So this is a very long video but I still found it very interesting. 2018 Ynarri run by Nick Nanavati who won the LVO with his list vs Richard Siegler and his Iron Hands list that won LVO 2020 to see whose broken army would win, they were using the rules as they stood at the time so the Ynarri could deepstrike turn one, for example.
The Iron Hands just proved too durable and too dangerous for the Ynarri, even with the Ynarri using the older version of the rules. Shows how strong the durability of the IH is, even double firing reapers were only able to chip away a few intercessors a turn and the eliminators really screwed over all the squishy eldar psykers.
Siegfriedfr wrote: Really put a dent into the whole "it's the player not the army that win/lose a game" argument.
Good. Now we can also put to bed people gushing over these "pro" 40k players as if they're something special too.
Did either of you guys watch the video? There's some extremely tactical stuff going on and, if nothing else, it shows just how well they understand the game. They may not be Napoleon but their skills and knowledge put them far above most players.
Yeah saying Nick and Rich are bad or average players who only get by because they take OP armies is stupidly reductive. There's a reason they consistently place highly at events, often times using unique and off-meta lists, because they have a very deep, fundamental understanding of the game and its systems. You've also got tons of other very strong competitive players who explicitly take weaker or off-meta lists consistently as a matter of principle and still place highly or often win events with them. Lawrence Baker being the best example here.
Haven't watched the whole video yet but it doesn't surprise me who won. IH and new Marines are absolutely a bigger problem than old-Ynnari ever was just in terms of sheer numbers. Plus, on the flipside of what I said above, you had formerly low-ranked ITC players getting top 3 finishes with IH armies because the army is/was so braindead and oppressively powerful that anyone could pick up and play and stomp 95% of other lists in the game with it. You never saw that happening with Ynnari.
"No, guys. 40k is a for realsies sport. It's a career choice that I can make a living off of! It's going to be in the Olympics one day for sure! Please put us on Twitch as an eSport!"
Never going to happen. Stop putting these people on a pedestal as if using the most broken army in a relatively poorly written game and doing well is some kind of achievement. Come back when you win against that IH list with GKs.
"No, guys. 40k is a for realsies sport. It's a career choice that I can make a living off of! It's going to be in the Olympics one day for sure! Please put us on Twitch as an eSport!"
"No, guys. 40k is a for realsies sport. It's a career choice that I can make a living off of! It's going to be in the Olympics one day for sure! Please put us on Twitch as an eSport!"
Nobody said this.
Subtext is a thing. If you lot can imply I'm apparently "jealous" then I can infer the above from opposing posts.
"No, guys. 40k is a for realsies sport. It's a career choice that I can make a living off of! It's going to be in the Olympics one day for sure! Please put us on Twitch as an eSport!"
Nobody said this.
Subtext is a thing. If you lot can imply I'm apparently "jealous" then I can infer the above from opposing posts.
Subtext is a thing, but not here. You're just conjuring nonsense and assigning viewpoints and opinions to people that they don't have while also being completely ignorant of the subject matter.
Could debates on the ability of pro players and the games merits as an esport be kept out of this thread please?
I made the thread because I thought it was interesting comparison for two tournament winning lists not for discussions about competitive play generally.
Siegfriedfr wrote: Really put a dent into the whole "it's the player not the army that win/lose a game" argument.
How? A list run by one really great player beat another list run by a really great player. That same list played by some schlub would have been toasted by Nanavati's Ynnari.
At best it's an argument for nerfing that IH list because of what it can do in the hands of a good player, which already happened.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
kingheff wrote: Could debates on the ability of pro players and the games merits as an esport be kept out of this thread please?
I made the thread because I thought it was interesting comparison for two tournament winning lists not for discussions about competitive play generally.
So you made a thread discussing competitive play but not for discussing competitive play?
"No, guys. 40k is a for realsies sport. It's a career choice that I can make a living off of! It's going to be in the Olympics one day for sure! Please put us on Twitch as an eSport!"
Nobody said this.
Subtext is a thing. If you lot can imply I'm apparently "jealous" then I can infer the above from opposing posts.
There's never been that subtext. Some people would like to see 40k as an esport, but that's mostly because that would mean more people like a thing they also like. No one is under any illusion that you could actually make a living off of it.
kingheff wrote: Could debates on the ability of pro players and the games merits as an esport be kept out of this thread please?
I made the thread because I thought it was interesting comparison for two tournament winning lists not for discussions about competitive play generally.
So you made a thread discussing competitive play but not for discussing competitive play?
No, I was hoping to stop the thread from derailing into a debate how pro players aren't good and that the game sucks as an esport. Seems I fell at the first hurdle!
Siegfriedfr wrote: Really put a dent into the whole "it's the player not the army that win/lose a game" argument.
Only at the highest levels of competitive play. i.e the worst way to play the game.
A guy at my store who played an army build out of 2 dark empires, turned in to a WAAC in other peoples eyes, when codex IH came out. Before the codex came out, he was considered a painter and made fun on everyone for not playing a good black army eg RG. When IH codex came, he had no leviathans, no normal dreads, 2 ETB primaris dreads, no tanks. The collective at the store decided that he is part of the people that are "killing" w40k, and some people no longer wanted to play against him. So I think the army matters more then a player. Even the best and smartest player in the world is not going to be winning events with a really bad army.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ishagu wrote: Lol what's with all the negativity? It's just a fun game between two players with a novel idea.
There's a lot of anger on these board. You guys should do something about it.
Stuff cost too much for people to not take the game serious here. If your a kid and invest 2-3 years of money in to an army, you do not want it to be bad. Specialy when your friends spending the same money get good armies.
There is a reason why good players gravitate towards good factions; at least the ones who want to win tournaments.
LB was praised for winning a tourney with GK, but that only happened after GK got updated.
NN won LVO 2018 using Ynnari.
BG won LVO 2019 using what he defined as "meta"; his Knight and guard.
RS won LVO 2020 using IH.
The ITC leader is a self confessed meta chaser (IH, possessed bomb, etc.).
This are not anecdotes, warhammer stats has a full list of tourneys and this is what happens time and again.
Players matter, but armies matter a great deal; they are not a minor factor. Lack of balance hurts the competitive side because it discourages the hobby within it (armies are disposable, chase the meta). It also hurts the more casual side because it makes the game less fun for those who play "bad" armies.
For a game this old, GW should be doing much better. Instead, they just swing the pendulum wildly.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Don't take it from me, read what NN has to say about how he became a winner:
Towards the end of the ITC 2016 season, I realized I was nowhere near contention for winning the whole thing. That seemed silly considering I already attend a lot of the major high point events and there was a very enticing cash prize at the end of the tunnel (not to mention the accolades). But upon about 30 seconds of self-reflection, I realized it was because I didn’t take it seriously. I would drop from events as soon as I lost, or I would bring silly armies to potential high point tournaments because I felt like messing around. While those may have seemed like good ideas at the time (I mean who doesn’t want to sleep in through round 4 of a GT after losing round 3), at the end of the year when all your friends are competing for the championship title and you’re sitting at 364th calculating if there’s any way to win a faction award it feels bad. So I made the conscious decision to take the 2017 ITC circuit seriously.
Fast forward a few months and we’re at Adepticon 2017, the first major points opportunity of the year. I brought with me some prime 7th edition BS in the form of splitting obsec horrors everywhere. Honestly, this was one of my most unfair and poorly balanced things to ever exist in 40k and I just broke the game all the way to the finals where I even
tually won. I won’t bore you with the ins and outs of a 7th edition army because that seems like a bigger waste of time than me trying to enter a Crystal Brush contest. So with that, I was able to take a commanding lead on the circuit early on.
