I’ve notice that thewargamimg community is one of the few communities that actively discourage you from trying to understand the game system infinitely and try to use this knowledge to effectively maximize the quality of your performance of the table. The idea that you should bring whatever you want and that you shouldn’t worry about viability is the kind of advice that amounts to telling someone that their way of enjoying the game isn’t acceptable. The idea that you should be telling someone not try and win is rather caustic. I agree this game does have unfun cheese and annoying wombo combos (bobby G and his motorcade comes to mind) but I feel like a lot of people treat anything that’s done in the name of crunch and effcency as cheese. At what point does trying to make a points efficient and competent “take all comers” list considered meta gaming?
The reason I bring this up is because I’ve seen it time and time again where people get mad or annoyed the momment you try to discuss unit viability or effective list building. Its like to some people in this community, trying to become a better player is a sin.
For every person who decries the WAAC player, there's another CAAC player doing the opposite and equally harming to the community.
Ideally everyone could just play what they like and not be accused of being X or Y, but such is the state of balance in 40k that people leap to add labels, even mostly incorrect ones.
Fluffy does not equal a weak list, and a strong list is not automatically unfluffy.
With the way the game is, you really do need to hope you find players who want the same experience, otherwise the game just isn't very good.
Well it also happens in roleplaying - some people actively enjoy stretching the game system to its very limits and beyond in order to "be the best they can be" other just want to "tell a story" - and this applies to gamemasters as much as players.
People are different - thats the joy and dificulty in our interactions.
Boardgames can be similar - eg I absolutely need a "theme" to enjoy and comitt to a game and if there is not one I will make it up - sometime it works sometimes it doesn't.
Jaxler wrote: I’ve notice that thewargamimg community is one of the few communities that actively discourage you from trying to understand the game system infinitely and try to use this knowledge to effectively maximize the quality of your performance of the table.
Eh. I've seen the same thing in RPG and board game communities.
And related things in Movie/TV/Book discussions (stop thinking about it and just enjoy it!)
Quite a few people firmly believe (because they've been taught) that analysis and critical thinking are the opposite of fun, and they can't exist simultaneously with fun.
It could form the basis of the an interesting critique of society, but this really isn't the place for that.
Its largely a matter of finding people who are willing to discuss it- pursuing it with the people who reject it isn't worthwhile (for anyone involved)
Blacksails wrote: For every person who decries the WAAC player, there's another CAAC player doing the opposite and equally harming to the community.
Ideally everyone could just play what they like and not be accused of being X or Y, but such is the state of balance in 40k that people leap to add labels, even mostly incorrect ones.
Fluffy does not equal a weak list, and a strong list is not automatically unfluffy.
With the way the game is, you really do need to hope you find players who want the same experience, otherwise the game just isn't very good.
Honestly what gets me is how people not wanting to play the same way are slammed so hard by certain people. You don’t know how many times I've heard “tournament players are such (insert bad thing here) and I’d never play against them” even though odds are you’ll never have too, and of course they’re gonna try hard to win, it’s a tournament.
I think the real issue is people don't like to admit that you can be both. If your talking tactics and suggest something that may seem less than optimal then your labeled a casual and should not be bringing that up. Alternatively if your talking and point out a better option to do the same thing you can get told "I don't care, that unit is op anyways only tourney players play them in numbers."
You just can't win lol. Personally I like playing against serious players and using "sub par" options because if I still win then is it really sub par?
It's a derogatory term (much like WAAC) for people who care less about balance than they do about their fun.
EDIT:
Yes, this does mean that some people have fun when the game is imbalanced.
This game is so broken sometimes though that it’s required that you understand it enough for both players to not break things.
Yes, this is true. I'm not sure why you think CAAC players shouldn't have to (or don't) understand the game.
It’s not that I’m saying they don’t, but one can assume that if discussing about the meta is frowned upon, then general knowledge and understanding of it will in some ways be limited.
It's a derogatory term (much like WAAC) for people who care less about balance than they do about their fun.
EDIT:
Yes, this does mean that some people have fun when the game is imbalanced.
This game is so broken sometimes though that it’s required that you understand it enough for both players to not break things.
Yes, this is true. I'm not sure why you think CAAC players shouldn't have to (or don't) understand the game.
It’s not that I’m saying they don’t, but one can assume that if discussing about the meta is frowned upon, then general knowledge and understanding of it will in some ways be limited.
I don't know anyone who says discussing the meta is frowned upon. I'm perfectly happy to talk about what is or isn't broken!
WAAC while not always healthy is a fairly logical mindset when it comes to strategy. Its usually the associated attitude and lack of empathy that a WAAC mindset has that tends to cause issues.
CAAC is basically lacking the logical side of things and instead being very subjective about what is acceptable or not while not really giving any basis to work with.
40k is a social game so its always important to come to some agreement over what type of game you want to play and having lists that are roughly in the same ballpark in terms of competitiveness. Funny enough a true TAC list is generally a very competitive list because it needs to be strong enough to be viable against generally anything so bringing the best and most well rounded units tends to be the optimal strategy. Factions that tend to suffer and have major inherent weaknesses are the ones that usually go for hard counter strategies because their codex's TAC potential is more limited.
It's possible to be a TAC and a skew list at the same time (as I recently learned), and being caught between the CAAC and WAAC communities is being in the worst place of all.
For example: myself. I play 3 Baneblades, which is fairly TAC (they're certainly capable of engaging every target profile that exists in 40k with fair efficiency), but in CAAC settings they are considered ridiculous cheese that should never see the table, and in WAAC settings they're not really good enough to compete, especially with my self-imposed narrative restrictions.
I think it's the same as any other argument in current culture. People afraid of admitting what they are, or what they think.
Couple this with trying to force the 40K community to be "one community" and you get a disaster. Rather than WAAC and CAAC just agreeing not to play each other and concentrating on their own enjoyment in the game, there is a need to complain or lament - not the game or GW - but each other. I'm guilty of doing this on occasion when I'm tired or generally annoyed at something. A lot of us do it.
A completely WAAC minded player is pretty arduous to talk with...as they believe there is a mathematically perfect and efficient way to play the game. I'd rather chew on a chalkboard for three hours straight than play someone like that. On the flip side I enjoy the narrative and movie-esque situations you create during a game and said WAAC player would probably not have fun playing me. Solution? DON'T PLAY EACH OTHER.
It's not terribly difficult. The problem is when those lines are crossed unknowingly or intentionally. If you're a WAAC player and you beat up on new players and young kids because it stokes your internet-ego? Go sit on a spike. If you're so casual that you don't bother to learn the rules of the game and don't provide any fun/interest to your opponent, likewise.
The overwhelming rule here; find a likeminded group of players...and do what you want. Don't force yourself into pick-up games with strangers who might be on a different part of that scale than you are - you're bound to have a bad time.
Elbows wrote: I think it's the same as any other argument in current culture. People afraid of admitting what they are, or what they think.
Couple this with trying to force the 40K community to be "one community" and you get a disaster. Rather than WAAC and CAAC just agreeing not to play each other and concentrating on their own enjoyment in the game, there is a need to complain or lament - not the game or GW - but each other. I'm guilty of doing this on occasion when I'm tired or generally annoyed at something. A lot of us do it.
A completely WAAC minded player is pretty arduous to talk with...as they believe there is a mathematically perfect and efficient way to play the game. I'd rather chew on a chalkboard for three hours straight than play someone like that. On the flip side I enjoy the narrative and movie-esque situations you create during a game and said WAAC player would probably not have fun playing me. Solution? DON'T PLAY EACH OTHER.
It's not terribly difficult. The problem is when those lines are crossed unknowingly or intentionally. If you're a WAAC player and you beat up on new players and young kids because it stokes your internet-ego? Go sit on a spike. If you're so casual that you don't bother to learn the rules of the game and don't provide any fun/interest to your opponent, likewise.
The overwhelming rule here; find a likeminded group of players...and do what you want. Don't force yourself into pick-up games with strangers who might be on a different part of that scale than you are - you're bound to have a bad time.
The issue comes from GW's bad game design though; I'm like you - I play a trio of Baneblades because I like the narrative and cinematic aspects of these vehicles being awesome. My obsession, if you must know, is born from the Bolo series of books, which is pretty kickbutt if you like big tanks, and very cinematic and narrative.
But I think most "narrative" players don't see it that way - and I think you've come out against the idea in the past.
BUT
To avoid Martel'ing the thread, I'll go back to the original question:
Most CAAC players I've met are willing to discuss the meta.
I'm not sure where truly casual players fit though - the ones that will play anything and everything, aren't worried about W/L, and don't even care about narrative. I'm not sure they exist, I suppose?
I wonder what other forums you visit to come to that observation. Because here on dakka I often get the feeling everything is only about waac, tournaments and the blandest kind of eternal war missions.
If I understand the posts here correctly I'm probably "CAAC", but that doesn't mean I don't see imbalances, on the contrary. In order to have a good casual game you have to know OP units even more - because then you can try to build scenario-rules to balance these out.
A completely WAAC minded player is pretty arduous to talk with...as they believe there is a mathematically perfect and efficient way to play the game. I'd rather chew on a chalkboard for three hours straight than play someone like that. On the flip side I enjoy the narrative and movie-esque situations you create during a game and said WAAC player would probably not have fun playing me. Solution? DON'T PLAY EACH OTHER.
We had a pretty casual WMH group going with a lot of new players at one point and there was also the usual type of individual that game attracts who would try to muscle in on our games when we were doing something he perceived as "wrong". Once the newer people had got the hang of the rules he backed off a little; so we switched up our attempts at trolling him by whenever he hovered over to our table much like in the Reeves and Mortimer sketch below.
We'd perform seemingly illogical or daft moves "because it's funny" just to see how long it would take to break him and make him go away. It worked every time. Plus we got some great moments when these hail Mary moves actually got pulled off.
Breaking the game or having tournaments is fine, if you and your opponents know what is going on....
But more often than not the guy bringing Morty, Magnus, and a Knight at 2000 pts isn't gonna find a game in my group. People started bringing in models just to paint at the club back in 7th because games got so bad.
And unfortunately, because these gamers can't find a decent opponent, only the newbies who don't know any better yet agree to play them.
Nightlord1987 wrote: Breaking the game or having tournaments is fine, if you and your opponents know what is going on....
But more often than not the guy bringing Morty, Magnus, and a Knight at 2000 pts isn't gonna find a game in my group. People started bringing in models just to paint at the club back in 7th because games got so bad.
And unfortunately, because these gamers can't find a decent opponent, only the newbies who don't know any better yet agree to play them.
That's pretty bad, but would you consider 3 Knights to be CAAC or WAAC or somewhere else?
I feel like the CAAC and WAAC extremes are so far apart that the people in the middle don't have anywhere to play, or actually /do/ probably find places to play but aren't really considered on the internet.
what everyone hates is when people complain about it.
You know what really grinds my gears?
Complaining. All anyone does is complain? Man, if only they'd sit down and stop complaining. Whine whine whine! All I ever hear here is complaints! Won't anyone around here stop complaining?
ARGH. God, I hate complaining. People complain too much.
what everyone hates is when people complain about it.
You know what really grinds my gears?
Complaining. All anyone does is complain? Man, if only they'd sit down and stop complaining. Whine whine whine! All I ever hear here is complaints! Won't anyone around here stop complaining?
ARGH. God, I hate complaining. People complain too much.
()
If I compressed your post until it was in its purest most condensed form, you’d have genuine crystallized DakkaDakka.con
Elbows wrote: I think it's the same as any other argument in current culture. People afraid of admitting what they are, or what they think.
Couple this with trying to force the 40K community to be "one community" and you get a disaster. Rather than WAAC and CAAC just agreeing not to play each other and concentrating on their own enjoyment in the game, there is a need to complain or lament - not the game or GW - but each other. I'm guilty of doing this on occasion when I'm tired or generally annoyed at something. A lot of us do it.
A completely WAAC minded player is pretty arduous to talk with...as they believe there is a mathematically perfect and efficient way to play the game. I'd rather chew on a chalkboard for three hours straight than play someone like that. On the flip side I enjoy the narrative and movie-esque situations you create during a game and said WAAC player would probably not have fun playing me. Solution? DON'T PLAY EACH OTHER.
It's not terribly difficult. The problem is when those lines are crossed unknowingly or intentionally. If you're a WAAC player and you beat up on new players and young kids because it stokes your internet-ego? Go sit on a spike. If you're so casual that you don't bother to learn the rules of the game and don't provide any fun/interest to your opponent, likewise.
The overwhelming rule here; find a likeminded group of players...and do what you want. Don't force yourself into pick-up games with strangers who might be on a different part of that scale than you are - you're bound to have a bad time.
The issue comes from GW's bad game design though; I'm like you - I play a trio of Baneblades because I like the narrative and cinematic aspects of these vehicles being awesome. My obsession, if you must know, is born from the Bolo series of books, which is pretty kickbutt if you like big tanks, and very cinematic and narrative.
But I think most "narrative" players don't see it that way - and I think you've come out against the idea in the past.
BUT
To avoid Martel'ing the thread, I'll go back to the original question:
Most CAAC players I've met are willing to discuss the meta.
I'm not sure where truly casual players fit though - the ones that will play anything and everything, aren't worried about W/L, and don't even care about narrative. I'm not sure they exist, I suppose?
Oh, I agree...the game design is probably the weakest element of 40K and could be blamed for a lot of things. That's why I'm in heavy favor of house-ruling whatever you need to in order to enjoy the game.
what everyone hates is when people complain about it.
You know what really grinds my gears?
Complaining. All anyone does is complain? Man, if only they'd sit down and stop complaining. Whine whine whine! All I ever hear here is complaints! Won't anyone around here stop complaining?
ARGH. God, I hate complaining. People complain too much.
()
I wanted to do something about it. I applied for the rules writing team when that thread was live, but it turned out they want people in England so I don't think I ever stood a chance.
In almost every game system, you will have people who complain about people taking the maximally effective route. And that is primarily because there are more things than just trying to win that people enjoy about their hobby, and playing maximally competitive by nature reduces the number of options available.
If your opponent is bringing a tournament level list, your choices are either A) Bring another tournament level list, or B) just lose.
Option A means that if you have a sub-optimal unit you like the look of, or a sub-optimal playstyle you enjoy, like say, a melee army of any description, any of the factions that don't have a codex yet, or 75% of the units in the factions that do have codexes.
Youre going to see these complaints more in Wargaming than, say, Video Gaming because in a video game if you pick a sub-optimal character, all it takes to "git gud" and play the right character is clicking a different character on the screen. In Warhammer that's a minimum 45$ investment and 5-10 hours of painting to get an optimal mini ready, and often by the time you finish your "git gud" choice it's already gotten nerfed into uselessness or some new thing has been added that eats it. I was told to "git gud" with my DE, and I went and bought a set of those Razorwing proxies everyone uses - by the time I got them painted and based on GW 40mms they had been doubled in points cost and so now they are worthless pieces of plastic on a shelf. Now if I want to "git gud" with my Dark Eldar, I have to play...nothing, they're an index army and they're completely outclassed by codexes.
what everyone hates is when people complain about it.
You know what really grinds my gears?
Complaining. All anyone does is complain? Man, if only they'd sit down and stop complaining. Whine whine whine! All I ever hear here is complaints! Won't anyone around here stop complaining?
ARGH. God, I hate complaining. People complain too much.
()
I wanted to do something about it. I applied for the rules writing team when that thread was live, but it turned out they want people in England so I don't think I ever stood a chance.
I didn't even know that was a thing! Oh well. XD I help design wargames for the DoD (well, OAD in the USMC at the moment) and would love to have a go at my favorite hobby. I don't live in England though. :X
I don't believe that CAAC's are really a thing; if someone says to you that they don't care about winning games, then they're lying to you to save face, or they're being disingenuous to themselves. You should always be playing to win - just never at the expense of the fun. I like to call that hardcore-casual
And this is the problem with this argument; the very core ideals of TT wargaming is collecting an army and playing games with it, so it'd be idiotic to say that collecting what you want to collect is the wrong way to go about the hobby. It's just about the only advice that I will give to new hobbyists, because at the end of the day they'll [hopefully] be painting the miniatures they're buying and proudly displaying them on a shelf when they're not playing with it.
Equally, competitive play within the hobby with optimised lists and playstyles should not be shunned by the community; it's a perfectly valid way of playing the game, just like taking what you like and making an army out of it is. As long as people are playing competitively and having fun doing so, then it can't be deemed a problem in the community by others who do not play the same way - the problem comes when these two camps mix.
The easiest solution to avoid any problems within your personal community (if that is the issue the OP is raising here) is to gauge the people you're playing against as people who are looking to play casually, and people who are looking to play competitively. Don't bring a casual list to a competitive game, and vice versa. As for people in the community at large who complain about casual players/competitive players, I think those people are simply missing the one true rule of the hobby - that you can collect and play it however you wish.
To be honest I have meet many WAAC in roleplaying (We call them Munchkins) and they are pretty damm awfull.
The biggest difference of course is that the objetive of roleplaying is building a story with your group, not winning agaisn't anyone. Warhammer 40k, as a competitive wargame, has other focus, to win agaisn't your opponent. Yeah, there can be many other things like fun, hobby, etc... but the core principle of RPG and Wargaming are totally different, thats why I believe Munchkins are much worse in RPG than in Wargaming.
But to be honest, years ago, WAAC wasn't just one person that is very competitive and uses very strong lists. A WAAC was the kind of guy that cheats, forgots rules when it benefits him but never lets pass a fail from his opponent, etc... juts a disgusting person that as the WAAC tag points out, wants to win at all costs.
what everyone hates is when people complain about it.
You know what really grinds my gears?
Complaining. All anyone does is complain? Man, if only they'd sit down and stop complaining. Whine whine whine! All I ever hear here is complaints! Won't anyone around here stop complaining?
ARGH. God, I hate complaining. People complain too much.
()
I wanted to do something about it. I applied for the rules writing team when that thread was live, but it turned out they want people in England so I don't think I ever stood a chance.
I didn't even know that was a thing! Oh well. XD I help design wargames for the DoD (well, OAD in the USMC at the moment) and would love to have a go at my favorite hobby. I don't live in England though. :X
My only other issue was making creative rules on the spot. I like modifying what's already done for the most part to help the other person's vision be not crap. I tried that with my 7th edition fixes to Orks and Tyranids but a couple of posters thought they were clunky. Meh.
Jaxler wrote: I’ve notice that thewargamimg community is one of the few communities that actively discourage you from trying to understand the game system infinitely and try to use this knowledge to effectively maximize the quality of your performance of the table.
