you do not intend to "sharpen your pencil" and max/min.
I find that the BEST means is to get a scenario together so a game has a story if "casual / fluff" is your thing.
RPG's have a DM/GM for a reason: someone to lay down the story that the conflict runs within.
GW is intentionally acknowledging the differing levels of play.
It is just infinitely harder to make the structure for a roleplay / fluff get together vs. a tournament.
Because when you play casual, you think of rules as:
While competitive go down this strange rabbit hole of thought:
Bharring wrote: "This maybe a stupid question, but besides of nerfing one thing so people buy something else, why does GW give units bad rules."
Mistakes
Short sightedness
Oversight
Downplay things
...
Insighful. thanks. I get that fine tunning can be hard maybe even impossible. But some things are just plain weird. A centurion armed in a similar way to a dreadnought costs more points, but the dreadnought has better rules and better stats. Such stuff makes me wonder, because it seems easy to notice. Or to use a GK example,a regular NDK has has weapons, same rules, worse stats, and higher point cost, then a NDK GM. Stuff like that doesn't require testing at all. And it seems to happen often enough, to not just be a random error. But maybe I just see paterns where there are non. That is possible too.
I wish GW did faster updates though. one year per one CA, means 2 years waiting minimum if your codex comes out 3-4 months before christmas and if it is true that GW has books ready 6 months in advance, then 2 years can easily turn in to 3. Such a patch system when new content comes out every month or two, seems very strange. And they do have WD. They could make FAQ or errata every month, and then at the end of a year just compile them in to an additional book for people to buy.
Bharring wrote:Design is hard. Really hard. It always seems like there's an easy fix, but if you played a dozen games, and for each game you applied one "well thought out" popular change suggestino from the Proposed Rules section, you'd have a lot of poorly balanced games.
As a case in extremis, may I present Sword Art Online ABRIDGED Episodes 1-11. The main point comes in 11, but you don't really appreciate without the other 10.
That having been said, we're talking about a game system that has literally been out longer than any other non-historical tabletop wargame, and there should be a laundry list of "don't do this" hanging up somewhere in the office, but instead it gets ignored. Now, I presented this point earlier, and I think that some don't really appreciate it, but GW doesn't care about making a balanced competitive game. For a good example of why it may not be a good idea to have a balanced competitive game focus, I point you back to what has happened with WMH and their metas of Extremerollers.
Even then, it would be nice if they considered the impact of some of the changes for a couple months or have a couple people hired on who are good at finding these weaknesses and exploiting them before putting them out for release. While I can agree to not wanting to go whole hog on the hyper-competitive band wagon, that doesn't mean that balance gets to go out with the bath water. At least a nodding attempt at balance would be appreciated. But I still accept that GW doesn't care to make 40K in to
While its true design is hard, the level of issues that are present in any GW game are typically exasperated from any other game on the market, and this game has been around for over thirty years.
The Fan comps from early AOS days were able to achieve a lot closer of a "balance" than anything GW has ever put out. And GW rules guys are paid to write rules.
Bharring wrote: "This maybe a stupid question, but besides of nerfing one thing so people buy something else, why does GW give units bad rules."
Mistakes
Short sightedness
Oversight
Downplay things
...
Insighful. thanks. I get that fine tunning can be hard maybe even impossible. But some things are just plain weird. A centurion armed in a similar way to a dreadnought costs more points, but the dreadnought has better rules and better stats. Such stuff makes me wonder, because it seems easy to notice. Or to use a GK example,a regular NDK has has weapons, same rules, worse stats, and higher point cost, then a NDK GM. Stuff like that doesn't require testing at all. And it seems to happen often enough, to not just be a random error. But maybe I just see paterns where there are non. That is possible too.
I wish GW did faster updates though. one year per one CA, means 2 years waiting minimum if your codex comes out 3-4 months before christmas and if it is true that GW has books ready 6 months in advance, then 2 years can easily turn in to 3. Such a patch system when new content comes out every month or two, seems very strange. And they do have WD. They could make FAQ or errata every month, and then at the end of a year just compile them in to an additional book for people to buy.
Read your codex -- A NDKGM is 40 pts more expensive then a NDK.
In the last CA the GMNDK got cheaper, and the normal NDK stayed with the same points. Same with interceptors and strikes. Identical units, with one difference that one has the not really fly rule.
Karol wrote: In the last CA the GMNDK got cheaper, and the normal NDK stayed with the same points. Same with interceptors and strikes. Identical units, with one difference that one has the not really fly rule.
Or to use a GK example,a regular NDK has has weapons, same rules, worse stats, and higher point cost, then a NDK GM
Doesn't matter -- NDKGM is not cheaper than the NDK, but is 40 pts more expensive, at 170 base vs 130 base.
You claimed that a NDKGM was cheaper than a NDK and you are absolutely, horribly wrong. Same with your claim that the codex has 2 hqs when you have 11.
So, read your codex and chapter approved before you whine!
"While its true design is hard, the level of issues that are present in any GW game are typically exasperated from any other game on the market, and this game has been around for over thirty years. "
I'm not saying GW is *good* at design (or bad). I'm not saying it's unreasonable to complain about bad design. I'm not saying there's no point in discussing bad design decisions.
I'm saying design is hard.
I'm saying most people who look at something are likely to come away with the idea that they know exactly what's wrong and how to fix it - and that they're almost always wrong (myself included).
I'm saying most of the time when you read a post about how a specific change is obviously necessary and good for the game, it's actually a terrible idea and often won't do what the poster expects.
But I'm not saying to not have those conversations. If you don't post your ideas, they won't get gakked upon. And in the process of the communual gakking this board will take on your idea, you can learn something. Occasionally even great things that have nothing to do with this game. Other times, you'll gain a better understanding of this game - which may help you play it, may help you enjoy it, and may help your next idea be less gakky.
(To be clear, this applies to my ideas, too.)
(Edit: I've always trusted the board profanity filter, as sometimes profane terms are the proper terms for discussion. Looks like it didn't filter other congugations of gak appropriately, so I did so manually.)
If I were to make a thread asking how to play necrons for example I would immediately be told that they aren't good and if I want to at all stand any chance of winning I should take destroyers and immortals. Which is all well and good but people don't start armies to take one or two units, they take armies because they like them as a whole (usually). There's no balanced opinions and general army advice is distilled down to it's most efficient units and that's all anyone talks about. If even the slightest hint of trying to make sub-par units work somewhat it just results in arguments about how much of a CP investment they are or how a unit from the same (often another army entirely) does the same thing better.
.
This happens waaaayyyyyy too much around here.
Well if someone is starting Necrons, it's important they don't waste their money on bad units.
If I were to make a thread asking how to play necrons for example I would immediately be told that they aren't good and if I want to at all stand any chance of winning I should take destroyers and immortals. Which is all well and good but people don't start armies to take one or two units, they take armies because they like them as a whole (usually). There's no balanced opinions and general army advice is distilled down to it's most efficient units and that's all anyone talks about. If even the slightest hint of trying to make sub-par units work somewhat it just results in arguments about how much of a CP investment they are or how a unit from the same (often another army entirely) does the same thing better.
.
This happens waaaayyyyyy too much around here.
Well if someone is starting Necrons, it's important they don't waste their money on bad units.
See, while I agree it's important for someone to understand a faction isn't good unless you spam certain units, it's also important to not make it clear that this isn't the be all end all if they don't plan to play competitively. Like, GW repeatedly states how you should pick a faction because you like their background, or their looks, or read a novel that featured them and it really caught your attention. They repeatedly state that you should buy models you feel would look good, if not play well also.
So these things have to be tempered. Someone who likes Necrons isn't going to appreciate being told "90% of your codex is garbage, you want to spam these 3 units or you'll lose constantly" and that might even sour them on the entire faction, if not the whole game because who wants to be told by the company that it's okay to pick based on looks/theme/etc. and then find out that you do nothing but lose?
It's important to know what you're getting into, but telling someone to pick a different faction if they're like hey I'm new and I really like the looks and fluff of the Grey Knights is not okay in my book.
If I were to make a thread asking how to play necrons for example I would immediately be told that they aren't good and if I want to at all stand any chance of winning I should take destroyers and immortals. Which is all well and good but people don't start armies to take one or two units, they take armies because they like them as a whole (usually). There's no balanced opinions and general army advice is distilled down to it's most efficient units and that's all anyone talks about. If even the slightest hint of trying to make sub-par units work somewhat it just results in arguments about how much of a CP investment they are or how a unit from the same (often another army entirely) does the same thing better.
.
This happens waaaayyyyyy too much around here.
Well if someone is starting Necrons, it's important they don't waste their money on bad units.
See, while I agree it's important for someone to understand a faction isn't good unless you spam certain units, it's also important to not make it clear that this isn't the be all end all if they don't plan to play competitively. Like, GW repeatedly states how you should pick a faction because you like their background, or their looks, or read a novel that featured them and it really caught your attention. They repeatedly state that you should buy models you feel would look good, if not play well also.
So these things have to be tempered. Someone who likes Necrons isn't going to appreciate being told "90% of your codex is garbage, you want to spam these 3 units or you'll lose constantly" and that might even sour them on the entire faction, if not the whole game because who wants to be told by the company that it's okay to pick based on looks/theme/etc. and then find out that you do nothing but lose?
It's important to know what you're getting into, but telling someone to pick a different faction if they're like hey I'm new and I really like the looks and fluff of the Grey Knights is not okay in my book.
Yeah, i did that and I get constantly gak on by dissy cannons.
Before that, it was gladius and scatterbikes.
Before that, it was invisible grav star.
Before that, it was Matt Ward GK and whoever wrote the 5th ed SW codex.
Bharring wrote: "While its true design is hard, the level of issues that are present in any GW game are typically exasperated from any other game on the market, and this game has been around for over thirty years. "
I'm not saying GW is *good* at design (or bad). I'm not saying it's unreasonable to complain about bad design. I'm not saying there's no point in discussing bad design decisions.
I'm saying design is hard.
I'm saying most people who look at something are likely to come away with the idea that they know exactly what's wrong and how to fix it - and that they're almost always wrong (myself included).
I'm saying most of the time when you read a post about how a specific change is obviously necessary and good for the game, it's actually a terrible idea and often won't do what the poster expects.
But I'm not saying to not have those conversations. If you don't post your ideas, they won't get gakked upon. And in the process of the communual gakking this board will take on your idea, you can learn something. Occasionally even great things that have nothing to do with this game. Other times, you'll gain a better understanding of this game - which may help you play it, may help you enjoy it, and may help your next idea be less gakky.
(To be clear, this applies to my ideas, too.)
(Edit: I've always trusted the board profanity filter, as sometimes profane terms are the proper terms for discussion. Looks like it didn't filter other congugations of gak appropriately, so I did so manually.)
I would never say design is easy. I could tweak all of GWs existing units but I would be left short if I were given a new model and told to make rules for it.
HOWEVER, there is a point where the imbalance is so blatantly obvious it's ridiculous. You should already know how silly the Storm Guardian entry is, for example, but what about the point Karol brought up with the Dreadknight vs the Grandmaster variant? Can we honestly use the excuse "design is hard" for GW to cut points on the one already being ran and not touch the other one?
Reemule wrote: IN general I don't see Competitive players speaking to much about Casual player affairs. Very few that care enough to say anything about Casual play.
Offline, sure. I see plenty of sneering here on Dakka.
The most common type of player in my community (and this includes myself) is someone who wants to bring a strong list, but also have fun, looking to avoid things that create resentment like extreme skew or WAACRAW bending.
This distinction is important, because if one of us played a 'casual' player it would be an absolute bloodbath-- not super fun for either of us.
You can be competitive, but not want to spend 4 hours on a Saturday bashing your head against slow playing 180 infantry armies, or a souped 3++ Castellan Triple Knight list that your strong TAC list has no chance of beating.
"Well if someone is starting Necrons, it's important they don't waste their money on bad units."
I started Marines when they were bad. I didn't waste my money. I'm glad I started with them.
I started Eldar when they were bad. They haven't been bad since, and I clearly didn't waste my money.
I started Harlies when they were the worst entry in the CWE book. That wasn't a waste of money.
If someone's starting Necrons (or GK), it's useful to let them know that their army isn't that strong right now. But that's not the same as telling them they're wasting their money.
First off, there's a lot more to this hobby than winning tournies. That may be the pinnacle for some, but it's not even relevant to others. Some much prefer the look and feel.
I've never fielded a WK, or Spear/Reaper squads above 3/5, or ScatterBikes; it's not just because they're OP, it's also because that's not the units I want to play with. Similarly, regardless of how powerful/weak they are, I don't want to collect/build/paint/play Orkz. Every game is better with Orkz in the game, but being Orkz just doesn't appeal to me.
So a new player may start as Necrons, and have a blast. The same player, if he were to go with the current hotness, may hate the game and waste his money.
Second, who knows what'll be top dog next year?
In the past two editions (since 7th started), the top armies have included:
-CWE -DE -Marines (Vanilla)
-CSM -Demons
-IG -Necrons
-T'au
-Ynnari
-Custodes
-Nids
So who's to say what'll be better in a year or two from now?
So it does help to point out what is currently on top, but that doesn't mean a new player should not start with something that isn't.
Automatically Appended Next Post: "I would never say design is easy. I could tweak all of GWs existing units but I would be left short if I were given a new model and told to make rules for it."
To quote my post you're quoting, "I'm saying most people who look at something are likely to come away with the idea that they know exactly what's wrong and how to fix it - and that they're almost always wrong (myself included)."
"HOWEVER, there is a point where the imbalance is so blatantly obvious it's ridiculous. You should already know how silly the Storm Guardian entry is, for example, but what about the point Karol brought up with the Dreadknight vs the Grandmaster variant? Can we honestly use the excuse "design is hard" for GW to cut points on the one already being ran and not touch the other one?"
To again quote my post you're quoting, "I'm not saying GW is *good* at design (or bad). I'm not saying it's unreasonable to complain about bad design"
My dream is a good player playing a middle of the road list constantly (emphasis that word constantly) doing well and placing high against other good players with powergamer lists.
Because at that point, game play will become more influential.
auticus wrote: My dream is a good player playing a middle of the road list constantly (emphasis that word constantly) doing well and placing high against other good players with powergamer lists.
Because at that point, game play will become more influential.
IF the game is properly balanced there is no middle of the road or power game list. It would just be list emphasis.
If the game is properly balanced there will always be mathematical imbalance. However, there should never be a good player vs a good player is decided because one good player brought the castellan. Imbalance will always exists but should always be able to be overcome through better play.
Two equally skilled players does not mean both players never make mistakes. Its who can capitalize on the mistakes of the other in that certain game should mean more than other player brought castellan so the math was so stacked against the other that it was a done deal.
The point of conflict here is that many (id say most of 40k playerbase) wants the list to mean that two equal players playing IS decided by who brought the proverbial castellan because then list building matters a lot and is more interesting to them.
You can't have both though. You can't have list building matters a lot AND have good balance in the game. You can have ok EXTERNAL balance like that where all factions have a viable powerbuild, but you cannot have good internal balance like that, which I find to be equally important.
auticus wrote: My dream is a good player playing a middle of the road list constantly (emphasis that word constantly) doing well and placing high against other good players with powergamer lists.
Because at that point, game play will become more influential.
IF the game is properly balanced there is no middle of the road or power game list. It would just be list emphasis.
But who knows if that is possible in w40k? Maybe it is just not possible. I guess it would be better, if the gap between the best and the worse army was a bit smaller. I think the gap is the true problem. there is always going to be a list that is the best, but sometimes it feels like the best are playing a different game with how many rules they ignore or break.
There is perfect which is really hard to define anyways and there is as good as it gets (this is what we want). This isn't as good as it gets because as auticus points out - the game is decided in list building right now. This is because there are so many flagrantly OP units that you lose if you don't take them.
Regardless of the current state of faction balance, I was pretty pleasantly surprised that the LVO finals was between two distinct factions with VASTLY different playstyles. What that means is that 8th edition 40k as a game system still has enough flexibility and variability to prevent it from being perfectly 'solved' even at the highest competitive levels. Even when the general advice for LVO was 'bring a Castellan', that doesn't stop a clever player from developing a perfect meta buster list and having a lot of success with it.
For the rest of us 'buy the models we like' players, it seems most factions are in a pretty good place when it comes to casual games eg. the overwhelming majority of games played. I've seen Grey Knights wreck Death Guard at my local store, I've watched Necrons poop on Triptides, etc.
The issue which exacerbates the imbalance in lists is that 40k is incredibly shallow in terms of actual gameplay decisions. The only real decisions you make are where to move your dudes so they can see the enemy and then what enemy to kill and even they require little in the way of actual tactics (get opponent in line of sight, shoot/charge until dead).
For example, in 40K there is no mechanic to employ the Four Fs used in WW2 and which still serve as one of the foundations for military tactics to this day (Find the enemy, Fix the enemy in place with suppressive fire, Flank the enemy, Finish the enemy). How much more interesting would a game of 40K be if movement and positioning actually mattered more? Where the mechanics of the game encouraged the actual usage of tactics like enveloping and flanking the enemy, using suppression fire from heavy bolters to keep the enemy pinned behind a wall whilst your assault squads flanked them from behind a ruined building. And all the while you are having to counter your opponent trying to do the same thing.
Another thing that is really annoying (and not in a "good" place) is the different costs of "cores" between factions. That is to say, IG can take their basic Battalion, add a few heavy hitters (Russes, Artillery, etc.) for, what, 800pts? If that? Even if the rest of their army is bottom-tier fluffy nonsense, that core will allow their list to compete in most non-tournament games without handicap AND without eating into their list space. Comparatively, when I consider core Necron units I'm thinking of 30 Tesla Immortals, an Overlord, a Cryptek, a Lord and his 3 DDAs. That's over 1100 points of units to just make my list "work", before I get to add the fluffy stuff I want to take.
Now, I personally don't mind said list because I like an Immortal-based army, but for people who liked playing carpets of Warriors or a coterie of Terminators or anything vaguely Grey Knights, the game isn't in a "good" place, because it feels like you have to try way too hard to make your list "work", even in a casual game.
slave.entity wrote: Regardless of the current state of faction balance, I was pretty pleasantly surprised that the LVO finals was between two distinct factions with VASTLY different playstyles. What that means is that 8th edition 40k as a game system still has enough flexibility and variability to prevent it from being perfectly 'solved' even at the highest competitive levels. Even when the general advice for LVO was 'bring a Castellan', that doesn't stop a clever player from developing a perfect meta buster list and having a lot of success with it.
For the rest of us 'buy the models we like' players, it seems most factions are in a pretty good place when it comes to casual games eg. the overwhelming majority of games played. I've seen Grey Knights wreck Death Guard at my local store, I've watched Necrons poop on Triptides, etc.
Castellans dominated LVO and dominate all tournaments. There are no clever meta busters. Just the same old crap AKA - Ynnari spears/doom - Eldar flyers - blocking moving paths - Orks abusing SAG relic and ofc...shooting twice because nothing is competitive without shooting twice . Dont mistake a little bit of diversity for the same old thang. OP = playable. Not OP? Dumpster.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
A Town Called Malus wrote: The issue which exacerbates the imbalance in lists is that 40k is incredibly shallow in terms of actual gameplay decisions. The only real decisions you make are where to move your dudes so they can see the enemy and then what enemy to kill and even they require little in the way of actual tactics (get opponent in line of sight, shoot/charge until dead).
For example, in 40K there is no mechanic to employ the Four Fs used in WW2 and which still serve as one of the foundations for military tactics to this day (Find the enemy, Fix the enemy in place with suppressive fire, Flank the enemy, Finish the enemy). How much more interesting would a game of 40K be if movement and positioning actually mattered more? Where the mechanics of the game encouraged the actual usage of tactics like enveloping and flanking the enemy, using suppression fire from heavy bolters to keep the enemy pinned behind a wall whilst your assault squads flanked them from behind a ruined building. And all the while you are having to counter your opponent trying to do the same thing.