I do wonder if eliminators need looking at after watching this game. Sniping from out of line of sight isn't exactly a fun experience for the other player, especially at 36".
kingheff wrote: I do wonder if eliminators need looking at after watching this game. Sniping from out of line of sight isn't exactly a fun experience for the other player, especially at 36".
No LOS nees to be removed from the game entirely for anything not artillery.
kingheff wrote: I do wonder if eliminators need looking at after watching this game. Sniping from out of line of sight isn't exactly a fun experience for the other player, especially at 36".
About 90% of marines 2.0 needs looking at, the only thing draging their avarage win percentage down is that they are no longer 1 factions they are now 8 plus the out of codex ones so they are massively weighting their avarages down to 50%50 with marines vrs marines, irons hands vrs the non marines are all positive except vrs GSC and Yannari like thats not balanced similar results with most of the other Marine factions once you remove the mirrors they are 60% or more.
Siegfriedfr wrote: Really put a dent into the whole "it's the player not the army that win/lose a game" argument.
Good. Now we can also put to bed people gushing over these "pro" 40k players as if they're something special too.
So you think richard is bad player?
No, most likely he does no. But there is a difference between a good player and a tourney winning player and it’s that the latter is willing to use the most broken stuff to win. It is not me saying it, read the text from NN I quoted.
The fact that it is possible to win such and edge by exploiting bad rules is prove that they game is not well balanced and that players don’t win only based on skill.
Personally, I’d rather lose than turn to a broken anti fun army to win. But as evidenced by NNs honest text, that’s because my desire to win is not strong enough.
At the end of the day, though, a good game doesn’t not require players to play conscious suboptimal for everyone to have fun.
kingheff wrote: I do wonder if eliminators need looking at after watching this game. Sniping from out of line of sight isn't exactly a fun experience for the other player, especially at 36".
About 90% of marines 2.0 needs looking at, the only thing draging their avarage win percentage down is that they are no longer 1 factions they are now 8 plus the out of codex ones so they are massively weighting their avarages down to 50%50 with marines vrs marines, irons hands vrs the non marines are all positive except vrs GSC and Yannari like thats not balanced similar results with most of the other Marine factions once you remove the mirrors they are 60% or more.
I think a lot of it can be tweaked points wise but snipers that can hide behind a wall just feels blatantly unfair to me. Even without the ingore LOS shooting they're still very strong but with it?
"No, guys. 40k is a for realsies sport. It's a career choice that I can make a living off of! It's going to be in the Olympics one day for sure! Please put us on Twitch as an eSport!"
Never going to happen. Stop putting these people on a pedestal as if using the most broken army in a relatively poorly written game and doing well is some kind of achievement. Come back when you win against that IH list with GKs.
You do see how there are massive twitch battles and people do come in to watch?
Like cmon man, The game growing is good for EVERYONE.
What is the saying? Rising tide rises all boats?
hotsauceman1 wrote: How is this not on topic? this is a video about two high lvl players and armies.
Talking about what is and isnt good 40k is on topic
Talking about if a Pro is good at the game or not b.c he is rich is stupid and not apart of the discussion of old vs new rules. If it was 2 normal players no one would even be talking about the players. I bet most the people in here didn't even watch the video.
"40k is over in turn 1"
"I killed 2.5 intercessors"
"I killed nothing".
Only 40 minutes, and the game may change, but you can see the problem. If the Eldar step out to play they run into 3+/5++/5+++ intercessors and won't do much. And if in the open to all the marine firepower with rerolling all the 1s and other buffs they will get crushed.
Its looking reminiscent of the Nayden/Siegler game from LVO 2020. I'm going to assume Nanavati will eventually have to commit, bounce and then get cleared.
hotsauceman1 wrote: How is this not on topic? this is a video about two high lvl players and armies.
Talking about what is and isnt good 40k is on topic
Talking about if a Pro is good at the game or not b.c he is rich is stupid and not apart of the discussion of old vs new rules. If it was 2 normal players no one would even be talking about the players. I bet most the people in here didn't even watch the video.
Your ability to quickly buy/field the FOTM army directly impacts your ability to win games in a pro environment since rules are not balanced. wether you're rich or you have rich friends lending you their armies is iirelevant : alot of money is needed to be "competitive".
Skill is 50% of victory, money is the other 50%
The topic is, cheated army from 2018, is weaker than cheated army from 2020, which means that powercreep and pay 2 win are still the GW business model
hotsauceman1 wrote: How is this not on topic? this is a video about two high lvl players and armies. Talking about what is and isnt good 40k is on topic
Talking about if a Pro is good at the game or not b.c he is rich is stupid and not apart of the discussion of old vs new rules. If it was 2 normal players no one would even be talking about the players. I bet most the people in here didn't even watch the video.
Your ability to quickly buy/field the FOTM army directly impacts your ability to win games in a pro environment since rules are not balanced. wether you're rich or you have rich friends lending you their armies is iirelevant : alot of money is needed to be "competitive".
Skill is 50% of victory, money is the other 50%
The topic is, cheated army from 2018, is weaker than cheated army from 2020, which means that powercreep and pay 2 win are still the GW business model
I'm so tired of this talk.... Then why isn't the other 20 players with the SAME LISTS winning over them?
And they are not "cheated" they are the rules that GW made with 1000's of players bale to play them b.c they already had most of the army anyways. So again if all these players had these armies and in the events, why is it the same XYZ players winning.
40k has all the balance and stability of a collectible card game in perpetual power creep. In addition to dated and overly complicated mechanics, the rollercoaster of broken rules are restarted with each edition; except now the problem with 9th will be the incredible bloat being dragged into it. It will certainly cause something broken to crawl out of the mess from the start. I am not complaining, in fact I enjoy it when a dumpster fire becomes a tire fire because this is currently a show I am able to watch without commiting more skin to the game.
Actually, since it will likely take 5-10 years, or never to create a Covid-19 vaccine there may not be a need to balance 40k for large competitive tournaments... But I am all for 40k players attempting the heard immunity strategy!
hotsauceman1 wrote: How is this not on topic? this is a video about two high lvl players and armies.
Talking about what is and isnt good 40k is on topic
Talking about if a Pro is good at the game or not b.c he is rich is stupid and not apart of the discussion of old vs new rules. If it was 2 normal players no one would even be talking about the players. I bet most the people in here didn't even watch the video.
Your ability to quickly buy/field the FOTM army directly impacts your ability to win games in a pro environment since rules are not balanced. wether you're rich or you have rich friends lending you their armies is iirelevant : alot of money is needed to be "competitive".
Skill is 50% of victory, money is the other 50%
The topic is, cheated army from 2018, is weaker than cheated army from 2020, which means that powercreep and pay 2 win are still the GW business model
I'm so tired of this talk.... Then why isn't the other 20 players with the SAME LISTS winning over them?
And they are not "cheated" they are the rules that GW made with 1000's of players bale to play them b.c they already had most of the army anyways. So again if all these players had these armies and in the events, why is it the same XYZ players winning.
Sorry, but Siegfried DOES have a point. Yes, these player are more skilled than the rest of the players fielding that army, but they're still only chasing the meta, which means that money IS more important in the game than skill. A more impressive feat(and one that would prove your point more) would be one of them doing something akin to that time one of the high tier Warmachine players intentionally took a low tier Warcaster and units that every single player wrote off as "unplayable" and winning a Championship through nothing but sheer talent and skill simply to prove to people that the player matters more than the list played.