Thats simply not true, pretty much any community that has players compete, either formally or informally has has those kinds of people in it. Ever get called a 'tryhard' in a video game?
What I can't understand is that people who attempt to force someone else to enjoy the game their way, as if it's the only way.
We can all coexist and have differing views. if you automatically dismiss another's argurment in hand, you by doing so invalidate yours.
vigorous Public discourse is good for the community. it's when it leads to personal attacks and namecalling that the benefits of that dialogue are lost.
I don't like WAAC or CAAC or BAAC OR SAAC players. but I would never tell someone how to play the game. every single one of us enjoys the game for similar or vastly different reasons.
I'm pretty sure that as a whole, everybody loves the game. whether it's fluff, mathammer, competition, or social.
I stopped playing after Rogue Trader and didn't play any games until 8th dropped. Killing my Squats was the reason.
Now i am having as much fun playing now as I did when I was 12.
If you don't have anything constructive to say just STFU and leave the discussion to the adults (who can have differing opinions) that enjoy playing, talking, etc..about the game/hobby.
This isn't directed to anyone in particular but more like a general statement
Youre going to see these complaints more in Wargaming than, say, Video Gaming because in a video game if you pick a sub-optimal character, all it takes to "git gud" and play the right character is clicking a different character on the screen. In Warhammer that's a minimum 45$ investment and 5-10 hours of painting to get an optimal mini ready, and often by the time you finish your "git gud" choice it's already gotten nerfed into uselessness or some new thing has been added that eats it. I was told to "git gud" with my DE, and I went and bought a set of those Razorwing proxies everyone uses - by the time I got them painted and based on GW 40mms they had been doubled in points cost and so now they are worthless pieces of plastic on a shelf. Now if I want to "git gud" with my Dark Eldar, I have to play...nothing, they're an index army and they're completely outclassed by codexes.
This really. A big point for me is the amount of money and effort that is needed to optimize your army. Sure, if you go to a tournament you shouldn't complain if you get crushed by tournament-level lists. If you just go to your LFGS and expect to play a casual game with your favorite models you painstakingly built and painted and get tabled by turn 3 by someone with a much more optimized list, that's not fun. Communication is key here as well though, talk about what kind of units and list you want to use and if you see possible problems, ask about them beforehand. I personally don't mind taking on powerful stuff with my own lists (you want to put a Gargantuan Squiggoth in your 1000 pt. Ork list? Sure, go ahead, I'll bring my CC Dreads, Wulfen and Terminators and see who goes down first. Pity that game got canceled at the last moment ) but not everyone likes to do that.
I've been accused of being a WAAC player online a few times, which always confused me because my criteria for both creating and playing a fun game are pretty benign. In no particular order, they are:
1. Friendly competition. I see even tournament games as cooperative exercises, with each player honing their skills against the other. In my view, better opponent's make for better games, and it's hard to improve against someone worse at a game than you.
2. Meaningful choice. The player's decisions must matter, and they must be difficult. This is a major responsibility of the game designer, but players can also get involved by presenting tactical conundrums to their opponents.
3. Uncertain outcome. This is another worry for the game designer. If a game is designed well, the winner should not be predictable well in advance of its conclusion; Interested bird quickly if we're just going through the motions of grinding down to an inevitable result. (Note: random elements like dice are fine as long as they don't significantly diminish meaningful choice.)
Problems in 40k game balance deep in the past helped create a divide between players in the community. Is suspect it started with the variability in "homework" (i.e., calculation) players did before filling out their first armies. It sucks for a player to find out that a cool unit underperforms, and shameful to admit that one's trust in the designer was naive, especially after investing the effort to assemble and paint the miniatures. Instead of addressing the balance, GW has historically exacerbated the problem by offloading the "fix" to community policing (i.e., finger-pointing, name-calling, labeling witch hunts). I think the idea was to inundate the players with various game modes in the hopes that everyone can find their own echo chambers full of players with common grievances, leaving the designers largely unaccountable for the mess they made. (I would have given GW the benefit of the doubt, but it took them THIRTY YEARS to change their tune, and it took a massive community effort and fierce competition from companies started by disgruntled GW customers to put the right amount of fear in them.) I'm all for narrative variants and such, but regardless of game mode a player should be able to field any army and at least know that their decisions made more impact on the outcome than variations in power level between their army and that of their opponent.
Jaxler wrote: I’ve notice that thewargamimg community is one of the few communities that actively discourage you from trying to understand the game system infinitely and try to use this knowledge to effectively maximize the quality of your performance of the table.
Thats simply not true, pretty much any community that has players compete, either formally or informally has has those kinds of people in it. Ever get called a 'tryhard' in a video game?
"casuals ruin overwatch"
"min maxing mtg, pathfinder, dnd, video games, other rpgs"
"economics of ultimates, and income (csg)"
"speed running, glitching finding and bounties"
yeah its pretty much everywhere in gaming. extreme ends of the try hard spectrum will never get along.
What I can't understand is that people who attempt to force someone else to enjoy the game their way, as if it's the only way.
Not advocating it but can speak as to why it happens:
Why do people play 40k even though its rules are generally considered some of the worst ever? Because you can always find people to play against.
There are a lot of rulesets that have great rules no one will touch because they can't find a game.
It is that right there - that they can't find a game.
So if a tourney player shows up and wants hard competition and the group he can play wiith is all narrative types, he's going to push more hardcore.
If there is a narrative player in a hard core competitive area, he has no one to play with really other than the hard core competitive people.
So they try to change the area to conform to what they want.
No one wants to bring a casual list to their store for a game and get roflstomped by the GT net lists that are running around.
Same as no one wants to bring a roflstomping list to the store and only have narrative types to play against.
I had hoped that the introduction of Open play, Narrative Play and Matched play would have eliminated these types of... conversations.
Same as above. If your region is all matched-play-only, open play and narrative play might as well not even exist. (that is the default play setting where i am as well, getting narrative games requires a lot of effort)
I don't know if anyone is a Dark Souls fan, but there was a similar movement in the community of that series. By the release of Dark Souls 3, there was such a huge outcry against invaders that From Software totally changed the multiplayer mechanics to make it so you could easily play online in coop mode and never have to worry about red invaders because of the sheer numerical advantages you would have. What was originally a key concept of the game - that you could play online, but others could either help or hurt you - became a hated mechanic for people who just wanted to play the whole game with the help of their friends without any kind of challenge or interruption. If you were a fan of the invasion mechanic, you were a bad person who only wanted to have their fun at the expense of the innocent coop casuals, as opposed to someone who was just enjoying an evocative and unique multiplayer mechanic.
I agree with the sentiment that someone truly worthy of the WAAC title is someone who cheats and exploits in order to win. Someone who thinks about the math behind what they're doing and builds lists intelligently may be kind of a min/maxer, but they're just playing the game to the best of their ability with the rules they've been provided. This is a game where two players compete against each other. One of them has to lose. If you don't want that to be you, don't make a thoughtless list and play against someone who has actually put work into theirs, and don't blame other players for your inability to grasp the mechanics of the game and your faction.
If you just want to casually roll the dice with some friends or engage in more narrative style play, then do it. If you're a more competitive player, then play against other competitive players and don't curb stomp someone who is only looking for more casual play. Both are valid styles of play and much can be accounted for through communication before a match even begins, but being part of one camp or the other doesn't make you superior in any way.
Galas wrote: To be honest I have meet many WAAC in roleplaying (We call them Munchkins) and they are pretty damm awfull.
The biggest difference of course is that the objetive of roleplaying is building a story with your group, not winning agaisn't anyone. Warhammer 40k, as a competitive wargame, has other focus, to win agaisn't your opponent. Yeah, there can be many other things like fun, hobby, etc... but the core principle of RPG and Wargaming are totally different, thats why I believe Munchkins are much worse in RPG than in Wargaming.
But to be honest, years ago, WAAC wasn't just one person that is very competitive and uses very strong lists. A WAAC was the kind of guy that cheats, forgots rules when it benefits him but never lets pass a fail from his opponent, etc... juts a disgusting person that as the WAAC tag points out, wants to win at all costs.
This is the way I remember it too. But, it also points out the issue at the core of the OP's comment, I think. WAAC is a subjective term, as is this CAAC. I have played in tournaments and enjoyed myself. But, 90% i'd rather play a narrative style game. That doesn't mean there aren't objectives and people aren't trying to win, what it means is that the armies fit (as best as possible) the fluff. Back in the day, all special characters required your opponent's permission. I liked this because it generally meant that if the person accepted your army with a special character, then they were going to play a more competitive list themselves (not always the case, but mostly).
Lastly, I will point out that it may be a generational thing. A competitive list in the past was still strongly limited by the CAD (1-2 HQ, 0-3 Elites, 2-6 Troops, 0-3 Fast Attack, 0-3 Heavy Support), so what made it competitive was that it was optimized (best units selected, best gear, etc.). Now, competitive means the best units, potentially across multiple codices, alpha strikes, gimmicks, finding flaws in the rules, etc. The former remained relatively fluffy, while the latter usually makes no sense in the fluff. To get to the point, many people want to play the old "competitive" and are more often met with the new "competitive," in my experience, although as always your experience may differ. Its a game, its your models, I think anyone you want to play it is fine. Communication with your gaming group, though, is always key!
The wrong thing is telling anyone they are enjoying the hobby as a whole wrong , yes I am willing to use that GW line, because they do not believe ,like GW, perfect balance is worth everything. On dakka in specific (tough also on other forums) there is a prevalent attitude that if it can' t beat the current tournament meta it is uselles. Not to be confused with the less prevalent and more whiny attitutde List X beat me, please nerf.
Another attitude problem in general on forums (not so much IRL when finding games I noticed) is the complete disreagard of non-matched play games/ scenarios. There is a huge stigma against suggesting narrative or open play on fora. There is plenty of threads here discussing the balance and the latests ITC implications of CA approved but not about say planetstrike and fun ideas surrounding that theme.
Bring forth whatever you want and have a blast. Wether that is as a WAAC, CAAC, AAAC (anything at all cost) fine but don't go around telling people they are doing it wrong because they are not doing it you way.
Also I have played games with the express objective of losing, to teach my friends to play ,to test out new strategies, etc
I have used this term before, usually in the context of abusive combos. The reason why is simple: 40k isn't a competitive game at it's core, it never has been (I've followed this game since 1996 so everything post Rogue Trader). So the game cannot support "breaking" the game well; the game is not meant to deal with a lot of the combos that can be done (which is in and of itself a flaw of the game, but it exists nevertheless).
It's not so much that people who want to win (potentially at all costs) are doing it wrong, it's that warhammer requires a social contract to ensure fun; if you have two high-end tournament players going against each other, this social contract might be "Bring the cheesiest thing you can". If you have two narrative/casual (potentially at all costs) players, that social contract might be "Let's bring only forces that would be realistic to have for this battle". Neither are wrong. It's when you have the competitive player face the casual player that you have the problem, because they want different things and the social contract cannot be agreed upon.
It is my belief that warhammer cannot properly handle competitive gaming in the sense that people seem to want. The rules are convoluted and typically require copious amounts of applying intent (i.e. RAI) to determine what something means, and taking it at face value (i.e. RAW) can lead to ridiculous combos or arguing minutiae (as an example of this: Chapter Approved reworded the character targeting rules in such a way that it never states it's the wounds characteristic; it could be read as wounds remaining i.e. if Mortarion fell below 10 wounds, suddenly he cannot be targeted. It's anyone's guess at the moment what the real answer is). The armies are intrinsically imbalanced such that picking a particular army might result in it being virtually unplayable (if you're lucky, maybe there is a mono-build that can work which guts any semblance of choice as you are basically using a predefined list and can never deviate from that) or, on the flipside, might be incredibly good, seemingly at random. There are a plethora of options which, even within a particular codex, range from "always take" to "never take" to everything in between, thereby invalidating entire things that literally have no reason to even be there because something else is cheaper/better in every way.
These are the hallmarks of a game that at best requires copious amounts of modification to the rules to be usable in the way that people want (i.e. as a tournament/competitive focused game), up to and including hard or soft bans (more on this in a moment) or, at worst, is completely unsuitable due to fundamental design issues of being able to really function at that level; sure, you can make it resemble something like a tournament game, but all the issues compound that.
Of note is the criteria of what should be banned, and then an example from Street Fighter 2 (which is what he is known for as a top competitive player):
The only reasonable case to ban something because it is “too good” is when that tactic completely dominates the entire game, to the exclusion of other tactics. It is possible, though very rare, that removing an element of the game that is not only “the best” but also “ten times better than anything else in the game” results in a better game
I would argue that 40k suffers a lot from this very thing. There are common things you see across all tournaments and armies, even if the exact composition of said armies differ. Often, but not always, these things get nerfed, but should there be more? There are things that exist in 40k which are so far and away better than anything else in the game, that they invalidate huge swathes of the game by existing. However also note that Sirlin would likely consider 40k to be a game not worth pursuing:
The game really is shallow and centered on one thing (whether that one thing is a bug or by design is irrelevant). In that case, the best course of action is usually to abandon the game and play one of the hundreds of other readily available good games in the world.
Ignoring that fact though, he has this gem regarding bans, again using Street Fighter as an example. Street Fighter 2 Turbo has its hidden "god" character, Akuma. Sirlin writes:
Most characters in that game cannot beat Akuma. I don't mean it's a tough match--I mean they cannot ever, ever, ever, ever win. Akuma is "broken" in that his air fireball move is something the game simply wasn't designed to handle. He is not merely the best character in the game, but is at least ten times better than other characters. This case is so extreme that all top players in America immediately realized that all tournaments would be Akuma vs. Akuma only, and so the character was banned with basically no debate and has been ever since.
This sounds, in perhaps a lesser regard, like a lot of things in 40k. And especially like a lot of the broken combos people find. The game is not designed to handle some of these combos (which is and of itself a flaw of the game design) so using them makes things better than virtually everything else. Sirlin also mentions how Japan, unlike the USA, does not hard ban Akuma but enforces a "soft ban" by refusing to use him (a gentleman's agreement/social contract, basically) because it makes the game better if you don't have everything be Akuma vs. Akuma just because he's "the best" character in the game.
There's also more talk about a soft ban on a different character which does NOT break the game like Akuma does, which reveals something I really think can apply to Warhammer. In this case, the ban refers to "Old Sagat":
The character in question is the mysteriously named "Old Sagat." Old Sagat is not a secret character like Akuma (or at least he's not as secret!). Old Sagat does not have any moves like Akuma's air fireball that the game was not designed to handle. Old Sagat is arguably the best character in the game (Akuma, of course, doesn't count), but even that is debated by top players! I think almost any expert player would rank him in the top three of all characters, but there isn't even universal agreement that he is the best! Why, then, would any reasonable person even consider banning him? Surely, it must be a group of scrubs who simply don't know how to beat him, and reflexively cry out for a ban.
But this is not the case. There seems to be a tacit agreement amongst top players in Japan--a soft ban--on playing Old Sagat. The reason is that many believe the game to have much more variety without Old Sagat. Even if he is only second best in the game by some measure, he flat out beats half the characters in the game with little effort. Half the cast can barely even fight him, let alone beat him. Other top characters in the game, good as they are, win by much more interaction and more "gameplay." Almost every character has a chance against the other best characters in the game. The result of allowing Old Sagat in tournaments is that several other characters, such as Chun Li and Ken, become basically unviable.
Bold and italic for emphasis. This is where I think the comparison to 40k can be made, as nothing, not even the abusive combos really "breaks" the game. However, they have the same effect as "Old Sagat" does: They make several other factions/lists unviable by existing. The game is better and has more variety without them. In this case, you want to ban/restrict things not because they are truly "broken" but because they invalidate swathes of the game that otherwise would be viable to pick and use. I think the analogy of Old Sagat is very apt to 40k because that's often the situation that you run into, rather than with Akuma where it outright breaks the game (after all, we usually don't see the equivalent to Akuma vs. Akuma in 40k tournaments, but you do see the Old Sagat effect in that because X is allowed, Y and Z just don't get played because they can't be viable as long as X is there.
Sorry for the very long-winded post but I feel these analogies are very relevant to the discussion. A competitive game doesn't always mean allow anything and everything that's legal; sometimes it's on the players themselves to enforce a soft ban to encourage more variety in what you can play to ensure a better game overall. If it's okay for a real e-sport with professional tournaments to do it (which Street Fighter is, still) then it should be okay for a tabletop game that has ambitions to be viewed in a similar light to do it as well.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
oni wrote: I had hoped that the introduction of Open play, Narrative Play and Matched play would have eliminated these types of... conversations.
Subjectively, an individual is either an enjoyable opponent or they are not - you decide for your own reason(s).
/thread
The problem with this is that one way is pitched as "fair" (i.e. Matched) and two are pitched as "Unfair" (i.e. Open/Narrative). People will gravitate towards the fair option rather than run the risk of an unfun game (which often means "not symmetrical forces with identical objectives") so while GW can tout three ways to play, there is really only one in 99% of cases because Open is basically just codifying "you can change the rules" and Narrative really means "Attacker/Defender scenarios". Matched has basically killed the other modes of play in AOS and 40k both simply by virtue of being pitched as the "balanced" choice, which implies the other options are not balanced and for many people, fun is directly tied to balance (equal points, equal objectives, equal everything)
having decades of games going behind me at this point I could care less if a person is waac or caac as long at they are honest.
don't cheat/ add and make up rules and/or claim wargear is different than it is especially against.
be honest about your list. if you just brought a random fun list say that, but if your random fun to play list is basically a tournament level net list, or you are running big bobby G and a motorcade... well that means I am going to bring out a tournament level list as well.
anymore I pull out 3 lists and labeled casual/themed, mid strength and tournament. once I see my opponents list I will select the power based on where they stand. aiming for a fairly even power match (blowouts I find unfun, I want a close game every time)
Nightlord1987 wrote: Breaking the game or having tournaments is fine, if you and your opponents know what is going on....
But more often than not the guy bringing Morty, Magnus, and a Knight at 2000 pts isn't gonna find a game in my group. People started bringing in models just to paint at the club back in 7th because games got so bad.
And unfortunately, because these gamers can't find a decent opponent, only the newbies who don't know any better yet agree to play them.
That's pretty bad, but would you consider 3 Knights to be CAAC or WAAC or somewhere else?
I feel like the CAAC and WAAC extremes are so far apart that the people in the middle don't have anywhere to play, or actually /do/ probably find places to play but aren't really considered on the internet.