Yeah I'd love some actual tactics but the reality is things are to lethal for tactics to even come into play. Fire arcs are meaningless and you can shoot through a 2 inch holes just as well as in the open. Also the real tactics in warfare (finding the enemy) are actaully the most tactical. We just deploy our armies into desperate situations and start shooting. It's still fun but actual tactics don't come into play. It's really just - focus fire to take away their firepower - this is 40k.
40k never had much in the way of tactics though. It was always pretty much mostly the list you brought, and then just applying firepower to the right thing. It's always been woefully shallow with reliance on lots of options as pretending to have meaningful depth.
The past few editions with True LOS have made that worse because it means most terrain (barring things like ITC houserules) might as well only be for decoration as they have lots of holes/windows/etc. where you can see *some* part of virtually any model, which makes the entire terrain piece usless as though it wasn't there at all.
slave.entity wrote: Regardless of the current state of faction balance, I was pretty pleasantly surprised that the LVO finals was between two distinct factions with VASTLY different playstyles. What that means is that 8th edition 40k as a game system still has enough flexibility and variability to prevent it from being perfectly 'solved' even at the highest competitive levels. Even when the general advice for LVO was 'bring a Castellan', that doesn't stop a clever player from developing a perfect meta buster list and having a lot of success with it.
For the rest of us 'buy the models we like' players, it seems most factions are in a pretty good place when it comes to casual games eg. the overwhelming majority of games played. I've seen Grey Knights wreck Death Guard at my local store, I've watched Necrons poop on Triptides, etc.
Castellans dominated LVO and dominate all tournaments. There are no clever meta busters. Just the same old crap AKA - Ynnari spears/doom - Eldar flyers - blocking moving paths - Orks abusing SAG relic and ofc...shooting twice because nothing is competitive without shooting twice . Dont mistake a little bit of diversity for the same old thang. OP = playable. Not OP? Dumpster.
That's definitely one way to look at it. For casual pickup games, 40k does seem to be in a pretty good place among the cities I've lived in and among the groups I've played with. No one actually brings a Castellan or seven Ynnari flyers to a pickup game as that would be considered extremely bad etiquette unless both players have agreed in advance to play 'competitive'. I'm assuming this isn't the case for you and your scene?
My view on this is that anything that requires people to activly not do something they can easily do is a very wonky base for interaction. It more or less requires a perfect form of interaction between two or more people everytime. Not impossible, but hard to pull off.
Ah, so you meant a more general "kids these days" argument. That might have been true between you and your small circle of friends, a very tiny sample. But it was not true overall. Almost from the start there were people who viewed themselves as superior due to their skill or dedication to gaming offline, as well-- as I knew from my experience playing with a broader community at arcades.
Karol wrote: My view on this is that anything that requires people to activly not do something they can easily do is a very wonky base for interaction. It more or less requires a perfect form of interaction between two or more people everytime. Not impossible, but hard to pull off.
If you can't manage this, then dating is going to be very difficult for you.
Karol wrote: My view on this is that anything that requires people to activly not do something they can easily do is a very wonky base for interaction. It more or less requires a perfect form of interaction between two or more people everytime. Not impossible, but hard to pull off.
If you can't manage this, then dating is going to be very difficult for you.
This isn't dating. It's a hobby.
Granted some people consider dating a hobby in of itself, but that's the game of love for ya.
I think one thing needs to happen, Relics, Warlord Traits and Psychic powers should have points costs. They aren't even remotely well balanced enough between each other to justify them being the same effective cost.
The power I can grant to my genestealer cult army with one CP spent to give me three warlord traits? The fact that I can spend a total of five CP to grant myself five command traits is rather absurd.
Once you can adjust the costs of these things independent of the unit involved a lot of power combos could easily be dealt with more effectively.
Karol wrote: My view on this is that anything that requires people to activly not do something they can easily do is a very wonky base for interaction. It more or less requires a perfect form of interaction between two or more people everytime. Not impossible, but hard to pull off.
If you can't manage this, then dating is going to be very difficult for you.
This isn't dating. It's a hobby.
Granted some people consider dating a hobby in of itself, but that's the game of love for ya.
It's a SOCIAL hobby, which requires SOCIAL skills. If you want to play a game that doesn't require interaction, try Solitaire. Or Dawn of War Skirmish.
Karol wrote: My view on this is that anything that requires people to activly not do something they can easily do is a very wonky base for interaction. It more or less requires a perfect form of interaction between two or more people everytime. Not impossible, but hard to pull off.
I mean, if you're playing for the fun of playing you may not take the most optimal list you can rattle off. Just go forth, throw something that seems interesting together and see how it performs. Mathhammer and net lists are not the end all of the game. You could always run the army you actually came up with and take some pride in that rather than cribbing someone's notes on what works best in a tournament.
You don't have to try not to win, you just need to not be a try hard about winning.
Or at the very least, don't tell people they're playing the game wrong because they didn't take a certain option. I've had a great deal of fun these last few weeks playing 40k, I no longer relate the stories here on dakka because I'm tired of being told things didn't happen because clearly no one uses unit X, or unit Y can't do that(when it's just rather unlikely). Don't be that guy at the club, because it actively discourages the community you play in.
Karol wrote: My view on this is that anything that requires people to activly not do something they can easily do is a very wonky base for interaction. It more or less requires a perfect form of interaction between two or more people everytime. Not impossible, but hard to pull off.
If you can't manage this, then dating is going to be very difficult for you.
This isn't dating. It's a hobby.
Granted some people consider dating a hobby in of itself, but that's the game of love for ya.
It's a SOCIAL hobby, which requires SOCIAL skills. If you want to play a game that doesn't require interaction, try Solitaire. Or Dawn of War Skirmish.
It's only as social as you make it to be. For example, when I'm playing Black Jack, I don't have to interact with anyone but the dealer, or I can talk to the whole table.
YeOldSaltPotato wrote: Or at the very least, don't tell people they're playing the game wrong because they didn't take a certain option. I've had a great deal of fun these last few weeks playing 40k, I no longer relate the stories here on dakka because I'm tired of being told things didn't happen because clearly no one uses unit X, or unit Y can't do that(when it's just rather unlikely). Don't be that guy at the club, because it actively discourages the community you play in.
Octopoid wrote: It's a SOCIAL hobby, which requires SOCIAL skills. If you want to play a game that doesn't require interaction, try Solitaire. Or Dawn of War Skirmish.
I don't consider myself a particularly anti-social person, merely introverted... but...
If I could play WH40k alone I would. I don't play WH40k to meet people, or to socialize, or to bond with anyone. If any of that happens it is a nice bonus, but I primarily play WH40k because I enjoy playing the game itself.
40k should be designed in a way that the rules are clear enough that it can be played without the two opponents ever speaking to each other apart from things like "your turn" or "make three armor saves". It is the mark of a well designed game.
Octopoid wrote: It's a SOCIAL hobby, which requires SOCIAL skills. If you want to play a game that doesn't require interaction, try Solitaire. Or Dawn of War Skirmish.
I don't consider myself a particularly anti-social person, merely introverted... but...
If I could play WH40k alone I would. I don't play WH40k to meet people, or to socialize, or to bond with anyone. If any of that happens it is a nice bonus, but I primarily play WH40k because I enjoy playing the game itself.
40k should be designed in a way that the rules are clear enough that it can be played without the two opponents ever speaking to each other apart from things like "your turn" or "make three armor saves". It is the mark of a well designed game.
Just my 2 cents.
Heh, the funny thing is that even that form, 40K could still be in a good place for GW.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For GW to consider 40K to be in a good place, sales happen sufficiently to make the owners happy about the profit margins. 40K IS selling well, so that is still a good place for GW. One just needs to remember that one simple thing, GW's prime business intent is not to sell games, but to sell models. Game sales are used to drive the model sales.
Is that good enough for you? If you are buying their stuff, it is on one level or another. One can still be satisfied with the universe in general and the models, but be unsatisfied with the game. Your purchases then would follow more to the books on the lore and the models themselves then the lore. However, your model purchases may not be to a consistent level of a competitive player, unless you are planning on reselling to said competitive player.
One thing I liked about 40K is that the models were (largely) easy to put together and paint. This is especially noteworthy as I had all my infantry of a demi-company of marines painted at one point (with a single jump chaplain exception), and the only infantry I've painted in WMH is one 6 man unit, a Warcaster, 4 Warjacks, and 2 Warbeasts, and I've had them for much longer. I mainly dropped 40K from my collection because I was tired of the arguments of the poor rules and even poorer FAQs of those poor rules.
Xenomancers wrote: Castellans dominated LVO and dominate all tournaments. There are no clever meta busters. Just the same old crap AKA - Ynnari spears/doom - Eldar flyers - blocking moving paths - Orks abusing SAG relic and ofc...shooting twice because nothing is competitive without shooting twice . Dont mistake a little bit of diversity for the same old thang. OP = playable. Not OP? Dumpster.
GW Grand Tournament would like to question your assumption that the Castellan dominates all tournaments.
All ITC events? As a statement, that'd be fair enough - but maybe a key factor there is those three little letters...
It's a SOCIAL hobby, which requires SOCIAL skills. If you want to play a game that doesn't require interaction, try Solitaire. Or Dawn of War Skirmish.
That very much sucks for people that are very bad at all social stuff.
All ITC events? As a statement, that'd be fair enough - but maybe a key factor there is those three little letters...
Well in europe that doesn't play with ITC rule they also win a lot. So maybe it is not the 3 letters , but the two that does that?
If I could play WH40k alone I would. I don't play WH40k to meet people, or to socialize, or to bond with anyone. If any of that happens it is a nice bonus, but I primarily play WH40k because I enjoy playing the game itself.
Castellans dominated LVO and dominate all tournaments. There are no clever meta busters. Just the same old crap AKA - Ynnari spears/doom - Eldar flyers - blocking moving paths - Orks abusing SAG relic and ofc...shooting twice because nothing is competitive without shooting twice . Dont mistake a little bit of diversity for the same old thang. OP = playable. Not OP? Dumpster.
I am sorry, but this mentality I see more and more in people who are just basing their opinion from Dakkadakka echo chamber. I also recommend watching Adepticon results to see how things aren't as cut and dry as LVO.
1. Jim Vesal - Chaos Daemon Mix
2. Stephen Fore - Genestealer Cults
3 Bilbo Baggins - Orks
4. Chris Blackham - Drukhari + Craftworlds
5. Sean Nayden - Ynnari
6. Braden Kohl - Militarum Tempestus(Had IK but no Castellan)
7. Thomas Byrd - Ultramarines
8. Bryan Hancock - Orks
9. Elliot Levy - Orks
10. Nick Nanavati - Orks
Castellans dominated LVO and dominate all tournaments. There are no clever meta busters. Just the same old crap AKA - Ynnari spears/doom - Eldar flyers - blocking moving paths - Orks abusing SAG relic and ofc...shooting twice because nothing is competitive without shooting twice . Dont mistake a little bit of diversity for the same old thang. OP = playable. Not OP? Dumpster.
I am sorry, but this mentality I see more and more in people who are just basing their opinion from Dakkadakka echo chamber. I also recommend watching Adepticon results to see how things aren't as cut and dry as LVO.
1. Jim Vesal - Chaos Daemon Mix 2. Stephen Fore - Genestealer Cults 3 Bilbo Baggins - Orks 4. Chris Blackham - Drukhari + Craftworlds 5. Sean Nayden - Ynnari 6. Braden Kohl - Militarum Tempestus(Had IK but no Castellan) 7. Thomas Byrd - Ultramarines 8. Bryan Hancock - Orks 9. Elliot Levy - Orks 10. Nick Nanavati - Orks
Okay, and what missions did Adepticon use? What was their scoring? I'm pretty sure Adepticon uses something different to ITC Champions missions like LVO.
That is a big factor to consider before you try to push this "See Castellans are fine one tournament didn't have them!" horsegak.
Karol wrote: My view on this is that anything that requires people to activly not do something they can easily do is a very wonky base for interaction. It more or less requires a perfect form of interaction between two or more people everytime. Not impossible, but hard to pull off.
If you can't manage this, then dating is going to be very difficult for you.
This isn't dating. It's a hobby.
Granted some people consider dating a hobby in of itself, but that's the game of love for ya.
It's a SOCIAL hobby, which requires SOCIAL skills. If you want to play a game that doesn't require interaction, try Solitaire. Or Dawn of War Skirmish.
This is basically the prevailing message some people don't seem to be getting.
"I'm having a bad time playing Warhammer because my opponents and I don't talk to each other, they model for advantage to try and get around the rules, they only bring the most cutthroat competitive armies and don't care about anything other than winning, and none of us care about the game or the story. GW can you change the rules so I can win more? That will finally make me happy,"
When you're at that point you just need to get some perspective on why you're playing a game (repeat: game) in the first place. It's literally designed to be a fun social activity.
Castellans dominated LVO and dominate all tournaments. There are no clever meta busters. Just the same old crap AKA - Ynnari spears/doom - Eldar flyers - blocking moving paths - Orks abusing SAG relic and ofc...shooting twice because nothing is competitive without shooting twice . Dont mistake a little bit of diversity for the same old thang. OP = playable. Not OP? Dumpster.
I am sorry, but this mentality I see more and more in people who are just basing their opinion from Dakkadakka echo chamber. I also recommend watching Adepticon results to see how things aren't as cut and dry as LVO.
1. Jim Vesal - Chaos Daemon Mix
2. Stephen Fore - Genestealer Cults
3 Bilbo Baggins - Orks
4. Chris Blackham - Drukhari + Craftworlds
5. Sean Nayden - Ynnari
6. Braden Kohl - Militarum Tempestus(Had IK but no Castellan)
7. Thomas Byrd - Ultramarines
8. Bryan Hancock - Orks
9. Elliot Levy - Orks
10. Nick Nanavati - Orks
Okay, and what missions did Adepticon use? What was their scoring? I'm pretty sure Adepticon uses something different to ITC Champions missions like LVO.
That is a big factor to consider before you try to push this "See Castellans are fine one tournament didn't have them!" horsegak.
? But ITC missions aren't even created by GW? But you're complaining that GW isn't balancing around a set of missions they didn't even create and sanction because those are the "one true" missions?
No, I'm saying people are saying the Catellan is broken because it's dominating tournaments. This usually means ITC Tournaments that use ITC missions. The person I replied to said basically but they didn't dominate at Adepticon so the Castellan is fine. So my counter was if Adepticon isn't using ITC missions, it doesn't mean gak if the Castellan wasn't there. And in fact, it means the Castellan is dominating ITC missions, not the game itself, and its most of the ITC TOs that are playtesting and providing feedback for GW's balancing.
Wayniac wrote: No, I'm saying people are saying the Catellan is broken because it's dominating tournaments. This usually means ITC Tournaments that use ITC missions. The person I replied to said basically but they didn't dominate at Adepticon so the Castellan is fine. So my counter was if Adepticon isn't using ITC missions, it doesn't mean gak if the Castellan wasn't there. And in fact, it means the Castellan is dominating ITC missions, not the game itself, and its most of the ITC TOs that are playtesting and providing feedback for GW's balancing.
The person you replied to didn't "basically" or literally say that at all, they responded to you saying (literally) this:
"Castellans dominated LVO and dominate all tournaments. There are no clever meta busters. Just the same old crap AKA - Ynnari spears/doom - Eldar flyers - blocking moving paths - Orks abusing SAG relic and ofc...shooting twice because nothing is competitive without shooting twice . Dont mistake a little bit of diversity for the same old thang. OP = playable. Not OP? Dumpster."
The issue with determination of the power of lists and the units within such lists is that with so little commonality in the way events and games are played around the game, in terms of missions, terrain, house rules.
For balancing 40k to realistically be achievable before GW decided that for some reason or another that they need a new rule system, you would have to significantly reduce the number of undefined variables that effect the way units interact.
Some people claim that using cities of death fixes 40k's terrain issues and others say it's borderline unplayable against - to hit armies.
It's the same with the super factions some people are convinced that playing mono codec is dumb and super factions are balanced, others still see 1 codex as how an army should play and view the super faction lists as unbalanced mess.
Untill everyone is playing atleast vaguely the same game the units could be perfectly balanced even down to mathematical probability modeling in GW vision of the game yet one of these house rules, mission packs etc would tilt it to 1 list always having and advantage.
Has anyone considered that GW isn't talking about playing the game, but instead the 40K line of products? No one army is driving sales like in the past. Instead, people are buying units from across the entire 40K product range, albeit the best units... every time an army gets updated or a new codex, they get new models and sales go up. And for the first time in 40K, we're seeing new stuff being added to armies already released. In the past, it was codex, then new models trickled out. Sometimes, no models for certain units were made at all! Then we moved into this era of codex and only the models in that codex. This lead to a large amount of new models available at the time of a new codex release (Primaris). Now, we are seeing "campaign books" with new models being released outside of a codex! That's awesome! New models with no codex entry at all, but rules for play!
Then there is the FAQ and errata schedule. An actual schedule we can plan around! The Community Survey! It looks like GW is listening to the players again!
Outstanding hobby and painting guides! How many of you have watched Duncan on Youtube say "Two thin coats"? Swag! More swag then ever! No bearing at all on game play, but it's kinda nice to have a Space Wolves luggage tag for my army bag. They have a very good and nicely laid out website and webstore! You want fluff? Have you seen the amount of Black Library books there are for 40K?!?!
Let's consider the current competition for 40K. Oh, that's right. There isn't any. Privateer Press is doing it's best to self destruct, Kingdoms of War has a following, Star Wars Legion? Hah! DOA. Maybe X-Wing? But that game... after the new edition came out, it's just not the same. What else is there to compare to 40K? Oh yeah, Age of Sigmar and Underworlds. Both GW products. Maybe Killteam? Again, GW product. Point being that no other table top games are even close to the popularity or player base of 40K.
I would postulate that everything about 40K except the actual game itself is in a pretty good place. With things going so well, I'm sure GW is taking a "If it ain't broke, don't fix it approach". As long as the game is selling and making profits, GW ain't gonna break the game with a new edition or change it significantly. That's what I think they mean when they say "40K is in a pretty good place right now."
Wayniac wrote: I think this is actually correct. But it does fracture the game. I mean, GW may be trying to balance things but they seem to be doing a poor job overall. So maybe it's time for ITC to step up again and balance the stuff GW won't, since they already have market share over competitive 40k so their word is essentially law when it comes to that. As much as I dislike ITC skewing the game, I think if they actually go whole hog like they had to in 7th and have their own houserules and such to fix competitive 40k, it at least does what GW won't: Divide Matched Play into matched play (as in points) and competitive play (with extra restrictions to help further balance the game). Things like reigning in soup, or limiting you to one battalion, or whatever the hell, you get the idea - just go full on split rather than this weird half split.
I once used a metaphor for this:
Basically, imagine an online RTS game. Ideally, all factions that you could use in this video game would be balanced against one another and do well if used correctly within their strengths and weaknesses. The real determining factor would be a player's skill and knowledge of his opponents' faction.
However, if GW ran this online RTS- two or three of the playable factions would have some 'Super Special Units' that could be purchased through online micro-transactions- and these units that you buy could be the definition of 'pay to win'- the other factions would have no real, practical way of countering these units without completely laser-focusing on it and even then, it's a huge gamble.
Sure, those 'Super Special Units' may cost $150.00 in the micro-transaction store, and you'd think that'd keep a lot of people from using them while still 'helping to fund the game'... but come on, we all know gamers. They'll pay for it if they hate losing to it enough, and want to win bad enough. They can whine on forums all they want but at the end of the day the profits will determine whether or not they are really that unhappy with the state of the game.
On top of that, why would they bother to balance the other factions to counter those $150.00 pay-to-win units? If people want to win, they'll switch factions and pay for them and GW wins without having to do more work. Everyone else is just whining and as long as they buy the game, GW still wins.
As long as people keep throwing money at the game, without so much as a hiccup- things will not change. And people keep buying it, all day long.
Some of the same people that have told me they hate cheesy soup lists and units... are usually one financial transaction away from funding the very thing they're whining about, whether they buy the units they 'hate' or spend just as much getting units to counter that... they play right into the trap.