To test how much skill matters, I'd rather see one of these two play someone who finished 40-60th at the same LVO, play two games, one with your own army, and then SWITCH armies to play. Not predicting the outcome (I happen to believe skill does matter, but not to the level some think. Maybe its 25%) but let's see how the IH player for example fares against his own army running a random list from the tournament. Then we might have a better judge of the skill involved in game play (as opposed to the skill involved in list building, which is more a matter of finding and taking the most unbalanced units in a very unbalanced system.)
hotsauceman1 wrote: How is this not on topic? this is a video about two high lvl players and armies.
Talking about what is and isnt good 40k is on topic
Talking about if a Pro is good at the game or not b.c he is rich is stupid and not apart of the discussion of old vs new rules. If it was 2 normal players no one would even be talking about the players. I bet most the people in here didn't even watch the video.
Your ability to quickly buy/field the FOTM army directly impacts your ability to win games in a pro environment since rules are not balanced. wether you're rich or you have rich friends lending you their armies is iirelevant : alot of money is needed to be "competitive".
Skill is 50% of victory, money is the other 50%
The topic is, cheated army from 2018, is weaker than cheated army from 2020, which means that powercreep and pay 2 win are still the GW business model
I'm so tired of this talk.... Then why isn't the other 20 players with the SAME LISTS winning over them?
And they are not "cheated" they are the rules that GW made with 1000's of players bale to play them b.c they already had most of the army anyways. So again if all these players had these armies and in the events, why is it the same XYZ players winning.
Sorry, but Siegfried DOES have a point. Yes, these player are more skilled than the rest of the players fielding that army, but they're still only chasing the meta, which means that money IS more important in the game than skill. A more impressive feat(and one that would prove your point more) would be one of them doing something akin to that time one of the high tier Warmachine players intentionally took a low tier Warcaster and units that every single player wrote off as "unplayable" and winning a Championship through nothing but sheer talent and skill simply to prove to people that the player matters more than the list played.
"Yes, these player are more skilled than the rest of the players fielding that army,"
Thats the point, who cares if they can buy other armies, the point was, they are more skilled, and the fact they CAN go from army to army and still win shows how much more skillful than others they are.
And there are MANY players that buys meta armies every month or two, so what if these 5-8 players does it, there are 100's that does it too, but yet we don't see them winning all the time at large events.
The point Siegfried was making and that you're missing is that they're staying on top by chasing the meta. The important part of my statement is the "playing the same army" part. They've proven that they can play the best army better than other people, whoop dee do. Want to show real skill and knowledge of the game? Do it without those tools. Until those top players are winning consistently with armies that aren't top tier or meta chasing, then army selection will continue to be more important than player skill and that's our real point.
Platuan4th wrote: The point Siegfried was making and that you're missing is that they're staying on top by chasing the meta. The important part of my statement is the "playing the same army" part. They've proven that they can play the best army better than other people, whoop dee do. Want to show real skill and knowledge of the game? Do it without those tools. Until those top players are winning consistently with armies that aren't top tier or meta chasing, then army selection will continue to be more important than player skill and that's our real point.
Part of the knowledge is using the best lists.... why is that a part part of competition? Why do you have to use the worst tools to win? Do you think Nascar drivers are using "worst tools? No.
The point is, they are winning and they ar doing something other meta chasing players are not doing, Saying they are bad b.c they are spending their money on it is fething stupid.
Platuan4th wrote: The point Siegfried was making and that you're missing is that they're staying on top by chasing the meta. The important part of my statement is the "playing the same army" part. They've proven that they can play the best army better than other people, whoop dee do. Want to show real skill and knowledge of the game? Do it without those tools. Until those top players are winning consistently with armies that aren't top tier or meta chasing, then army selection will continue to be more important than player skill and that's our real point.
But thats true for nearly everything? Fernando Alonso stopped winning the moment he started having worse cars, Smash Bros meele top players win many more games the moment they abandon their mains and start using the most OP characters, etc... the "I'm gonna win with the worst!" is just virtue signaling and goes agaisnt the reality that when you are competting you take every advantage you can.
And I believe that warhammer is not a skill intensive game, and the "top ceilling" of the game is more about doing the right mathematics and finding the proper and best combos for the list than actually playing it. But that has nothing to do with "They are just winning because they use the best tools" because thats just how things work in the top level of anything.
In general I just believe that when speaking about warhammer on the internet, most people doesn't want to acknowledge that they are actually pretty bad about playing the game, mediocre at best. I'm. I know. I don't care, and I'm sure most people that has posted in this thread is at best mediocre at the game. But I don't try to crap on better player accomplishements. Is like those that go "Bah, I COULD totally be doing Mythic Raids in wow, is a very easy game, you only need to avoid AoE and have the right equipement, but I just DON'T WANT TO". Is pathetic.
Galas wrote: But thats true for nearly everything? Fernando Alonso stopped winning the moment he started having worse cars, Smash Bros meele top players win many more games the moment they abandon their mains and start using the most OP characters, etc... the "I'm gonna win with the worst!" is just virtue signaling and goes agaisnt the reality that when you are competting you take every advantage you can.
And I believe that warhammer is not a skill intensive game, and the "top ceilling" of the game is more about doing the right mathematics and finding the proper and best combos for the list than actually playing it. But that has nothing to do with "They are just winning because they use the best tools" because thats just how things work in the top level of anything.
In general I just believe that when speaking about warhammer on the internet, most people doesn't want to acknowledge that they are actually pretty bad about playing the game, mediocre at best. I'm. I know. I don't care, and I'm sure most people that has posted in this thread is at best mediocre at the game. But I don't try to crap on better player accomplishements. Is like those that go "Bah, I COULD totally be doing Mythic Raids in wow, is a very easy game, you only need to avoid AoE and have the right equipement, but I just DON'T WANT TO". Is pathetic.
I think it comes down to not liking the "skill".
As per the video - high end ITC is all about making measured bets, to say get kill more/hold more (and a degree secondaries, but those should really be in the bag.) Its about knowing that if you move there you should kill X and Y, but your opponent should be able to counter and kill A, B and C which would get them the point instead. If you play a weaker list its still the same approach, its just going to be more difficult to win, as the moves you can make that give you a probabilistic edge over your opponent are reduced. Its more like skill in say poker - where the trick is using all info available to you, and then applying pressure based on that.
In the same way, nothing stops you turning up and going "its all luck, I'm just going to go all in and hope for the dice/cards save me" - and indeed they will do in any given game or hand, but over time, better players will tend to win out because they are making bets where the odds are in their favour rather than not.
Whereas I think something like WoW is more like music. "Oh they use the better classes" - well you should use the better classes. "They use keybindings" - so should you. "They use addons" - so should you. They practice on a boss 250+ times - so should you etc. It is ultimately a function of pressing the right buttons in the right order - but just like playing a piano, some people have learned how to do it, and some people haven't. Most people I imagine could learn to play the piano (or any other instrument) - just as they could become mythic raiders - but the amount of work to learn how to do it is considerable. Saying anyone "could" learn how to do it doesn't take away from the fact right now the overwhelming majority of players couldn't.
Lots of apple and oranges here. If you want to compare 40k to something, better pick starcraft rather than car racing or wow raiding.
I stand by what i said in my first post and that you all approved when starting to say that choosing the best tools to win is part of the competition : it's the army that wins the game; at equivalent skills, the players are secondary.
Starcraft is nothing like 40k.
Starcraft is about gathering resources quickly to grow an army. It has less unit and faction variety on top, and still needed dozens of balance patches over the span of years.
Also why are people so upset? Lol both those armies no longer function as they did when they were at their strongest AND the ITC missions are about to be dropped for good in the new edition.