IMO 3 of any "big" unit like that is pretty WAAC. Diversify your army! I shouldn't feel forced to bring 20+ lascannons just to try and stand a chance in a regular game. It becomes more of a bland rock paper scissors match when that happens and that isnt fun for anyone.
That was a very good read Wainiac. And I agree, Warhammer40k as some "Old Sagat" units and combos. And in some cases, some Akumas, like the Stormraven spam at the first month of 8th.
General Annoyance wrote: I don't believe that CAAC's are really a thing; if someone says to you that they don't care about winning games, then they're lying to you to save face, or they're being disingenuous to themselves. You should always be playing to win - just never at the expense of the fun. I like to call that hardcore-casual
And this is the problem with this argument; the very core ideals of TT wargaming is collecting an army and playing games with it, so it'd be idiotic to say that collecting what you want to collect is the wrong way to go about the hobby. It's just about the only advice that I will give to new hobbyists, because at the end of the day they'll [hopefully] be painting the miniatures they're buying and proudly displaying them on a shelf when they're not playing with it.
Equally, competitive play within the hobby with optimised lists and playstyles should not be shunned by the community; it's a perfectly valid way of playing the game, just like taking what you like and making an army out of it is. As long as people are playing competitively and having fun doing so, then it can't be deemed a problem in the community by others who do not play the same way - the problem comes when these two camps mix.
The easiest solution to avoid any problems within your personal community (if that is the issue the OP is raising here) is to gauge the people you're playing against as people who are looking to play casually, and people who are looking to play competitively. Don't bring a casual list to a competitive game, and vice versa. As for people in the community at large who complain about casual players/competitive players, I think those people are simply missing the one true rule of the hobby - that you can collect and play it however you wish.
Believe me, CAAC is a thing. there's a few people I know around the area that will call people out for things like MSU's and complain that too many people play Space Marines (and by extension, CSM). People who are terrified of tournaments will extend that thoguht process anything they think is beyond casual.
Nightlord1987 wrote: Breaking the game or having tournaments is fine, if you and your opponents know what is going on....
But more often than not the guy bringing Morty, Magnus, and a Knight at 2000 pts isn't gonna find a game in my group. People started bringing in models just to paint at the club back in 7th because games got so bad.
And unfortunately, because these gamers can't find a decent opponent, only the newbies who don't know any better yet agree to play them.
That's pretty bad, but would you consider 3 Knights to be CAAC or WAAC or somewhere else?
I feel like the CAAC and WAAC extremes are so far apart that the people in the middle don't have anywhere to play, or actually /do/ probably find places to play but aren't really considered on the internet.
IMO 3 of any "big" unit like that is pretty WAAC. Diversify your army! I shouldn't feel forced to bring 20+ lascannons just to try and stand a chance in a regular game. It becomes more of a bland rock paper scissors match when that happens and that isnt fun for anyone.
I built it because it's fluffy, and 3 unscreened tanks in 8th edition 40k get creamed by real WAAC lists.
If I try to play competitively I get yelled at for not screening the tanks / not bringing repairs / not bringing enough plasma scions / any number of other things. So that's how I know it's not WAAC XD
Not sure what it is though. You're right about it not being fun for my opponents! I recognize that and am adjusting.
Nightlord1987 wrote: Breaking the game or having tournaments is fine, if you and your opponents know what is going on....
But more often than not the guy bringing Morty, Magnus, and a Knight at 2000 pts isn't gonna find a game in my group. People started bringing in models just to paint at the club back in 7th because games got so bad.
And unfortunately, because these gamers can't find a decent opponent, only the newbies who don't know any better yet agree to play them.
That's pretty bad, but would you consider 3 Knights to be CAAC or WAAC or somewhere else?
I feel like the CAAC and WAAC extremes are so far apart that the people in the middle don't have anywhere to play, or actually /do/ probably find places to play but aren't really considered on the internet.
IMO 3 of any "big" unit like that is pretty WAAC. Diversify your army! I shouldn't feel forced to bring 20+ lascannons just to try and stand a chance in a regular game. It becomes more of a bland rock paper scissors match when that happens and that isnt fun for anyone.
I built it because it's fluffy, and 3 unscreened tanks in 8th edition 40k get creamed by real WAAC lists.
If I try to play competitively I get yelled at for not screening the tanks / not bringing repairs / not bringing enough plasma scions / any number of other things. So that's how I know it's not WAAC XD
Not sure what it is though. You're right about it not being fun for my opponents! I recognize that and am adjusting.
Backing that up. 3 Super Heavy units aren't too scary. What IS scary, is 3 Super Heavy units screened by dozens of models.
Hmm. 3 baneblades
Magus & Primus
Mindcontrol
Baneblade #1 shoot baneblade #2 on turn 1
Rince and repeat each turn
Only deploy next set after first one gets killed
I love it when opponent sinks huge points into one model.
Even more fun if they complain that the model did to much damage in one shoot phase. Hmm. . .
Not everyone is going to see this as an ideal solution, but one way to weed out a lot of the cheese exploited by WAAC type players would be for everyone to have a higher standard when it comes to painting and proxies. If TOs enforced some kind of standard like 3-5 colors + shade + highlight and strict WYSIWYG rules for stand ins, the kind of players who strictly want to cheese out whatever exploitable flaw exists in the rules that month would largely fade away. Making painting part of tournament scoring would be a good idea, as well, even if it were worth as much as half your total points.
Don't play games with unpainted minis and don't play against people who haven't painted theirs. That may seem kind of elitist and biased against people who don't enjoy or can't afford to have the proper models and fully paint them, but that's kind of the point. If you want to play you've got to put your money and time where your mouth is and actually invest in your army and list, instead of just being able to buy or proxy whatever unit is the best in the meta and throwing it on the table.
Vector Strike wrote: I thought the 3 playstyles were made exactly to cope with this situation?
Matched for the WAACs PL for the midrun Narrative for the CAACs
This mentality is the exact problem that the community is experiencing as a whole. There are ultimately two playstyles - casual and competitive. A cheating feckwit and un-fun player can fit into both of those playstyles, and yet the actions of a few within those groups are being used to brand the hobbying community as a whole. Just doesn't add up.
vaklor4 wrote: Believe me, CAAC is a thing. there's a few people I know around the area that will call people out for things like MSU's and complain that too many people play Space Marines (and by extension, CSM). People who are terrified of tournaments will extend that thought process anything they think is beyond casual.
I think the correct term for those people are s
I consider myself a Casual player through and through - I have no desire to play in a competitive tournament, or play competitive 40k overall, and I actively encourage people to play the game casually if they're unsure what route they want to go down. That level of complaint however is reserved for someone who has their knickers in a twist and has forgotten that TT wargaming can be played however you wish to play it.
General Annoyance wrote: I don't believe that CAAC's are really a thing; if someone says to you that they don't care about winning games, then they're lying to you to save face, or they're being disingenuous to themselves. You should always be playing to win - just never at the expense of the fun. I like to call that hardcore-casual
And this is the problem with this argument; the very core ideals of TT wargaming is collecting an army and playing games with it, so it'd be idiotic to say that collecting what you want to collect is the wrong way to go about the hobby. It's just about the only advice that I will give to new hobbyists, because at the end of the day they'll [hopefully] be painting the miniatures they're buying and proudly displaying them on a shelf when they're not playing with it.
Equally, competitive play within the hobby with optimised lists and playstyles should not be shunned by the community; it's a perfectly valid way of playing the game, just like taking what you like and making an army out of it is. As long as people are playing competitively and having fun doing so, then it can't be deemed a problem in the community by others who do not play the same way - the problem comes when these two camps mix.
The easiest solution to avoid any problems within your personal community (if that is the issue the OP is raising here) is to gauge the people you're playing against as people who are looking to play casually, and people who are looking to play competitively. Don't bring a casual list to a competitive game, and vice versa. As for people in the community at large who complain about casual players/competitive players, I think those people are simply missing the one true rule of the hobby - that you can collect and play it however you wish.
I'd like to counter your initial statement to say that I have purposely lost many games because the other player was having a terrible time. My goal for all my games is to have fun. If one side is experiencing crushing defeat (and not necessarily because of bad play, merely bad luck) I will subtly alter my style, make a few tactical errors, and of course, remain friendly. I'm not having fun if my opponent is not having fun. The game should be a mutual experience for everyone in my opinion, and crushing someone and drinking their tears is not something that appeals to all but the most alpha of dogs. Coincidentally I do a great job getting new players into the game....
That's not saying i'm not looking to win, I do enjoy it if I do, but I want to make sure that its an enjoyable experience for all. Besides, we only grow through learning from failures, never through winning without introspection.
Maybe I'm weird, but I have made a point to not play people who go above and beyond the call to make the most hyper competitive lists. I know that some people are programmed to WIN WIN WIN despite all costs, and I know that sometimes losing is a better alternative in the long term.
I also am not a huge fan of radically altering the game beyond anything that is sensible (like some of the goofy stuff in 7th, like where did flamers hit ruins? etc.), and I rarely have a problem with letting a player do something they forgot to do if it is going to be catastrophic to their play if they didn't. I also hate it when people take soup lists and stuff like "this is my catachan detachment and my cadian detachment and my tallarn detachment" so as to milk the most out of the rules instead of having a little pride in "my boys are all Valhallan and they won't dare play as another army!"
Am I casual? yes. Am I terrible at this game? Very likely. Have I considered buying a Ushanka to wear when I play my Valhallans at a tournament? Definitely
Desubot wrote: But then you would be seen as snobby and which point you are being PaaC
The real way to deal with the cheese exploits is to let them do it, and actually fix it as it comes up. like in the CA ever 6 months.
True WaaC players are the best people to find these kinda things.
and the net listers are the people that spread it like wild fire.
People seem to be using a different example of WAAC then I'm usual with, given that WAAC players tend to outright cheat, fudge the rules, and do anything to "Win At All Costs"
yeah competitive players and Waacs are diffrent though not exclusive things. WaaCs are the ones that often try and abuse rules wordings and sequencing and the likes.
Vector Strike wrote: I thought the 3 playstyles were made exactly to cope with this situation?
Matched for the WAACs PL for the midrun
Narrative for the CAACs
Nope, they're there to confuse the issue, and make it seem like GW is catering to different playstyles.
Points or power level aren't for different levels of competitiveness. They for quick and dirty list building or precise list building. Either caters to being abused competitively, or being entirely casual about the game.
Narrative and casual are definitely not synonyms. While narrative games can be planned and played casually, they often require a great deal of work, especially to plan it out in a way that's actually fun for everyone involved. rather than intentionally or accidentally turned into one player's power fantasy.
In short it isn't about points (or the lack of them) but rather, as always, people.
That's not saying i'm not looking to win, I do enjoy it if I do, but I want to make sure that its an enjoyable experience for all. Besides, we only grow through learning from failures
Which you're kind of robbing from the other player if you're condescending to let them win or be free from the consequences of their mistakes. Don't get me wrong, I understand where you're coming from, but I just think there's a lot more middle ground than what you're making it to be. If the other player has a bad list or makes bad decisions, politely offer some constructive feedback and tell them how they can do better next time. If they're just rolling so poorly that the game isn't fun for either of you then yeah, just dive into the silliness and do what it takes to make it fun.
Maybe I'm weird, but I have made a point to not play people who go above and beyond the call to make the most hyper competitive lists. I know that some people are programmed to WIN WIN WIN despite all costs, and I know that sometimes losing is a better alternative in the long term.
Just because someone puts effort into making a decent list doesn't mean they're hard wired to win at all costs. If you give someone a budget of points and tell them they can select from certain units to make an army, any rationally thinking person is going to try to get the most out of what they're given. It's not weird, unusual, anti-social or selfish. It's reasonable, normal behavior. The only difference is in what you find fun compared to what they find fun. Someone like that might think they are robbing the other player of fun and being selfish if they don't hold their opponents to the same standard they seek for themselves and give them incentive to actually try. Fun is subjective. I would personally not find it fun if I were aware that my opponent were treating me like a child and intentionally throwing a game to protect my feelings. I would much rather have them tell me in a respectful and constructive way what I did wrong and how I can improve. But as has been said many times, that's why the crux of this matter really is communicating your expectations and needs to the people you're playing with and reaching understanding and compromise.
I also hate it when people take soup lists and stuff like "this is my catachan detachment and my cadian detachment and my tallarn detachment" so as to milk the most out of the rules instead of having a little pride in "my boys are all Valhallan and they won't dare play as another army!"
You can take pride in making the most synergistic, points efficient list you're able to. You can take pride in efficiently spending every single point. There are a lot of things you can take pride in; just because you don't take pride in the mathematical side of the game doesn't mean someone who does is wrong or vice versa. It doesn't make them any less fun, or any worse of ambassadors for the hobby, or anything. If you're a respectful person who makes an effort at communicating well with other players, that's all that really matters. If you're not, then that is when you're doing it wrong.
generalchaos34 wrote: I'd like to counter your initial statement to say that I have purposely lost many games because the other player was having a terrible time. My goal for all my games is to have fun. If one side is experiencing crushing defeat (and not necessarily because of bad play, merely bad luck) I will subtly alter my style, make a few tactical errors, and of course, remain friendly. I'm not having fun if my opponent is not having fun. The game should be a mutual experience for everyone in my opinion, and crushing someone and drinking their tears is not something that appeals to all but the most alpha of dogs. Coincidentally I do a great job getting new players into the game....
That would be a notable (and respectable) exception to the rule. I take it you still came to the table with the intention and plan to win the match against your opponent, which is more my point about playing to win; nobody should be walking to a table with an opponent without the intention or plan to win the game. In fact, I'd argue that someone would be throwing the game if they're not playing to win, since the core objective of any game with an "opponent" is to beat your opponent in whatever scenario the game is laying out for you and them.
Like I say though, your scenario is an exception to that. Kudos to you, sir/madam
That's not saying i'm not looking to win, I do enjoy it if I do, but I want to make sure that its an enjoyable experience for all. Besides, we only grow through learning from failures, never through winning without introspection.
Maybe I'm weird, but I have made a point to not play people who go above and beyond the call to make the most hyper competitive lists. I know that some people are programmed to WIN WIN WIN despite all costs, and I know that sometimes losing is a better alternative in the long term.
This is my point in both of your statements there, firstly that, no matter which way you choose to play, you should not be playing to win at the expense of the fun, and that you should also be playing with people who share your playstyle. Bringing a casual list to a competitive game is just as bad as bringing a competitive list to a casual game; the way you and your opponent want to play the game should be the foundation of everything else when organising a match.
I also am not a huge fan of radically altering the game beyond anything that is sensible (like some of the goofy stuff in 7th, like where did flamers hit ruins? etc.), and I rarely have a problem with letting a player do something they forgot to do if it is going to be catastrophic to their play if they didn't. I also hate it when people take soup lists and stuff like "this is my catachan detachment and my cadian detachment and my tallarn detachment" so as to milk the most out of the rules instead of having a little pride in "my boys are all Valhallan and they won't dare play as another army!"
Am I casual? yes. Am I terrible at this game? Very likely. Have I considered buying a Ushanka to wear when I play my Valhallans at a tournament? Definitely
I think sportsmanship should be a given no matter who you're playing against; perhaps in a tournament it would be different because a different standard of play should be expected from competitors, but in any other environment I'd be a little miffed if someone denied me an opportunity to rectify a mistake I made. It shouldn't matter if you've got a soup list, or if you're playing competitively; just don't be an arse. Lord knows both camps of people would be much happier if respect for each other was mandatory conduct rather than something quite a few people seem to think is optional.
That's not directed at you, by the way. Just more of a summation of my overall point.
actively discourage you from trying to understand the game system infinitely and try to use this knowledge to effectively maximize the quality of your performance of the table.
Here's where I point out yet again that, according to the 40k rules, The Damage attribute on a weapon profile is the amount of damage you deal on a successful Hit. Think about that one for a while.
The reason why people try to discourage you from going down that route is because it's a WASTE OF TIME, because the game quickly becomes unreasonable when you try to do stuff like that.
Is no one going to point out the difference between optimizing and trying to break the game? Because they are different, and I honestly do enjoy the latter. Not because I intend to actually use such tactics to ruin others fun, frankly I don't even use truly optimized builds outside of a tournament, but just because there is something fun about finding loopholes and unintended consequences within a system and pointing them out. It is like stress testing the game system and finding the weak points. If anything, I find this more enjoyable now that I know GW will actually fix any issues that the community as a whole finds, unlike the previous method of hoping your opponent isn't an ass.
Earth127 wrote: You have fallen for a basic fallacy yourself. There is more difference between the 3 then points vs PL, tough it is the biggest.
Then it works to sum it up at that way when discussing something else, specifically people.
All three 'game modes' can happily be abused, it has little to do with a specific person's dedication to being ultra competitive or ultra casual.
Equally, all three can be fun for people willing to make the effort, regardless of how much they like winning, math, fluff or creating tabletop fanfics. What the three 'game modes' don't do is filter out the bad apples.
Realistically, nothing is going to do that beyond actually talking to them.
daedalus wrote: The reason why people try to discourage you from going down that route is because it's a WASTE OF TIME, because the game quickly becomes unreasonable when you try to do stuff like that.
Yeah, this edition is rather bad about the core rules being written in just normal conversational English, which ignores the fact that hit has a specific meaning for example. Also the fact that wounding, inflicting a successful wound, inflicting an unsaved wound, inflicting damage, and when a model loses a wound are often conflated and confused for one another.
However, GW adopted the novel approach of making the core rules so full of such contradictions that people generally just play the way they intended becaus erule lawyering gets you nowhere. Though there were a couple situations where the actual meaning was unclear.
I absolutely think tournaments need to bring back comp and sportsmanship. It would go a long way to curb the most egregious abuses; people who take soup with 5 different factions to maximize things, people who take multiple detachments of the same army with different traits to min-max the units within them, things like that should be dinged on comp because it's clearly just trying to gain an advantage.
Ultimately, Warhammer competitions should be about the hobby, not just who goes undefeated. So the entire hobby should be a factor. Theme, painting, sportsmanship and generalship.
I'd have to say you don't seem to have look too hard as whilst dakka is a tad theorycrafting lite there are a fair few forums with lots of statistical data showing expected performance of various units etc, not exactly complex number juggling but can save time mucking about with a calculator or spreadsheet
Dakka is also fairly skewed towards 40k were the 'best' units are (most likely purposely) easy to spot under the haz plasmaz ? theory
Dakka can be a little abrasive, and I've been guilty of being sharp with people who appear immune to reasoned discourse, which only leads to escalating bloody mindedness on all sides, kind of annoying but dakka wouldn't be dakka without it
Once again another thread to bash people who actually enjoy competitive 40k. You don't see nearly as many of these threads from the 'WAAC" players. Personally it's no fun playing people that have absolutely no idea how to build a list, doesn't even have to be tournament-quality but at least competent.