We've all read the stories and seen it with our own eyes where guys will live on Ramen for a month, overdraft their bank account, cancel anniversary dates with their wife, skip out on their grandmother's funeral, take their childrens' Christmas presents back to the store, pawn family heirloom jewelry, and outright steal or swindle just to get a new toy that helps them win the game. Don't sit here and act like you don't know or know of at least ONE gamer whose 'addiction' would have have heroin and meth junkies saying, "Dude, I'm taking you to rehab, you've got a problem".
Why the hell would GW change that? Just like people screaming about how much they hated a movie- well, they still bought a ticket to go watch it so we can probably expect a sequel with the same formula- see the Austin Powers trilogy
.
Change that from RTS to a sports game and that sounds an awful lot like FIFA 19.
Castellans dominated LVO and dominate all tournaments. There are no clever meta busters. Just the same old crap AKA - Ynnari spears/doom - Eldar flyers - blocking moving paths - Orks abusing SAG relic and ofc...shooting twice because nothing is competitive without shooting twice . Dont mistake a little bit of diversity for the same old thang. OP = playable. Not OP? Dumpster.
That is demonstrably not true. They did not dominate the GWGT finals, they did not dominate Adepticon. I think at this point anyone claiming that they dominate all tournaments has some very serious tournament blinkers on.
As for the OP/dumpster divide that is in the heads of certain players not in the reality of how things play out on the table - T'au Piranhas were supposed to be dumpster grade until someone took out a big tournament with a list that had 8 of them. Nothing changed in their rules, its just that the internet-driven group-think was wrong, just plain wrong. Your list of OP things managed to include precisely nothing in the Adepticon or GWGT winning lists - so how exactly are those things able to "dominate all tournaments" when plainly they do not even win all tournaments.
Wayniac wrote: No, I'm saying people are saying the Catellan is broken because it's dominating tournaments. This usually means ITC Tournaments that use ITC missions. The person I replied to said basically but they didn't dominate at Adepticon so the Castellan is fine. So my counter was if Adepticon isn't using ITC missions, it doesn't mean gak if the Castellan wasn't there. And in fact, it means the Castellan is dominating ITC missions, not the game itself, and its most of the ITC TOs that are playtesting and providing feedback for GW's balancing.
"Castellans dominated LVO and dominate all tournaments." (direct quote from you)
Wayniac wrote: No, I'm saying people are saying the Catellan is broken because it's dominating tournaments. This usually means ITC Tournaments that use ITC missions. The person I replied to said basically but they didn't dominate at Adepticon so the Castellan is fine. So my counter was if Adepticon isn't using ITC missions, it doesn't mean gak if the Castellan wasn't there. And in fact, it means the Castellan is dominating ITC missions, not the game itself, and its most of the ITC TOs that are playtesting and providing feedback for GW's balancing.
"Castellans dominated LVO and dominate all tournaments." (direct quote from you)
"But they didn't dominate this major tournament."
"That doesn't count because....uh....."
Remember the time in 6th edition where the one Rubric Marines w/ Ahriman list got 8th or something like that, and everyone said Rubric Marines were fine because of it?
Yeah me neither.
So you're using ONE tournament as your argument to say Castellans are fair. Does that seem to really make sense when the other parties are using multiple tournaments to prove their point?
AlmightyWalrus wrote: It's perfectly fair when someone makes an absolute statement like that. You only need one datapoint to disprove the assertion.
While Xenomancers can make...grand statements, we all know what the point was, and it was that Castellans dominate. I haven't a clue what the goal is here with the "Gotcha!" outside some longwinded way to say Castellans are somehow okay?
AlmightyWalrus wrote: It's perfectly fair when someone makes an absolute statement like that. You only need one datapoint to disprove the assertion.
While Xenomancers can make...grand statements, we all know what the point was, and it was that Castellans dominate. I haven't a clue what the goal is here with the "Gotcha!" outside some longwinded way to say Castellans are somehow okay?
It’s to call out ridiculous negative hyperbole that adds nothing positive to a discussion.
Castellans dominated LVO and dominate all tournaments. There are no clever meta busters. Just the same old crap AKA - Ynnari spears/doom - Eldar flyers - blocking moving paths - Orks abusing SAG relic and ofc...shooting twice because nothing is competitive without shooting twice . Dont mistake a little bit of diversity for the same old thang. OP = playable. Not OP? Dumpster.
I am sorry, but this mentality I see more and more in people who are just basing their opinion from Dakkadakka echo chamber. I also recommend watching Adepticon results to see how things aren't as cut and dry as LVO.
1. Jim Vesal - Chaos Daemon Mix
2. Stephen Fore - Genestealer Cults
3 Bilbo Baggins - Orks
4. Chris Blackham - Drukhari + Craftworlds
5. Sean Nayden - Ynnari
6. Braden Kohl - Militarum Tempestus(Had IK but no Castellan)
7. Thomas Byrd - Ultramarines
8. Bryan Hancock - Orks
9. Elliot Levy - Orks
10. Nick Nanavati - Orks
Okay, and what missions did Adepticon use? What was their scoring? I'm pretty sure Adepticon uses something different to ITC Champions missions like LVO.
That is a big factor to consider before you try to push this "See Castellans are fine one tournament didn't have them!" horsegak.
So your saying the problem isn't Castellans but the ITC mission format.
Thanks for realising something people outside of the US have been telling you for years.
Castellans dominated LVO and dominate all tournaments. There are no clever meta busters. Just the same old crap AKA - Ynnari spears/doom - Eldar flyers - blocking moving paths - Orks abusing SAG relic and ofc...shooting twice because nothing is competitive without shooting twice . Dont mistake a little bit of diversity for the same old thang. OP = playable. Not OP? Dumpster.
I am sorry, but this mentality I see more and more in people who are just basing their opinion from Dakkadakka echo chamber. I also recommend watching Adepticon results to see how things aren't as cut and dry as LVO.
1. Jim Vesal - Chaos Daemon Mix
2. Stephen Fore - Genestealer Cults
3 Bilbo Baggins - Orks
4. Chris Blackham - Drukhari + Craftworlds
5. Sean Nayden - Ynnari
6. Braden Kohl - Militarum Tempestus(Had IK but no Castellan)
7. Thomas Byrd - Ultramarines
8. Bryan Hancock - Orks
9. Elliot Levy - Orks
10. Nick Nanavati - Orks
Okay, and what missions did Adepticon use? What was their scoring? I'm pretty sure Adepticon uses something different to ITC Champions missions like LVO.
That is a big factor to consider before you try to push this "See Castellans are fine one tournament didn't have them!" horsegak.
So your saying the problem isn't Castellans but the ITC mission format.
Thanks for realising something people outside of the US have been telling you for years.
Xenomancers wrote: Castellans dominated LVO and dominate all tournaments. There are no clever meta busters. Just the same old crap AKA - Ynnari spears/doom - Eldar flyers - blocking moving paths - Orks abusing SAG relic and ofc...shooting twice because nothing is competitive without shooting twice . Dont mistake a little bit of diversity for the same old thang. OP = playable. Not OP? Dumpster.
GW Grand Tournament would like to question your assumption that the Castellan dominates all tournaments.
All ITC events? As a statement, that'd be fair enough - but maybe a key factor there is those three little letters...
ITC is not GW! How can anyone expect GW to "fix" a completely different game than the 40kGW produces?
I've never faced a castellan but thankfully if I do, it wont be with all the stupid BS that goes along with ITC crap.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: It's perfectly fair when someone makes an absolute statement like that. You only need one datapoint to disprove the assertion.
While Xenomancers can make...grand statements, we all know what the point was, and it was that Castellans dominate. I haven't a clue what the goal is here with the "Gotcha!" outside some longwinded way to say Castellans are somehow okay?
It is arguable that Castellan lists dominate the ITC. That is an ITC specific problem, it is simply an untrue statement when made about all tournaments. It is an untrue statement which makes it hard to have a meaningful or useful discussion about where the problem really is because the purported problem is specific to one tournament format.
The castellan list is definitely good and competitive in most formats but it is not winning, not getting on the podium and maybe not even in the top 10 so to say that it is dominating them is ridiculous.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: It's perfectly fair when someone makes an absolute statement like that. You only need one datapoint to disprove the assertion.
While Xenomancers can make...grand statements, we all know what the point was, and it was that Castellans dominate. I haven't a clue what the goal is here with the "Gotcha!" outside some longwinded way to say Castellans are somehow okay?
It is arguable that Castellan lists dominate the ITC. That is an ITC specific problem, it is simply an untrue statement when made about all tournaments. It is an untrue statement which makes it hard to have a meaningful or useful discussion about where the problem really is because the purported problem is specific to one tournament format.
The castellan list is definitely good and competitive in most formats but it is not winning, not getting on the podium and maybe not even in the top 10 so to say that it is dominating them is ridiculous.
Riptides didn't need to dominate every tournament in 6th-7th for us to know they were unbalanced though, right? Same thing with Flyrants.
Castellans dominated LVO and dominate all tournaments. There are no clever meta busters. Just the same old crap AKA - Ynnari spears/doom - Eldar flyers - blocking moving paths - Orks abusing SAG relic and ofc...shooting twice because nothing is competitive without shooting twice . Dont mistake a little bit of diversity for the same old thang. OP = playable. Not OP? Dumpster.
I am sorry, but this mentality I see more and more in people who are just basing their opinion from Dakkadakka echo chamber. I also recommend watching Adepticon results to see how things aren't as cut and dry as LVO.
1. Jim Vesal - Chaos Daemon Mix
2. Stephen Fore - Genestealer Cults
3 Bilbo Baggins - Orks
4. Chris Blackham - Drukhari + Craftworlds
5. Sean Nayden - Ynnari
6. Braden Kohl - Militarum Tempestus(Had IK but no Castellan)
7. Thomas Byrd - Ultramarines
8. Bryan Hancock - Orks
9. Elliot Levy - Orks
10. Nick Nanavati - Orks
Okay, and what missions did Adepticon use? What was their scoring? I'm pretty sure Adepticon uses something different to ITC Champions missions like LVO.
That is a big factor to consider before you try to push this "See Castellans are fine one tournament didn't have them!" horsegak.
Of course more datapoints are needed, but i was responding to the statement that they dominate everything and the defeatist attitude that I see way too often here. Castellan may very well need adjustments(I think CP batteries need to be addressed but that is another discussion), but to push the idea that the Castellan is the alpha and the omega of the game is just over-reaction to certain tourney events and match-types. The world is a big wonderful place with many types of different players and matches and in that vast and endless reality we call our world there is so much more fun to be had than the narrative some people push that one shouldn't even bother playing the game because Castellan and Ynnari are strong.
It kinda surprises how many people bother playing the game when there is naught but despair and no hope in sight.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: It's perfectly fair when someone makes an absolute statement like that. You only need one datapoint to disprove the assertion.
While Xenomancers can make...grand statements, we all know what the point was, and it was that Castellans dominate. I haven't a clue what the goal is here with the "Gotcha!" outside some longwinded way to say Castellans are somehow okay?
It is arguable that Castellan lists dominate the ITC. That is an ITC specific problem, it is simply an untrue statement when made about all tournaments. It is an untrue statement which makes it hard to have a meaningful or useful discussion about where the problem really is because the purported problem is specific to one tournament format.
The castellan list is definitely good and competitive in most formats but it is not winning, not getting on the podium and maybe not even in the top 10 so to say that it is dominating them is ridiculous.
Riptides didn't need to dominate every tournament in 6th-7th for us to know they were unbalanced though, right? Same thing with Flyrants.
Again this comes back to how are you "supposed" to play, as you can only balance for one way to play, it might be close enough for others but with things like ITC secondarys, missions etc is it the castellen on it's own? Is it mission design, is it secondarys punishing the units that GW expected the counter to be? Or is it GW just really hasn't been balancing outside mono codex lists?
Without understanding the why, and it's probably more than 1 individual factor, fixing the underlying issue instead of nuclear nerfing the symptom unit into unplayable isn't going to happen. Nerfing units into unplayable will just end up splitting the community even more as people get progressively pissed at seeing the way they want to play their codex become unplayable because of some outside factors.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: It's perfectly fair when someone makes an absolute statement like that. You only need one datapoint to disprove the assertion.
While Xenomancers can make...grand statements, we all know what the point was, and it was that Castellans dominate. I haven't a clue what the goal is here with the "Gotcha!" outside some longwinded way to say Castellans are somehow okay?
It is arguable that Castellan lists dominate the ITC. That is an ITC specific problem, it is simply an untrue statement when made about all tournaments. It is an untrue statement which makes it hard to have a meaningful or useful discussion about where the problem really is because the purported problem is specific to one tournament format.
The castellan list is definitely good and competitive in most formats but it is not winning, not getting on the podium and maybe not even in the top 10 so to say that it is dominating them is ridiculous.
Riptides didn't need to dominate every tournament in 6th-7th for us to know they were unbalanced though, right? Same thing with Flyrants.
Again this comes back to how are you "supposed" to play, as you can only balance for one way to play, it might be close enough for others but with things like ITC secondarys, missions etc is it the castellen on it's own? Is it mission design, is it secondarys punishing the units that GW expected the counter to be? Or is it GW just really hasn't been balancing outside mono codex lists?
Without understanding the why, and it's probably more than 1 individual factor, fixing the underlying issue instead of nuclear nerfing the symptom unit into unplayable isn't going to happen. Nerfing units into unplayable will just end up splitting the community even more as people get progressively pissed at seeing the way they want to play their codex become unplayable because of some outside factors.
I don't often agree with things you post in here, but I think you nailed it this time.
On that note here is a question for the people who previously have argued how much better ITC missions are than everything else: If the Castellan is dominating ITC missions and not other missions (as evidenced by the fact that the GWGT and Adepticon did not have Castellans dominate), where is the issue? Should GW balance the Castellan (and yes it should still be adjusted somewhat IMHO) around ITC Champions missions, or is it really not as bad as ITC Champions missions makes it out to be when you remove those missions?
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:GW tournaments don't count for anything because they have dumb scores for "favorite army" and that garbage.
I don't think that's dumb at all, and ignoring GW because that's not how you enjoy the hobby is exactly the kind of dismissive and ignorant attitude that leads to things like "casual vs competitive". Let people enjoy harmless things. Unless you're genuinely suggesting this causes harm to you.
Castellans dominated LVO and dominate all tournaments. There are no clever meta busters. Just the same old crap AKA - Ynnari spears/doom - Eldar flyers - blocking moving paths - Orks abusing SAG relic and ofc...shooting twice because nothing is competitive without shooting twice . Dont mistake a little bit of diversity for the same old thang. OP = playable. Not OP? Dumpster.
I am sorry, but this mentality I see more and more in people who are just basing their opinion from Dakkadakka echo chamber. I also recommend watching Adepticon results to see how things aren't as cut and dry as LVO.
1. Jim Vesal - Chaos Daemon Mix
2. Stephen Fore - Genestealer Cults
3 Bilbo Baggins - Orks
4. Chris Blackham - Drukhari + Craftworlds
5. Sean Nayden - Ynnari
6. Braden Kohl - Militarum Tempestus(Had IK but no Castellan)
7. Thomas Byrd - Ultramarines
8. Bryan Hancock - Orks
9. Elliot Levy - Orks
10. Nick Nanavati - Orks
Okay, and what missions did Adepticon use? What was their scoring? I'm pretty sure Adepticon uses something different to ITC Champions missions like LVO.
That is a big factor to consider before you try to push this "See Castellans are fine one tournament didn't have them!" horsegak.
So your saying the problem isn't Castellans but the ITC mission format.
Thanks for realising something people outside of the US have been telling you for years.
infact the problem are ITC rules not Castellans based lists, here in europe (ETC or tournaments with CA 2018 missions) hardly you can ever see Castellan lists dominate, you cant complain with GW when a tournament use a rule pack GW didn't make. Try play CA 2018 missions and you will see how much Castellan lists will dominate, play a 4 colum missione (just an extreme example) against a true horde (like 120 Pb's) with castellan like lists.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:GW tournaments don't count for anything because they have dumb scores for "favorite army" and that garbage.
I don't think that's dumb at all, and ignoring GW because that's not how you enjoy the hobby is exactly the kind of dismissive and ignorant attitude that leads to things like "casual vs competitive". Let people enjoy harmless things. Unless you're genuinely suggesting this causes harm to you.
It has nothing to do with the gameplay though. Someone getting a few ranks higher because their Marines were painted slightly nicer than then the people that played better is basically an insult.
The good news is that Warhammer 40,000 is in a pretty good place at the moment, so there won’t be any seismic changes, just a handful of balancing tweaks.
Would you agree with that sentiment? Why or why not?
Also, do you think that limiting soup/CP/detachments/etc. (any such myriad of changes to end the Loyal 32 powering a Castellan) counts as "balancing tweak" or "seismic change"? In other words, is it something we are likely to see?
It's in the best place its ever been, nostalgia aside of course.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: It's perfectly fair when someone makes an absolute statement like that. You only need one datapoint to disprove the assertion.
That's not exactly how data works.
Well, no - data requires multiple points. This would be a datum. However, it looks like - at least last I heard - Adepticon will be providing at least a second point in favour of AlmightWalrus' position.
I would agree with the idea that if someone makes an absolute statement - All X are Y - and another person provides non-anecdotal evidence of at least one X not being Y, then the statement of "All X is Y" can be said to be false.
If I were to make the statement "All posters on Dakka from the US were really positive about the state of Warhammer 40,000", for example, you'd only need to point at this thread to prove me wrong.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:GW tournaments don't count for anything because they have dumb scores for "favorite army" and that garbage.
I don't think that's dumb at all, and ignoring GW because that's not how you enjoy the hobby is exactly the kind of dismissive and ignorant attitude that leads to things like "casual vs competitive". Let people enjoy harmless things. Unless you're genuinely suggesting this causes harm to you.
It has nothing to do with the gameplay though. Someone getting a few ranks higher because their Marines were painted slightly nicer than then the people that played better is basically an insult.
An insult? Not at all. There's more to being the best player than scoring the most kills.
Well, at least as long as they were being honest about whether they painted the models themselves, or hired a commission painter to do it for them.
I'd have a different opinion if the painting score affected who picked up "Best General", though.
I gotta ask, as a non-competitive player what makes ITC so much different that castellans dominate in it? People have mentioned the missions, but what about them is so different from GW ones?
cole1114 wrote: I gotta ask, as a non-competitive player what makes ITC so much different that castellans dominate in it? People have mentioned the missions, but what about them is so different from GW ones?
ITC missions give points each turn for Holding 1 objective, holding more objectives then your opponent, killing a unit and killing more units then your opponent. Additionally you pick 3 secondary objectives from a list, the vast majority of which are about killing units.
This leads to army's that care little about holding objectives, holding 1-2 is all you need to do, and heavily focus on killing units. Board control is something that doesn't matter much so a lot more castling and Guard + IK sitting in on 1-2 objectives in a corner shooting away the opponent as efficiently as possible.
Because about 12% of lists at the LVO had a castellan. Imperial Soup with Knights was around 25%. Whereas about a dozen played Orks. So it's not hugely surprising Imperial Soup did so well.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:GW tournaments don't count for anything because they have dumb scores for "favorite army" and that garbage.
I don't think that's dumb at all, and ignoring GW because that's not how you enjoy the hobby is exactly the kind of dismissive and ignorant attitude that leads to things like "casual vs competitive". Let people enjoy harmless things. Unless you're genuinely suggesting this causes harm to you.
It has nothing to do with the gameplay though. Someone getting a few ranks higher because their Marines were painted slightly nicer than then the people that played better is basically an insult.
So what? The overall winner of a tournament about a hobby SHOULD be the person who best represents the hobby, not just the person who brought a better list/won all their games. If you go undefeated but are an ass, you might get Best General but you shouldn't win the tournament; you don't deserve it as you don't represent the entirety of the hobby.