I mean a point could be made that if 20 people all played the same army the luck of the dice has as much to do with who wins as the small amount of skill that 40k takes to play well. There's a reason games like Warmachine and Infinity try to minimise luck, whereas games of 40k can swing based on one bad or good dice roll. And a game of 40k has a LOT of dice rolls.
There is also skew match ups. Or stuff like opponent doing worse, then other people from your bracket. It is not a fun thing to not qualify to a district event, because one of your opponents from round 2 got injured drop out, while at the same time the other guy that has the same points as you had all opponents fight full 4 bouts, and he goes through because he has more small points.
Sim-Life wrote: I mean a point could be made that if 20 people all played the same army the luck of the dice has as much to do with who wins as the small amount of skill that 40k takes to play well. There's a reason games like Warmachine and Infinity try to minimise luck, whereas games of 40k can swing based on one bad or good dice roll. And a game of 40k has a LOT of dice rolls.
I don't play Infinity anymore b.c it has HUGE luck swings (At least when i played its been 4yrs), so idk about that, if that has change let me know.
Sim-Life wrote: I mean a point could be made that if 20 people all played the same army the luck of the dice has as much to do with who wins as the small amount of skill that 40k takes to play well. There's a reason games like Warmachine and Infinity try to minimise luck, whereas games of 40k can swing based on one bad or good dice roll. And a game of 40k has a LOT of dice rolls.
But the evidence is that this isn't the case.
In 40k the same people come near the top in tournament after tournament. Which suggests they have more "skill" - as defined by the qualities necessary to win a game of 40k.
Since these people seem to... play the game more, practice more, obsess more this isn't that surprising.
Galas wrote: But thats true for nearly everything? Fernando Alonso stopped winning the moment he started having worse cars...
F1 is a pretty good analogy to peoples concerns on 40k balance.
The drivers with the best cars win, the drivers with the worst cars don't even compete outside of dumb luck or others putting the better cars in the wall.
Skill does matter but only for sorting those drivers on a roughly even footing.
Sometimes I think GWs method to fixing this is to add more chance of putting the better codex in the wall via more layers of dice and bonuses, which ultimately just makes skill even less relevant as playing the odds becomes more luck and less judgement.
They say "Skill doesnt matter, only the army" but then you have the same top players ending in the tops of events with the most OP armies facing another players with the same OP armies.
By what people here is saying, the top of the big tournaments should be completely random between the players with the same TOP tier armies. But thats not what it happens.
As A.T. said, if you don't have a good enough army you aren't even competing, but once you enter the brackets were everybody is playing top tier armies then skill matters. As other poster said, top playing 40k is like poker. Luck can only get you so far if you don't know how to manage risks.
And I'll add again that 40k is a very unbalanced game and no bueno for proper competitive gaming. But I always find too pethy too crap on other people achievements.
That said, army ability outweighs player skill. Make those same top-tier players bring a fluffy Chaos Daemons mono-Khorne list, for example, and they won't be top tier anymore no matter how skilled they are.
What lets them win is a combination of meta-chasing and skill, but the crucial thing is that if you take away the meta chasing, skill isn't enough.
That said, army ability outweighs player skill. Make those same top-tier players bring a fluffy Chaos Daemons mono-Khorne list, for example, and they won't be top tier anymore no matter how skilled they are.
What lets them win is a combination of meta-chasing and skill, but the crucial thing is that if you take away the meta chasing, skill isn't enough.
Part of the skill is also knowing what to put on the table, learning and adapting to that new army. I'm 100% sure most players wouldn't even be able to play a different army then theirs and win let alone a major GT,
I would say another issue that is related to this is there are far too many people who say they play to win then complain about certain armies or playstyles being OP or not fun, yet you listen to the people who actually get the results and they are beating those armies with the same factions as the people screaming OP, Nerf NERF.
I have lost count of the number of times I have seen people do dumb stuff like move off objectives to get LOS to shoot a unit etc.
They rarely breakdown the game into objectives you opoonenet can manage, objectives they cans score and the VP those relate to, to work out what and when they need to stop their opponent from achieving and what they need to achieve.
That said, army ability outweighs player skill. Make those same top-tier players bring a fluffy Chaos Daemons mono-Khorne list, for example, and they won't be top tier anymore no matter how skilled they are.
What lets them win is a combination of meta-chasing and skill, but the crucial thing is that if you take away the meta chasing, skill isn't enough.
Part of the skill is also knowing what to put on the table, learning and adapting to that new army. I'm 100% sure most players wouldn't even be able to play a different army then theirs and win let alone a major GT,
That might be true for relatively weak armies or those in the middle of the pack but I can tell you that if the army in question is one of the broken meta armies they 100% would be able to win or be much more likely compared to using their weak army. GW's imbalance is strong enough that just switching to a powerful army (or having your army suddenly powered up through an update) can hugely improve mediocre player's results. That doesn't mean there's no skill involved - two good players with equally broken armies playing one another will have the outcome determined by skill, theoretically. Sometimes, though, if the balance is bad enough or the game shallow enough winning can come down to just winning the roll off to go first.
That said, army ability outweighs player skill. Make those same top-tier players bring a fluffy Chaos Daemons mono-Khorne list, for example, and they won't be top tier anymore no matter how skilled they are.
What lets them win is a combination of meta-chasing and skill, but the crucial thing is that if you take away the meta chasing, skill isn't enough.
I don't believe anybody disagrees with that. But what people is saying is thats true for many, many competitive things out there were the "tools" you are using to win are just as important as your hability to use them.
And I'll say again this is not an excuse about GW bad balance, but to refute people that say theres no skill at all involved.
I think the best analogy is Magic the Gathering. They have more choices in list structure, and cater to just as many player psychographics. There are MTG players who play for fluff and build deck lists that reflect a particular lore. Likewise, the top competitive players are necessarily chasing the best decks. It's not a bad thing that there are more and less competitive choices.
Here's the thing that's true for both MTG and 40k: identifying the best lists is a serious competitive skill, where minor adjustments and fine tuning are difference makers. Executing on piloting the list is also a serious competitive skill in both games.
I think the area that people get stuck is that its much easier to analyze what already exists. It's easy to look at a tournament winning list, see why it's good, and think "I could have literally put this into Battlescribe, therefore I could have written this list". It's also easy to look at a battlereport of the top table game, see the moves the players made, understand why they made them, and think "I could have moved those models and rolled those dice." Even if you think 90% of the plays are obvious and the game played itself, the devil is in that 10%. For evidence, I point to either game's competitive scene where there are consistent top players.
Just because the competitive environment doesn't test the skills you value, does not mean it doesn't test skills. It's totally fine not to be competitive, or to be competitive within bounds. It takes a severe lack of imagination or understanding to say the game isn't skill testing.
DarkHound wrote: Just because the competitive environment doesn't test the skills you value, does not mean it doesn't test skills
If someone is losing because they play daemons but refuse to use three quarters of the codex then fine, or if they are playing guard and insist on nothing but static artillery regardless of the editions/events mission objectives. That's on them.
However 40k is not a deck of cards, many players are locked in economically and being blocked out of a level playingfield as a result is not a measure of skill.
Money buys skill. Thats why you don't see countrys like Ruanda winning many gold medal on the olympics, or pakistan, do you? Compare that with United States and the inversion the make in sports. So making some kind of distinction for 40k is a little naive. As other have said, skill matter once you reach the plateau of what the power of you list can jump you into.