"breaking the game" is completely subjective to ones UNDERSTANDING of how the game works.
Wayniac wrote: I absolutely think tournaments need to bring back comp and sportsmanship. It would go a long way to curb the most egregious abuses; people who take soup with 5 different factions to maximize things, people who take multiple detachments of the same army with different traits to min-max the units within them, things like that should be dinged on comp because it's clearly just trying to gain an advantage.
Ultimately, Warhammer competitions should be about the hobby, not just who goes undefeated. So the entire hobby should be a factor. Theme, painting, sportsmanship and generalship.
**** no. The last thing we need is a "you beat me, you get a zero" scoring system that rewards TFGs for being TFG.
Luciferian wrote: Not everyone is going to see this as an ideal solution, but one way to weed out a lot of the cheese exploited by WAAC type players would be for everyone to have a higher standard when it comes to painting and proxies. If TOs enforced some kind of standard like 3-5 colors + shade + highlight and strict WYSIWYG rules for stand ins, the kind of players who strictly want to cheese out whatever exploitable flaw exists in the rules that month would largely fade away. Making painting part of tournament scoring would be a good idea, as well, even if it were worth as much as half your total points.
Don't play games with unpainted minis and don't play against people who haven't painted theirs. That may seem kind of elitist and biased against people who don't enjoy or can't afford to have the proper models and fully paint them, but that's kind of the point. If you want to play you've got to put your money and time where your mouth is and actually invest in your army and list, instead of just being able to buy or proxy whatever unit is the best in the meta and throwing it on the table.
^this, 100% helps. The big reason that the "competitive meta' is less of a universal thing in a lot of 40k groups is because they're dedicated to fielding painted and buying actual official minis instead of minimum-cost acceptable proxies. I've noticed with every iteration of the competitive whack-a-mole GW has been doing as more and more people make expensive purchases of a unit they want to spam and then it gets nerfed, fewer and fewer people are constructing their armies to min/max.
The very best way to ensure your collection stays at least midlevel playable is to construct units that have a specialized goal in mind, but to have as wide a variety of different units as possible. The answer to "hey, why have 1 of X and 1 of Y and 1 of Z when 3 Xs would be better at the same job?" is because in a month X will be nerfed and it'd be better to have 3 Y.
We now have a meta where Khorne Bezerkers and Genestealers are considered oppressively strong. everything, EVERYTHING, comes around.
I like to play competitively but I don't like to construct armies competitively. My unit choices are mainly dictated by aesthetic and thematic reasons, but then I'll try to do my best with the stuff I've got.
Building a competent list still requires ignoring a vast swathe of the game. Which is where the issue lies in a game that sells itself on its narrative and aesthetics.
I know for me I spent a decade powergaming, so I totally get how to do it. The problem for me is powergaming burned me out and I quit for a few years and don't want to be burned out again.
So the lists that I make are narrative in structure and don't include the latest exploits. This usually means my lists would never be seen at a tournament and would be "B" grade lists that do well and have fun against other narrative "B" grade lists, but are no fun to match up against the powergaming "A" lists.
Luciferian wrote: Not everyone is going to see this as an ideal solution, but one way to weed out a lot of the cheese exploited by WAAC type players would be for everyone to have a higher standard when it comes to painting and proxies. If TOs enforced some kind of standard like 3-5 colors + shade + highlight and strict WYSIWYG rules for stand ins, the kind of players who strictly want to cheese out whatever exploitable flaw exists in the rules that month would largely fade away. Making painting part of tournament scoring would be a good idea, as well, even if it were worth as much as half your total points.
Don't play games with unpainted minis and don't play against people who haven't painted theirs. That may seem kind of elitist and biased against people who don't enjoy or can't afford to have the proper models and fully paint them, but that's kind of the point. If you want to play you've got to put your money and time where your mouth is and actually invest in your army and list, instead of just being able to buy or proxy whatever unit is the best in the meta and throwing it on the table.
Makes me curious what competive level of Finland then seeing we have painted army requirements.
generalchaos34 wrote: I'd like to counter your initial statement to say that I have purposely lost many games because the other player was having a terrible time. My goal for all my games is to have fun. If one side is experiencing crushing defeat (and not necessarily because of bad play, merely bad luck) I will subtly alter my style, make a few tactical errors, and of course, remain friendly. I'm not having fun if my opponent is not having fun. The game should be a mutual experience for everyone in my opinion, and crushing someone and drinking their tears is not something that appeals to all but the most alpha of dogs. Coincidentally I do a great job getting new players into the game....
That would be a notable (and respectable) exception to the rule. I take it you still came to the table with the intention and plan to win the match against your opponent, which is more my point about playing to win; nobody should be walking to a table with an opponent without the intention or plan to win the game. In fact, I'd argue that someone would be throwing the game if they're not playing to win, since the core objective of any game with an "opponent" is to beat your opponent in whatever scenario the game is laying out for you and them.
I go to the table looking what kind of interesting story scenario leads to this time.
daedalus wrote: The reason why people try to discourage you from going down that route is because it's a WASTE OF TIME, because the game quickly becomes unreasonable when you try to do stuff like that.
Yeah, this edition is rather bad about the core rules being written in just normal conversational English, which ignores the fact that hit has a specific meaning for example. Also the fact that wounding, inflicting a successful wound, inflicting an unsaved wound, inflicting damage, and when a model loses a wound are often conflated and confused for one another.
However, GW adopted the novel approach of making the core rules so full of such contradictions that people generally just play the way they intended becaus erule lawyering gets you nowhere. Though there were a couple situations where the actual meaning was unclear.
Have they still bothered to fix assault weapons that they would actually functionally work without requiring players to house rule it?-)
I don't think CAAC players even exist. Asking for a balanced match, by banning some units or tailoring one of the lists, is a completely different concept.
I don't mind playing with extremely competitive lists but only if both lists are on a similar level. In fact I don't even care if the list I play is competitive or 100% fluffy, only two things matter: to be as near as possible the opponent's level in terms of competitiveness and to play something that isn't dull and boring.
The problem with the TAC approach, which never interested me, is that with the current rules you're very likely to have an unbalanced match which is no fun at all, even for the winner.
When it comes to definitions like WAAC, TFG or CAAC we're always talking about friendly games, not tournaments. Friendly games can be competitive, just play with optimized lists, but since they're not part of a tournament the goal of that games should be having fun, nothing more. So discussing with the opponent before the match to adjust one of both lists doesn't make someone a CAAC guy.
tneva82 wrote: I go to the table looking what kind of interesting story scenario leads to this time.
Funny that winning isn't only goal available...
Irrelevant to the point I was making; no battle in history has been fought with the intention of losing/not winning - just because it's a narrative scenario does not mean that your game objective isn't being victorious.
Like I've been saying, this mentality about the perception of "playing to win" is very much flawed. Because if you're not playing a game to win it, you're throwing the game for all intents and purposes. The key point is to play to win, but not at the expense of the fun.
Luciferian wrote: Not everyone is going to see this as an ideal solution, but one way to weed out a lot of the cheese exploited by WAAC type players would be for everyone to have a higher standard when it comes to painting and proxies. If TOs enforced some kind of standard like 3-5 colors + shade + highlight and strict WYSIWYG rules for stand ins, the kind of players who strictly want to cheese out whatever exploitable flaw exists in the rules that month would largely fade away. Making painting part of tournament scoring would be a good idea, as well, even if it were worth as much as half your total points.
Don't play games with unpainted minis and don't play against people who haven't painted theirs. That may seem kind of elitist and biased against people who don't enjoy or can't afford to have the proper models and fully paint them, but that's kind of the point. If you want to play you've got to put your money and time where your mouth is and actually invest in your army and list, instead of just being able to buy or proxy whatever unit is the best in the meta and throwing it on the table.
Unfortunately, the idea that "WAAC-type players don't paint their minis" is often quite false. My first time going to NOVA (2015) I ended up in the second bracket (each has 16 players for those unfamiliar). There, I played 2 guys who had won GTs in the past and another who took top battle points in that tourney. Eldar, Superfriends, and 5 flying hive tyrants...and all were beautifully painted. In fact, my army (grey knights) was on the lower end of painted armies in that bracket. GT winners show up with painted armies; in fact I find it extremely rare to play against a barely-painted army in any tournament I attend, excepting a few small RTTs. So it's not as much of a fix as you might think, especially when you factor in that some people just aren't good at painting and others pay to have their models painted for them.
There are painting competitions for those so inclined...while a "best overall" score can factor in artistic ability the purpose of a tournament is to win games, and should primarily be scored as such. The true way to "fix the game" is to do just that: Fix the issues with the game as they come up so that it is balanced, fun to play, and every unit is viable (or at least has a purpose).
Blackie wrote: I don't think CAAC players even exist. Asking for a balanced match, by banning some units or tailoring one of the lists, is a completely different concept.
I don't mind playing with extremely competitive lists but only if both lists are on a similar level. In fact I don't even care if the list I play is competitive or 100% fluffy, only two things matter: to be as near as possible the opponent's level in terms of competitiveness and to play something that isn't dull and boring.
The problem with the TAC approach, which never interested me, is that with the current rules you're very likely to have an unbalanced match which is no fun at all, even for the winner.
When it comes to definitions like WAAC, TFG or CAAC we're always talking about friendly games, not tournaments. Friendly games can be competitive, just play with optimized lists, but since they're not part of a tournament the goal of that games should be having fun, nothing more. So discussing with the opponent before the match to adjust one of both lists doesn't make someone a CAAC guy.
This new "Casual at all costs" (which seems to be just used as a retort to WAAC) would essentially be just what we'd call a "sore loser". Someone who rolls up with a purposely underpowered list, gets their teeth kicked in and then goes on a rant about how their opponent was cheesy, their list was cheese and they claim moral victory for "not playing cheese lists", also potentially the type of person who rants that anything unbalanced should be banned, but this can sometimes be grounded in merit. I don't think many people are really like that, it's just the opposite extreme to the powergaming "git gud scrub" type of gamer.
Additionally, CAAC (to me) also represents people who even throw out the narrative in pursuit of vindication. It's why I don't get along with them.
Fluff players (in my experience) are totally fine getting creamed in a game, so long as it was a fun narrative battle. It may get old getting creamed over and over again, for sure (though for some of us it doesn't), but so long as it's narrative friendly they get over it.
To use myself as an example: at NOVA I tried to have a narrative running in my head (even though I played at the GT) at least for the whole company. I got tabled in a few games (the curse of the baneblade company is that it is is trivial for some armies to table while utterly unbeatable against others) - but I didn't mind. Even my worst game against a Necron Pylon (which one-shotted my tanks) only triggered me a bit because my opponent neglected to mention that it had a -1 to hit ground units, then didn't have the rules when I asked, and then turned out to have them at the end when I confirmed it had a -1 to hit ground units.
Narratively, I was generally okay with that game. Invading a tomb-world, only to be met with staggering, high-tech firepower beyond the ken of mankind which could rip apart a company of superheavy tanks in short order, actually sounds like a neato prelude to some epic story about how the Imperium had to find a solution other than MOAR STUFF.
Blackie wrote: I don't think CAAC players even exist. Asking for a balanced match, by banning some units or tailoring one of the lists, is a completely different concept.
I don't mind playing with extremely competitive lists but only if both lists are on a similar level. In fact I don't even care if the list I play is competitive or 100% fluffy, only two things matter: to be as near as possible the opponent's level in terms of competitiveness and to play something that isn't dull and boring.
The problem with the TAC approach, which never interested me, is that with the current rules you're very likely to have an unbalanced match which is no fun at all, even for the winner.
When it comes to definitions like WAAC, TFG or CAAC we're always talking about friendly games, not tournaments. Friendly games can be competitive, just play with optimized lists, but since they're not part of a tournament the goal of that games should be having fun, nothing more. So discussing with the opponent before the match to adjust one of both lists doesn't make someone a CAAC guy.
This new "Casual at all costs" (which seems to be just used as a retort to WAAC) would essentially be just what we'd call a "sore loser". Someone who rolls up with a purposely underpowered list, gets their teeth kicked in and then goes on a rant about how their opponent was cheesy, their list was cheese and they claim moral victory for "not playing cheese lists", also potentially the type of person who rants that anything unbalanced should be banned, but this can sometimes be grounded in merit. I don't think many people are really like that, it's just the opposite extreme to the powergaming "git gud scrub" type of gamer.
CAAC is a subset of "scrub mentality" but generally more varied and weird. Usually it takes the form of sore losing (whatever beat me is OP, no matter what it is! I've had people complain that Wyches are OP, that GSC neophytes are OP, that ork walkers are OP...) but it can be anything that can be taken as a Transgression or Affront To Fluff.
There is (was, maybe? not sure if theyre still around) a super-cliquey group of CAAC gamers in my area who would pretty much ban people for doing things like "Take more than 2 of any given unit because that's spamming" "point out and print their list and ask for their opponents list" "insist that a rule be played correctly instead of the wildly and obviously incorrect way the group had decided to play the rule". Basically, if you showed up the first time to game and you played one of the clique members and you won? You were most likely to be told to not come back.
Generally, these are folks that take losing even harder than your average powergamer, but rather than doing everything they can in the game to win, they do everything they can outside the game to win. The best example I have of that behavior is a self-described fluffy gamer who would arrange games in advance, knowing which army his opponent had, and then he would hyper-tailor his list against that army and justify it with the excuse of "if I knew I was facing all tanks, of COURSE I would have my soldiers bring nothing but anti tank weapons! I'm just being realistic!"
I usually just left him be and didn't play him, not wanting to start gak, but one time during a campaign I got matched up against him. I couldn't resist - I said I was playing Orks and dusted off all the shelfwarmer walkers I had. I showed up with a Stompa, a Gorkanaut, 6 killa kanz and 4 Deff Dreads in a Dredd Mob list, and as I expected he had something like 30 flamers and heavy flamers sitting behind a promethium relay pipe network. It was the perfect storm because my fluff in the campaign so far had centered around my named big mek, Biln Eye Da Science Git (Biln! Biln! Biln! Biln!) so a dredd mob was perfectly fluffy.
I love the people that cry "it's realistic!" when they list tailor.
It's realistic in an unrealistic world, if that makes sense, but rarely does the Company Commander / whomever is in charge have access to such a thing.
An example would be me bringing Scout Sentinels with my Baneblade company if I knew I was playing someone who liked to deep-strike antitank units. "It's only realistic to have recon for heavy tanks!"
Well, yes, but because the Imperial Guard is organized badly on purpose, superheavy tank companies don't have easy and ready access to sentinels. Or infantry, or much else than Trojans, ammo-carriers, maintenance personnel/vehicles and spare crewmen.
That's why, in any combat situation Sentinels would absolutely be seconded to the superheavy tank companies in order to provide them with scouting potential. A super heavy tank company would not be operating by itself with zero scouting potential (on or off board). Doesn't mean you'd have to include them in your army, but they would absolutely have access to other Imperial Guard units which would be providing advanced scouting for them.
Elbows wrote: That's why, in any combat situation Sentinels would absolutely be seconded to the superheavy tank companies in order to provide them with scouting potential. A super heavy tank company would not be operating by itself with zero scouting potential (on or off board). Doesn't mean you'd have to include them in your army, but they would absolutely have access to other Imperial Guard units which would be providing advanced scouting for them.
I agree completely!
Which is why it is unfortunate that none of the local IG players use sentinels commonly; on the "planet" or "system" that is my local area, the Imperium forgot to send a reconnaissance regiment. Guess we've got to rely on orbital scans!
In the grand scheme of things I think most people fall into the middle ground instead of Caac/Waac. A definition of each would really help since most people have an idea what they think they are.
For example : to me WAAC is a player who will cheat to win. They will forget important rules to their advantage, they will measure from the front of the base and move to the back to get an extra inch, they will bring 4 lists and show you the one they want to use after they see what you brought and pick the one that has the best chance of killing you. Waac players don't care about you, then care about that win. List tailoring if both sides know what's coming is not Waac, insisting the rules are played fairly and evenly is not Waac, and trying to, idk, WIN, is not waac.
A Caac player is not some one I have ever ran into. If anything I think I may be the most casual player in my group, I don't care if I win, I don't take the new hotness or build army's based on their table top performance (currently working on a Thousand Sons army slowly, it is my nicest looking army but it also is the worst on the table top, not won a game but I don't care I still take em), but I also try and theme my lists. I like dire avengers so I have 3 squads of them. I use them as cover for my warwalkers. I like eldar missile launchers so all my warwalkers have them. I don't care if they are good or not meta wise, it's what looks good to me. However I have not ever felt I was beat because a unit is op, that's a joke of an excuse to why you lost. I lost because those genestealers are my avengers due to me not prioritizing them properly, not because genestealers are op.
In the Grim darkness of 40k there are only special snowflake commanders and bullies? That's not right....
I don't think waac players are typically bullies. I think waac is applied universally when it shouldn't be at all.
I think the biggest divide is simply someone wanting to play narratively playing against a gamey player that isn't playing narratively but is playing by the numbers or being "optimal".
Thats where the problem lies. And neither player is bad or doing something bad, they just don't get along with what they want out of the game.
The problem is exasperated by the fact that we live in a gamer culture that focuses heavily on "optimal" over "narrative" and narrative players can get very frustrated when there are only a couple people that they can play against and seemingly dozens upon dozens of players that don't give a gak about the narrative and just bring whats optimal. That exasperation leads to extreme frustration and bitter feelings over a bad investment in a game where they can't get opponents that have similar goals and mindset.
Its not an excuse to accuse competitive players for being waac though. Its being bitter and passive aggressive. While I can sympathize because I prefer narrative over optimal, its never acceptable to try and shame someone for enjoying the game different than you.
Yep, agreed with Auticus (our posts were very similar). In short, stop trying to pretend 40K is one community and everyone has the same interests...find people who want to play the game like you do, and go do your thing. There's nothing more to be said.
I agree to with Auticus. At the end of the day the frustration comes when people with different mindsets about the game play together.