This has been how the hobby always worked until recently. Hell, I want them to bring back Sportsmanship and Comp scores so the people who bring a pure min/max list with no regard for the fluff, argue over every rule and try to nitpick will get kicked out of the running for the overall winner. As it should be. This isn't Magic where all that matters is winning games, nor should it be. That is part of the problem with 40k in general; it's more than just the gameplay. Winning games should be *A* factor, but not the *ONLY* factor in being the overall champion of a tournament.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
cole1114 wrote: I gotta ask, as a non-competitive player what makes ITC so much different that castellans dominate in it? People have mentioned the missions, but what about them is so different from GW ones?
Besides what was already said, the only thing ITC missions care about is killing units and holding objectives, and the way their missions work it's basically the same mission just with objectives in different set locations that are predetermined rather than placed by the players. This means that you already know where objectives will be for any given mission, so you can just come up with your plan entirely before the game. In addition, they let you tailor secondary objectives based on your opponent's army list (so if they have horde and monsters, you can pick the secondaries that give you bonus points for hurting monsters and killing models). That's a big reason; everything revolves around killing units with little or no actual tactical decisions to be made other than where to apply firepower. The GW missions have slight variances baked in (e.g. only characters generate VP, units with FLY supersede all others for objectives, no invulns within X inches of the objective, etc.) so you can't just build a gimmicky list and crush people because you don't know which mission you might get, and that unknown might factor into what you bring.
ITC removes this, so it has very stale list building since basically everything about the mission is already known and can be accounted for before you ever get to the table. It basically boils everything in the game down to listbuilding and math/theoryhammer by removing the majority of unknown decisions which are baked into the game to help AVOID boiling everything down to listbuilding and math/theoryhammer.
Speaking of ITC, have you guys seen the new Beta rules for March ITC missions? A couple more non-killing secondaries. You could easily do Recon, Engineers, and Ground Control, and all of your secondaries are now about holding objectives and ground. So you could score 24 points theoretically without killing a single enemy model, if you do just objective based play. Any thoughts on how this might effect the Castellan meta in ITC?
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: It has nothing to do with the gameplay though. Someone getting a few ranks higher because their Marines were painted slightly nicer than then the people that played better is basically an insult.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: It has nothing to do with the gameplay though. Someone getting a few ranks higher because their Marines were painted slightly nicer than then the people that played better is basically an insult.
This is what happens when video gamers find 40k.
Yeah I have to feel like there are plenty of existing games for them to bring this toxic attitude to. “I shouldn’t have to socialize if I don’t want to.” is a real comment above and blaming GW game design for that not being possible.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:GW tournaments don't count for anything because they have dumb scores for "favorite army" and that garbage.
I don't think that's dumb at all, and ignoring GW because that's not how you enjoy the hobby is exactly the kind of dismissive and ignorant attitude that leads to things like "casual vs competitive". Let people enjoy harmless things. Unless you're genuinely suggesting this causes harm to you.
It has nothing to do with the gameplay though. Someone getting a few ranks higher because their Marines were painted slightly nicer than then the people that played better is basically an insult.
Why? You have Best General for people who want to be the best gamer. The overall winner should be more than just who rolled the best with the strongest list - there's more to the hobby than that.
Dysartes wrote:I'd have a different opinion if the painting score affected who picked up "Best General", though.
Absolutely. There's a reason there's multiple winning categories.
Wayniac wrote:So what? The overall winner of a tournament about a hobby SHOULD be the person who best represents the hobby, not just the person who brought a better list/won all their games. If you go undefeated but are an ass, you might get Best General but you shouldn't win the tournament; you don't deserve it as you don't represent the entirety of the hobby.
This has been how the hobby always worked until recently. Hell, I want them to bring back Sportsmanship and Comp scores so the people who bring a pure min/max list with no regard for the fluff, argue over every rule and try to nitpick will get kicked out of the running for the overall winner. As it should be. This isn't Magic where all that matters is winning games, nor should it be. That is part of the problem with 40k in general; it's more than just the gameplay. Winning games should be *A* factor, but not the *ONLY* factor in being the overall champion of a tournament.
Exactly. If you want Best General, you can win that, but don't expect to win the overall tourney if you can't treat people with respect, turn up with sloppily painted models, and generally only go in for winning games.
If that's what you're in the tournament for, then Best General is all you should be caring about, no?
Besides what was already said, the only thing ITC missions care about is killing units and holding objectives, and the way their missions work it's basically the same mission just with objectives in different set locations that are predetermined rather than placed by the players. This means that you already know where objectives will be for any given mission, so you can just come up with your plan entirely before the game. In addition, they let you tailor secondary objectives based on your opponent's army list (so if they have horde and monsters, you can pick the secondaries that give you bonus points for hurting monsters and killing models). That's a big reason; everything revolves around killing units with little or no actual tactical decisions to be made other than where to apply firepower. The GW missions have slight variances baked in (e.g. only characters generate VP, units with FLY supersede all others for objectives, no invulns within X inches of the objective, etc.) so you can't just build a gimmicky list and crush people because you don't know which mission you might get, and that unknown might factor into what you bring.
ITC removes this, so it has very stale list building since basically everything about the mission is already known and can be accounted for before you ever get to the table. It basically boils everything in the game down to listbuilding and math/theoryhammer by removing the majority of unknown decisions which are baked into the game to help AVOID boiling everything down to listbuilding and math/theoryhammer.
It sounds like ITC went out of their way to make Warhammer 40k less of a game and more of a puzzle to be solved in the most efficient way possible.
Horst wrote: Speaking of ITC, have you guys seen the new Beta rules for March ITC missions? A couple more non-killing secondaries. You could easily do Recon, Engineers, and Ground Control, and all of your secondaries are now about holding objectives and ground. So you could score 24 points theoretically without killing a single enemy model, if you do just objective based play. Any thoughts on how this might effect the Castellan meta in ITC?
No, because killing secondaries are easier and more reliable.
Engineer means your unit is doing nothing and your opponent is likely to kill it, stopping your scoring and scoring himself.
King of the Hill suffers the same problem. Why do I need to have 2 mutli wound units sitting around in the center when they can be killing the enemy?
Besides what was already said, the only thing ITC missions care about is killing units and holding objectives, and the way their missions work it's basically the same mission just with objectives in different set locations that are predetermined rather than placed by the players. This means that you already know where objectives will be for any given mission, so you can just come up with your plan entirely before the game. In addition, they let you tailor secondary objectives based on your opponent's army list (so if they have horde and monsters, you can pick the secondaries that give you bonus points for hurting monsters and killing models). That's a big reason; everything revolves around killing units with little or no actual tactical decisions to be made other than where to apply firepower. The GW missions have slight variances baked in (e.g. only characters generate VP, units with FLY supersede all others for objectives, no invulns within X inches of the objective, etc.) so you can't just build a gimmicky list and crush people because you don't know which mission you might get, and that unknown might factor into what you bring.
ITC removes this, so it has very stale list building since basically everything about the mission is already known and can be accounted for before you ever get to the table. It basically boils everything in the game down to listbuilding and math/theoryhammer by removing the majority of unknown decisions which are baked into the game to help AVOID boiling everything down to listbuilding and math/theoryhammer.
So you want to determine the winner by luck? Holding ground and killing things is how you win the game. Adding in random circumstances can be enjoyable in a casual game, but it sucks in a tournament. Rolling up to the table and to realize the snow flake mission is slanted against you. I've played in those tournaments and they suck ass hard. Granted its easier to get information about the missions in advance now, but I've been gotcha by that gak in the past. It's not fun.
Problem being in 40K it's not clear when we can apply Chauvenet's criterion. As I said, data doesn't exactly work that way in practice. Even "absolute" statements are expected to have outliers.
Dysartes wrote: An insult? Not at all. There's more to being the best player than scoring the most kills.
No there isn't. There might be more to being the best painter than scoring the most kills (capturing the most objectives, etc), but that has nothing to do with playing the game. It's like having a painting contest but penalizing a beautiful GD-winning model because its weapon choices aren't optimal and there should be more to being the best painter than being good at painting models.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: It has nothing to do with the gameplay though. Someone getting a few ranks higher because their Marines were painted slightly nicer than then the people that played better is basically an insult.
This is what happens when video gamers find 40k.
Yeah I have to feel like there are plenty of existing games for them to bring this toxic attitude to. “I shouldn’t have to socialize if I don’t want to.” is a real comment above and blaming GW game design for that not being possible.
There's a toxic attitude here, but it's yours. GW absolutely is at fault when the game requires negotiating about how many sub-optimal list building choices you're obligated to make, winning is seen as a bad thing and tournaments need sportsmanship/comp/etc to penalize competitive players and bring the losers up to parity, etc. And socializing should involve fun time with friends, not arguing over whether or not unit X is too powerful to use. If your life is so lacking in genuine friendships that you consider this pre-game negotiation to count as socialization, well, I have to feel sorry for you.
There's a toxic attitude here, but it's yours. GW absolutely is at fault when the game requires negotiating about how many sub-optimal list building choices you're obligated to make, winning is seen as a bad thing and tournaments need sportsmanship/comp/etc to penalize competitive players and bring the losers up to parity, etc. And socializing should involve fun time with friends, not arguing over whether or not unit X is too powerful to use. If your life is so lacking in genuine friendships that you consider this pre-game negotiation to count as socialization, well, I have to feel sorry for you.
Or because they are not a nice person. I know a few guys who are top of their game in wrestling of my weight class. They are very not nice people. But they have results, so they get taken to events. Being a nice person is not part of the competition, neither should be painting. Plus if painting people really want to have a paint prize, why not make and sponsor a co event of their own, that runs along the tournament.
Martel732 wrote: Problem being in 40K it's not clear when we can apply Chauvenet's criterion. As I said, data doesn't exactly work that way in practice. Even "absolute" statements are expected to have outliers.
A synonym that would apply to "absolute statement with outliers" is "wrong". There's a reason why absolute statements usually (see what I did there? ) should be avoided when making an argument.
Dysartes wrote: An insult? Not at all. There's more to being the best player than scoring the most kills.
No there isn't. There might be more to being the best painter than scoring the most kills (capturing the most objectives, etc), but that has nothing to do with playing the game. It's like having a painting contest but penalizing a beautiful GD-winning model because its weapon choices aren't optimal and there should be more to being the best painter than being good at painting models.
For my money - and, looking at some of the posts on the last page, I'm not alone on this - being the best player of Warhammer 40,000 requires more than just being a good general.
And even if we go with your narrow focus, it still requires more than scoring the most kills - there are these little things called objectives in scenarios, after all...
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: It has nothing to do with the gameplay though. Someone getting a few ranks higher because their Marines were painted slightly nicer than then the people that played better is basically an insult.
This is what happens when video gamers find 40k.
Yeah I have to feel like there are plenty of existing games for them to bring this toxic attitude to. “I shouldn’t have to socialize if I don’t want to.” is a real comment above and blaming GW game design for that not being possible.
There's a toxic attitude here, but it's yours. GW absolutely is at fault when the game requires negotiating about how many sub-optimal list building choices you're obligated to make, winning is seen as a bad thing and tournaments need sportsmanship/comp/etc to penalize competitive players and bring the losers up to parity, etc. And socializing should involve fun time with friends, not arguing over whether or not unit X is too powerful to use. If your life is so lacking in genuine friendships that you consider this pre-game negotiation to count as socialization, well, I have to feel sorry for you.
*cough*Rule #1*cough*
Any form of interacting with another human being - especially IRL - is a form of socialising. Whether it is your preferred form or not, or with your preferred circle of acquaintances or not, is irrelevant.
And note that when most people have been talking about any pre-game discussion, they've not been talking about tournaments - going into such events, you should expecting people to be fielding armies they have tuned and tweaked to their satisfaction. However, if we're wanting the best person to win the event, that person should reflect more than one facet of the game - ideally, they should be the best at all three primary pillars (Generalship, Sportsmanship, Craftsmanship).
Dysartes wrote: For my money - and, looking at some of the posts on the last page, I'm not alone on this - being the best player of Warhammer 40,000 requires more than just being a good general.
I don't think you understand what "player" means. Playing the game is about just that: playing the game. How well you painted some models before the game started has nothing to do with your skill at playing the game. It's just like how Golden Demon contests shouldn't penalize an entry because the squad has a grenade launcher instead of a plasma gun (clearly a poor choice for playing the game) and being the best Warhammer 40,000 painter requires more than just being good at putting paint onto plastic.
And yes, I am well aware that there is more to it than killing models, that's why I noted "capturing objectives, etc".
*cough*Rule #1*cough*
Interesting that you say this about my reply, but not about the original post making the exact same comment about a person's attitude being toxic.
Any form of interacting with another human being - especially IRL - is a form of socialising. Whether it is your preferred form or not, or with your preferred circle of acquaintances or not, is irrelevant.
Nonsense. Is paying for groceries at the store "socializing" because you have to hand your credit card to a human? Of course not. And if that kind of superficial interaction makes up a meaningful percentage of your "socialization", to the point that you'd be sad to see it go, then I really have to feel sorry for you.
And note that when most people have been talking about any pre-game discussion, they've not been talking about tournaments - going into such events, you should expecting people to be fielding armies they have tuned and tweaked to their satisfaction. However, if we're wanting the best person to win the event, that person should reflect more than one facet of the game - ideally, they should be the best at all three primary pillars (Generalship, Sportsmanship, Craftsmanship).
But why should those be three equal factors? A tournament is about playing the game, just like a painting contest is about painting. Should a painting contest judge you on how good your entry is at winning and how many tutorial videos you've put up helping newer painters reach your skill level? If not, then why should a game tournament be treated differently?
And TBH the idea that sportsmanship is part of the competition is a pretty toxic attitude. Good sportsmanship should be treated as a basic expectation and condition of participating in the event. You either play respectfully and within the rules or you get removed from the event for being unable to behave like an adult. Treating it as a score component both endorses bad behavior as an acceptable attitude towards the game ("feel free to be TFG, you just lose some points") and encourages people to go beyond mere sportsmanship and treat it as a winning penalty where a player that beats you, especially if their list was "too competitive", gets a score penalty in revenge.
Dysartes wrote: An insult? Not at all. There's more to being the best player than scoring the most kills.
No there isn't.
Strong disagree. There's more to 40k than winning games, and the overall winner of a tournament should be someone who embraces all parts of the hobby, not just having a super l33t army.
There might be more to being the best painter than scoring the most kills (capturing the most objectives, etc), but that has nothing to do with playing the game. It's like having a painting contest but penalizing a beautiful GD-winning model because its weapon choices aren't optimal and there should be more to being the best painter than being good at painting models.
Which is why there's multiple different awards you can win, but the overall tournament winner is someone who embraces all of them.
I absolutely agree that a model entered for the painting contests should be judged only on it's painting, and an army entered to win the most games should be judged based on it's ability to do so, but someone looking to win the overall "Best Player" award should be good at both and more.
It's not like you don't have a "Best General" award. It's just that it's not the "top" award.
And socializing should involve fun time with friends, not arguing over whether or not unit X is too powerful to use.
Implying you can't have that in 40k?
Peregrine wrote:I don't think you understand what "player" means. Playing the game is about just that: playing the game.
Which includes socialising with people. Which includes having a well painted army. Which includes winning games. To play 40k is to do all of those things. It is to do more than just push pieces of plastic around and grunt at your opponent, it's to collect an awesome looking army that does well on the battlefield and have a good time with the person opposite from you.
Reducing 40k into "it's only about rolling dice and winning games" is exactly why you'd never win "Best Player". Best General, maybe, and I won't take that from you - but not "Best Player".
How well you painted some models before the game started has nothing to do with your skill at playing the game. It's just like how Golden Demon contests shouldn't penalize an entry because the squad has a grenade launcher instead of a plasma gun (clearly a poor choice for playing the game) and being the best Warhammer 40,000 painter requires more than just being good at putting paint onto plastic.
Which is why there's a seperate category for "Best Painter" for the painters, "Best General" for people who play to win games, "Most Sporting" for people who make the best social impression on others, and "Best Player" for someone who does best in all three.*
It's not like there's not a prize to validate you by. It's just that there's more to the game than that - not that you seem to care.
*there may well be more criteria, but for the sake of the argument, I'm using those three.
Any form of interacting with another human being - especially IRL - is a form of socialising. Whether it is your preferred form or not, or with your preferred circle of acquaintances or not, is irrelevant.
Nonsense. Is paying for groceries at the store "socializing" because you have to hand your credit card to a human? Of course not. And if that kind of superficial interaction makes up a meaningful percentage of your "socialization", to the point that you'd be sad to see it go, then I really have to feel sorry for you.
Well, if we're being super strict about definition, then, yes, ANY form of interaction is socialising. Sorry, but that's the definition for you.
Now, if you want to ignore that, even so - there's a massive difference between handing your credit card to a member of staff, and playing a game with another person face to face. Or, maybe I'm severely overestimating how you play 40k. I assumed you talked to your opponent, made conversation, or at the very least, made eye contact or some kind of ape-like grunts. If not, then I really do feel sorry for your opponents.
And note that when most people have been talking about any pre-game discussion, they've not been talking about tournaments - going into such events, you should expecting people to be fielding armies they have tuned and tweaked to their satisfaction. However, if we're wanting the best person to win the event, that person should reflect more than one facet of the game - ideally, they should be the best at all three primary pillars (Generalship, Sportsmanship, Craftsmanship).
But why should those be three equal factors? A tournament is about playing the game, just like a painting contest is about painting. Should a painting contest judge you on how good your entry is at winning and how many tutorial videos you've put up helping newer painters reach your skill level? If not, then why should a game tournament be treated differently?
No, a tournament is an event which DOES encompass all of the above. The tournament can be broken down into parts - the rolling dice and pushing about of models to try and win; the entry of models into the painting contest, as well as general observation of the army's appearance as a whole throughout the event; and the way you treat your opponents as a person. How well you do in one doesn't affect the result of the other, but seeing as the tournament itself is more than any one of those three things, of course the overall tournament winner should be judged on all three.
You make the mistake of thinking that GW's tournaments are about winning games. They're not. If you want to win awards for the game winning part, go win "Best General". If that's all you care about, winning games, then it shouldn't matter to you that the overall tournament winner is for something else.
And TBH the idea that sportsmanship is part of the competition is a pretty toxic attitude. Good sportsmanship should be treated as a basic expectation and condition of participating in the event. You either play respectfully and within the rules or you get removed from the event for being unable to behave like an adult. Treating it as a score component both endorses bad behavior as an acceptable attitude towards the game ("feel free to be TFG, you just lose some points") and encourages people to go beyond mere sportsmanship and treat it as a winning penalty where a player that beats you, especially if their list was "too competitive", gets a score penalty in revenge.
On the contrary, good sportsmanship should always be encouraged. As you prove so brilliantly, if the overall tournament WAS only determined by whoever won the most games, then we could end up with absolutely horrible people being the overall event winners, who really wouldn't deserve it.
By having the overall tournament be judged on more than just "who rolled best", it encourages people to think about more than just "I wanna win" and about making the event as pleasant as possible for everyone around them.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Strong disagree. There's more to 40k than winning games, and the overall winner of a tournament should be someone who embraces all parts of the hobby, not just having a super l33t army.
Why do those aspects of the hobby belong in a tournament? A tournament's entire concept and structure is about playing the game competitively, scores outside of winning games are at best a tacked-on supplement that feels out of place. So why try to force those things into a tournament instead of embracing them as worthy pursuits on their own? Why not run painting contests (as GW and various other groups do) as a separate event, where they can focus on being painting contests instead of having to fit within the 2000 point army structure?
And TBH the whole "embracing all parts of the hobby" excuse seems rather underwhelming when a commission painted army owned by someone who doesn't give a about painting but wants to maximize their overall score gets more points than an army painted by someone who loves painting but isn't very good at it.
Implying you can't have that in 40k?
Absolutely not. 40k can be a great social activity. But pre-game negotiation about what is "too overpowered" is not meaningful social interaction. It shouldn't be treated as a virtue, and it certainly shouldn't be used as an excuse for GW's failure to make a better game that doesn't require it.
You make the mistake of thinking that GW's tournaments are about winning games. They're not.