DarkHound wrote: Just because the competitive environment doesn't test the skills you value, does not mean it doesn't test skills
If someone is losing because they play daemons but refuse to use three quarters of the codex then fine, or if they are playing guard and insist on nothing but static artillery regardless of the editions/events mission objectives. That's on them.
However 40k is not a deck of cards, many players are locked in economically and being blocked out of a level playingfield as a result is not a measure of skill.
If you think MtG doesn't cost $$$ you've clearly not looked at the cost of a tier-one deck or at any format outside of standard... Also, cards rotate out of the most commonly played competitive format at a set rate making them useless after 2-years unless they are reprinted. It's often more expensive than MtG long term unless you compulsively faction hop and never keep and models between army changes.
Also, is it not equally unfair that [insert sports franchise here] has trouble keeping its star players due to their low personnel budget/high tax rates/cold winters shouldn't all teams be forced to use players of equal skill and have exactly the same access to training facilities and coaches?
DarkHound wrote: Just because the competitive environment doesn't test the skills you value, does not mean it doesn't test skills
However 40k is not a deck of cards, many players are locked in economically and being blocked out of a level playingfield as a result is not a measure of skill.
That is a barrier to entry and not a part of the actual competition. It's an unfortunate fact of physical nature of reality. You wouldn't complain that literally every professional sport isn't skill testing just because the massive infrastructure required to compete is a barrier to entry for virtually every other human.
I'm an archery instructor for my second job. I competed in Olympic recurve nationally for a couple years. It's not a fault of the game that I can't commit enough time to train and travel to compete. In fact, it's just not a fault. Competing at a high level in anything is not about an even playing field, it's about testing who is the best at the task at hand. The player who wins has some advantage that makes the playing field uneven, even if that advantage is just the skill is being tested: that's why they won. That's not a bug, that's a feature that every competitor buys into. The fact that certain players can maintain their advantage and win consistently is a sign of a good competition, where skills are actually being tested instead of results being derived arbitrarily or randomly.
People who haven't committed themselves to serious competition have tend to have an idealized view of competition. They want a field where everyone has an equal chance to win. That's not what competitors want. They want to accrue advantages, break the playing field, and win consistently. I find that as players (archers in particular, in my case) approach higher competitive levels, this mindset differentiates them. It's not a bad thing to lose, or even not to try. It's not better to be a competitor, it's a different kind goal. But the worst thing, the most self-harmful, is to imagine the competition itself is wrong to preserve one's ego.
Also, an irrelevant aside, it seems like you're not aware of the price of competitive Magic decks. They can pretty quickly run similar costs to a 40k army, which I find actually more insane because my 40k army at least looks great as a display.
DarkHound wrote: Also, an irrelevant aside, it seems like you're not aware of the price of competitive Magic decks. They can pretty quickly run similar costs to a 40k army, which I find actually more insane because my 40k army at least looks great as a display.
The average cost for outright buying a full playset of the latest entire set of a release is ~$580 for factory fresh. However the biggest difference is that the Magic Grand Prix events have a minimum top prize of $35,000 out of a minimum overall purse of $100,000 for each event, which also awards cash to the rest of the Top 8. GW players wish they were winning that kind of prize to support their constant rotation of lists.
DarkHound wrote: Also, an irrelevant aside, it seems like you're not aware of the price of competitive Magic decks. They can pretty quickly run similar costs to a 40k army, which I find actually more insane because my 40k army at least looks great as a display.
The average cost for outright buying a full playset of the latest entire set of a release is ~$580 for factory fresh. However the biggest difference is that the Magic Grand Prix events have a minimum top prize of $35,000 out of a minimum overall purse of $100,000 for each event. GW players wish they were winning that kind of prize to support their constant rotation of lists.
Now add in the cost of getting all 8+ sets you need and the fact that your cards rapidly depreciate in value after the set they are from rotates out. In addition, there are a lot more players in a professional MtG tournament than at even LVO so your odds of getting any of that $100,000 purse are slim to none.
DarkHound wrote: Also, an irrelevant aside, it seems like you're not aware of the price of competitive Magic decks. They can pretty quickly run similar costs to a 40k army, which I find actually more insane because my 40k army at least looks great as a display.
The average cost for outright buying a full playset of the latest entire set of a release is ~$580 for factory fresh. However the biggest difference is that the Magic Grand Prix events have a minimum top prize of $35,000 out of a minimum overall purse of $100,000 for each event. GW players wish they were winning that kind of prize to support their constant rotation of lists.
Now add in the cost of getting all 8+ sets you need and the fact that your cards rapidly depreciate in value after the set they are from rotates out. In addition, there are a lot more players in a professional MtG tournament than at even LVO so your odds of getting any of that $100,000 purse are slim to none.
Yes, but just like LVO, the Top 8 tends to be populated with the same names each year. We're not talking about the average player here. Just like the 40K talk, we're talking about the top tier.
Also, it's more like 4 sets a year (Core + a 3 set block on average), not 8. Things like the Draft sets and Un-sets aren't legal for competitive play.
Platuan4th wrote: Yes, but just like LVO, the Top 8 tends to be populated with the same names each year. We're not talking about the average player here. Just like the 40K talk, we're talking about the top tier.
Also, it's more like 4 sets a year, not 8.
No, we're talking about the costs to be competitive. To make even the top 64 you need a top-8 quality deck, then you need to have the skill and then you need to have a little luck (or cheating the MtG tournament scene loves it some cheating). Plus there's a lot more time investment involved in grinding out the required points to even qualify for a top-end MtG tournament which goes well beyond what it requires to place top-8 at the LVO.
Ishagu wrote: Starcraft is nothing like 40k.
Starcraft is about gathering resources quickly to grow an army. It has less unit and faction variety on top, and still needed dozens of balance patches over the span of years.
Also why are people so upset? Lol both those armies no longer function as they did when they were at their strongest AND the ITC missions are about to be dropped for good in the new edition.
I don't trust GW missions. GW has spent their credibility for a long, long time. Some of us like the ITC missions.
How does MTG have a casual meta without it being infected by tournament players?
If you have a lore-friendly deck that makes sacrifices to follow the background and novels, and you show up to play, how likely are you to get stomped by most people who are there for the PUG night or whatever?
That's the problem with 40k. The imbalance is so bad that if you wanted to build an army because you like the way it looks / like the narrative / enjoy the setting then you just get crushed with no recourse - even in a casual setting. Because a "casual setting" still sees some amount of meta-chasing, even if it isn't top-16 tournament style.
Unit1126PLL wrote: How does MTG have a casual meta without it being infected by tournament players?
If you have a lore-friendly deck that makes sacrifices to follow the background and novels, and you show up to play, how likely are you to get stomped by most people who are there for the PUG night or whatever?
In some stores/formats, the friendly/casual/fluffy players usually stick to their small social group and often don't join the main organized play experience. For others, you hope the top decks win in round 1so rounds 2 and 3 are more balanced affairs.
Mostly the community self moderates and even then there are still issues in casual formats like Commander (EDH) where somebody brings a higher power-deck and thinks it's mid-tier and another player brings a fluffy deck low-end deck and also thinks it's mid-tier. It's something the community as a whole is trying to work on but at larger events where you don't know the players it's best to bring 3 or 4 decks so you can tune the power-level to what the rest of the table is playing.
That's the problem with 40k. The imbalance is so bad that if you wanted to build an army because you like the way it looks / like the narrative / enjoy the setting then you just get crushed with no recourse - even in a casual setting. Because a "casual setting" still sees some amount of meta-chasing, even if it isn't top-16 tournament style.
That also happens in MtG as well, it's just a much larger game so there are more players at each tier of play so people can find a play group that fits them.