For me, a narrative guy going to a tournament with a bad list that loses and starts calling WAAC all the people is just as bad as a guy going to a casual-league for new players in a LGS with the most OP list out there and starts destroying new players. (I'll say the second one is worse, because new players are the blood of this hobby and they should be a protected species, but I have seen enough people that doesn't even care)
Pretty much auticus has it spot on. The community seems to want to focus on "optimal" and "competitive" type lists (individual communities might vary in this, but at least going from what's seen online, this is the most common scenario) so the people who don't want to do this have two choices, bsaically:
1) Be "forced" to optimize or play tournament type lists to not get crushed in a game (sometimes even not just tournament lists but not being able to play what they want)
2) Don't play the game
If you live in a hyper competitive area where almost everyone is playing optimally, you really get screwed if you want to lay a casual or even fluffy list because it just can't compete, and losing every game will quickly burn someone out especially when it's a lopsided exercise. It can be very hard to find like-minded people who are interested in narrative style play, and even if you find them it can ultimately become boring when you can only play against the same 4 people because everyone else plays optimal lists.
That's always been the disconnect in that a casual and a competitive player often can't play each other as they want completely different things out of the game, but far too often it's the competitive mindset that dominates, leaving the non-competitive players feeling bitter and left out because they have to either risk being bored with the game due to being essentially segregated, risk burnout by playing the competitive player with a non-competitive list and getting curbstomped, or "give in" and abandon the narrative stuff they enjoy to optimize just to have a fighting chance.
Galas wrote: I agree to with Auticus. At the end of the day the frustration comes when people with different mindsets about the game play together.
For me, a narrative guy going to a tournament with a bad list that loses and starts calling WAAC all the people is just as bad as a guy going to a casual-league for new players in a LGS with the most OP list out there and starts destroying new players. (I'll say the second one is worse, because new players are the blood of this hobby and they should be a protected species, but I have seen enough people that doesn't even care)
While this is true, another part of the frustration is that competitive players have their own event to do what they do i.e. tournaments. Most casual players know if they don't want to run optimal lists, then don't go to a tournament. However, the flipside is not true. There's nothing from preventing a competitive player from going to a casual event, such as a campaign or a league, and dominating with their optimal list (and some of the more TFG types enjoy doing this just to crush people). So this adds to the animosity between the two camps because the competitive player often has no qualms about going to a campaign with a min/maxed list, while the casual person isn't likely to turn up to a tournament and expect to do well.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Unit1126PLL wrote: But Wayniac, what do the players do who play a fluffy army that also happens to be cheesy/beardy/win all the time?
They can't even hang out with the casuals, and their list usually isn't quite optimized enough to hang with the competitive people...
I do think 40k's imbalance is hurting both playstyles.
That problem is basically a game design flaw, because it exists at all. For instance, your superheavy tank company (I see where this was going ) is fluffy. It's also VERY powerful. This goes back to the "social contract" and putting the responsibility on the players to regulate themselves since the game will not. The onus should always be on the more powerful person to tone things down, rather than expect everyone else to "up their game", since you can often tone things down in such a way that it's still mostly fluffy. For example, if three superheavies are too much, maybe it's just one instead, and theme your narrative around that, and why this particular Baneblade is with another force and the other two are elsewhere fighting a different battle (or maybe being repaired, or whatnot).
Maybe it was just my experience with a great gaming group, but I never felt much of a disconnect between competitive and casual. Every game we played was played with the intent to win, and we always discussed ways to tweak certain choices within themes. The armies/fleets were mostly painted (exclusively painted with half the group or anyone playing with those people), on nice mats or purpose built sets with lots of painted terrain, and often opened every match with at least a blurb of why the forces are engaged and what they're fighting for.
That, to me anwyays, struck me as competitive (in it to win, looked to tweak lists to improve them and learn from the last game) and casual (story driven, beautiful armies, often mildly inebriated). All the players were happy to help anyone else in any and every aspect of the hobby. Armies were shared if you didn't have a painted force for the game, or simply wanted to try a different force.
Definitely a rare scenario, one I haven't found in the years since, but I don't think its impossible.
It helped that it was a university where 95% of the students lived on a small campus, so there's that.
Because of that group, I always play to win, and look to optimize my list within my own self-imposed thematic restrictions, but I prefer to play with at least some sort of story why our forces are fighting and live to play in lengthy campaigns with my own named commander who accumulates experience, or the force changes from losses.
I used to play Armoured Company with 3 Baneblades, and that was fine. I got all excited when 3 Baneblades became a thing, and sold the Leman Russes to buy more Baneblades.
Now I'm committed to the army (though the collection's almost finished, so we'll see) - but it would never have been a problem in the first place if GW could decide how they want the game to function.
Unless how it is now is how they want it to function, but in that case, I think it's an ill-designed game.
IMHO one aspect is missing from the WAAC discussion.
In my very first game of 40k ever, I was playing the content of an assault on black reach box: 20 ork boyz, 5 nobz with no wargear, 3 koptaz and one warboss.
I was facing two scatter laser wave serpents loaded with farseers and destructor warlords and guardians with flamers, plus some artillery with blasts.
Boy, was that game fun.
Sometimes you simply need to tone down your army because the other person simply doesn't have the models to be competitive.
If you know about this in advance (my opponent did), I really see no good reason for stomping the guy who basically has 2x Dark Imperium as his army with dual daemon primarchs.
tneva82 wrote: I go to the table looking what kind of interesting story scenario leads to this time.
Funny that winning isn't only goal available...
Irrelevant to the point I was making; no battle in history has been fought with the intention of losing/not winning - just because it's a narrative scenario does not mean that your game objective isn't being victorious.
Like I've been saying, this mentality about the perception of "playing to win" is very much flawed. Because if you're not playing a game to win it, you're throwing the game for all intents and purposes. The key point is to play to win, but not at the expense of the fun.
Curiou. You don't know me yet claim to know my mind better than i do.
Wayniac wrote: The onus should always be on the more powerful person to tone things down, rather than expect everyone else to "up their game", since you can often tone things down in such a way that it's still mostly fluffy.
This is badly wrong, because it makes the assumption that it costs the person with the more powerful list nothing to tone down their list. In reality it costs them extra money to buy more models to build a different list, extra time to build and paint those models, and it hinders their enjoyment of the game by forcing them to play with things they already declined to have any interest in using. You can't just assume that all lists are equally fun for the "competitive" player, therefore they should take on the entire burden of adjusting the power level of the game.
For example, if three superheavies are too much, maybe it's just one instead, and theme your narrative around that, and why this particular Baneblade is with another force and the other two are elsewhere fighting a different battle (or maybe being repaired, or whatnot).
And you could say the same thing about the lower-powered list swapping out units for something more powerful and still maintaining the fluff. Also, you're ignoring the fact that, with a list like this, a large part of the appeal is the sense of accomplishment in building an entire company. It's the same reason people build and play entire space marine companies according to the fluff organization. The person with a full space marine company wouldn't be very happy about being told that they should only bring eight squads, leave the other two at home, and bring some IG hordes to balance the game. Anyone can bring a single tactical squad, the pride of putting a full hundred-marine company on the table is the entire point of the game.
Now, there are certainly reasons to only take 1-2 Baneblades out of the company, but doing so is not a trivial thing from a fluff point of view.
GW screwed the pooch on things like Baneblade companies. I was overjoyed to learn they were playable in 8th, and when they went down 40 points, I was even more overjoyed because that meant I could mix up the list a bit with other stuff.
But unfortunately, they're also very powerful (though still apparently not tournament quality? I'm not sure if they've been seen in high-scoring tournament lists or not because I don't track that data. They certainly weren't in the index).
Furthermore, there's only so far they can discount the price to let lists be mixed up a bit before they have to start making them really really bad to justify the decreases, and I'd be okay with that from a design perspective but my fluffheart would break.
As for "casual at all costs", as the person (one of the people?) who started the term, it's a reference to the fact that self-declared "casual" players are often the exact opposite of what that word means. By the conventional definition a "casual" player is someone with a limited investment in the game. They have a general "meh" attitude to it, put very little time and money into it, doesn't care who wins, and probably wouldn't miss it very much if they stopped playing. But then you have self-declared "casual" players who spend thousands of dollars on models, obsessively craft a fluff story for every aspect of their collection, and then scream at their opponents for not being "casual" enough if they lose a game. That isn't a casual player, it's an extremely dedicated player who is a smug about how they have the One True Way To Have Fun and everyone else is doing it wrong. For this person "casual" is redefined to be about the power level of a list, with the assumption that a list which is bad at winning games is automatically more "casual", and a list that is stronger than theirs is automatically WAACTFG CHEESE. Winning is extremely important to them, and they're entitled to win without ever changing anything about how they play because they already have the One True Way, and if you interfere with the wins they are entitled to then you are TFG. And this sense of entitlement is often accompanied by a terrible understanding of the rules and statistics. For example, their terminators have a 2+ armor save and awesome fluff, which means they should never die. If a terminator fails an armor save and dies then clearly it was WAACTFG CHEESE that allowed this to happen, even when you put 10 wounds on the unit and the terminators rolled above average on their saves to only lose a single model.
TL;DR: CAAC is using "casual" as smug virtue signalling when you really care just as much about winning as the tournament players.
Quickjager wrote: Stop talking about Baneblades Unit, don't derail a thread into your choices again
In this specific case I think it's a useful discussion though, as it is an example of the extremes to which 40k armies can go within GW's chosen design space.
I could be talking about Knight armies if you'd prefer - it's the same story.
tneva82 wrote: Curiou. You don't know me yet claim to know my mind better than i do.
Arrogant and false.
I have no idea where I claimed that I knew your mind better than you do, only that the mentality that playing any game with an objective to win without any intention of winning the game is detrimental rather than something that is good.
An example; you have a narrative scenario where you must hold off against an endless tide of Orks from your opponent for as long as you can. There is no way that you can win the scenario since you are outnumbered, and the structure of the game is that you are going to be wiped out eventually in a heroic last stand. Regardless, you play the game with the intention of destroying your opponent; if you didn't, then what you should be saying is "my forces are going to lay down their arms and get slaughtered by the approaching greenskins, because I'm not playing to win".
Whether you win any game, or if the game was set up for you to win or lose, is completely irrelevant - you play to win in that scenario. The exact definition of what playing to win is will vary depending on the game, be it competitive, narrative, or casual, but at no point in any scenario should you not be playing to win, unless it is at the cost of the overall enjoyment of the game, or in good sportsmanship.
tneva82 wrote: Curiou. You don't know me yet claim to know my mind better than i do.
Arrogant and false.
I have no idea where I claimed that I knew your mind better than you do, only that the mentality that playing any game with an objective to win without any intention of winning the game is detrimental rather than something that is good.
An example; you have a narrative scenario where you must hold off against an endless tide of Orks from your opponent for as long as you can. There is no way that you can win the scenario since you are outnumbered, and the structure of the game is that you are going to be wiped out eventually in a heroic last stand. Regardless, you play the game with the intention of destroying your opponent; if you didn't, then what you should be saying is "my forces are going to lay down their arms and get slaughtered by the approaching greenskins, because I'm not playing to win".
Whether you win any game, or if the game was set up for you to win or lose, is completely irrelevant - you play to win in that scenario. The exact definition of what playing to win is will vary depending on the game, be it competitive, narrative, or casual, but at no point in any scenario should you not be playing to win, unless it is at the cost of the overall enjoyment of the game, or in good sportsmanship.
What if the objective of the scenario is to replicate a historical battle as well as possible? If you're playing as the French at Waterloo, you have to deliberately not march Marshal Grouchy's army northwards, as well as deliberately slowing down your own army's northern pursuit of the retreating and reforming Prussians to accurately model history. If self-limitation with the goal of losing a battle isn't "playing to lose" I don't know what is.
pm713 wrote: What do you call it when you suck at it? There's a guy like that at my store.
Being hilariously terrible, and probably a TFG?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Unit1126PLL wrote: What if the objective of the scenario is to replicate a historical battle as well as possible?
Then it's a pointless thing to do, and shouldn't be called a game. If your entire goal is to replicate history then what is the point of having rules? Just make a diorama of the battle, and move/add/remove models according to the historical script. The only reason to have a game at all with a historical battle is to take the basic parameters of the battle (terrain, participating forces, etc) and challenge the player to do better than the historical result.
pm713 wrote: What do you call it when you suck at it? There's a guy like that at my store.
Being hilariously terrible, and probably a TFG?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Unit1126PLL wrote: What if the objective of the scenario is to replicate a historical battle as well as possible?
Then it's a pointless thing to do, and shouldn't be called a game. If your entire goal is to replicate history then what is the point of having rules? Just make a diorama of the battle, and move/add/remove models according to the historical script. The only reason to have a game at all with a historical battle is to take the basic parameters of the battle (terrain, participating forces, etc) and challenge the player to do better than the historical result.
I always assumed the premise of re-playing a historical battle was to truly grasp how close it was.
You would still use the adjudication method given by the ruleset for attacks, to see if it was essentially lucky or unlucky dice why the French won or lost, for example.
Wayniac wrote: The onus should always be on the more powerful person to tone things down, rather than expect everyone else to "up their game", since you can often tone things down in such a way that it's still mostly fluffy.
This is badly wrong, because it makes the assumption that it costs the person with the more powerful list nothing to tone down their list. In reality it costs them extra money to buy more models to build a different list, extra time to build and paint those models, and it hinders their enjoyment of the game by forcing them to play with things they already declined to have any interest in using. You can't just assume that all lists are equally fun for the "competitive" player, therefore they should take on the entire burden of adjusting the power level of the game.
For example, if three superheavies are too much, maybe it's just one instead, and theme your narrative around that, and why this particular Baneblade is with another force and the other two are elsewhere fighting a different battle (or maybe being repaired, or whatnot).
And you could say the same thing about the lower-powered list swapping out units for something more powerful and still maintaining the fluff. Also, you're ignoring the fact that, with a list like this, a large part of the appeal is the sense of accomplishment in building an entire company. It's the same reason people build and play entire space marine companies according to the fluff organization. The person with a full space marine company wouldn't be very happy about being told that they should only bring eight squads, leave the other two at home, and bring some IG hordes to balance the game. Anyone can bring a single tactical squad, the pride of putting a full hundred-marine company on the table is the entire point of the game.
Now, there are certainly reasons to only take 1-2 Baneblades out of the company, but doing so is not a trivial thing from a fluff point of view.
I generally do make the assumption that the person with the more competitive list has more of an onus to tone down if A) the intention is to have a several-hour, mutually enjoyable game that lasts for an afternoon, and B) i know that player has a large collection which they can use to create a list made up of only the ~10% of units that are competitive at any given time.
Yes, there exist players who go into the game with a very specific tournament focused mindset and only own the current tournament meta list at the time, and either ebay swap or quit when their collections become obsolete in a few months. But (despite what some people will have you believe) that type seems to be a minority to me. I find it much more common to see a player who owns, for instance, pretty much everything in the space marine range with a heavy emphasis on whatever is competitive at the moment. He's probably got his arms magnetized because he's a forward-thinking competitive gamer and he knows in six months maybe those grav guns are going to want to be melta guns or plasma guns.
That kind of guy? Yeah, if he meets requirement A) (and usually if its just a regular weekend of chill gaming) I'm probably going to expect him to be toning his list down, especially if his opponent has a limited collection or is new.
Everything is circumstantial. Yeah, the guy who owns a vast collection but plays against a dude with exactly 2000pts and whines that he's a WAACTFG when he beats him with a slightly more competitively minded list is a jerk. But I find it an overwhelmingly more common situation where a longtime player is uncomfortable with swapping a few magnetized weapons around and bringing less crunch focused armies to normal gaming days because he's uncomfortable with the prospect that he might lose a game to a newer player or someone he views as "less good at the game".
pm713 wrote: What do you call it when you suck at it? There's a guy like that at my store.
Being hilariously terrible, and probably a TFG?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Unit1126PLL wrote: What if the objective of the scenario is to replicate a historical battle as well as possible?
Then it's a pointless thing to do, and shouldn't be called a game. If your entire goal is to replicate history then what is the point of having rules? Just make a diorama of the battle, and move/add/remove models according to the historical script. The only reason to have a game at all with a historical battle is to take the basic parameters of the battle (terrain, participating forces, etc) and challenge the player to do better than the historical result.
I always assumed the premise of re-playing a historical battle was to truly grasp how close it was.
You would still use the adjudication method given by the ruleset for attacks, to see if it was essentially lucky or unlucky dice why the French won or lost, for example.
To me the point of refighting a historical battle is to see what different things might have affected the outcome. E.g. if historically the relief army didn't get there in time, what might have happened if they did? What if XYZ happened differently. There's a huge appeal in historical gaming and has been for 30+ years now that revolve round that; never forget that the original gestation for wargaming like Warhammer came from historical wargaming like Napoleonics and such, in fact many of GW's original designers had that background.
My issue with Peregrin's statement regarding the non-competitive player to bring a more competitive list is, quite frankly, it stinks of "git gud". It's basically telling the person who likes Necrons to go pick a different army that's better so they don't get curbstomped, rather than maybe, just maybe, not bring 100% "optimized" lists to every game. "Git gud" doesn't belong in 40k in my opinion. While you shouldn't be able to just pick random units together, you shouldn't have it where someone always brings guilliman and razorback spam, and someone wants to really play necrons which can't compete at all, and then have the balls to tell the person that they should have picked a better army instead of maybe not bringing guillian and razorbacks.
Wayniac wrote: To me the point of refighting a historical battle is to see what different things might have affected the outcome. E.g. if historically the relief army didn't get there in time, what might have happened if they did? What if XYZ happened differently. There's a huge appeal in historical gaming and has been for 30+ years now that revolve round that; never forget that the original gestation for wargaming like Warhammer came from historical wargaming like Napoleonics and such.
Sure, but in that case you're still setting up the parameters of the scenario ("battle X, but if Y happened differently") and then trying to win the game. You aren't scripting out the outcome of the game and then making all of your choices based on the script. You aren't making deliberate bad decisions once the game begins just because making the smart play would lead to an outcome that doesn't match the historical one.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Unit1126PLL wrote: I always assumed the premise of re-playing a historical battle was to truly grasp how close it was.
You would still use the adjudication method given by the ruleset for attacks, to see if it was essentially lucky or unlucky dice why the French won or lost, for example.
That seems like a rather pointless exercise when the choice of rules for the game are going to have such a significant effect on the outcome. Whether your resolution requires a 3+ or a 4+ is completely arbitrary, but can swing the outcome of a fight. All you're going to learn is how your chosen rules function when you apply them to a specific script of actions, a question that has very little to do with history.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
the_scotsman wrote: Yes, there exist players who go into the game with a very specific tournament focused mindset and only own the current tournament meta list at the time, and either ebay swap or quit when their collections become obsolete in a few months. But (despite what some people will have you believe) that type seems to be a minority to me. I find it much more common to see a player who owns, for instance, pretty much everything in the space marine range with a heavy emphasis on whatever is competitive at the moment. He's probably got his arms magnetized because he's a forward-thinking competitive gamer and he knows in six months maybe those grav guns are going to want to be melta guns or plasma guns.