Correct. GW's tournaments are about selling Citadel™ Multi™-part™ Plastic™ Space™ Marine™ Kits™, with a side of CAAC attitudes from people who dislike competitive play but have to acknowledge that it has a useful business purpose. However, seeing as GW's tournaments are a tiny minority of 40k events that are inaccessible to the vast majority of 40k players, I don't think it's worth spending much time discussing them.
On the contrary, good sportsmanship should always be encouraged. As you prove so brilliantly, if the overall tournament WAS only determined by whoever won the most games, then we could end up with absolutely horrible people being the overall event winners, who really wouldn't deserve it.
That isn't true at all if sportsmanship is handled properly. The "absolutely horrible people" would be removed from the event for poor behavior because meeting a minimum standard of sportsmanship is a requirement for participating in the event and not just another score to compete at. There is no option to take a 0/10 score because you don't care about competing for that award, if you can't behave then you can sit in your nonrefundable hotel room crying over how much money you threw away before flying home on your nonrefundable airline tickets. And if you consistently can't behave then you can put your army up on ebay and try to recover some of the money you've invested in a hobby where you are no longer permitted to attend events.
But I suspect that by "horrible people" you really mean people who are polite and play within the rules but bring lists that are "too competitive", don't let you correct mistakes that might cost you a win, etc. And that's what sportsmanship scoring is inevitably about, punishing people who care "too much" about winning and giving them a penalty to their final score to offset the points they earn by winning games.
When you mix socializing and rules discussions, you somewhat increase the chance of said discussion turning into a disagreement/argument. While this isn't completely unavoidable because life, a ruleset that doesn't need its hand held to function would certainly help. When I'm playing a game like 40K with friends, I want to be able to just play the game as smoothly as possible and socialize over fun stuff, instead of thumbing through my opponent's list like a tax inspector and asking nicely for my opponent not to steamroll me.
Besides what was already said, the only thing ITC missions care about is killing units and holding objectives, and the way their missions work it's basically the same mission just with objectives in different set locations that are predetermined rather than placed by the players. This means that you already know where objectives will be for any given mission, so you can just come up with your plan entirely before the game. In addition, they let you tailor secondary objectives based on your opponent's army list (so if they have horde and monsters, you can pick the secondaries that give you bonus points for hurting monsters and killing models). That's a big reason; everything revolves around killing units with little or no actual tactical decisions to be made other than where to apply firepower. The GW missions have slight variances baked in (e.g. only characters generate VP, units with FLY supersede all others for objectives, no invulns within X inches of the objective, etc.) so you can't just build a gimmicky list and crush people because you don't know which mission you might get, and that unknown might factor into what you bring.
ITC removes this, so it has very stale list building since basically everything about the mission is already known and can be accounted for before you ever get to the table. It basically boils everything in the game down to listbuilding and math/theoryhammer by removing the majority of unknown decisions which are baked into the game to help AVOID boiling everything down to listbuilding and math/theoryhammer.
It sounds like ITC went out of their way to make Warhammer 40k less of a game and more of a puzzle to be solved in the most efficient way possible.
So really not 40k anymore.
The more & more stuff I learn about ITC and how different it is to the game as produced by GW, it boggles the mind why this is even a thing. Since these tourneys utilize rules/missions that are 3rd party, how then can anyone expect GW to "balance" a game that for all intents and purposes isnt even theirs?
Sounds to me like ITC should come up themselves with points costs and rules that just so happen to use GW models. that way GW wont have to worry about stupid scheiss that have different rules/missions.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Strong disagree. There's more to 40k than winning games, and the overall winner of a tournament should be someone who embraces all parts of the hobby, not just having a super l33t army.
Why do those aspects of the hobby belong in a tournament?
Because the tournament is for the hobby, not just the gaming. If you want a gaming-only event, go to one, but I haven't got a problem with mixed events.
A tournament's entire concept and structure is about playing the game competitively,
No, that's your opinion of what a tournament should be. GW tournaments are more of an organised event where people can come together and enjoy the hobby, with awards for people who do well in certain aspects.
So why try to force those things into a tournament instead of embracing them as worthy pursuits on their own? Why not run painting contests (as GW and various other groups do) as a separate event, where they can focus on being painting contests instead of having to fit within the 2000 point army structure?
Have you actually *been* to a GW event? Because, from where I am, that's exactly what they do at WHW - they have sub-competitions, with different awards and aspects, plus an overriding "Best Player" award.
You still have an award for winning games which is unaffected by other things. Just because the whole tournament isn't obsessed with winning doesn't mean it's flawed.
And TBH the whole "embracing all parts of the hobby" excuse seems rather underwhelming when a commission painted army owned by someone who doesn't give a about painting but wants to maximize their overall score gets more points than an army painted by someone who loves painting but isn't very good at it.
And at the same time, would you also complain about someone who copy-pastes a list to win?
End of the day, there's an award for people who win games. Who cares if it's not "Best Player"? Does winning mean THAT much?
You make the mistake of thinking that GW's tournaments are about winning games. They're not.
Correct. GW's tournaments are about selling Citadel™ Multi™-part™ Plastic™ Space™ Marine™ Kits™, with a side of CAAC attitudes from people who dislike competitive play but have to acknowledge that it has a useful business purpose. However, seeing as GW's tournaments are a tiny minority of 40k events that are inaccessible to the vast majority of 40k players, I don't think it's worth spending much time discussing them.
So, by that same virtue, we shouldn't talk about LVO, because the "vast majority of 40k players" don't go?
Your words, not mine.
But I suspect that by "horrible people" you really mean people who are polite and play within the rules but bring lists that are "too competitive", don't let you correct mistakes that might cost you a win, etc. And that's what sportsmanship scoring is inevitably about, punishing people who care "too much" about winning and giving them a penalty to their final score to offset the points they earn by winning games.
If this is what you're worried about, I'd call it a guilty conscience.
Do you always think so lowly of people? Maybe this is why your sportsman scores might be low, not because of some kind of "casual players can't handle people beating them" conspiracy.
For what it's worth, when I took part in GW tournaments, the worst rating I ever gave an opponent was one that I beat, purely because his attitude was terrible. At the same time, when playing against lists that far outclassed mine, and I lost horrifically against, I actually gave those players good ratings - because they were good people, and I enjoyed their company.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Strong disagree. There's more to 40k than winning games, and the overall winner of a tournament should be someone who embraces all parts of the hobby, not just having a super l33t army.
Why do those aspects of the hobby belong in a tournament?
Because the tournament is for the hobby, not just the gaming. If you want a gaming-only event, go to one, but I haven't got a problem with mixed events.
A tournament's entire concept and structure is about playing the game competitively,
No, that's your opinion of what a tournament should be. GW tournaments are more of an organised event where people can come together and enjoy the hobby, with awards for people who do well in certain aspects.
So why try to force those things into a tournament instead of embracing them as worthy pursuits on their own? Why not run painting contests (as GW and various other groups do) as a separate event, where they can focus on being painting contests instead of having to fit within the 2000 point army structure?
Have you actually *been* to a GW event? Because, from where I am, that's exactly what they do at WHW - they have sub-competitions, with different awards and aspects, plus an overriding "Best Player" award.
You still have an award for winning games which is unaffected by other things. Just because the whole tournament isn't obsessed with winning doesn't mean it's flawed.
And TBH the whole "embracing all parts of the hobby" excuse seems rather underwhelming when a commission painted army owned by someone who doesn't give a about painting but wants to maximize their overall score gets more points than an army painted by someone who loves painting but isn't very good at it.
And at the same time, would you also complain about someone who copy-pastes a list to win?
End of the day, there's an award for people who win games. Who cares if it's not "Best Player"? Does winning mean THAT much?
You make the mistake of thinking that GW's tournaments are about winning games. They're not.
Correct. GW's tournaments are about selling Citadel™ Multi™-part™ Plastic™ Space™ Marine™ Kits™, with a side of CAAC attitudes from people who dislike competitive play but have to acknowledge that it has a useful business purpose. However, seeing as GW's tournaments are a tiny minority of 40k events that are inaccessible to the vast majority of 40k players, I don't think it's worth spending much time discussing them.
So, by that same virtue, we shouldn't talk about LVO, because the "vast majority of 40k players" don't go?
Your words, not mine.
But I suspect that by "horrible people" you really mean people who are polite and play within the rules but bring lists that are "too competitive", don't let you correct mistakes that might cost you a win, etc. And that's what sportsmanship scoring is inevitably about, punishing people who care "too much" about winning and giving them a penalty to their final score to offset the points they earn by winning games.
If this is what you're worried about, I'd call it a guilty conscience.
Do you always think so lowly of people? Maybe this is why your sportsman scores might be low, not because of some kind of "casual players can't handle people beating them" conspiracy.
For what it's worth, when I took part in GW tournaments, the worst rating I ever gave an opponent was one that I beat, purely because his attitude was terrible. At the same time, when playing against lists that far outclassed mine, and I lost horrifically against, I actually gave those players good ratings - because they were good people, and I enjoyed their company.
But sure, keep assuming the worst in people.
I think that's the only way they(negative raptor)know how.
to be fair tho, at least if you expect the worst in people and they're not, then you're pleasantly surprised.
Karol wrote: Or because they are not a nice person. I know a few guys who are top of their game in wrestling of my weight class. They are very not nice people. But they have results, so they get taken to events. Being a nice person is not part of the competition, neither should be painting. Plus if painting people really want to have a paint prize, why not make and sponsor a co event of their own, that runs along the tournament.
"Unsportsmanlike conduct" is a real penalty in professional and collegiate sports in the United States.
ITC has set their standards for having extra points awarded to people who did more than just hurl a grey wad of models onto the table and game. People who actually used all aspects of the hobby in the competition demonstrate a talent for the hobby as a whole.
The wargame aspect of 40k is just as much a part of it as the modeling and painting, but the video gamer crowd converged on this and just saw 'expensive tokens'.
Besides what was already said, the only thing ITC missions care about is killing units and holding objectives, and the way their missions work it's basically the same mission just with objectives in different set locations that are predetermined rather than placed by the players. This means that you already know where objectives will be for any given mission, so you can just come up with your plan entirely before the game. In addition, they let you tailor secondary objectives based on your opponent's army list (so if they have horde and monsters, you can pick the secondaries that give you bonus points for hurting monsters and killing models). That's a big reason; everything revolves around killing units with little or no actual tactical decisions to be made other than where to apply firepower. The GW missions have slight variances baked in (e.g. only characters generate VP, units with FLY supersede all others for objectives, no invulns within X inches of the objective, etc.) so you can't just build a gimmicky list and crush people because you don't know which mission you might get, and that unknown might factor into what you bring.
ITC removes this, so it has very stale list building since basically everything about the mission is already known and can be accounted for before you ever get to the table. It basically boils everything in the game down to listbuilding and math/theoryhammer by removing the majority of unknown decisions which are baked into the game to help AVOID boiling everything down to listbuilding and math/theoryhammer.
It sounds like ITC went out of their way to make Warhammer 40k less of a game and more of a puzzle to be solved in the most efficient way possible.
So really not 40k anymore.
The more & more stuff I learn about ITC and how different it is to the game as produced by GW, it boggles the mind why this is even a thing. Since these tourneys utilize rules/missions that are 3rd party, how then can anyone expect GW to "balance" a game that for all intents and purposes isnt even theirs?
Sounds to me like ITC should come up themselves with points costs and rules that just so happen to use GW models. that way GW wont have to worry about stupid scheiss that have different rules/missions.
Its a legacy from an older approach by GW where they completely dropped the tournament scene and TO's had to sort it out themselves.
Now that Matched Play rules exist and GW actively tries to balance rules/missions its no longer really needed, atleast not in the large sweeping way ITC currently works.
(there is certainly value in things like the LoS rules in regards to ruins)
Sgt_Smudge wrote: No, that's your opinion of what a tournament should be.
No, it's observation of how tournaments function. You have standardized missions, pairings based on record with the intent of determining a final winner over multiple rounds of competition, etc. Everything about the structure of the event revolves around playing and (hopefully) winning games.
Have you actually *been* to a GW event?
Nope. See comments about "WHW is not accessible to most players". But for comparison, NOVA has a bunch of competitive tournaments for various games (including 40k), alongside narrative events and a painting contest. Last year I played in US nationals for X-Wing (making top 16, so clearly there to compete) and it was purely a competitive event. There was also a painting contest that anyone attending NOVA could enter, and I could have entered an X-Wing ship in that event with no connection to anything happening in the gaming tournament. Hell, I could have entered that X-Wing ship without playing in any events at all and attended NOVA purely for the artistic events. That's the kind of separation I'm talking about, not running a tournament and then randomly scoring people on how well their game pieces are painted. And it's very productive separation. As a result of not being tied to any particular gaming event the painting contest could receive dioramas, busts, etc, that would be useless as gaming pieces but were pretty neat from an artistic point of view.
And at the same time, would you also complain about someone who copy-pastes a list to win?
Nope, because the prize is for winning games, not coming up with a good list. Netlisting might be part of a strategy for winning, much like looking up tutorial videos on NMM might be a useful step in getting good enough to win a painting contest, but it isn't the final result. Buying a commission painted army, on the other hand, is a direct path to getting a maximum painting score.
So, by that same virtue, we shouldn't talk about LVO, because the "vast majority of 40k players" don't go?
No, for two reasons:
1) Las Vegas is more accessible than international travel to one store in the UK for the majority of 40k players. Sorry, but US events are always going to be more relevant than anything in the UK because of the population size differences.
2) LVO is using the same ITC format as a lot of other tournaments. So, while a player might not be able to make it to Las Vegas for an event, it's a lot more likely that there will be a closer event run like the LVO. So the LVO is relevant as a representative example of the kind of tournament that most players have access to. WHW events, on the other hand, are not. GW does not run any events outside of that one location, nor do they provide any kind of standard tournament format that non-GW events can use. The only time WHW's event rules are ever relevant is if you're traveling to WHW to play in that specific event.
If this is what you're worried about, I'd call it a guilty conscience.
I prefer "accurate perception". When people constantly talk about things like "netlisting is poor sportsmanship" then yes, it's a reasonable assumption that those same people will give a lower sportsmanship score to someone they believe is netlisting.
Ordana wrote: How does GW not provide a standard tournament format when the rules for their tournaments are freely available online?
Any tournament can copy their rules. They use CA 2018 missions ffs, how much easier do they need to make it?
Because individual mission rules are not the same thing as a tournament format. They are a necessary part of one, but they are not sufficient to define one. And GW's event rules may be freely available online, but they make no effort to promote them as a standard format like ITC does. The rules being available online is just a necessary consequence of making them available to people coming to that particular WHW event. It's not like how GW used to run standardized events in their stores all over the world.
(Granted, that standardized GW format was a dumpster fire of bad design that no sane person would have used, but they at least made the token effort.)
Sgt_Smudge wrote: No, that's your opinion of what a tournament should be.
No, it's observation of how tournaments function. You have standardized missions, pairings based on record with the intent of determining a final winner over multiple rounds of competition, etc. Everything about the structure of the event revolves around playing and (hopefully) winning games.
Not GW ones, which is what Slayer-Fan was talking about in the first place.
GW ones include painting and sportsmanship.
Have you actually *been* to a GW event?
Nope.
So why do you think you're qualified to make comments about GW events? Which was the start of this whole chain.
See comments about "WHW is not accessible to most players". But for comparison, NOVA has a bunch of competitive tournaments for various games (including 40k), alongside narrative events and a painting contest. Last year I played in US nationals for X-Wing (making top 16, so clearly there to compete) and it was purely a competitive event. There was also a painting contest that anyone attending NOVA could enter, and I could have entered an X-Wing ship in that event with no connection to anything happening in the gaming tournament. Hell, I could have entered that X-Wing ship without playing in any events at all and attended NOVA purely for the artistic events. That's the kind of separation I'm talking about, not running a tournament and then randomly scoring people on how well their game pieces are painted. And it's very productive separation. As a result of not being tied to any particular gaming event the painting contest could receive dioramas, busts, etc, that would be useless as gaming pieces but were pretty neat from an artistic point of view.
Again, clearly lacking an understanding of GW's events.
There IS a "Best General" award, which is completely separate from any other categories other than winning games. Just because the Big Award for the event isn't all about competitive Warhammer doesn't mean you don't get something.
Why does the event NEED to be separated? You get your award, who cares if there's another one available to people who care about other things?
And at the same time, would you also complain about someone who copy-pastes a list to win?
Nope, because the prize is for winning games, not coming up with a good list. Netlisting might be part of a strategy for winning, much like looking up tutorial videos on NMM might be a useful step in getting good enough to win a painting contest, but it isn't the final result. Buying a commission painted army, on the other hand, is a direct path to getting a maximum painting score.
But most people in the competitive community, from what I've seen, believe that most of any tactical skill in 40k comes from listbuilding. Therefore, by taking a list made by someone else, you're just using someone else's work to pass off your own win.
Buying a commission painted army to win a painting contest is no different from buying the latest netlist in order to win - I dislike both intensely and feel neither should win.
So, by that same virtue, we shouldn't talk about LVO, because the "vast majority of 40k players" don't go?
No, for two reasons:
1) Las Vegas is more accessible than international travel to one store in the UK for the majority of 40k players. Sorry, but US events are always going to be more relevant than anything in the UK because of the population size differences.
You said "vast majority". LVO doesn't host the "vast majority" of 40k players in America, let alone the world. The vast majority of 40k players probably don't even go to tournaments.
Sorry, but you *did* say that WHW should be ignored because the "vast majority of 40k players" didn't go there - under those same words which you claimed, neither is LVO.t.
If this is what you're worried about, I'd call it a guilty conscience.
I prefer "accurate perception". When people constantly talk about things like "netlisting is poor sportsmanship" then yes, it's a reasonable assumption that those same people will give a lower sportsmanship score to someone they believe is netlisting.
Netlisting is the same in my eyes as commission painting an army - I dislike both. However, that doesn't influence how I rate them as a person and as an opponent. Again, as I've said, I played against people with incredibly powerful and certainly netlisted armies - that didn't affect my score because they were all-round nice guys to play against.
Someone mentioned people viewing 40k as a video game rather than a hobby that encompasses so much more than just winning games and I think that is were the break down is coming from.
40k is a hobby and all aspects of that hobby should be respected at a given event. I don't get people who invest in 40k (not a cheap buy in by any means) who don't have any interest in building or painting and just want the game to be purely about beating your opponents face in on the table top. If I just wanted to smash peoples faces in and not care about anything else then i'd spend 60 dollars for the latest COD.
It's probably worth noting that North America (including Canada) only generates around £4m a year more than the U.K. and Europe.
So on a turnover of over £100m certainly not the vast majority, in fact, essentially equal. Also, if we're assuming an American from say Chicago or Miami is prepared to travel to the LVO then I don't see it as unreasonable to believe that somebody from Paris, Madrid or Berlin could be prepared to travel to Nottingham, the distances involved are no greater and the freedom of travel is (currently) equal.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: So why do you think you're qualified to make comments about GW events?
Because everyone is talking about 40k tournaments in general. If you want to restrict your comments to "GW's own events at WHW should be run this way" and not offer any opinion on anything outside of GW's WHW events then I will let it go, as I don't give a about what GW does with events that I will never be involved with. But I have yet to see that restriction happen.
Why does the event NEED to be separated?
Because separation makes both events better. The gaming event doesn't have random non-gaming scoring attached, the painting event isn't bound by the need to have legal 2000 point tournament armies. A painting contest run separately as a pure painting contest is a better activity for people who love painting, so why attach all of the baggage of a tournament?
Buying a commission painted army to win a painting contest is no different from buying the latest netlist in order to win - I dislike both intensely and feel neither should win.
It absolutely is different. Yes, list building is important, but so is knowing how to use that list and tuning it for the specific event. A low-skill player who copies the latest Imperial soup list might be able to crush another mediocre player, but against the top players they're going to lose. A low-skill painter who buys a commission painted army with a goal of a maximum painting score is going to receive a maximum painting score with zero effort beyond handing over their credit card.