Canadian 5th wrote: ...Mostly the community self moderates and even then there are still issues in casual formats like Commander (EDH) where somebody brings a higher power-deck and thinks it's mid-tier and another player brings a fluffy deck low-end deck and also thinks it's mid-tier. It's something the community as a whole is trying to work on but at larger events where you don't know the players it's best to bring 3 or 4 decks so you can tune the power-level to what the rest of the table is playing...
Addendum: It is much, much easier to carry around 3-4 MTG decks than it is to carry around 3-4 40k armies. EDH is also somewhat self-correcting because it's a free-for-all format and the person who brings the highest-power deck is probably going to get ganged up on.
Canadian 5th wrote: ...Mostly the community self moderates and even then there are still issues in casual formats like Commander (EDH) where somebody brings a higher power-deck and thinks it's mid-tier and another player brings a fluffy deck low-end deck and also thinks it's mid-tier. It's something the community as a whole is trying to work on but at larger events where you don't know the players it's best to bring 3 or 4 decks so you can tune the power-level to what the rest of the table is playing...
Addendum: It is much, much easier to carry around 3-4 MTG decks than it is to carry around 3-4 40k armies. EDH is also somewhat self-correcting because it's a free-for-all format and the person who brings the highest-power deck is probably going to get ganged up on.
And in serious MTG competition the decks can be as much as armies, if not more.
Canadian 5th wrote: ...Mostly the community self moderates and even then there are still issues in casual formats like Commander (EDH) where somebody brings a higher power-deck and thinks it's mid-tier and another player brings a fluffy deck low-end deck and also thinks it's mid-tier. It's something the community as a whole is trying to work on but at larger events where you don't know the players it's best to bring 3 or 4 decks so you can tune the power-level to what the rest of the table is playing...
Addendum: It is much, much easier to carry around 3-4 MTG decks than it is to carry around 3-4 40k armies. EDH is also somewhat self-correcting because it's a free-for-all format and the person who brings the highest-power deck is probably going to get ganged up on.
Indeed, my gaming bag often contains 10 decks, my playmat, and my dice bag in addition to having room for snacks and a controller for when our game night hits that let's just play videogames point a few hours in. I could also squeeze in a small trade binder if most of my decks weren't proxied to high heaven and I didn't sell my value cards.
As for ganging up on the best deck, that can work if they aren't too high above your table's ability to counter. A well built cEDH deck can probably wade through all three other decks without much issue unless the table is unfavorable and their opponents have drawn their low-cost interaction and are able to correctly assess the threats while also knowing which points of the combo can be interrupted and which ones you need to let progress before buring a spell.
I think the issue with being stomped in 40k is that it takes too long to play. Its sort of a weird social contract to just being tabled over 2-3 hours while you idled away impotently.
In MTG say you get completely wiped out in five minutes (and you will). Well... in a casual setting just dust yourself down, maybe pick another deck and go again.
I'm loathe to bring it up because I've not touched it since 3rd edition game out and so it might have changed dramatically - but in 2nd edition I felt Warmahordes was very unforgiving - but again, if your caster got sniped in 10 minutes because of a combo you didn't know, just try and learn from it and then play another game.
Different in say 40k, where if you deploy badly, you are probably screwed, but you will have most of an afternoon or whatever spent "being screwed".
But I'm not sure what the answer is there. As said in the balance thread - I like close games, but I also like "skill". A game which somehow contrives to keep things close over 5 turns and then it comes down to a final dice roll might be exciting as a beer and pretzels diversion - but its not really something to spend much time thinking about. And when you have to spend a fortune and hours and hours assembling and painting, I don't think that will work.
Tyel wrote: In MTG say you get completely wiped out in five minutes (and you will). Well... in a casual setting just dust yourself down, maybe pick another deck and go again.
In multiplayer formats such as Commander (EDH) it can suck to be the first one out as a casual game can be several hours if the other three decks have answers for each other's win conditions. We try to avoid those games in my group, but casual magic isn't free from major feels bads moments.
Tyel wrote: In MTG say you get completely wiped out in five minutes (and you will). Well... in a casual setting just dust yourself down, maybe pick another deck and go again.
In multiplayer formats such as Commander (EDH) it can suck to be the first one out as a casual game can be several hours if the other three decks have answers for each other's win conditions. We try to avoid those games in my group, but casual magic isn't free from major feels bads moments.
Our casual group almost exclusively EDH. Because of the average length of EDH games, there's an unwritten, unspoken agreement that the hate doesn't start until mutually assured destruction is inevitable or a single player is in a position to kill the entire field of opponents. This is done specifically so that someone isn't in the position where they're waiting an hour for the first game to end.
Ishagu wrote: Starcraft is nothing like 40k.
Starcraft is about gathering resources quickly to grow an army. It has less unit and faction variety on top, and still needed dozens of balance patches over the span of years.
Also why are people so upset? Lol both those armies no longer function as they did when they were at their strongest AND the ITC missions are about to be dropped for good in the new edition.
I don't trust GW missions. GW has spent their credibility for a long, long time. Some of us like the ITC missions.
Sounds like another good reason for you to quit, maybe?
Ishagu wrote: Starcraft is nothing like 40k.
Starcraft is about gathering resources quickly to grow an army. It has less unit and faction variety on top, and still needed dozens of balance patches over the span of years.
Also why are people so upset? Lol both those armies no longer function as they did when they were at their strongest AND the ITC missions are about to be dropped for good in the new edition.
I don't trust GW missions. GW has spent their credibility for a long, long time. Some of us like the ITC missions.
Sounds like another good reason for you to quit, maybe?
Better question is why are you so hellbent on getting rid of ITC?
Ishagu wrote: Starcraft is nothing like 40k.
Starcraft is about gathering resources quickly to grow an army. It has less unit and faction variety on top, and still needed dozens of balance patches over the span of years.
Also why are people so upset? Lol both those armies no longer function as they did when they were at their strongest AND the ITC missions are about to be dropped for good in the new edition.
I don't trust GW missions. GW has spent their credibility for a long, long time. Some of us like the ITC missions.
Sounds like another good reason for you to quit, maybe?
Better question is why are you so hellbent on getting rid of ITC?
It hurt his feelings people weren't using the rules he wrote in CA.
Ishagu wrote: Starcraft is nothing like 40k.
Starcraft is about gathering resources quickly to grow an army. It has less unit and faction variety on top, and still needed dozens of balance patches over the span of years.
Also why are people so upset? Lol both those armies no longer function as they did when they were at their strongest AND the ITC missions are about to be dropped for good in the new edition.
I don't trust GW missions. GW has spent their credibility for a long, long time. Some of us like the ITC missions.
You're doing yourself a disservice by not playing the CA2019 ones. They're genuinely great and in a lot of ways are an improvement over ITC.
Plus apparently they are doing modular missions in 9th with the ability to add on more stuff to them. I think you can have vaguely ITC-ish secondary objectives in a few.
Winning tournaments consistently is about bringing the most broken things. People winning consistently with broken things would not be winning that much without them. Evidence: NN didn’t, and he is a skilled player.
The game is not balanced enough to support people having faction pride, or similar self imposed limitations that one would expect carry from warhammer being a fluffy hobby. The broken stuff dominates and no amount of player skill alone can make up for it consistently (you might get wins, but you won’t win ITC or big events consistently).
The fact that a game this old systematically has such gross imbalances makes me think that balance is not their priority, at all. They purposely change rules not for balance but to shake things up. To me, this must mean that they stand to profit from shaking things up and, give them that it is rules and not models we are debating, this must mean that they know rules sell models.