You're focusing entirely on the extreme end of power level, in a game where balance issues exist at all levels. For example, I have a smallish collection and don't play with unpainted models, so expanding it isn't easy. That collection is heavy on LoW-type units, with a fairly limited core of "normal" units to support them. And changes to various units have made some of them either illegal or so hopelessly weak that they might as well not exist anymore. So I have some flexibility in which LoW I bring, but it's still going to be essentially the same list. It's not an exceptionally powerful list, in a tournament context, but if I'm in a position where I'm bringing a significantly more powerful list than my opponent I have very little room to make power level changes without doing blatantly stupid things like "forgetting" to put special weapons in my veteran squads. But by Wayniac's argument I, as the player who has done more list optimization, have the entire obligation to go out and buy new units to make a weaker list while my opponent has zero obligation of their own to make a more powerful list that can compete with mine.
I don't agree with Wayniac here. Putting "always" in front of an assertion is probably the best way to be wrong unless you're a mathematician.
There is, however, a fairly obvious correlation between how long someone has been playing and how many models they have in their collection and how well they know the ins and the outs of the rules.
I'd say the onus is most often on whoever has the bigger collection to change their list if there's a mismatch. I will tone my list up and down according to my opponent in pretty much any game because I have a huge shelf filled with painted models accumulated over 15 years of playing pretty much continuously. My objective in any game is to win, but with the game as close as humanly possible and making the most solid use of the four hours a week I get to game as possible. I will 100% make particular inefficient decisions or put restrictions on myself to achieve that goal, because I'm the kind of person who will play games in a weird, inefficient way to get more of a challenge out of them (playing fallout trying to use only my fists, playing Empire Total War and roleplaying myself as the Only Elephants Faction, etc)
The other option when you're in a situation where someone's list is more powerful than the other is just...play an imbalanced game, or don't play each other. Sometimes you want to get out and just push some models around. Sometimes your goals are just incompatible and you'd be better off getting different opponents.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, balance issues are vastly less prevalent outside the best or worst 5% of options in the game. I have played games where my opponent and I chose our armies via a completely random predetermined sequence we came up with, where you randomly determine a unit to use, then randomly determine their wargear, and they usually end up fairly balanced because it's just total chaos and everything is inefficient.
1) If two non-competitive (I like this term instead of "casual") players play each other, it will probably be a good game.
2) If two competitive players play each other, it will probably be a good game.
3) If a non-competitive player and a competitive player play a game, one or both parties are likely going to not have a good game and walk away feeling like they just wasted time.
#3 is where all the issues come from, because both groups are within their right to enjoy the game as they see fit but when they interact with each other, SOMEBODY (or both people) has to give up some ground to compromise, otherwise neither of them are having fun.
I often wonder if one of the issues is that people seem to rather have an unfun game than no game at all. Ergo, you tend to see a non-competitive person accept (I deliberately chose this term instead of "agree") playing against a competitive player, and then later feeling dejected because they got tabled turn 2 or whatever unfun experience they hda, or you see a competitive player accept a game against a non-competitive player and later feel like they didn't have any sort of challenge at all, rather than both of them realizing that hey, Bob is playing a competitive list and Steve is playing a fun/janky/fluffy list, this is probably not going to be a fun game for either of us and not play each other.
the_scotsman wrote: There is, however, a fairly obvious correlation between how long someone has been playing and how many models they have in their collection and how well they know the ins and the outs of the rules.
But knowing is only part of the situation. Most of the time the issue with entitled "casual" players and the asymmetrical obligation isn't dealing with a clueless newbie who is still trying to figure out how the rules work, it's an experienced player who has had plenty of opportunities to learn the game but deliberately chooses to bring a weak list (whether out of strict adherence to fluff or virtue signalling about how "casual" they are). Very few people have any objection to toning down a list when giving a newbie a learning game.
the_scotsman wrote: There is, however, a fairly obvious correlation between how long someone has been playing and how many models they have in their collection and how well they know the ins and the outs of the rules.
But knowing is only part of the situation. Most of the time the issue with entitled "casual" players and the asymmetrical obligation isn't dealing with a clueless newbie who is still trying to figure out how the rules work, it's an experienced player who has had plenty of opportunities to learn the game but deliberately chooses to bring a weak list (whether out of strict adherence to fluff or virtue signalling about how "casual" they are). Very few people have any objection to toning down a list when giving a newbie a learning game.
But the counter to this is, again, the mindset that picking the optimal choices is the only valid way and everyone else should "git gud" and do the same. You seem to have no issue with that aspect, just the person who "deliberately chooses to bring a weak list" but not the person who purposely chooses to bring 100% optimized min-maxed lists and that everyone else should git gud.
the_scotsman wrote: There is, however, a fairly obvious correlation between how long someone has been playing and how many models they have in their collection and how well they know the ins and the outs of the rules.
But knowing is only part of the situation. Most of the time the issue with entitled "casual" players and the asymmetrical obligation isn't dealing with a clueless newbie who is still trying to figure out how the rules work, it's an experienced player who has had plenty of opportunities to learn the game but deliberately chooses to bring a weak list (whether out of strict adherence to fluff or virtue signalling about how "casual" they are). Very few people have any objection to toning down a list when giving a newbie a learning game.
Seems like you are very "entitled" to think that the only proper way to play the game is to take the 100% mathematically optimized army. Why shouldn't i be able to bring whatever model i like without having to adhere to your ideal on how i should play a board game?
the_scotsman wrote: There is, however, a fairly obvious correlation between how long someone has been playing and how many models they have in their collection and how well they know the ins and the outs of the rules.
But knowing is only part of the situation. Most of the time the issue with entitled "casual" players and the asymmetrical obligation isn't dealing with a clueless newbie who is still trying to figure out how the rules work, it's an experienced player who has had plenty of opportunities to learn the game but deliberately chooses to bring a weak list (whether out of strict adherence to fluff or virtue signalling about how "casual" they are). Very few people have any objection to toning down a list when giving a newbie a learning game.
Seems like you are very "entitled" to think that the only proper way to play the game is to take the 100% mathematically optimized army. Why shouldn't i be able to bring whatever model i like without having to adhere to your ideal on how i should play a board game?
But what happens when you bring just models you like, but it turns out the most recent edition's shifts have made that combination of models oppressively powerful and 100% mathematically optimized?
the_scotsman wrote: There is, however, a fairly obvious correlation between how long someone has been playing and how many models they have in their collection and how well they know the ins and the outs of the rules.
But knowing is only part of the situation. Most of the time the issue with entitled "casual" players and the asymmetrical obligation isn't dealing with a clueless newbie who is still trying to figure out how the rules work, it's an experienced player who has had plenty of opportunities to learn the game but deliberately chooses to bring a weak list (whether out of strict adherence to fluff or virtue signalling about how "casual" they are). Very few people have any objection to toning down a list when giving a newbie a learning game.
I am not sure how, but I get the feeling that you're leaving out a category between "smart" players who bring a "good" list, and entitled jerk "casual" players who DELIBERATELY bring a bad list so they can lose and virtue signal about it: people who don't have the money or the inclination to bring this month's power list.
You said yourself that expecting you to purchase and paint additional units just to decrease the power level of your list is asinine, and I agree. it is equally, if not more asinine to require someone to purchase and paint additional units to increase the power level of their list, because at any given time there are going to be a whole lot fewer options that are "good" than "suboptimal" and also at this point the shelf life of a good, competitive unit is outclassed by the shelf life of certain kinds of real literal cheese.
Beyond my ability to just swap some options in and out when 8th edition hit, I actually tried to purchase and paint what was then the most competitive option in my index, Razorwing Flocks, and by the time I finished painting the 15 I got in the box their points cost had been doubled and they were now yet another suboptimal "casual" choice that you would classify as virtue signaling if I dared to "deliberately" include it in my list.
I think it's not only unfair but pretty cartoonish and arrogant to tar everyone who isn't new but has an uncompetitive model collection as a CAAC virtue signaling donkey cave if they're more interested in seeking out games that avoid the top 5% of competitive models and wargear options to give them a reasonably close to 50-50 chance of winning.
To maintain a competitive 40k army, you either need to have the willingness to completely swap out your collection every few months, or the disposable income to purchase a sometimes entirely new army in that timeframe. If you classify everyone outside that sphere as an entitled virtue-signaler then you're almost certainly including 95% of the playerbase in that definition. Most players, if not almost all players, simply build a collection of models and swaps in and out units as power levels change in the game while picking up the occasional kit or new project.
the_scotsman wrote: There is, however, a fairly obvious correlation between how long someone has been playing and how many models they have in their collection and how well they know the ins and the outs of the rules.
But knowing is only part of the situation. Most of the time the issue with entitled "casual" players and the asymmetrical obligation isn't dealing with a clueless newbie who is still trying to figure out how the rules work, it's an experienced player who has had plenty of opportunities to learn the game but deliberately chooses to bring a weak list (whether out of strict adherence to fluff or virtue signalling about how "casual" they are). Very few people have any objection to toning down a list when giving a newbie a learning game.
Seems like you are very "entitled" to think that the only proper way to play the game is to take the 100% mathematically optimized army. Why shouldn't i be able to bring whatever model i like without having to adhere to your ideal on how i should play a board game?
But what happens when you bring just models you like, but it turns out the most recent edition's shifts have made that combination of models oppressively powerful and 100% mathematically optimized?
Then im playing my ideal army and having fun playing the game how i want. You running around calling people entitled for bringing the army they like for whatever reason whether it be statistically optimized or not is laughable
the_scotsman wrote: There is, however, a fairly obvious correlation between how long someone has been playing and how many models they have in their collection and how well they know the ins and the outs of the rules.
But knowing is only part of the situation. Most of the time the issue with entitled "casual" players and the asymmetrical obligation isn't dealing with a clueless newbie who is still trying to figure out how the rules work, it's an experienced player who has had plenty of opportunities to learn the game but deliberately chooses to bring a weak list (whether out of strict adherence to fluff or virtue signalling about how "casual" they are). Very few people have any objection to toning down a list when giving a newbie a learning game.
Seems like you are very "entitled" to think that the only proper way to play the game is to take the 100% mathematically optimized army. Why shouldn't i be able to bring whatever model i like without having to adhere to your ideal on how i should play a board game?
But what happens when you bring just models you like, but it turns out the most recent edition's shifts have made that combination of models oppressively powerful and 100% mathematically optimized?
If you are really, truly in that situation (and I have heard that situation bemoaned many, many times by people who, strangely, always seem to be winding up in that situation because "what they like" tends to magically shift and change depending on what's the best, but only a few times by people who I know have actually always played the models that are now oppressively powerful) then you have a lot of solutions.
1) Do nothing. Balance problems in the game are not yours to have to solve, and of late they have been being solved pretty quickly. If you get bored of one-sided games, maybe
2) play in more competitively minded settings than you normally would
3) modify the scenario or your list to create a closer game.
4) Introduce more variety into your list. Later, when you're in the opposite situation (and that will happen eventually) you'll have a larger collection that will be easier to adapt.
Ugh. Can just one person admit that being either a casual or competitive player doesn't make you morally superior, and the only person responsible for making sure you get to play games you enjoy in the way you prefer is yourself?
Luciferian wrote: Ugh. Can just one person admit that being either a casual or competitive player doesn't make you morally superior, and the only person responsible for making sure you get to play games you enjoy in the way you prefer is yourself?
I mean, this is kinda what I've been saying previously...
Luciferian wrote: Ugh. Can just one person admit that being either a casual or competitive player doesn't make you morally superior, and the only person responsible for making sure you get to play games you enjoy in the way you prefer is yourself?
I'm both! Therefore I are be the master gamer race!!!!
Luciferian wrote: Ugh. Can just one person admit that being either a casual or competitive player doesn't make you morally superior, and the only person responsible for making sure you get to play games you enjoy in the way you prefer is yourself?
yeah. In general, I agree with that statement. In the real world, I am going to hold my veteran players responsible for ensuring we don't drive away new or returning from old edition players by stomping them flat, because we want as many players as we can possibly get.
But yeah. You're responsible for your own enjoyment. Many people don't enjoy when their opponents aren't having a good time, or when their games aren't close, or when they have trouble getting games because people don't want to play against them. It is up to them to change that if they don't like it, and nobody else. If you do have problems like the three above, and you do hold your opponents responsible for bringing their lists up or down to meet yours, all youre going to get is frustrated and bitter.
Unit1126PLL wrote: What if the objective of the scenario is to replicate a historical battle as well as possible? If you're playing as the French at Waterloo, you have to deliberately not march Marshal Grouchy's army northwards, as well as deliberately slowing down your own army's northern pursuit of the retreating and reforming Prussians to accurately model history. If self-limitation with the goal of losing a battle isn't "playing to lose" I don't know what is.
You can make an uneven battle into a fair game by modifying the victory conditions for the players--there have been several "last stand" battles in White Dwarf, where the defender was outnumbered, but needed to survive for X turns.
I have fun by recreating battles fought in the Warhammer 40,000 Universe, because I enjoy the game for the setting.
I used to enjoy the game for it's rules, but that was 3-5 editions ago, so now I play for the story.
I don't recreate specific battles, rather I create 'Fluffy' lists that are appropriate to the setting, and I enjoy fighting other 'Fluffy' lists.
I don't particularly mind winning or losing, and I don't mind if a list is 'Good' or 'Bad'.
The last torny I went too, I took a carefully themed Inquisitorial Assassination force, and came 7th out of 42, and that was largely due to my first game cutting short due to time. Fluffy lists can be good, competatively. They can also be bad. Depends on the list, really. [Which is part of my self imposed challenge. How do I field a list that's both "Realistic" and good?]
What destroys my enjoyment of the game utterly is when armies and battles look and play like nothing out of the setting. If I don't feel like I'm fighting in the Warhammer universe, and I'm just playing any other generic game to win, there are a hell of a lot of better choices out their for both parties.
Particularly when those lists 'Goodness' is based on exploiting the thinnest end of the wedge for maxium not how the designers intended but still works gameplay.
I get some people like breaking the system, and that's cool. Theoryhammer away. Taking it to the tabletop however, is poor sportsmanship.
Most of the "arguments/discussions" I have seen on this forum point to me that this is a fundamentally bad game, but that being said, I look at some of the awesome painted forces and it is kind of sad that they are not really "playable". I painted up a buddy's army of primaris (he loves em, I cant stand em) in blood ravens colors, even acquired the FW transfers for blood ravens. It was a starter set force. This force has been tabled no later than turn 2 by every army he has fought. I think that somewhere that shows there is a massive flaw in this game. There is a salamanders force on this forum I think looks stunning, its a shame that it is just for looks.
thekingofkings wrote: Most of the "arguments/discussions" I have seen on this forum point to me that this is a fundamentally bad game, but that being said, I look at some of the awesome painted forces and it is kind of sad that they are not really "playable". I painted up a buddy's army of primaris (he loves em, I cant stand em) in blood ravens colors, even acquired the FW transfers for blood ravens. It was a starter set force. This force has been tabled no later than turn 2 by every army he has fought. I think that somewhere that shows there is a massive flaw in this game. There is a salamanders force on this forum I think looks stunning, its a shame that it is just for looks.
This is precisely why there are people on this forum who wish the game was better, or at the very least balanced within its own weak rules so that all players can enjoy building and painting and playing a force they enjoy without getting curb stomped.
thekingofkings wrote: Most of the "arguments/discussions" I have seen on this forum point to me that this is a fundamentally bad game, but that being said, I look at some of the awesome painted forces and it is kind of sad that they are not really "playable". I painted up a buddy's army of primaris (he loves em, I cant stand em) in blood ravens colors, even acquired the FW transfers for blood ravens. It was a starter set force. This force has been tabled no later than turn 2 by every army he has fought. I think that somewhere that shows there is a massive flaw in this game. There is a salamanders force on this forum I think looks stunning, its a shame that it is just for looks.
This is precisely why there are people on this forum who wish the game was better, or at the very least balanced within its own weak rules so that all players can enjoy building and painting and playing a force they enjoy without getting curb stomped.
I think with few exceptions we all wish it were better (we all likely will never agree exactly what that is) but none of us want it to be worse. I am wondering though, with the game selling "getting started" and other "battleforce" boxes if thats more the size they expect us to play in both 40k and AoS, from my experience AoS is best played with those smaller forces,. definately interested in others takes on it.
As a chaos player I love the Possessed models. Its at best a so so unit. But I always have a squad in my lists. I enjoy making lists. I enjoy the challenge of competition. I also like meeting new people with my same passions for the hobby. I make 3 variants of every list I have for PUG's, which are soft normal and hard. Id rather lose in a close game than table someone. I sit and theory hammer about how to make my lists the best they can be for whatever units I chose to use. The fluff is important to me. I do not like to label other players and make a judgement about how they take the hobby (except grey kids....im sorry but if you cant even be bothered to put a base coat on your minis then we will probably not have a good game.).
So what does that make me? Since we are coming up with classifications.
Wayniac wrote: But the counter to this is, again, the mindset that picking the optimal choices is the only valid way and everyone else should "git gud" and do the same. You seem to have no issue with that aspect, just the person who "deliberately chooses to bring a weak list" but not the person who purposely chooses to bring 100% optimized min-maxed lists and that everyone else should git gud.
Asmodios wrote: Seems like you are very "entitled" to think that the only proper way to play the game is to take the 100% mathematically optimized army. Why shouldn't i be able to bring whatever model i like without having to adhere to your ideal on how i should play a board game?
No, that's not what I'm saying at all. I'm simply disputing the idea that the player with the more powerful list has the entire obligation to bring a weaker list, while the player with the weaker list has no matching obligation to improve theirs. If you're going to argue for making list changes to meet in the middle then both players need to do it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
the_scotsman wrote: I think it's not only unfair but pretty cartoonish and arrogant to tar everyone who isn't new but has an uncompetitive model collection as a CAAC virtue signaling donkey cave if they're more interested in seeking out games that avoid the top 5% of competitive models and wargear options to give them a reasonably close to 50-50 chance of winning.
Good thing I didn't say that then. In fact, in the post I quoted I even explicitly mentioned at least one other reason (following the fluff) for having a weaker army that has nothing to do with TFG CAAC attitudes. There are a great many players with weaker lists who are not CAAC, the key part of CAAC behavior is the smug insistence that your way to play is the only way to have fun and everyone else is a TFG (especially if they beat you) and redefining "casual" to mean "plays the game with the exact choice of units that I want" rather than the actual meaning of the word.