Again, the more relevant comparison would be a painter following a NMM tutorial to paint their model. They're taking advantage of someone else's experience to skip directly to a better end result than they might have been able to get purely on their own, but they still have to execute the technique well. And that painter who uses a tutorial for help should absolutely be eligible to win a painting contest, we shouldn't have some bizarre requirement that you prove that all of your painting skills were obtained purely by trial and error without ever consulting anyone else for advice. Same thing with netlisting.
You said "vast majority". LVO doesn't host the "vast majority" of 40k players in America, let alone the world. The vast majority of 40k players probably don't even go to tournaments.
You are correct. I said "vast majority", but in a very different context. I said that WHW is inaccessible for the vast majority of players. LVO and LVO-like tournaments are much more accessible than WHW, whether or not people choose to participate in them. It's just like how WHW is accessible to someone living a 5 minute drive from the event, even if they choose to never attend anything there.
Netlisting is the same in my eyes as commission painting an army - I dislike both. However, that doesn't influence how I rate them as a person and as an opponent. Again, as I've said, I played against people with incredibly powerful and certainly netlisted armies - that didn't affect my score because they were all-round nice guys to play against.
Congratulations on your honesty then, that is the correct approach to things. However, I'm not going to put any trust in the majority of players handling it that way when "netlisting = TFG" comments are so common. It doesn't take many people like that to completely undermine the value of sportsmanship scoring.
And, again, sportsmanship should be a minimum expectation for continued participation in an event, not something you're scored on. You should not be allowed to be a complete TFG and get away with it because you're only competing for the "best general" title and don't care about the sportsmanship component of your scoring. If a person's behavior is such a problem that they don't deserve a full sportsmanship score then that should be handled by the TO, eventually resulting in removal from the event if the behavior doesn't change. So in a world where things are handled properly every player still in the event at the end should have a perfect or near-perfect sportsmanship score and the score becomes meaningless. The only time it can ever have any effect is when people don't use it correctly and treat it as a "anyone who beats me is TFG" penalty.
40k is not the sort of game where you only care about winning in an event, full stop. If you want that, go play a different game. Whether or not you consider that a failure of the system or not, that's how 40k is, always has been and always will be.
Azreal13 wrote: Also, if we're assuming an American from say Chicago or Miami is prepared to travel to the LVO then I don't see it as unreasonable to believe that somebody from Paris, Madrid or Berlin could be prepared to travel to Nottingham, the distances involved are no greater and the freedom of travel is (currently) equal.
As I said previously, that's not really a fair comparison because it isn't just about the LVO. GW's own events are run at a single location in the entire world, and nowhere else. You either travel to WHW, however expensive it may be, or those events are not available to you. LVO-like events, on the other hand, are run all over the place. In fact, that's the entire point of the ITC, creating a standardized tournament experience wherever you happen to be playing. So that person living in Chicago might not be willing to travel to Las Vegas, but maybe there's a 40k tournament at Gencon in Indianapolis, or a regional ITC-style tournament in Detroit or whatever.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Wayniac wrote: 40k is not the sort of game where you only care about winning in an event, full stop. If you want that, go play a different game. Whether or not you consider that a failure of the system or not, that's how 40k is, always has been and always will be.
And yet the last time GW had a tournament system outside of their events at WHW it was explicitly presented as "winning is all that matters".
Azreal13 wrote: Also, if we're assuming an American from say Chicago or Miami is prepared to travel to the LVO then I don't see it as unreasonable to believe that somebody from Paris, Madrid or Berlin could be prepared to travel to Nottingham, the distances involved are no greater and the freedom of travel is (currently) equal.
As I said previously, that's not really a fair comparison because it isn't just about the LVO. GW's own events are run at a single location in the entire world, and nowhere else. You either travel to WHW, however expensive it may be, or those events are not available to you. LVO-like events, on the other hand, are run all over the place. In fact, that's the entire point of the ITC, creating a standardized tournament experience wherever you happen to be playing. So that person living in Chicago might not be willing to travel to Las Vegas, but maybe there's a 40k tournament at Gencon in Indianapolis, or a regional ITC-style tournament in Detroit or whatever.
Except one is a GW event that GW is responsible for, and the other is not. GW defines the WHW rules and standards. Completely separate groups define ITC and ETC mission rules and standards. Therefore, GW does little to influence what happens at LVO, aside from releasing models and codices.
When I attended a national 40K Grand Tournament in 1997 run by GW sportsmanship, list building and painting were absolutely part of the overall score. At the risk of going off topic, while I was competing in Flames of War tournaments sportsmanship and painting were also part of the score. Its tabletop wargaming, not a game with pre-paints. There were still "Top General" awards, but to win overall you needed to score well in all categories. My local 40K scene still does this for our Club Champs.
Yes, you can get commissioned painters but you can can't commision sportsmanship.
Tabletop miniatures wargaming demands interaction between the players to function. Its an imprecise system regardless of the rules when you have terrain, models and tape measures. You need to be able to work things out. If this is offensive to somebody's sensibilities then perhaps they should try Advanced Squad Leader where a game has all the fun of negotiating a business merger.
I believe that the frame in which 40K was designed was a game to be played by friends. Reading old articles they talk about "beardy" types who would stretch rules or bring "beardy lists." I think that they trusted moral suasion to keep things in check. I think that they were genuinely surprised when folks brought lists of all Pulsa Rockits or the infamous Space Wolves Terminator loophole spam. Then they walked away from the tournament scene. I mix my own games between those at tournaments, open gaming days at the FLGS and BasementHammer with family and close friends. I think that Warhammer is a "big tent" that can accomodate all types, including those that want to make explosion noises as they game, those who are hobby heroes and those who really want to win. I think that many of us can identify with all three aspects as well, and are able to adapt to the game at hand. I like tourneys that emphasize mastery of those three domains: fun to play against, great army to look at and also able to win games.
Pre-game communication is key - the rule book even tells us to play "like-minded people."
Azreal13 wrote: Also, if we're assuming an American from say Chicago or Miami is prepared to travel to the LVO then I don't see it as unreasonable to believe that somebody from Paris, Madrid or Berlin could be prepared to travel to Nottingham, the distances involved are no greater and the freedom of travel is (currently) equal.
As I said previously, that's not really a fair comparison because it isn't just about the LVO. GW's own events are run at a single location in the entire world, and nowhere else. You either travel to WHW, however expensive it may be, or those events are not available to you. LVO-like events, on the other hand, are run all over the place. In fact, that's the entire point of the ITC, creating a standardized tournament experience wherever you happen to be playing. So that person living in Chicago might not be willing to travel to Las Vegas, but maybe there's a 40k tournament at Gencon in Indianapolis, or a regional ITC-style tournament in Detroit or whatever.
.
That one location in the entire world is accessible to most of half of its market, that trip from Chicago to Indianapolis is not really any longer in time than many places in the U.K. or Europe to Nottingham.
While I accept what you're saying about the US having more large tournaments, you're failing to grasp how close WHW is to a substantial part of GW's market if they've a mind to attend. What you might consider the catchment area for a big US event covers a large part of Europe.
Azreal13 wrote: Also, if we're assuming an American from say Chicago or Miami is prepared to travel to the LVO then I don't see it as unreasonable to believe that somebody from Paris, Madrid or Berlin could be prepared to travel to Nottingham, the distances involved are no greater and the freedom of travel is (currently) equal.
As I said previously, that's not really a fair comparison because it isn't just about the LVO. GW's own events are run at a single location in the entire world, and nowhere else. You either travel to WHW, however expensive it may be, or those events are not available to you. LVO-like events, on the other hand, are run all over the place. In fact, that's the entire point of the ITC, creating a standardized tournament experience wherever you happen to be playing. So that person living in Chicago might not be willing to travel to Las Vegas, but maybe there's a 40k tournament at Gencon in Indianapolis, or a regional ITC-style tournament in Detroit or whatever.
.
Smaller tournaments using formats similar to WHW happen all the time. That is what my FLGS uses. They remain popular because they are literally what is in the GW publications.
Of course the UK scene also has ETC style tournaments which are popular with players who want to try to make one of the ETC teams. There are even a few ITC style tournaments cropping up now, not so many that I have personally been to more than one ITC style GT but they are out there. It is a far more diverse tournament scene than parts of the USA appear to be from this distance. Perhaps those parts of the USA are also pretty diverse but the ITC stuff is all that gets the publicity and attention.
Peregrine - Because separation makes both events better. The gaming event doesn't have random non-gaming scoring attached, the painting event isn't bound by the need to have legal 2000 point tournament armies. A painting contest run separately as a pure painting contest is a better activity for people who love painting, so why attach all of the baggage of a tournament?
Why should they be separated? Wouldn't a better overall representation of the hobby as a whole be beneficial to all those interested?
Maybe it would get more people to care about everything related to the hobby.
Ordana wrote: So your saying the problem isn't Castellans but the ITC mission format.
Thanks for realising something people outside of the US have been telling you for years.
In the US, just played my first pass at ITC missions and.... yeah, no wonder competitive 40k is miserable, kill points make 40k an absolutely lousy game. Competitive lists don't help any either.
That was the most static, boring game of 40k I've played. And I was actively punished(though not terribly effectively) for doing anything but sitting back and shooting while doing everything in my power to prevent deep strike. Mean while that was.... 50% of my opponents game plan, the other 50% was pushing his knights forward. And playing the rules rigdly is... annoying, as someone with less than ten games under my belt and still pulling out new units, the punishing nature of not being able to do a number of things absolutely nailed some of the rules home, but... egh, when your opponent briefly revels in a rule mistake it kinda ensures I don't want to play them again.
40k is in a good place. Decent rate of releases, rules are getting FAQd regularly, they are speaking to the fan base almost constantly.
Yes there's things that can be done to make things better, and it was in a worse place. So all things considered its in a good place, not the best place but a pretty good one.
The gaming event doesn't have random non-gaming scoring attached, the painting event isn't bound by the need to have legal 2000 point tournament armies. A painting contest run separately as a pure painting contest is a better activity for people who love painting, so why attach all of the baggage of a tournament?
I'm not sure if you're getting this: there IS an award for just the Best General which doesn't include any other criteria other than how well you play. There IS an award for best single model which doesn't factor in the rest of your army at all. There IS an award for the person who gets the most votes for "Best Sportsman". But there's ALSO an award for the person who does the best overall, who's combined score is highest, and they are the overall Best Player.
Just because there's another award doesn't mean that you don't get one for just being the best general.
Buying a commission painted army to win a painting contest is no different from buying the latest netlist in order to win - I dislike both intensely and feel neither should win.
It absolutely is different. Yes, list building is important, but so is knowing how to use that list and tuning it for the specific event. A low-skill player who copies the latest Imperial soup list might be able to crush another mediocre player, but against the top players they're going to lose. A low-skill painter who buys a commission painted army with a goal of a maximum painting score is going to receive a maximum painting score with zero effort beyond handing over their credit card.
But a high-skill player probably can't beat a low-skill player if the high-skilled player has an army that is incredibly incredibly inferior to the super-optimised netlist of the low-skill player. Again, as most people seem to think, most of 40k's strategic depth comes from what units you have, not how you use them.
Again, the more relevant comparison would be a painter following a NMM tutorial to paint their model. They're taking advantage of someone else's experience to skip directly to a better end result than they might have been able to get purely on their own, but they still have to execute the technique well. And that painter who uses a tutorial for help should absolutely be eligible to win a painting contest, we shouldn't have some bizarre requirement that you prove that all of your painting skills were obtained purely by trial and error without ever consulting anyone else for advice. Same thing with netlisting.
Perhaps, but at the same time, most of the "skill" in 40k comes not from actual tactics used on the board, but a series of gimmicks set up by netlists. You can almost automate what you do because the list does the work for you with little tactical input.
You said "vast majority". LVO doesn't host the "vast majority" of 40k players in America, let alone the world. The vast majority of 40k players probably don't even go to tournaments.
You are correct. I said "vast majority", but in a very different context. I said that WHW is inaccessible for the vast majority of players. LVO and LVO-like tournaments are much more accessible than WHW, whether or not people choose to participate in them. It's just like how WHW is accessible to someone living a 5 minute drive from the event, even if they choose to never attend anything there.
But as people have said above - 40k in America doesn't make up an extremely large portion of the 40k hobby. Yeah, it's big, but America's also a big place. Why is it unreasonable to assume that Europeans wouldn't come to WHW for events, but a New Yorker going to Las Vegas is completely normal?
Sure, you argue that LVO-style events are run elsewhere, but so are WHW style events, throughout the UK. In fact, WHW style events seem far more common in the UK than ITC style ones.
Netlisting is the same in my eyes as commission painting an army - I dislike both. However, that doesn't influence how I rate them as a person and as an opponent. Again, as I've said, I played against people with incredibly powerful and certainly netlisted armies - that didn't affect my score because they were all-round nice guys to play against.
Congratulations on your honesty then, that is the correct approach to things. However, I'm not going to put any trust in the majority of players handling it that way when "netlisting = TFG" comments are so common. It doesn't take many people like that to completely undermine the value of sportsmanship scoring.
Thank you. Maybe I'm just more trusting, but all I can say is that I've not seen the system fail in my experience.
And, again, sportsmanship should be a minimum expectation for continued participation in an event, not something you're scored on. You should not be allowed to be a complete TFG and get away with it because you're only competing for the "best general" title and don't care about the sportsmanship component of your scoring. If a person's behavior is such a problem that they don't deserve a full sportsmanship score then that should be handled by the TO, eventually resulting in removal from the event if the behavior doesn't change. So in a world where things are handled properly every player still in the event at the end should have a perfect or near-perfect sportsmanship score and the score becomes meaningless. The only time it can ever have any effect is when people don't use it correctly and treat it as a "anyone who beats me is TFG" penalty.
There's baseline sportsmanship, which I agree, should be expected, but there should be incentive for people who go that extra mile. Basic sportsmanship can still be incredibly dull - but someone who actually makes you laugh, makes you feel relaxed, someone who is genuinely polite and friendly: they absolutely should get recognition over someone who wordlessly rolls dice and moves models and makes no effort beyond basic social elements to interact with their opponent.
Smirrors wrote: Adepticon looks like it has a pretty diverse top top 25.
It does. And Adepticon doesn't use ITC Champions missions.
I'm seeing a pattern here that indicates what the REAL problem in competitive 40k is.
Eh, given any mission set, there will always be races better at that mission set. Adepticon missions aren't played as much as ITC missions, but given enough time I'm sure people would solve for which army is best suited for it.
Given the top 10 of Adepticon are mostly infantry horde armies, it looks like people may have already figured out the best way to win it.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: There IS an award for best single model which doesn't factor in the rest of your army at all.
But it still factors in the rules of the game. For example, an IG company commander can't be armed with dual plasma pistols, so even if I think it looks cool from a painting point of view I can't do it. Or maybe I have an idea for a diorama scene that isn't practical as a gaming piece. The painting contest is no longer just about painting, it's about painting within the limits of what makes a viable tournament army. And wouldn't it be better to have a true test of artistic skill?
But a high-skill player probably can't beat a low-skill player if the high-skilled player has an army that is incredibly incredibly inferior to the super-optimised netlist of the low-skill player. Again, as most people seem to think, most of 40k's strategic depth comes from what units you have, not how you use them.
Why are you assuming that the high skill player has a weak list? They're a high skill player after all, they're going to have a list that is at least as good as the netlists because they have the skill to correctly evaluate lists/units. And yes, their list may significantly resemble the netlists even if they came to it independently because 40k is not a terribly deep game and the best choices are often obvious. But they're almost certainly going to beat the low-skill player who just grabbed a netlist for the event. Contrast that with painting, where spending enough money on a commission painting service guarantees maximum painting scores even if you don't know which end of the brush goes in the paint pot. One is a direct and guaranteed route to maximum scores, the other is not.
Sure, you argue that LVO-style events are run elsewhere, but so are WHW style events, throughout the UK. In fact, WHW style events seem far more common in the UK than ITC style ones.
There is a difference between "WHW style" in some vague undefined sense of similarity and "ITC event" where it's a standard tournament format. WHW isn't publishing a standard tournament format that other events use, anything happening there applies only to the specific WHW events in question. Contrast this with, say, FFG's organized play system where they do publish standard tournament rules and what FFG says is far more important than some random third-party event. Hell, even GW used to publish (terrible) tournament rules and run official tournaments worldwide, and back then "what GW's events do" would have been much more relevant in this kind of discussion because the average player would be much more likely to encounter an event run by GW's rules.
There's baseline sportsmanship, which I agree, should be expected, but there should be incentive for people who go that extra mile. Basic sportsmanship can still be incredibly dull - but someone who actually makes you laugh, makes you feel relaxed, someone who is genuinely polite and friendly: they absolutely should get recognition over someone who wordlessly rolls dice and moves models and makes no effort beyond basic social elements to interact with their opponent.
That's not sportsmanship, that's the type of player you personally enjoy playing with. Making jokes is being an extroverted person who enjoys making jokes, it has nothing to do with the game or your approach to it. I mean, what are you going to do, penalize someone who is more introverted and quiet because they aren't your ideal opponent?
There is a difference between "WHW style" in some vague undefined sense of similarity and "ITC event" where it's a standard tournament format. WHW isn't publishing a standard tournament format that other events use, anything happening there applies only to the specific WHW events in question.
It is the same missions played by the same (book) rules. What happens on the gaming tables is pretty much the same. The biggest differences between locations for these tournaments tend to be the availability and style of terrain - which is also pretty variable in ITC events outside those run by FLG.
I think the big take-away from that in terms of the subject of the thread is the loads of players are playing the game "out of the book" with no need for additional material provided and that does mean the game is in a pretty good place. In 6th/7th there was a need for community supported FAQs and tournament mission packs, now there is no need for those things at all. If some player communities choose to have their own tournament packs then that is fine and I'm sure its fun for them but the game no longer *needs* those things to function well in matched play.
As for the level of conformity between events, I think that is an interesting but different discussion. It does not really have much to do with GW staff thinking their game is in a pretty good place right now - which my almost any objective measure is a well justified belief.
That makes sense now why my hugely zealous competitive 40k guys don't go to Adepticon; they don't use the ITC rules there and those guys are pretty much ITC-only.
auticus wrote: That makes sense now why my hugely zealous competitive 40k guys don't go to Adepticon; they don't use the ITC rules there and those guys are pretty much ITC-only.
Adepticon reports to ITC but has their own missions.
Which yet again proves the main dominance of the castellan is due to the itc missions. It's a bit too good by itself but the itc missions exacerbate the problem. This is basically proved now by how often the castellan dominates events that run ITC champions missions, while not dominating at events which do not.
Adepticon reports to ITC but has their own missions.
Yeah. I have been taught from my own experiences that people buy armies based on the expected missions. If Adepticon is using non standard tournament missions I understand why my community aren't huge on going to adepticon but religiously attend every other tournament.
Adepticon reports to ITC but has their own missions.
Yeah. I have been taught from my own experiences that people buy armies based on the expected missions. If Adepticon is using non standard tournament missions I understand why my community aren't huge on going to adepticon but religiously attend every other tournament.
It still makes me wonder why the people who want to play competitive games don't pick a game better suited to that style than try to make 40k into it. 40k's atmosphere has always been more laid back and based around the story with more random gameplay, and yet the desire is to strip that out rather than play something which has it baked in from the start.
Adepticon reports to ITC but has their own missions.
Yeah. I have been taught from my own experiences that people buy armies based on the expected missions. If Adepticon is using non standard tournament missions I understand why my community aren't huge on going to adepticon but religiously attend every other tournament.
It still makes me wonder why the people who want to play competitive games don't pick a game better suited to that style than try to make 40k into it. 40k's atmosphere has always been more laid back and based around the story with more random gameplay, and yet the desire is to strip that out rather than play something which has it baked in from the start.
Because 40k gives a good blend of all worlds. I like the competitive side of the game. I also love the universe/lore/fluff. I also love the modeling aspect. All other game systems I've seen are lacking in the fluff/lore aspect and the modeling aspect compared to it, and those are important. I spend way more time painting my guys than actually playing, so if I don't enjoy that too what's the point?
Adepticon reports to ITC but has their own missions.