Can anyone bring a reasoned argument to the contrary?
Ishagu wrote: Starcraft is nothing like 40k.
Starcraft is about gathering resources quickly to grow an army. It has less unit and faction variety on top, and still needed dozens of balance patches over the span of years.
Also why are people so upset? Lol both those armies no longer function as they did when they were at their strongest AND the ITC missions are about to be dropped for good in the new edition.
I don't trust GW missions. GW has spent their credibility for a long, long time. Some of us like the ITC missions.
You're doing yourself a disservice by not playing the CA2019 ones. They're genuinely great and in a lot of ways are an improvement over ITC.
Plus apparently they are doing modular missions in 9th with the ability to add on more stuff to them. I think you can have vaguely ITC-ish secondary objectives in a few.
The fact that a game this old systematically has such gross imbalances makes me think that balance is not their priority
It never was. People who think GW prioritise balance are living in an Age Of Sigmar world (cause they killed Fantasy hurr). GW want to push the narritive side of the game, not the competitive. Always have, always will.
The fact that a game this old systematically has such gross imbalances makes me think that balance is not their priority
It never was. People who think GW prioritise balance are living in an Age Of Sigmar world (cause they killed Fantasy hurr). GW want to push the narritive side of the game, not the competitive. Always have, always will.
The issue is, IMHO, that among strangers it is far easier to set up a competitive game than some narrative option. If the game is balanced, campaigns can be implemented easily and competitive works. If it isn't, the game suffers in all fronts. I am sure you have seen campaign organizers frustrated as people crush with competitive like armies...
Perhaps the issue is that lacking sufficient social aptitude is what prevents people from enjoying the hobby fully?
Even when I go for a pickup game I'll have a lengthy discussion with my opponent on exactly what kind of game he's after, what he's playing, what I'm playing, etc, etc
My games don't tend to finish before turn 4 and are generally fun and social.
Ishagu wrote: Perhaps the issue is that lacking sufficient social aptitude is what prevents people from enjoying the hobby fully?
But that's an issue for the game, not the player. Plenty of other games don't require any form of special social interaction prior to the game in order to figure out what sort of game we're playing or whether we need to consider how balanced our relative forces are. Most games provide a standardised way to play that is the default (often this isn't a de facto standard but one actually written into the core rules) and many are sufficiently balanced that I don't need to worry about how powerful or weak my force is. That means the social interaction during the game is actually social interaction and not some forced negotiation between players.
It's got nothing to do with lacking social aptitude, as you so insultingly put it. It's entirely down to it being a wholly unnecessary step in the process.
This is advertised as a social hobby where the main objective is to have fun.
If you can't facilitate the fun of your opponent, and in turn your opponent can't facilitate yours then you are both doing it wrong.
This is not a sport. This is lot a job. No one is obligated to play anyone else.
A tournament is different. There the main objective is to win and those participating are aware of that, but again, if your opponent is doing something that annoys you outside of the game you are not obligated to play them.
Ishagu wrote: Perhaps the issue is that lacking sufficient social aptitude is what prevents people from enjoying the hobby fully?
But that's an issue for the game, not the player. Plenty of other games don't require any form of special social interaction prior to the game in order to figure out what sort of game we're playing or whether we need to consider how balanced our relative forces are. Most games provide a standardised way to play that is the default (often this isn't a de facto standard but one actually written into the core rules) and many are sufficiently balanced that I don't need to worry about how powerful or weak my force is. That means the social interaction during the game is actually social interaction and not some forced negotiation between players.
It's got nothing to do with lacking social aptitude, as you so insultingly put it. It's entirely down to it being a wholly unnecessary step in the process.
Yep, but don't feed the troll. I discovered thanks to this guy that there is a great "ignore" option, with much better functionality than in other forums.
Obviously there is a reason why most sports / games try to have balanced rules.
Lol I do find it funny when people argue that socialising isn't necessarily in a social game that involves two people interacting face to face for hours.
Ishagu wrote: Lol I do find it funny when people argue that socialising isn't necessarily in a social game that involves two people interacting face to face for hours.
Ishagu wrote: Lol I do find it funny when people argue that socialising isn't necessarily in a social game that involves two people interacting face to face for hours.
I think the problem is you're definition of "socializing". Most people are fine with discussing terrain and how it's set up, game size, etc. But you shouldn't have to negotiate what units to play with those agreed upon rules do to the armies being overly imbalanced. A game like 40k will never be perfectly balanced but it could be better. That would help it be more "sociable", as you put it.
How do you even manage to negotiate your list at a pickup game? Do you bring your entire collection to the shop?
I use the KR cases and bags, and drive to my local game clubs, and yes - I bring far more than can be used in a game. In one of my bags I have about 5k points of Primaris, in another 5k points of AdMech and Knights, as an example.
I do discuss the game with my opponent, not specific units but about the general armies. It helps to arrange the terrain so it's good got both parties. If I find out an opponent is playing a weaker codex, or is new, etc I tone down my list according.
Alternatively if someone says to me that they are practicing for an upcoming ITC tournament and they have a powerful list then I field one as well.
Ishagu wrote: Lol I do find it funny when people argue that socialising isn't necessarily in a social game that involves two people interacting face to face for hours.
I think the problem is you're definition of "socializing". Most people are fine with discussing terrain and how it's set up, game size, etc. But you shouldn't have to negotiate what units to play with those agreed upon rules do to the armies being overly imbalanced. A game like 40k will never be perfectly balanced but it could be better. That would help it be more "sociable", as you put it.
How do you even manage to negotiate your list at a pickup game? Do you bring your entire collection to the shop?
I mean, there is also nothing stopping you from talking about that in advance. that's why people in my group often exchange lists beforehand, and adjust accordingly, to try and get a better sense for what would be a good game.
the_scotsman wrote:I mean, there is also nothing stopping you from talking about that in advance. that's why people in my group often exchange lists beforehand, and adjust accordingly, to try and get a better sense for what would be a good game.
That works within a group, but not really for a pickup game.
Ishagu wrote:I use the KR cases and bags, and drive to my local game clubs, and yes - I bring far more than can be used in a game. In one of my bags I have about 5k points of Primaris, in another 5k points of AdMech and Knights, as an example.
I do discuss the game with my opponent, not specific units but about the general armies. It helps to arrange the terrain so it's good got both parties. If I find out an opponent is playing a weaker codex, or is new, etc I tone down my list according.
Alternatively if someone says to me that they are practicing for an upcoming ITC tournament and they have a powerful list then I field one as well.
That works for you, but what about people with smaller collections? I could probably do it (I'd need more cases) but everyone hasn't been playing as long as us, and don't have as many options.
If GW turned around tomorrow and said ITC was going to be the officially supported format tomorrow, Ishagu would be telling us they're the finest set of missions ever devised for any game and GW are genius' for bringing them on board.
Ishagu wrote: Lol I do find it funny when people argue that socialising isn't necessarily in a social game that involves two people interacting face to face for hours.
'Socializing is part of the game' != 'the game doesn't need to be balanced because if having to work out balance on the fly is a problem you're an antisocial nerd lmao gottem'
Ishagu wrote: Depends on what kind of game you're playing and in what context.
Context: I want to play a game against you at a local club where the outcome is a fair representation of our decisions made during said game, within reason given that it is a game of chance.
The codex I am using is immensely stronger or weaker than yours, or both depending on which particular units you or I happen to have chosen. I possess only those models needed to field my list.
In a game with freedom to build any sort of list there will be situations where games are wildly imbalanced. Plan with your opponent.