I agree with a compromise, but where do you draw the line? The person playing an army that SHOULD be good, but isn't because GW's rules are bad, what do they do short of scrapping their entire army concept and bringing the good stuff? The same thing if you happen to be playing one of those armies that are both fluffy and incredibly strong; do you drop some of the fluff to tone down the list, or?
As I said before I think the main problem is when you have someone with an "not optimal" list (for whatever reason, but let's rule out the person purposely just grabbing whatever random crap, and assume they actually are trying to build a solid fluffy list and it just happens to be bad; such as wanting to actually use Tactical Marines or Assault marines or whatever) turns up to play someone with a fully optimized list. Neither person is going to have fun in that game, and I sometimes really think the best option is to just realize that, and just not play. Not getting a game, while it definitely sucks, can't suck more than spending a couple of hours having an unenjoyable game.
There is no full generally all comprimising solution to that problem. It needs to be handled between players while setting up a game or by a TO/ event telegraphing it's intention loud and clear.
Table wrote: As a chaos player I love the Possessed models. Its at best a so so unit. But I always have a squad in my lists. I enjoy making lists. I enjoy the challenge of competition. I also like meeting new people with my same passions for the hobby. I make 3 variants of every list I have for PUG's, which are soft normal and hard. Id rather lose in a close game than table someone. I sit and theory hammer about how to make my lists the best they can be for whatever units I chose to use. The fluff is important to me. I do not like to label other players and make a judgement about how they take the hobby (except grey kids....im sorry but if you cant even be bothered to put a base coat on your minis then we will probably not have a good game.).
So what does that make me? Since we are coming up with classifications.
Normal with a slice of hypocritical... Which is also normal.
(Not a slam, but 'do not like to label' sits uncomfortably with 'grey kids')
Earth127 wrote: There is no full generally all comprimising to that problem. It needs to be handled between players while setting up a game or by a TO/ event telegraphing it's intention loud and clear.
and that is one of 40k's ongoing problems, the vast gulf been kerbstomp table you in 2 and 'average' lists that you have to have pre-game negotiations to get an acceptable game, obviously not a problem in an established clique where some of broad social contraxt exists but for its still a more of a PITA than it should be
Earth127 wrote: There is no full generally all comprimising to that problem. It needs to be handled between players while setting up a game or by a TO/ event telegraphing it's intention loud and clear.
and that is one of 40k's ongoing problems, the vast gulf been kerbstomp table you in 2 and 'average' lists that you have to have pre-game negotiations to get an acceptable game, obviously not a problem in an established clique where some of broad social contraxt exists but for its still a more of a PITA than it should be
I think the problem there is with GW and its ideal for 40k and AoS, they want all balance to be done with the pre-game negotiations, something that is a royal pain when trying to come up with a pick up game. Essentially GW has conceded and just stopped bothering. I never have these kind of issues with Malifaux, X-wing, Warmahordes/CoI, Wrath of Kings,Confrontation, or even LOTR/Hobbit from GW...it just seems to be a problem with their "big 2"
thekingofkings wrote: Most of the "arguments/discussions" I have seen on this forum point to me that this is a fundamentally bad game, but that being said, I look at some of the awesome painted forces and it is kind of sad that they are not really "playable". I painted up a buddy's army of primaris (he loves em, I cant stand em) in blood ravens colors, even acquired the FW transfers for blood ravens. It was a starter set force. This force has been tabled no later than turn 2 by every army he has fought. I think that somewhere that shows there is a massive flaw in this game. There is a salamanders force on this forum I think looks stunning, its a shame that it is just for looks.
To me that isn't a fault of the game. Maybe the player just needs some more variation in their army or needs more practice. Maybe they are just up against better opponents. Looking a a player and blaming the game because they lose all the time doesn't necessarily mean the game is flawed.
thekingofkings wrote: Most of the "arguments/discussions" I have seen on this forum point to me that this is a fundamentally bad game, but that being said, I look at some of the awesome painted forces and it is kind of sad that they are not really "playable". I painted up a buddy's army of primaris (he loves em, I cant stand em) in blood ravens colors, even acquired the FW transfers for blood ravens. It was a starter set force. This force has been tabled no later than turn 2 by every army he has fought. I think that somewhere that shows there is a massive flaw in this game. There is a salamanders force on this forum I think looks stunning, its a shame that it is just for looks.
To me that isn't a fault of the game. Maybe the player just needs some more variation in their army or needs more practice. Maybe they are just up against better opponents. Looking a a player and blaming the game because they lose all the time doesn't necessarily mean the game is flawed.
It does to me when the army list is viable, that a game has such an imbalance that you can make these super powerful or straight garbage lists, that is not the player, that is the system. In the case of my friend, he has in previous editions won dozens of tournaments and has a good grasp of tactics, but this army (and primaris are supposed to bet he new hotness after all) get ritually curb stomped by equivalent PL and points forces in every fight. This was a force designed by the company that makes the game to be at least competitive with the other half of the starter.
I think the problem there is with GW and its ideal for 40k and AoS, they want all balance to be done with the pre-game negotiations, something that is a royal pain when trying to come up with a pick up game. Essentially GW has conceded and just stopped bothering. I never have these kind of issues with Malifaux, X-wing, Warmahordes/CoI, Wrath of Kings,Confrontation, or even LOTR/Hobbit from GW...it just seems to be a problem with their "big 2"
troof is that.
As if GW stopped trying, hired half-baked finance guys to do their model/game design, and fired everyone serious.
As written, it lends itself to be broken.
Why not do cover model to model rather than unit to unit?
As it is, unrealistically benefits msu types and fast combat interceptors (not numaries, just a term).
Luciferian wrote: Ugh. Can just one person admit that being either a casual or competitive player doesn't make you morally superior, and the only person responsible for making sure you get to play games you enjoy in the way you prefer is yourself?
Wayniac wrote: I agree with a compromise, but where do you draw the line? The person playing an army that SHOULD be good, but isn't because GW's rules are bad, what do they do short of scrapping their entire army concept and bringing the good stuff? The same thing if you happen to be playing one of those armies that are both fluffy and incredibly strong; do you drop some of the fluff to tone down the list, or?
You compromise. If you want the more powerful list to drop/swap units to tone it down, then the weaker list should be equally prepared to swap out bad units with better units, or take better wargear/weapons.
GW's rules are bad, and they should feel bad, and its the reason I'm not as invested in the game as I was a few editions ago, but if players are going to regulate themselves for balance, everyone should be prepared to compromise rather than expect one player to do all the work in regulating their lists.
Table wrote: As a chaos player I love the Possessed models. Its at best a so so unit. But I always have a squad in my lists. I enjoy making lists. I enjoy the challenge of competition. I also like meeting new people with my same passions for the hobby. I make 3 variants of every list I have for PUG's, which are soft normal and hard. Id rather lose in a close game than table someone. I sit and theory hammer about how to make my lists the best they can be for whatever units I chose to use. The fluff is important to me. I do not like to label other players and make a judgement about how they take the hobby (except grey kids....im sorry but if you cant even be bothered to put a base coat on your minis then we will probably not have a good game.).
So what does that make me? Since we are coming up with classifications.
Normal with a slice of hypocritical... Which is also normal.
(Not a slam, but 'do not like to label' sits uncomfortably with 'grey kids')
It really comes down to expectations. I expect that I can play with any units I want, and I can. It's an unreal expectation however that whatever I pick is exactly perfectly balanced with every other option. Are there some things I wish were better? Of course, I wish choosen were more like they were in 4th, with ton of options, but it is what it is. For example, possessed are not the worst thing ever, but not the best. But you can make them better with a mix of deamons. A Herald or maybe a changeling, suddenly those possessed have potential that they didn't have before.
Back to Waac / caac, waac players that I have delt with have always ended up being caught cheating, if not by me then by others watching the game. I don't see waac as someone who loves to make powerful lists. Same with caac, they don't make bad lists on purpose then complain that they lose too much and everything else is op, that's simply a bad sport.
And really that's what this all comes down to. Is the person on the other side of the table a good sport? If so I am sure it will be a good game either way. If not then it's going to suck for someone. But this also applys to us as well. If we are expecting one thing, get another, and act like a total grot about it, then we become the thing we don't like.
These sort of threads have been coming up since time immemorial. "Don't tell me I'm playing the game wrong when you're playing the game wrong" Acting like one side is ruining the game and their side is the only correct side to play. CAAC/WAAC people acting like playing CAAC makes you a neanderthal and WAAC makes you a jackass. I wonder if other gaming hobbies have such a civil war going on against people who play casual and people who play ranked games.
You shouldn't have to rationalize what you like and you shouldn't hold others to like what you like. Do people really enjoy arguing this for so many years about the same thing?
Gamerely wrote: I wonder if other gaming hobbies have such a civil war going on against people who play casual and people who play ranked games.
You shouldn't have to rationalize what you like and you shouldn't hold others to like what you like. Do people really enjoy arguing this for so many years about the same thing?
Coming from an MTG background, and especially EDH-magic, CAAC/WAAC players are so much worse there than I've ever seen in 40k.
But this attitude permeates any game that has, or at least pretends to have, a tournament level.
Gamerely wrote: I wonder if other gaming hobbies have such a civil war going on against people who play casual and people who play ranked games.
You shouldn't have to rationalize what you like and you shouldn't hold others to like what you like. Do people really enjoy arguing this for so many years about the same thing?
Coming from an MTG background, and especially EDH-magic, CAAC/WAAC players are so much worse there than I've ever seen in 40k.
But this attitude permeates any game that has, or at least pretends to have, a tournament level.
QFT, any MTG event above FNM has a smattering of people who take it a bit too seriously, it's most of the reason I stopped and generally just muck about with EDH
the_scotsman wrote: There is, however, a fairly obvious correlation between how long someone has been playing and how many models they have in their collection and how well they know the ins and the outs of the rules.
But knowing is only part of the situation. Most of the time the issue with entitled "casual" players and the asymmetrical obligation isn't dealing with a clueless newbie who is still trying to figure out how the rules work, it's an experienced player who has had plenty of opportunities to learn the game but deliberately chooses to bring a weak list (whether out of strict adherence to fluff or virtue signalling about how "casual" they are). Very few people have any objection to toning down a list when giving a newbie a learning game.
I feel like it’s important to tone down your list against noobs, but it’s also important to not lose on purpose to them. If your playing a noob, I almost feel it’s an obligation to play well as you can so that they learn better. Keep in mind, I’m not talking about their first couple games, but the only way you stop being a noob is by getting nipped by your mistakes.
MagicJuggler wrote: Honestly, I always ran the same list no matter what, but would pull some punches ingame, not care as much about perfect spacing, etc.
My policy has always been to do the exact opposite. Use (and point out) proper tactics, but run a very toned-down casual list, like an all footslogging wych cult list or something.
MagicJuggler wrote: Honestly, I always ran the same list no matter what, but would pull some punches ingame, not care as much about perfect spacing, etc.
My policy has always been to do the exact opposite. Use (and point out) proper tactics, but run a very toned-down casual list, like an all footslogging wych cult list or something.
I get where you are coming from but some lists like that are innately more one-dimensional and have less play options. In 7th I ran the below list (the one with the Warband) as it had a small bit of everything.
I maintain a big part of the issue is that in 40k it's trivially easy to pick a lot of units that you like the look of, that even fit the background as GW has defined it or to imitate something seen in White Dwarf, and then just get completely curbstomped game after game after game by lists that ignore anything other than "most optimal" choices, min-maxing everything from unit selection to unit equipment.
That, in and of itself, is the biggest problem in the game. There is such a huge gulf between a "regular" army and an "optimized" one. You should not IMHO be penalized so much by choosing to NOT take all plasma guns in a squad but instead taking several different weapons or even just 1 plasma gun instead of 4, for example, or because you want to take a unit of Assault Marines or Possessed or Crisis Suits. And yet, you often are. Taking tactical squads, for example, is probably the fluffiest thing you can do but is vastly inferior to just taking naked scout squads to optimize Command Points, or whatnot.
Wayniac wrote: I maintain a big part of the issue is that in 40k it's trivially easy to pick a lot of units that you like the look of, that even fit the background as GW has defined it or to imitate something seen in White Dwarf, and then just get completely curbstomped game after game after game by lists that ignore anything other than "most optimal" choices, min-maxing everything from unit selection to unit equipment.
That, in and of itself, is the biggest problem in the game. There is such a huge gulf between a "regular" army and an "optimized" one. You should not IMHO be penalized so much by choosing to NOT take all plasma guns in a squad but instead taking several different weapons or even just 1 plasma gun instead of 4, for example, or because you want to take a unit of Assault Marines or Possessed or Crisis Suits. And yet, you often are. Taking tactical squads, for example, is probably the fluffiest thing you can do but is vastly inferior to just taking naked scout squads to optimize Command Points, or whatnot.
I actually think that an even worse problem is for 2 players, both picking what they like the look of, or even that they like the background of, or to imitate something seen in White Dwarf, and then one curbstomps the other game after game.
For example, if you have one player that likes Baneblades Imperial Knights (and only wants to play them), and another player who really really likes Primaris Marines and only plays those, then their first 2k game is going to go the same as every subsequent game, and it'll be unfun for both, even if their armies are built using exactly the same "innocent" manner, until one of them abandons the army and theme they adore to play something else.
That's an even worse problem. Min-maxers beating casuals is, comparatively, easy to solve.
Wayniac wrote: I maintain a big part of the issue is that in 40k it's trivially easy to pick a lot of units that you like the look of, that even fit the background as GW has defined it or to imitate something seen in White Dwarf, and then just get completely curbstomped game after game after game by lists that ignore anything other than "most optimal" choices, min-maxing everything from unit selection to unit equipment.
That, in and of itself, is the biggest problem in the game. There is such a huge gulf between a "regular" army and an "optimized" one. You should not IMHO be penalized so much by choosing to NOT take all plasma guns in a squad but instead taking several different weapons or even just 1 plasma gun instead of 4, for example, or because you want to take a unit of Assault Marines or Possessed or Crisis Suits. And yet, you often are. Taking tactical squads, for example, is probably the fluffiest thing you can do but is vastly inferior to just taking naked scout squads to optimize Command Points, or whatnot.
I actually think that an even worse problem is for 2 players, both picking what they like the look of, or even that they like the background of, or to imitate something seen in White Dwarf, and then one curbstomps the other game after game.
For example, if you have one player that likes Baneblades Imperial Knights (and only wants to play them), and another player who really really likes Primaris Marines and only plays those, then their first 2k game is going to go the same as every subsequent game, and it'll be unfun for both, even if their armies are built using exactly the same "innocent" manner, until one of them abandons the army and theme they adore to play something else.
That's an even worse problem. Min-maxers beating casuals is, comparatively, easy to solve.
Yes, which is still a fundamental game design problem and one that GW seems content to ignore in favour of just stating that the onus is on the players, and in your case the person who likes Primaris Marines and the person who likes [Superheavy of Choice] basically should not play each other since they want different things out of the game. Unfortunately, short of a rules revamp, there is no way around such a thing other than actually talking to their opponent. If neither player wants to budge, for example if the [Superheavy of Choice] person absolutely must play 3 of them to get any enjoyment whatsoever out of the game and the Primaris player really doesn't want to (or can't) deal with that, then they need to just understand that a game they play will not be fun at all. The problem is that there needs to be a line drawn, regardless of if someone gets "hurt", because that's not sustainable.
Wayniac wrote: I maintain a big part of the issue is that in 40k it's trivially easy to pick a lot of units that you like the look of, that even fit the background as GW has defined it or to imitate something seen in White Dwarf, and then just get completely curbstomped game after game after game by lists that ignore anything other than "most optimal" choices, min-maxing everything from unit selection to unit equipment.
That, in and of itself, is the biggest problem in the game. There is such a huge gulf between a "regular" army and an "optimized" one. You should not IMHO be penalized so much by choosing to NOT take all plasma guns in a squad but instead taking several different weapons or even just 1 plasma gun instead of 4, for example, or because you want to take a unit of Assault Marines or Possessed or Crisis Suits. And yet, you often are. Taking tactical squads, for example, is probably the fluffiest thing you can do but is vastly inferior to just taking naked scout squads to optimize Command Points, or whatnot.
I actually think that an even worse problem is for 2 players, both picking what they like the look of, or even that they like the background of, or to imitate something seen in White Dwarf, and then one curbstomps the other game after game.
For example, if you have one player that likes Baneblades Imperial Knights (and only wants to play them), and another player who really really likes Primaris Marines and only plays those, then their first 2k game is going to go the same as every subsequent game, and it'll be unfun for both, even if their armies are built using exactly the same "innocent" manner, until one of them abandons the army and theme they adore to play something else.
That's an even worse problem. Min-maxers beating casuals is, comparatively, easy to solve.
Yes, which is still a fundamental game design problem and one that GW seems content to ignore in favour of just stating that the onus is on the players, and in your case the person who likes Primaris Marines and the person who likes [Superheavy of Choice] basically should not play each other since they want different things out of the game.
I thought we started with the premise that they both want exactly the same thing out of the game; the part where "they like the look of the models, or like the background of the models, or are imitating something seen in White Dwarf."
To say they want different things out of the game is to miss my point: 40k is in trouble because you can want the same thing out of the game and still have an awful disastrous game.
They want different things out of the game because what the enjoy is fundamentally different. I really don't have an answer without putting the blame squarely on the person wanting the superheavies, which isn't fair to them, but that's my gut instinct whether it's right or wrong.
Wayniac wrote: They want different things out of the game because what the enjoy is fundamentally different. I really don't have an answer without putting the blame squarely on the person wanting the superheavies, which isn't fair to them, but that's my gut instinct whether it's right or wrong.
I feel like you're realizing my point but not admitting it.
They don't want something different out of the game. They want to play with models they think look cool, they like the background of, or were inspired to buy when they saw them in White Dwarf.
What is different about what those players want?
And it's not a "blame" issue. That's my whole point. It's no one's fault but GW's that these two players cannot get along, because the players don't want anything different from the game. They both want exactly the same thing.
You're right, there isn't really a different and it is only GW's fault. The problem comes when you can ONLY have fun a certain way, and anything else means you don't have fun. Whether that's only playing narrative, or only playing cutthroat tournament games, or only playing with multiple superheavies. I place the blame on the player only in the sense that it's binary: Either I do exactly X, or I don't have fun. There's no compromising, either you field your 3 Superheavies, or you don't enjoy the game (which is your right). But if you field the 3 superheavies, your opponent doesn't enjoy the game (which is their right).