Yeah. I have been taught from my own experiences that people buy armies based on the expected missions. If Adepticon is using non standard tournament missions I understand why my community aren't huge on going to adepticon but religiously attend every other tournament.
I buy armies based on aesthetic, model design, theme, lore, and ease of painting.
Editions and missions change, rules change, my army is My Army regardless of that.
Adepticon reports to ITC but has their own missions.
Yeah. I have been taught from my own experiences that people buy armies based on the expected missions. If Adepticon is using non standard tournament missions I understand why my community aren't huge on going to adepticon but religiously attend every other tournament.
It still makes me wonder why the people who want to play competitive games don't pick a game better suited to that style than try to make 40k into it. 40k's atmosphere has always been more laid back and based around the story with more random gameplay, and yet the desire is to strip that out rather than play something which has it baked in from the start.
Because 40k gives a good blend of all worlds. I like the competitive side of the game. I also love the universe/lore/fluff. I also love the modeling aspect. All other game systems I've seen are lacking in the fluff/lore aspect and the modeling aspect compared to it, and those are important. I spend way more time painting my guys than actually playing, so if I don't enjoy that too what's the point?
I'm sure I'm not alone in this.
That makes sense, but it feels like there's this subgroup that wants to force 40k to change into a highly competitive game despite that stripping away most of the interesting parts of it.
Adepticon reports to ITC but has their own missions.
Yeah. I have been taught from my own experiences that people buy armies based on the expected missions. If Adepticon is using non standard tournament missions I understand why my community aren't huge on going to adepticon but religiously attend every other tournament.
It still makes me wonder why the people who want to play competitive games don't pick a game better suited to that style than try to make 40k into it. 40k's atmosphere has always been more laid back and based around the story with more random gameplay, and yet the desire is to strip that out rather than play something which has it baked in from the start.
Because 40k gives a good blend of all worlds. I like the competitive side of the game. I also love the universe/lore/fluff. I also love the modeling aspect. All other game systems I've seen are lacking in the fluff/lore aspect and the modeling aspect compared to it, and those are important. I spend way more time painting my guys than actually playing, so if I don't enjoy that too what's the point?
I'm sure I'm not alone in this.
That makes sense, but it feels like there's this subgroup that wants to force 40k to change into a highly competitive game despite that stripping away most of the interesting parts of it.
How many of those unbalanced issues are actually "interesting" though?
Wayniac 773029 10401038 wrote:
That makes sense, but it feels like there's this subgroup that wants to force 40k to change into a highly competitive game despite that stripping away most of the interesting parts of it.
Ok, but what is wrong if it was a competitive game though? Clear rules are not a bad thing. Having armies match each other standard of gamplay isn't either. What is interesting in suddenly being told after 2-3 months that you spend the same amount of money on your army as he did, but yours is a bit too good, so now either he has to buy a new army or you have to buy a new one, with a high chance that one or even both of you may end up playing lists neither of you like.
Being a game with proper rule set and less unbalance between units or faction, doesn't suddenly make it illegal to paint someone models or convert them. In fact from the pictures I saw, and the few people at my store who play real big events their armies look great.
It is the fact that w40k is unbalanced and not create with actually playing the game in mind that creates problem for some people. I mean I get it in places where a GW store is in every major town and there is litteral thousands of people playing the game, it is probably possible to find that magical perfect meta for your army, maybe even most armies. But for everyone else, how the hell are 6 people suppose to balance their armies if 3 of them like eldar, knights and lets say demons, and the other 3 want to play some bottom feeder armies? create two separate metas of 3 people each, that kills the want to play after a few months of intensive playing or one summer.
But I doubt GW is ever going to fix their rules. They seem to work like a mix of a mobile games company with a cars sales emporium. Ton of gatcha stuff like sudden resets, DLCs sometimes day one or week later, those lol moments when the store manager tries to explain to you while the army was created for the lols to play in some ultra rare narrative home brew enviroment, but costs like a normal army. Paid patch every year. Patch only 3 times a year, with a huge game like this.
Seem to make them too much money, for them to stop. And by the way I see nothing wrong with making big money, so this is not an anti GW rant.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: How many of those unbalanced issues are actually "interesting" though?
A lot of them, honestly. the CA18 missions are all really cool (perhaps barring the no invuln one) and change the dynamic of how the game is played that you can't just listbuild your way to victory. I played a really close game with the one that required characters to get the VP, and it changed how we both played the game than if we were playing just take objectives/kill units. Having that extra twist to the game enabled me to win a game that I was outgunned in because I could focus on the victory condition.
Slayer-Fan123 773029 10401069 wrote:
How many of those unbalanced issues are actually "interesting" though?
Each one that makes ones army win over other armies more, while still being able to high horse around with the banner of I-play-for-fun not for wins ?
I had a friend who fights in a lower weight class then he should, just because there he can just dominate everyone. Easier for him to get points and prise from trainers.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: How many of those unbalanced issues are actually "interesting" though?
A lot of them, honestly. the CA18 missions are all really cool (perhaps barring the no invuln one) and change the dynamic of how the game is played that you can't just listbuild your way to victory. I played a really close game with the one that required characters to get the VP, and it changed how we both played the game than if we were playing just take objectives/kill units. Having that extra twist to the game enabled me to win a game that I was outgunned in because I could focus on the victory condition.
Doesn't it just promote armies like demon soups or eldar, that can stack -1to hit or have very hard to kill characters. Where is the twist in victory conditions ?
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: How many of those unbalanced issues are actually "interesting" though?
A lot of them, honestly. the CA18 missions are all really cool (perhaps barring the no invuln one) and change the dynamic of how the game is played that you can't just listbuild your way to victory. I played a really close game with the one that required characters to get the VP, and it changed how we both played the game than if we were playing just take objectives/kill units. Having that extra twist to the game enabled me to win a game that I was outgunned in because I could focus on the victory condition.
I have had a lot of negative experiences with gw missions. Maybe ba are just that poor.
Slayer-Fan123 773029 10401069 wrote:
How many of those unbalanced issues are actually "interesting" though?
Each one that makes ones army win over other armies more, while still being able to high horse around with the banner of I-play-for-fun not for wins ?
I had a friend who fights in a lower weight class then he should, just because there he can just dominate everyone. Easier for him to get points and prise from trainers.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: How many of those unbalanced issues are actually "interesting" though?
A lot of them, honestly. the CA18 missions are all really cool (perhaps barring the no invuln one) and change the dynamic of how the game is played that you can't just listbuild your way to victory. I played a really close game with the one that required characters to get the VP, and it changed how we both played the game than if we were playing just take objectives/kill units. Having that extra twist to the game enabled me to win a game that I was outgunned in because I could focus on the victory condition.
Doesn't it just promote armies like demon soups or eldar, that can stack -1to hit or have very hard to kill characters. Where is the twist in victory conditions ?
The point is that your playing a tournament of 3-5 games or more and while one mission prioritises characters, another you want units with Fly and in a 3e you just want troops ect.
Its about diversity instead of playing the same mission every single game with minor differences in where objectives are placed that don't matter because objectives are pretty worthless anyway.
Doesn't it just promote armies like demon soups or eldar, that can stack -1to hit or have very hard to kill characters. Where is the twist in victory conditions ?
The twist is that it forces HQs to the objectives. Normally your HQs can either sit back with your firebase, or smash face with your forward-thrusting units.
The one I played like that had only one objective in the center. I was playing a list built around running up the flanks and not holding the line anywhere. He was playing a gunline built to castle up in the corner, with chaff to move forward on the objectives.
I couldn't just move up the sides an ignore the middle - because I needed the VP. He tried to castle and rake me over the middleground. He lost because he didn't spring forward quickly enough - because the flow was very different from most of his games.
Even a small change like "Only HQs score this time" can significantly change a stale game.
(The 2k game ended with me removing 1 admech chaff infantry unit and 1 DAHQ of his army, and me being left with my 4 HQs and two Warp Spider Aspect Warriors - but I won on VP. It was a very different and fun game.)
Ordana wrote: The point is that your playing a tournament of 3-5 games or more and while one mission prioritises characters, another you want units with Fly and in a 3e you just want troops ect. Its about diversity instead of playing the same mission every single game with minor differences in where objectives are placed that don't matter because objectives are pretty worthless anyway.
Exactly this. If you are going to an event and you could get one mission where HQ is needed to get VP, one where units with FLY get super objective secured, and one where its a relatively normal mission, it influences what you bring rather than knowing ahead of time it'll be the same goals (kill units/hold objectives) with the only difference being the objectives are in different places, and since they are in static places you could, in theory, memorize where they will be for each mission.
That's the whole "problem". You lose diversity in what you bring when you know what you'll have to do before you even get to the event. With the CA18 missions you don't know which one you would get before you get to the table (you know, the way the rules say to play; place terrain, generate mission, roll deployment, etc.) it means you can't just consider every possibility that might come up in the listbuilding phase. It encourages list diversity because if you take minimal HQs, that mission hurts you, if you have nothing that can FLY and get the mission where they get bonuses, either you are disadvantaged or you need to focus on killing their units that can fly to even the score, etc.
This same thing also seems to be why a lot of people dislike it.
Doesn't it just promote armies like demon soups or eldar, that can stack -1to hit or have very hard to kill characters. Where is the twist in victory conditions ?
The twist is that it forces HQs to the objectives. Normally your HQs can either sit back with your firebase, or smash face with your forward-thrusting units.
The one I played like that had only one objective in the center. I was playing a list built around running up the flanks and not holding the line anywhere. He was playing a gunline built to castle up in the corner, with chaff to move forward on the objectives.
I couldn't just move up the sides an ignore the middle - because I needed the VP. He tried to castle and rake me over the middleground. He lost because he didn't spring forward quickly enough - because the flow was very different from most of his games.
Even a small change like "Only HQs score this time" can significantly change a stale game.
(The 2k game ended with me removing 1 admech chaff infantry unit and 1 DAHQ of his army, and me being left with my 4 HQs and two Warp Spider Aspect Warriors - but I won on VP. It was a very different and fun game.)
Oh am not saying it doesn't change the game play or that new units don't have to be bought. It is natural that a "castel" style of play would not work. Interesting thought how would a IK list, with multiple warlords and only some IG fare? Big tought HQs, some chaff and maybe some cheap IG characters to try not to be shot too fast .
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: How many of those unbalanced issues are actually "interesting" though?
A lot of them, honestly. the CA18 missions are all really cool (perhaps barring the no invuln one) and change the dynamic of how the game is played that you can't just listbuild your way to victory. I played a really close game with the one that required characters to get the VP, and it changed how we both played the game than if we were playing just take objectives/kill units. Having that extra twist to the game enabled me to win a game that I was outgunned in because I could focus on the victory condition.
So basically because you won a single game the imbalance is good?
You're off your rocker.
Also if anything the No Invul one is the ultimate Forge The Narrative! I love that this is THE one you don't approve of.
I like producing the missions and terrain layout right before a game. As I understand it, all potential tourny missions and even sometimes the board layout is clearly defined before the event, so players have time to tailor their lists and playtest.
By producing the missions and terrain layout right before the game, you need to bring a more TAC list that can handle a variety of missions or layouts. I think it makes games more dynamic and fun. The downside is that you can wind up truly boned from the missions or layout itself; even if you try to build TAC, there will be times when the other guy is just much better suited to that mission/layout. That's the nature of random.
The good thing about not being a competitive player, is that it's a lot easier to accept that sometimes one side simply gets boned by luck.
The last tourny I went to, one of my games saw me on a board half where *nothing* in my list could get cover *anywhere* in my deployment zone. To add insult to injury, the objectives used d3-vp-each, and the two in my DZ were 1 and 2, and the two in theirs were each worth 3. So I got hosed on that - but I'm still glad we did it that way. It was still a really fun game. (Wound up winning because one of my DA squads fell back one round and rallied the next - had they not fallen back they would have been wrecked, and had they not rallied, they wouldn't have taken the objective - it's a dice game, luck happens.)
Doesn't it just promote armies like demon soups or eldar, that can stack -1to hit or have very hard to kill characters. Where is the twist in victory conditions ?
The twist is that it forces HQs to the objectives. Normally your HQs can either sit back with your firebase, or smash face with your forward-thrusting units.
The one I played like that had only one objective in the center. I was playing a list built around running up the flanks and not holding the line anywhere. He was playing a gunline built to castle up in the corner, with chaff to move forward on the objectives.
I couldn't just move up the sides an ignore the middle - because I needed the VP. He tried to castle and rake me over the middleground. He lost because he didn't spring forward quickly enough - because the flow was very different from most of his games.
Even a small change like "Only HQs score this time" can significantly change a stale game.
(The 2k game ended with me removing 1 admech chaff infantry unit and 1 DAHQ of his army, and me being left with my 4 HQs and two Warp Spider Aspect Warriors - but I won on VP. It was a very different and fun game.)
Oh am not saying it doesn't change the game play or that new units don't have to be bought. It is natural that a "castel" style of play would not work. Interesting thought how would a IK list, with multiple warlords and only some IG fare? Big tought HQs, some chaff and maybe some cheap IG characters to try not to be shot too fast .
That list would work for that missions, but would get crashed in the no invul one.
I kill your puny guards and then you have to cap with no invul knights. Oh and they count as a single model.
Also, you have no flying units, so i foresee another really hard mission there.
Bharring wrote: I like producing the missions and terrain layout right before a game. As I understand it, all potential tourny missions and even sometimes the board layout is clearly defined before the event, so players have time to tailor their lists and playtest.
By producing the missions and terrain layout right before the game, you need to bring a more TAC list that can handle a variety of missions or layouts. I think it makes games more dynamic and fun. The downside is that you can wind up truly boned from the missions or layout itself; even if you try to build TAC, there will be times when the other guy is just much better suited to that mission/layout. That's the nature of random.
The good thing about not being a competitive player, is that it's a lot easier to accept that sometimes one side simply gets boned by luck.
The last tourny I went to, one of my games saw me on a board half where *nothing* in my list could get cover *anywhere* in my deployment zone. To add insult to injury, the objectives used d3-vp-each, and the two in my DZ were 1 and 2, and the two in theirs were each worth 3. So I got hosed on that - but I'm still glad we did it that way. It was still a really fun game. (Wound up winning because one of my DA squads fell back one round and rallied the next - had they not fallen back they would have been wrecked, and had they not rallied, they wouldn't have taken the objective - it's a dice game, luck happens.)
I really don't like paying to show up to an event, possibly traveling an hour or more for it, maybe buying a hotel room for a weekend, only to find out that my army is utterly unsuited to half the missions out there.
It's hard enough to build an army that has a chance at a set of 6 known missions against every codex out there. It's probably one of the reasons "netlisting" is so popular, because it's really not easy to build an army list that can deal with all possible combinations that can be fielded against you.
If it is for a local tournament that's just for fine, yea tha'ts OK, bust out the wacky missions. I went to a local tournament this past weekend, mission 2 was a Maelstrom of war mission, completely random as hell. But for major events like ITC or Adepticon? Those need to have published missions so you can plan for them.
Bharring wrote: I like producing the missions and terrain layout right before a game. As I understand it, all potential tourny missions and even sometimes the board layout is clearly defined before the event, so players have time to tailor their lists and playtest.
By producing the missions and terrain layout right before the game, you need to bring a more TAC list that can handle a variety of missions or layouts. I think it makes games more dynamic and fun. The downside is that you can wind up truly boned from the missions or layout itself; even if you try to build TAC, there will be times when the other guy is just much better suited to that mission/layout. That's the nature of random.
The good thing about not being a competitive player, is that it's a lot easier to accept that sometimes one side simply gets boned by luck.
The last tourny I went to, one of my games saw me on a board half where *nothing* in my list could get cover *anywhere* in my deployment zone. To add insult to injury, the objectives used d3-vp-each, and the two in my DZ were 1 and 2, and the two in theirs were each worth 3. So I got hosed on that - but I'm still glad we did it that way. It was still a really fun game. (Wound up winning because one of my DA squads fell back one round and rallied the next - had they not fallen back they would have been wrecked, and had they not rallied, they wouldn't have taken the objective - it's a dice game, luck happens.)
I really don't like paying to show up to an event, possibly traveling an hour or more for it, maybe buying a hotel room for a weekend, only to find out that my army is utterly unsuited to half the missions out there.
It's hard enough to build an army that has a chance at a set of 6 known missions against every codex out there. It's probably one of the reasons "netlisting" is so popular, because it's really not easy to build an army list that can deal with all possible combinations that can be fielded against you.
If it is for a local tournament that's just for fine, yea tha'ts OK, bust out the wacky missions. I went to a local tournament this past weekend, mission 2 was a Maelstrom of war mission, completely random as hell. But for major events like ITC or Adepticon? Those need to have published missions so you can plan for them.
That's why I get why they do it, for tournaments. Fortunately, those concerns are typically not present in PuGs - or at least my PUGs.
Seems like the ideal is that tournies - at least those of reasonable size - needs to have more consistancy, but PuGs - at least for some - can be better with less.
Tourny games needn't be played like PuGs, and that's a good thing.
I'd argue it may be possible, with sufficient and unbiased playtesting/planning, to do balanced missions that are not released early. But that's incredibly hard, and an easily-missed mistake can ruin a large number of people's weekend. So I get why tournies do it that way. I'm less sold on rigid terrain setup, but the same arguments apply (although not as strongly).
auticus wrote: That makes sense now why my hugely zealous competitive 40k guys don't go to Adepticon; they don't use the ITC rules there and those guys are pretty much ITC-only.
Adepticon reports to ITC but has their own missions.
Which yet again proves the main dominance of the castellan is due to the itc missions. It's a bit too good by itself but the itc missions exacerbate the problem. This is basically proved now by how often the castellan dominates events that run ITC champions missions, while not dominating at events which do not.
The main dominance of the castellan is it can reliably kill 2-3 targets a turn while being impossible to remove. It's going to do good in every possible format.
- Codeci are updated more often than once every five years.
- Rules and pointcosts are updated and balanced on regular intervals. A unit won't be overpowered or useless during the an entire edition (there are exceptions of course).
- All armies have chapter tactics (or equivalents) and not just Space Marines, leading to greater diversity and options within the different armies. Add unique stratagems, relics, disciplines and warlord traits to boot.
- Model's are better than ever.
Is the game perfect? Absolutely not, but as a casual player that still wants a modicum of balance, and who only play with close friends, I'd say that 40k is in a better place than ever.
auticus wrote: That makes sense now why my hugely zealous competitive 40k guys don't go to Adepticon; they don't use the ITC rules there and those guys are pretty much ITC-only.
Adepticon reports to ITC but has their own missions.
Which yet again proves the main dominance of the castellan is due to the itc missions. It's a bit too good by itself but the itc missions exacerbate the problem. This is basically proved now by how often the castellan dominates events that run ITC champions missions, while not dominating at events which do not.
The main dominance of the castellan is it can reliably kill 2-3 targets a turn while being impossible to remove. It's going to do good in every possible format.
auticus wrote: That makes sense now why my hugely zealous competitive 40k guys don't go to Adepticon; they don't use the ITC rules there and those guys are pretty much ITC-only.
Adepticon reports to ITC but has their own missions.
Which yet again proves the main dominance of the castellan is due to the itc missions. It's a bit too good by itself but the itc missions exacerbate the problem. This is basically proved now by how often the castellan dominates events that run ITC champions missions, while not dominating at events which do not.
The main dominance of the castellan is it can reliably kill 2-3 targets a turn while being impossible to remove. It's going to do good in every possible format.
Then why didn't it dominate at Adepticon?
Castellan is rather ineffective against horde armies for it's points cost. Horde armies did very well (GSC and Orks having strong representation in top 10).
I'd be curious if Adepticon did the whole time clock thing ITC did? Did the horde army players make it to turn 6 every turn? Or were the games ending on turns 2/3?
YeOldSaltPotato wrote: I think one thing needs to happen, Relics, Warlord Traits and Psychic powers should have points costs. They aren't even remotely well balanced enough between each other to justify them being the same effective cost.
The power I can grant to my genestealer cult army with one CP spent to give me three warlord traits? The fact that I can spend a total of five CP to grant myself five command traits is rather absurd.
Once you can adjust the costs of these things independent of the unit involved a lot of power combos could easily be dealt with more effectively.
With Knights getting Exalted Court, I've been using multiple Warlord Traits in games. Ill say your correct, they are not all created equal, but they are diverse enough to make them worthwhile, and with them being one of the best ways to customize at the table, the diversity is effective.
Making them cost points wouldn't be good for the game IMHO.
auticus wrote: That makes sense now why my hugely zealous competitive 40k guys don't go to Adepticon; they don't use the ITC rules there and those guys are pretty much ITC-only.
Adepticon reports to ITC but has their own missions.
Which yet again proves the main dominance of the castellan is due to the itc missions. It's a bit too good by itself but the itc missions exacerbate the problem. This is basically proved now by how often the castellan dominates events that run ITC champions missions, while not dominating at events which do not.
The main dominance of the castellan is it can reliably kill 2-3 targets a turn while being impossible to remove. It's going to do good in every possible format.
Then why didn't it dominate at Adepticon?
Castellan is rather ineffective against horde armies for it's points cost. Horde armies did very well (GSC and Orks having strong representation in top 10).
I'd be curious if Adepticon did the whole time clock thing ITC did? Did the horde army players make it to turn 6 every turn? Or were the games ending on turns 2/3?
This is kind of going to the point though. Horde armies did not dominate at LVO and Castellans did. Hordes dominated at Adepticon, and the Castellan did not. The underlying factor here seems to be that the Adepticon missions enabled Horde armies to do very well, while the LVO missions did not.
Therefore it seems to be when ITC Champions missions are in place the Castellan dominates. When it is not, the Castellan does not dominate, and we have already seen this multiple times now with the tournaments that did not use ITC missions such as the GWGT at Warhammer World and now most recently Adepticon.
The logical conclusion then is that the ITC Champions missions are part of what enables the Castellan to dominate.
auticus wrote: That makes sense now why my hugely zealous competitive 40k guys don't go to Adepticon; they don't use the ITC rules there and those guys are pretty much ITC-only.
Adepticon reports to ITC but has their own missions.
Which yet again proves the main dominance of the castellan is due to the itc missions. It's a bit too good by itself but the itc missions exacerbate the problem. This is basically proved now by how often the castellan dominates events that run ITC champions missions, while not dominating at events which do not.
The main dominance of the castellan is it can reliably kill 2-3 targets a turn while being impossible to remove. It's going to do good in every possible format.
Then why didn't it dominate at Adepticon?
Castellan is rather ineffective against horde armies for it's points cost. Horde armies did very well (GSC and Orks having strong representation in top 10).
I'd be curious if Adepticon did the whole time clock thing ITC did? Did the horde army players make it to turn 6 every turn? Or were the games ending on turns 2/3?
This is kind of going to the point though. Horde armies did not dominate at LVO and Castellans did. Hordes dominated at Adepticon, and the Castellan did not. The underlying factor here seems to be that the Adepticon missions enabled Horde armies to do very well, while the LVO missions did not.
Therefore it seems to be when ITC Champions missions are in place the Castellan dominates. When it is not, the Castellan does not dominate, and we have already seen this multiple times now with the tournaments that did not use ITC missions such as the GWGT at Warhammer World and now most recently Adepticon.
The logical conclusion then is that the ITC Champions missions are part of what enables the Castellan to dominate.
Do we know if those horde armies were actually finishing games though? Did they all make it to turn 6? I don't see anything in the rules packet about chess clocks. Against an army like Genestealers or Orks, if the game only goes to turn 3, yea I can see why they'd have such great representation in the top 10. It might not be the Castellan itself making the difference if games just aren't making it to the endgame.
Bharring wrote: I like producing the missions and terrain layout right before a game. As I understand it, all potential tourny missions and even sometimes the board layout is clearly defined before the event, so players have time to tailor their lists and playtest.
By producing the missions and terrain layout right before the game, you need to bring a more TAC list that can handle a variety of missions or layouts. I think it makes games more dynamic and fun. The downside is that you can wind up truly boned from the missions or layout itself; even if you try to build TAC, there will be times when the other guy is just much better suited to that mission/layout. That's the nature of random.
The good thing about not being a competitive player, is that it's a lot easier to accept that sometimes one side simply gets boned by luck.
The last tourny I went to, one of my games saw me on a board half where *nothing* in my list could get cover *anywhere* in my deployment zone. To add insult to injury, the objectives used d3-vp-each, and the two in my DZ were 1 and 2, and the two in theirs were each worth 3. So I got hosed on that - but I'm still glad we did it that way. It was still a really fun game. (Wound up winning because one of my DA squads fell back one round and rallied the next - had they not fallen back they would have been wrecked, and had they not rallied, they wouldn't have taken the objective - it's a dice game, luck happens.)
I really don't like paying to show up to an event, possibly traveling an hour or more for it, maybe buying a hotel room for a weekend, only to find out that my army is utterly unsuited to half the missions out there.
It's hard enough to build an army that has a chance at a set of 6 known missions against every codex out there. It's probably one of the reasons "netlisting" is so popular, because it's really not easy to build an army list that can deal with all possible combinations that can be fielded against you.
If it is for a local tournament that's just for fine, yea tha'ts OK, bust out the wacky missions. I went to a local tournament this past weekend, mission 2 was a Maelstrom of war mission, completely random as hell. But for major events like ITC or Adepticon? Those need to have published missions so you can plan for them.
Personally I don't like the samey ITC missions as I think they aren't as skill testing as they need to be (of gameplay skill) and place too much emphasis on list building. I prefer the way we do tourneys over here, you have your mission packet in advance so you aren't surprised by the missions and can build and playtest, but they also have variety, whether it be the 6 CA18 missions or the 6 ETC missions, you aren't surprised by the mission unless you're a bad player (from the point of view of the format) as you'll have practised it, but you will be forced to diversify your list and the combination of mission and match-up forces more tactical play, as pulling a horde in one mission is very different to pulling them in another and the same goes for a knoght list etc.
nareik wrote: Warhammer world is just 15 minutes from a commercial intercontinental airport and under two hours from a whole bunch of super airports.
The idea that it is remote to international travellers is laughable.
East Midlands is hardly a main airport. The flights from there are very limited.
You're not really refuting either of my points. It has destinations all over the world, and there are a bunch of huge airports within a couple of hours if none of the East Midlands Airport (EMA) destinations are convenient.
Unfortunately, very recently one of their main providers of passenger services for EMA closed their business. So there will be gaps in services in the immediate future.
It may not be LV, but it is hardly remote or inaccessible to international travel.
Martel732 wrote: On the other hand, im not sure i like adepticon meta any better.
I'd be curious to see how informing one with the other would turn out. Adepticon always seems to let the problem of objectives being ruled by number of models without any sense of quality reach its natural conclusion. Changing it to PL seems like an interesting experiment. I'm curious if anyone has bothered to run a major event simply using the latest CA missions and see how that meta turns out.
Martel732 wrote: On the other hand, im not sure i like adepticon meta any better.
I'd be curious to see how informing one with the other would turn out. Adepticon always seems to let the problem of objectives being ruled by number of models without any sense of quality reach its natural conclusion. Changing it to PL seems like an interesting experiment. I'm curious if anyone has bothered to run a major event simply using the latest CA missions and see how that meta turns out.
The great thing about PL *ducks rotten fruit* is it disincentivises the minmax balance from naked boots on the field toward actually including upgrade options. The loyal 32 is much more fluffy/thematic when they have their heavy weapon teams and so on!
Martel732 wrote: On the other hand, im not sure i like adepticon meta any better.
I'd be curious to see how informing one with the other would turn out. Adepticon always seems to let the problem of objectives being ruled by number of models without any sense of quality reach its natural conclusion. Changing it to PL seems like an interesting experiment. I'm curious if anyone has bothered to run a major event simply using the latest CA missions and see how that meta turns out.
The great thing about PL *ducks rotten fruit* is it disincentivises the minmax balance from naked boots on the field toward actually including upgrade options. The loyal 32 is much more fluffy/thematic when they have their heavy weapon teams and so on!
The counterpoint is that it incentivises minmax balance to include every possible upgrade. No Harlequin doesn't have a Fusion Pistol. DA Exarch doesn't have two guns. No reason to take anything but the BIS for each potential upgrade.
We see a lot of the same names finishing top tier with the same armies. Nick is there with orks (same ole list). Sean with Ynnari (same ole list). There is only 1 castellan list in the top 10 which is kind of surprising. However - with practically nothing worth shooting at showing up in the top 10. No surprise really.
Also. GSC who are also broken BTW. Have combos that 1 shot any model in the game with mortal wounds if they pass a psychic test and can get within 18" of you. Also the democharge stratagem is officially busted. 10 d6str 8 ap-2 d3 damage shots hitting on likely 2's but for sure 3's. Yeah sorry...5 LR command tanks worth of firepower for 200ish points shouldn't even be possible.
It would be interesting to find out what is BIS in such a scenario. Tough all points costs be equal, the choices aren't. What is Optimal? the heaviest weapon, the most expensive, etc.
Current meta for certain codices is towards more less upgraded bodies that would certainly no longer be the meta.
Martel732 wrote: On the other hand, im not sure i like adepticon meta any better.
I'd be curious to see how informing one with the other would turn out. Adepticon always seems to let the problem of objectives being ruled by number of models without any sense of quality reach its natural conclusion. Changing it to PL seems like an interesting experiment. I'm curious if anyone has bothered to run a major event simply using the latest CA missions and see how that meta turns out.
The great thing about PL *ducks rotten fruit* is it disincentivises the minmax balance from naked boots on the field toward actually including upgrade options. The loyal 32 is much more fluffy/thematic when they have their heavy weapon teams and so on!
I think PL could be really good with a few tweaks. A version of it that limited weapons to what's available in the kit could be really nice.
It would be interesting to find out what is BIS in such a scenario. Tough all points costs be equal, the choices aren't. What is Optimal? the heaviest weapon, the most expensive, etc.
Current meta for certain codices is towards more less upgraded bodies that would certainly no longer be the meta.
Some cases are obvious - why would you ever take a single Avenger Shuriken Catapault, when you can take 2x Avenger Shuriken Catapaults for the same PL? Without giving anything else up?
Some are fairly clear - why take a Heavy Bolter if a Grav Cannon costs just as much?
Some others have some real tradeoffs - Brightlance or Shuriken Cannon?
And some are just silly as-is - Aeldari Blade vs Chainsword?
That said, points allow finer tradeoffs. Say we want a Plasma Gun to be an upgrade to a Boltgun, but want people to pick Boltgun at times? You make the Boltgun cost less than the Plasma Gun. The player can then decide if they want the more powerful gun for the points. You lose that differentiation with PL.
Martel732 wrote: On the other hand, im not sure i like adepticon meta any better.
I'd be curious to see how informing one with the other would turn out. Adepticon always seems to let the problem of objectives being ruled by number of models without any sense of quality reach its natural conclusion. Changing it to PL seems like an interesting experiment. I'm curious if anyone has bothered to run a major event simply using the latest CA missions and see how that meta turns out.
The great thing about PL *ducks rotten fruit* is it disincentivises the minmax balance from naked boots on the field toward actually including upgrade options. The loyal 32 is much more fluffy/thematic when they have their heavy weapon teams and so on!
It does no such thing. It incentives taking ALL THE UPGRADES because there is no downside. When a unit costs the same with a Lascannon as without, why would you ever not take the Lascannon?
Martel732 wrote: On the other hand, im not sure i like adepticon meta any better.
I'd be curious to see how informing one with the other would turn out. Adepticon always seems to let the problem of objectives being ruled by number of models without any sense of quality reach its natural conclusion. Changing it to PL seems like an interesting experiment. I'm curious if anyone has bothered to run a major event simply using the latest CA missions and see how that meta turns out.
The great thing about PL *ducks rotten fruit* is it disincentivises the minmax balance from naked boots on the field toward actually including upgrade options. The loyal 32 is much more fluffy/thematic when they have their heavy weapon teams and so on!
It does no such thing. It incentives taking ALL THE UPGRADES because there is no downside. When a unit costs the same with a Lascannon as without, why would you ever not take the Lascannon?
Because PL is made for people who aren't going to just min/max because they can. They don't have a lascannon, they have a heavy bolter assembled. They don't have every model armed with combi-plasma. Etc. etc.
Martel732 wrote: On the other hand, im not sure i like adepticon meta any better.
I'd be curious to see how informing one with the other would turn out. Adepticon always seems to let the problem of objectives being ruled by number of models without any sense of quality reach its natural conclusion. Changing it to PL seems like an interesting experiment. I'm curious if anyone has bothered to run a major event simply using the latest CA missions and see how that meta turns out.
The great thing about PL *ducks rotten fruit* is it disincentivises the minmax balance from naked boots on the field toward actually including upgrade options. The loyal 32 is much more fluffy/thematic when they have their heavy weapon teams and so on!
It does no such thing. It incentives taking ALL THE UPGRADES because there is no downside. When a unit costs the same with a Lascannon as without, why would you ever not take the Lascannon?
Because PL is made for people who aren't going to just min/max because they can. They don't have a lascannon, they have a heavy bolter assembled. They don't have every model armed with combi-plasma. Etc. etc.
I have never met a person like this while playing 40k. I have never met a person like this while playing any game. "I'm going to take the worse of two options!"
Yea.... I'm sure players like this exist, but I know I've never seen one.
If they assemble worse options and then realize it later, they'll either deal with it and not be happy about it, convert it to something else, or start a different army and sell the worse one. Or quit the game when they realize they've spent $100+ on units that are garbage.
Martel732 wrote: On the other hand, im not sure i like adepticon meta any better.
I'd be curious to see how informing one with the other would turn out. Adepticon always seems to let the problem of objectives being ruled by number of models without any sense of quality reach its natural conclusion. Changing it to PL seems like an interesting experiment. I'm curious if anyone has bothered to run a major event simply using the latest CA missions and see how that meta turns out.
The great thing about PL *ducks rotten fruit* is it disincentivises the minmax balance from naked boots on the field toward actually including upgrade options. The loyal 32 is much more fluffy/thematic when they have their heavy weapon teams and so on!
It does no such thing. It incentives taking ALL THE UPGRADES because there is no downside. When a unit costs the same with a Lascannon as without, why would you ever not take the Lascannon?
You tell me I'm absolutely wrong then give an example that illustrates exactly what I said. Did I have a communication error? Or do you not see 'taking all the upgrades' as being a subset of the concept 'taking upgrades'.
In answer to your rhetorical question there often ARE opportunity costs to taking upgrades. In the case of the weapon team your swapping two bases for one, and in a unit that is there to take up space and move between objectives you may not find a single lascannon running around the field to be any more effective than a pair of lasguns.
PL can be helpful for a newer player, or someone who wants to throw their collection on the table and not fiddle with points. It can be useful for extremely casual groups, too.
I, personally, find that usually Points work better for me, though - as it's quite fast to throw together a list in BattleScribe (or something), and I have enough models that "Do I take that upgrade or not" is usually a question of which models I take, not which models I have.
It's kinda nice that GW has rulessets for both, provided points is first-class and PL is just a conveinience. If they balance around PL first and do Points only as an afterthought, though, the game will get worse.
Martel732 wrote: On the other hand, im not sure i like adepticon meta any better.
I'd be curious to see how informing one with the other would turn out. Adepticon always seems to let the problem of objectives being ruled by number of models without any sense of quality reach its natural conclusion. Changing it to PL seems like an interesting experiment. I'm curious if anyone has bothered to run a major event simply using the latest CA missions and see how that meta turns out.
The great thing about PL *ducks rotten fruit* is it disincentivises the minmax balance from naked boots on the field toward actually including upgrade options. The loyal 32 is much more fluffy/thematic when they have their heavy weapon teams and so on!
It does no such thing. It incentives taking ALL THE UPGRADES because there is no downside. When a unit costs the same with a Lascannon as without, why would you ever not take the Lascannon?
Because PL is made for people who aren't going to just min/max because they can. They don't have a lascannon, they have a heavy bolter assembled. They don't have every model armed with combi-plasma. Etc. etc.
I have never met a person like this while playing 40k. I have never met a person like this while playing any game. "I'm going to take the worse of two options!"
Yea.... I'm sure players like this exist, but I know I've never seen one.
Hello, Horst, nice to meet you.
As above, I'm mostly a Points player. But I'll field models as assembled. I've split a 10man DA squad into two - which means the second squad didn't have an Exarch. It's a free upgrade that gives 1 model 2W 2A and a 4++ - but, at the time, I didn't have enough DA Exarchs, so I went without (and that's doing so in a *points* game).
I've taken any number of suboptimal options because that's what I wanted to use or that's what I had modeled. It's not "I'm going to take the worse of two options!". It's "I think $option1 would be cooler than $option2, so that's what I'll build" - not because $option1 is worse, but because it was more alluring. $option2 being better didn't really matter. For instance, I have multiple Dire Avenger Exarchs with CC weapons. It's not a good idea, mechanically. But I didn't want to repeat dual Cats on every Exarch.
If they assemble worse options and then realize it later, they'll either deal with it and not be happy about it, convert it to something else, or start a different army and sell the worse one. Or quit the game when they realize they've spent $100+ on units that are garbage.
Or deal with it, enjoy it, play it as is, and enjoy the hobby.
Horst wrote:I have never met a person like this while playing 40k. I have never met a person like this while playing any game. "I'm going to take the worse of two options!"
Yea.... I'm sure players like this exist, but I know I've never seen one.
If they assemble worse options and then realize it later, they'll either deal with it and not be happy about it, convert it to something else, or start a different army and sell the worse one. Or quit the game when they realize they've spent $100+ on units that are garbage.
Hi. I'm Smudge. I use PL, and am more than happy taking "inferior" options because they fit the narrative of what I'm trying to make. I play WYSIWYG, so if I've got models which used to be built for points efficiency, I'll play them with what I've got modelled, not what becomes being under PL. If I've got models armed with no upgrades whatsoever (like my Guardsmen, because I prefer keeping my special weapons segregated into dedicated SWT/HWT, with only Veterans and Command Squads (also carrying banners) being armed with mixed weapon options.
There, now you can see you've seen one.
Just because you don't see people doing it doesn't mean that some people out there do prefer it, and don't exactly take kindly to people dismissing it because "I've not seen it".
All the same, can we not talk about PL/points? It goes nowhere, and is more likely to end up in threadlock.
I don't see how as a Deathwatch player I can build a PL list and NOT be overpowered. Everyone, pick up a storm shield and a combi plasma. Then, everyone take a Inferno pistol as the pistol option.
Vanguard vets for 5 points with SS/HTH? YES PLEASE.
Captains with Terminator armor, double melta powerfists? Sure.
This is why PL is situational, and should be regarded with caution.
Yep, let's agree regardless of the benefits/drawbacks of PL vs points it would certainly change things up (but we can disagree on whether it will be for the better or even interesting)!
Wayniac wrote: Yeah, let's move on from the Points vs. PL debate. That has no real bearing on whether 40k is in a good place or not anyways.
Except it does, because GW is pushing this hardcore. I wouldn't be surprised to see them make this the standard. Because their new "list builder app" that was dropping in early 2018 (STILL WAITING) uses only Power level.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: I don't see how as a Deathwatch player I can build a PL list and NOT be overpowered. Everyone, pick up a storm shield and a combi plasma. Then, everyone take a Inferno pistol as the pistol option.
Vanguard vets for 5 points with SS/HTH? YES PLEASE.
Captains with Terminator armor, double melta powerfists? Sure.
This is why PL is situational, and should be regarded with caution.
If you have them all modelling appropriately, it's fine.
PL really isn't the place for minor proxies like weapons. "These Kroot are Flayed Ones", sure, but the point of PL appears to be that you simply look at the models and see what they have.
) saying you can only play these three missions at one single points limit rather defeats the point.
do I have to choose between them, or re-write the rules that I paid for?
) should be avoided when making an argument.