That's quite the quandary. There's no solution to it without SOMEBODY not having fun (and, arguably, even the third choice i.e. don't play that person can result in a loss of fun)
About those 'all super heavy' armies. I really don't think that such armies, nor 'all vehicle' or 'all flyer' armies should be allowed in matched play. Hell, even 'all infantry' is questionable, although in much lesser degree. If the game has weapons that are really good or really bad against certain thing, and you can have whole armies composed solely of that certain thing, then it just is impossible to balance. You'd need to dumb down things to AOS level, where it rarely matter which unit you use against which target, but that eliminates a massive amount of strategic depth. The game works best when the both armies are pretty TAC, and have a varied mix of things.
Crimson wrote: About those 'all super heavy' armies. I really don't think that such armies, nor 'all vehicle' or 'all flyer' armies should be allowed in matched play. Hell, even 'all infantry' is questionable, although in much lesser degree. If the game has weapons that are really good or really bad against certain thing, and you can have whole armies composed solely of that certain thing, then it just is impossible to balance. You'd need to dumb down things to AOS level, where it rarely matter which unit you use against which target, but that eliminates a massive amount of strategic depth. The game works best when the both armies are pretty TAC, and have a varied mix of things.
This is a good example of GW being bad at game design; they could easily have done this.
G.W. needs to choose whether they are narrative or not, instead of trying to allow both in 1 ruleset.
Crimson wrote: About those 'all super heavy' armies. I really don't think that such armies, nor 'all vehicle' or 'all flyer' armies should be allowed in matched play. Hell, even 'all infantry' is questionable, although in much lesser degree. If the game has weapons that are really good or really bad against certain thing, and you can have whole armies composed solely of that certain thing, then it just is impossible to balance. You'd need to dumb down things to AOS level, where it rarely matter which unit you use against which target, but that eliminates a massive amount of strategic depth. The game works best when the both armies are pretty TAC, and have a varied mix of things.
This is a good example of GW being bad at game design; they could easily have done this.
G.W. needs to choose whether they are narrative or not, instead of trying to allow both in 1 ruleset.
They have done this to an extent through missions: the new Chapter Approved, for example, has missions where only certain units/keywords can score objectives. Having an all-vehicle army and rolling up the "only infantry can score" mission would mean the player cannot score those objectives. The tournament scene is slowly catching up with this idea, but ITC has done a lot to comp that out, which favours lopsided army builds.
In my experience, whenever players bring extreme builds (often), if they roll a mission that does not favor them they will re-roll. Their opponent always lets them because few people want a one-sided game.
If you're going to break the game, try to
make sure the rules interactions for the Perfect Storm are accurate and legal. I cannot tell how many times (in 7th mostly) that there would be some cheese thrown on the tabletop that long afterwards, upon my own rules investigations were found to played incorrectly. Most of these players didn't have physical copies of books or even rules and asking to check something wasn't worth their time.
If you're going to break the game, all I ask is for proof of evidence that you're breaking it LEGALLY. If so, it isn't exactly players fault. Well played. Tip of the hat. Slow clap. Etc.
Crimson wrote: About those 'all super heavy' armies. I really don't think that such armies, nor 'all vehicle' or 'all flyer' armies should be allowed in matched play. Hell, even 'all infantry' is questionable, although in much lesser degree. If the game has weapons that are really good or really bad against certain thing, and you can have whole armies composed solely of that certain thing, then it just is impossible to balance. You'd need to dumb down things to AOS level, where it rarely matter which unit you use against which target, but that eliminates a massive amount of strategic depth. The game works best when the both armies are pretty TAC, and have a varied mix of things.
This is a good example of GW being bad at game design; they could easily have done this.
G.W. needs to choose whether they are narrative or not, instead of trying to allow both in 1 ruleset.
They have done this to an extent through missions: the new Chapter Approved, for example, has missions where only certain units/keywords can score objectives. Having an all-vehicle army and rolling up the "only infantry can score" mission would mean the player cannot score those objectives. The tournament scene is slowly catching up with this idea, but ITC has done a lot to comp that out, which favours lopsided army builds.
Yes, but this doesn't actually help. The Primaris player in our example may be able to "win" games in the competitive sense, but that's not actually what bothers him; what the real issue is is the lopsided nature of the engagement even if the actual victory conditions are balanced.
auticus wrote:In my experience, whenever players bring extreme builds (often), if they roll a mission that does not favor them they will re-roll. Their opponent always lets them because few people want a one-sided game.
I am actually very happy to play missions that disfavour me as I think it's, as you say, my "just desserts" for playing a skew army. Sadly, that doesn't seem to help the game be any more fun - because there is more to fun than the victory conditions.
I think one of the main problems that arise is that there are too many individuals on the internet that take everything they read as gospel. I've sat through the entire thread and wow, I felt there was going to be someone who would identify themselves as an angel-demigorgon-cat-at-all-costs somewhere with all this labeling. WAAC? TAAC? CAAC? It's just a load of over-generalizations that are tossed onto minority of gamers. The Internet just likes to over-exaggerate these themes as a common type of problem. Feels a bit like everyone is walking on eggshells, waiting for judgement to pass.
Secondly there are just too many variables behind each individual to truly slap on a label. What if someone does not have much income but they don't want to buy into a force that will be an inherently 'bad' choice as they want to enjoy a close game of 40k? Are they WAAC? Are they TFG? Similarly if someone really likes a certain sub-faction that may not be the most optimized in their book and may get frustrated when people tell them that said individual should have taken a 'better choice', does that make the individual CAAC? these are all rhetorical questions. What it really boils down too is you and your gaming group. Communication is the key. Someone down in Texas, Moscow or somewhere else 14,0000 miles away from where your sitting on the screen is not going to help issues to an individuals case with 15 different labels they could call them.
To directly answer the OP's question. The game could be better. It could be tighter, unfortunately because it isn't and that the GWdev. team clearly has favoritism issues between armies and sub-factions within armies it never will resolve to become better. I've been in the game for 10 years and they might have changed up the game but the same power-issues persist, anyone who has played longer could probably reinforce this point more or to a better quality than I can. What the issue boils down to is investment, not just in income but also in time. People no matter what their preference are, want to be included in our hobby and we pride ourselves in general that we tell others that we are inclusive. The reality of this is very quick to change as this thread points out, due to not having as tight of a rule set we get the inconsistencies and the conflicts that arise as the anecdotes of multiple users have said in thread already. The main consensus I drew from this thread for the majority is that no one likes sitting for two and a half hours sitting around either winning to easily or losing to easily. Unfortunate the Internet and the online community cannot help with that or trying to help the game become better because A) The community is just too big. There are far too many voices that GW cannot listen to them all B) within the Wargaming community at large the 40k is far too zealous to listen to reasonable discussion, far too eager to pass judgement with blanket statements rather than trying to help gamers. C) Going back to investment I feel a big difference between this community and say a TCG like Yu-Gi-Oh (which actively promotes bringing only the best metas) is most gamers spend time in making an army, building, painting, etc. It's far more time consuming to make an army than a deck which is near-instant. Due to this people want to at least know they got something a bit more worthwhile than just wasting their own time either curbstomping or being curbstomped.
The only way people can resolve the issues they get is to just talk it out, be open and civil with your own personal group, and try not to the Internet dilute your perspective. Otherwise your just gonna have a rough time perpetuating the problems in your group.
The Warp Forge wrote: I think one of the main problems that arise is that there are too many individuals on the internet that take everything they read as gospel. I've sat through the entire thread and wow, I felt there was going to be someone who would identify themselves as an angel-demigorgon-cat-at-all-costs somewhere with all this labeling. WAAC? TAAC? CAAC? It's just a load of over-generalizations that are tossed onto minority of gamers. The Internet just likes to over-exaggerate these themes as a common type of problem. Feels a bit like everyone is walking on eggshells, waiting for judgement to pass.
Secondly there are just too many variables behind each individual to truly slap on a label. What if someone does not have much income but they don't want to buy into a force that will be an inherently 'bad' choice as they want to enjoy a close game of 40k? Are they WAAC? Are they TFG? Similarly if someone really likes a certain sub-faction that may not be the most optimized in their book and may get frustrated when people tell them that said individual should have taken a 'better choice', does that make the individual CAAC? these are all rhetorical questions. What it really boils down too is you and your gaming group. Communication is the key. Someone down in Texas, Moscow or somewhere else 14,0000 miles away from where your sitting on the screen is not going to help issues to an individuals case with 15 different labels they could call them.
To directly answer the OP's question. The game could be better. It could be tighter, unfortunately because it isn't and that the GWdev. team clearly has favoritism issues between armies and sub-factions within armies it never will resolve to become better. I've been in the game for 10 years and they might have changed up the game but the same power-issues persist, anyone who has played longer could probably reinforce this point more or to a better quality than I can. What the issue boils down to is investment, not just in income but also in time. People no matter what their preference are, want to be included in our hobby and we pride ourselves in general that we tell others that we are inclusive. The reality of this is very quick to change as this thread points out, due to not having as tight of a rule set we get the inconsistencies and the conflicts that arise as the anecdotes of multiple users have said in thread already. The main consensus I drew from this thread for the majority is that no one likes sitting for two and a half hours sitting around either winning to easily or losing to easily. Unfortunate the Internet and the online community cannot help with that or trying to help the game become better because A) The community is just too big. There are far too many voices that GW cannot listen to them all B) within the Wargaming community at large the 40k is far too zealous to listen to reasonable discussion, far too eager to pass judgement with blanket statements rather than trying to help gamers. C) Going back to investment I feel a big difference between this community and say a TCG like Yu-Gi-Oh (which actively promotes bringing only the best metas) is most gamers spend time in making an army, building, painting, etc. It's far more time consuming to make an army than a deck which is near-instant. Due to this people want to at least know they got something a bit more worthwhile than just wasting their own time either curbstomping or being curbstomped.
The only way people can resolve the issues they get is to just talk it out, be open and civil with your own personal group, and try not to the Internet dilute your perspective. Otherwise your just gonna have a rough time perpetuating the problems in your group.
Well put! You get a new title, TFGWMS or That Fing Guy Who Makes Sense.
"Blah blah blah, I'm just playing the game smart. blah blah, anything less then full cheese is not playing with tactics. I don't know the difference between viable and not snaking through goofy nonsensical loopholes in the current popular net list." Yes we've heard all the excuse, but here's the thing, we're all really just going "pew pew" at each other's army men for a good time, so maybe worry less about how to do things that were obviously not intended in the rules and instead have fun and play a game.
Oh I know, you're going to misconstrue "have fun" with "don't try to win," which really just shows that you're not capable of enjoying the game, only enjoying winning. That's sad. You can play hard and have a challenging battle you lose and still have fun, trust me.
What would fix balance and the WAAC/CAAC issue?
Play two games each time you play a match-up.
After the first game, you set up the armies exactly the same way and the same army gets first turn just like the first game. The only difference is players swap sides and have to play the other guy's stuff.
Just think, the CAAC guy might discover that playing a crafted power-play list where he gets to do some serious destruction is fun. The WAAC guy might discover that it sucks getting to face his army.
Nobody will do such a swap because:
"Nobody touches my models" and other reasons like it takes too long. Never mind these same cats will play an Apoc game and bring out fifty-eleven hundred points for 4+ hours of gaming.
But I suspect it's more to do with not wanting the same dose of cod liver oil that you just handed your opponent.
The idea that not being a huge douche is "casual" is a straw man made by insecure cheesers trying to make excuses for themselves. Most people don't play cheese, and they play just as smart and just as tactful.
For example in ad Mech the derby mcderpersons will declaring that anything other than cawl+robots and allied IG and an outrider of stymies dragons, anything other than that exact list is "garbage, non viable, useless." But in reality there are several ways to make ad Mech lists that can and do play well and win games.
The real difference is that WAAC cheese players want to win at the list building step and not have to actually play well. They don't want to risk having to rely on tactics. Where as the supposed "casual" player wants to play a game and try to win with tactics.
WAAC players are the kid everyone knew growing up who would cheat at monopoly, and none of the other kids could understand why, it's just a game and that takes all the fun out of playing it. But that kid couldn't understand how everyone else could have fun playing the game if they didn't win. That kid grew up to be every tournament player in 40k.
Danny slag wrote: The idea that not being a huge douche is "casual" is a straw man made by insecure cheesers trying to make excuses for themselves. Most people don't play cheese, and they play just as smart and just as tactful.
Issue is there is also varying degrees of "not being a huge douche", just like there are varying degrees of "competitive" and "casual" and everything in between.
In a casual setting, if you set up your minis, and you know you're going to win before dice are rolled, that's a problem. Beer and pretzels games aren't about winning and losing, it's about playing your stuff and having a good time. I like to throw in ad-hoc game balance if the battle is getting one sided in my favor, like "Wow, that was a bad roll. Let's just play it as though you made that charge with a 9."
Danny slag wrote: The idea that not being a huge douche is "casual" is a straw man made by insecure cheesers trying to make excuses for themselves. Most people don't play cheese, and they play just as smart and just as tactful.
For example in ad Mech the derby mcderpersons will declaring that anything other than cawl+robots and allied IG and an outrider of stymies dragons, anything other than that exact list is "garbage, non viable, useless." But in reality there are several ways to make ad Mech lists that can and do play well and win games.
The real difference is that WAAC cheese players want to win at the list building step and not have to actually play well. They don't want to risk having to rely on tactics. Where as the supposed "casual" player wants to play a game and try to win with tactics.
WAAC players are the kid everyone knew growing up who would cheat at monopoly, and none of the other kids could understand why, it's just a game and that takes all the fun out of playing it. But that kid couldn't understand how everyone else could have fun playing the game if they didn't win. That kid grew up to be every tournament player in 40k.
So, you complain about strawmen and people being douches, then make an argument of nothing but strawmen laced heavily with douche.
I play for fun. Winning is fun, and I don't think anyone enjoys losing. I don't mind my opponent bringing the most powerful toys he/she can bring, because I will most likely do the same. What I do mind however is the mentality and attitude during the game.
If you bring all the most powerful things, and you expect me to do the same, then you don't get to complain that what I brought was too powerful, and you don't get to be grumpy if you loose. Being friendly and a good sport while playing basically overrides any list building for me. Bring whatever you want, I'll bring whatever I want, and we'll have a fun and friendly game.
EDIT: Also, if a single unit (Guilliman or other LoWs for example) are bringing you down, just tell your opponent that maybe LoWs would be too much for the next game, and you come to an agreement. Complaining and crying online or in your gaming group won't solve anything. Proper discussion and open-ness with your opponents will however.
Marmatag wrote: In a casual setting, if you set up your minis, and you know you're going to win before dice are rolled, that's a problem. Beer and pretzels games aren't about winning and losing, it's about playing your stuff and having a good time. I like to throw in ad-hoc game balance if the battle is getting one sided in my favor, like "Wow, that was a bad roll. Let's just play it as though you made that charge with a 9."
Ironically, while MtG caters much more to high levels of competitive play, anybody who bought a pre-constructed EDH deck will be able to win games from time to time in casual games. If you sunk your $400 entry fee for 40k into the wrong models, you're simply out of luck and need to buy another army.
AaronWilson wrote: Whenever you turn 40k into anything more then a tool to spend quality time with friends, kick back and roll some dice it all goes wrong.
IOW, 40k is a terrible game and GW should be embarrassed to publish it.
AaronWilson wrote: Whenever you turn 40k into anything more then a tool to spend quality time with friends, kick back and roll some dice it all goes wrong.
IOW, 40k is a terrible game and GW should be embarrassed to publish it.
Sure I'm not too fussed about arguing about the semantics of a fantasy game online, It sounds pretty dull and a huge waste of time.
All i know is when I spend a couple of hours rolling some dice on a nice table, with cool models and good friends we have a laugh and it's time well spent, that's enough for me.
alleus wrote: EDIT: Also, if a single unit (Guilliman or other LoWs for example) are bringing you down, just tell your opponent that maybe LoWs would be too much for the next game, and you come to an agreement. Complaining and crying online or in your gaming group won't solve anything. Proper discussion and open-ness with your opponents will however.
Absolutely agree, but the issue is when you have that one person that ONLY has fun when they play LoWs, so telling them you don't find them fun and asking if they wouldn't bring them is akin to kicking them in the groin and spitting on them; you are telling them they can't have fun, because they can only have fun one specific way. Then the arguments happen. 40k seems to bring out more of this crowd that only have fun if they're doing 100% what they want, and anything less than 100% means they can't enjoy the game whatsoever so you should just deal with it.
40k seems to bring out more of this crowd that only have fun if they're doing 100% what they want, and anything less than 100% means they can't enjoy the game whatsoever so you should just deal with it.
Not just 40k. Pretty much any game, and this isn't recent either. This was an issue back in D&D in the late 80s on up. If you have a shallow player pool this becomes more of an issue since you don't have many people to play against. If you have a lot of people to play against, this becomes less a thing as people find others of like mind.
All i know is when I spend a couple of hours rolling some dice on a nice table, with cool models and good friends we have a laugh and it's time well spent, that's enough for me.
This is exactly what I love about 40k and what I think the guys who design and develop the game want & do.
I have no problem with tournament or competitive players and will play against them. just when i want to play its always narrative or something along those lines.
I really do think the problem arises when you have all or nothing kinds of wins and losses. A lot of these games of 8th edition can become very lopsided once things start dying.
The progressive ITC scoring missions - a tournament format - are actually great for casual play, too. Far better than what you'd get in the BRB or open war cards.
AaronWilson wrote: Whenever you turn 40k into anything more then a tool to spend quality time with friends, kick back and roll some dice it all goes wrong.
IOW, 40k is a terrible game and GW should be embarrassed to publish it.
And how much shame should you feel for wasting so much time on it?
I think it would be hard to find anyone on this forum that have spent as much or more time and words on the subject of 40k than you have. Was it worth it?
)
) but not everyone likes to do that.
s
) is fluffy. It's also VERY powerful. This goes back to the "social contract" and putting the responsibility on the players to regulate themselves since the game will not. The onus should always be on the more powerful person to tone things down, rather than expect everyone else to "up their game", since you can often tone things down in such a way that it's still mostly fluffy. For example, if three superheavies are too much, maybe it's just one instead, and theme your narrative around that, and why this particular Baneblade is with another force and the other two are elsewhere fighting a different battle (or maybe being repaired, or whatnot).
I'm not too fussed about arguing about the semantics of a fantasy game online, It sounds pretty dull and a huge waste of time.