If only there was some sort of tool to help with this? Some sort of Internet based communication where one person can contact another prior to meeting up? Lol
Alternatively a 2 minute conversation prior to a game to identify the most equal match-up also works. This isn't a video game.
True, any advarsarial video game that required the players to sit down for some extensive balance modding ahead of time in order to have a decent session would be fairly criticised.
That you can place a somewhat balanced game of 40k by carefully pre-selecting the factions and units of both sides, terrain, strategems, etc is no credit to it.
Ishagu wrote: If you can't have a conversation with your opponent this hobby isn't for you, I'm afraid.
If gw balanced armies in a way that a pregame conversation about what armies the players were taking wasn't required would it no longer be for you? What problems do you believe that would cause? Why do you think this is impossible?
Ishagu wrote: If you can't have a conversation with your opponent this hobby isn't for you, I'm afraid.
It's not the conversation I object to, which i'm sure you are well aware of.
Apparently GW don't think it's a problem either, but my more recent attempts to get a few people playing have hit the problem that they either percieve me playing down to them or that their success is less them and more the book.
Inevitably, any discussion on balance comes back to apologists saying 'perfect balance is impossible so bad balance is acceptable, it's your job to balance the game, not the designer's'. It's extremely predictable.
Ishagu wrote: As long as players have freedom to make whatever lists they want balance will be next to impossible.
If I decide to make an entire army of assault Marines with chainswords and come up against an army of dual Gatling Knights, that's on me.
Astartes are one of the strongest armies, and I can still make a list that will get smashed in the wrong match up. Freedom has pros and cons.
We're not talking skew lists here and you know it. If I bring a Word Bearers TAC list and you bring an Iron Hands TAC list they should be roughly equal. They are not. And you know that. Do you believe that is a good thing?
I don't have any major social issues. But I should not HAVE to discuss with an opponent nitty-gritty list details to ensure a fair (or at least close to fair) game.
In a well-balanced game, I'd be able to say "Want to play a 2,000 point game?" and that's all the information that's needed. I shouldn't need to say "I'm bringing Daemons, so please don't cheese out your GK." I shouldn't need to say "I like to bring Ravenguard, so don't bring any armies that need characters at all." I shouldn't have to say anything more than the basic rules we can agree to.
I think people are really over-complicating the issue tbh.
Throughout 8th I've had no issues when looking for a game by just going "Casual or Competitive?"
There's never been any need to go into the nitty gritty of things to make sure nobody brings anything hyper-competitive or casually useless depending on the type of game agreed on. At the end of the day I know the game well enough that someone with all of 4 games under their belt who is looking for a nice fun evening game isn't going to enjoy playing vs 3 Hemlocks. It's that simple at the end of the day.
Can GW be better at balancing? Absolutely. Can future Codexes actually be playtested properly instead of being rushed out the door? Yes please. But one simple sentence/question to gauge the sort of game a person is looking for is not really a big issue. Plus, if we're going to keep using video games as an example about balance, basically every "competitive" game has "casual" modes or ways to play it, with the possibility to closing yourself off from one style of play altogether should you so choose. Or alternatively trying to play one way within the other which can lead to weird or disastrous results. If you're doing a PUG in Dota Captains Mode, the expectation is that you'll be playing competitively and picking the "good" and meta heroes. If you just random a bunch of gak and play like a headless chicken it wont really be a fun game for anyone because you've broken that social contract and expectation. It's also entirely possible to be matched up versus a highly co-ordinated group in random matchmaking who can easily pick synergistic heroes, have excellent communication and teamwork and so will just stomp over most disorganized pub teams with those other players not really getting much of a say in it. And Dota 2 is one of the best designed and most successful competitive games ever made.
Anecdotal, but I've found 8th the best edition for casual gaming in ages.
Marines, especially Iron Hands were a bit of a problem (too many free rules easily thrown in a big unassailable castle), but even ye traditional Castellan list wasn't that common to just appear - because most people didn't want to own random bits of three armies. In the same spirit, how many people owned 12 assault centurions because you know, they are bound to be the meta one day maybe (Raven Guard? Never heard of them).
This can be contrasted quite easily with 7th's "bring a wraith knight and a load of scatbikes (warp spiders optional)" which is basically what GW has been telling Eldar players to buy. Same with "here are all your free Razorbacks" (maybe that ones a bit niche, but plenty of Marine players have slowly accumulated transports over the many years). Or "here are my 3-5 Riptides, enjoy". Which again you might not have chosen to collect - but as a Tau player you were going to have one and so getting another couple wasn't the end of the world.
Tyel wrote: Anecdotal, but I've found 8th the best edition for casual gaming in ages.
Marines, especially Iron Hands were a bit of a problem (too many free rules easily thrown in a big unassailable castle), but even ye traditional Castellan list wasn't that common to just appear - because most people didn't want to own random bits of three armies. In the same spirit, how many people owned 12 assault centurions because you know, they are bound to be the meta one day maybe (Raven Guard? Never heard of them).
This can be contrasted quite easily with 7th's "bring a wraith knight and a load of scatbikes (warp spiders optional)" which is basically what GW has been telling Eldar players to buy. Same with "here are all your free Razorbacks" (maybe that ones a bit niche, but plenty of Marine players have slowly accumulated transports over the many years). Or "here are my 3-5 Riptides, enjoy". Which again you might not have chosen to collect - but as a Tau player you were going to have one and so getting another couple wasn't the end of the world.
I don't think it's changed that much. The problem Warhammer has always had with casual gaming is that lists can easily determine victory, the focus has just shifted more from external balance to internal balance in 8e. It's harder to have picked the wrong Codex and therefore lose every game (though it's still possible, see GK, Tyranids, Necrons), but list-building has become much more of a maze of traps and synergies, and the game in general seems to have shifted in a more bizarre and counterintuitive direction because of how badly-designed all the melee rules are. It isn't as obviously wildly out of whack as 7e's 550pt Space Marine handicap or the distortion weapons, but it's harder to figure out how the game works and just as easy for a new player to accidentally hard-counter one of their friends.
Ishagu wrote: Lol I do find it funny when people argue that socialising isn't necessarily in a social game that involves two people interacting face to face for hours.
I think the problem is you're definition of "socializing". Most people are fine with discussing terrain and how it's set up, game size, etc. But you shouldn't have to negotiate what units to play with those agreed upon rules do to the armies being overly imbalanced. A game like 40k will never be perfectly balanced but it could be better. That would help it be more "sociable", as you put it.
How do you even manage to negotiate your list at a pickup game? Do you bring your entire collection to the shop?
Kind of.
I almost always play mono forces. ATM the armies I have have at the ready are SW, SM Dreadnoughts, Dark Angels, and Ad-Mech*. Each force has it's own case. Each case contains about 5k pts worth of stuff. Included in that case is Codex, other pages I'll need, dice, tokens, cards, tape measure, etc.
So yeah, whichever force I've brought that day? Barring something that's literally been dropped from the game (shoved into Legends doesn't count) & lives only on my shelf, you're looking at my entire collection of it.
We generally play 2k pts. With any of my cases I can easily scale it up/down (or more/less powerful) as needed. Should the day ever come when I randomly need to field more than 5k I guess I'll be screwed/playing at a disadvantage....
Other than my Guard & Tyranids (wich are still in storage) every force I own follows this pattern of everything fitting in 1 case.
Now and then I'll bring a large Knight/a Thunder Hawk/a Termite/or a Warhound Titan - thus requiring a second case. But those games are known ahead of time.
*Once the Ad-Mech archeocopter thing comes out the 'Mech will be needing a larger case....
Ishagu wrote: If you can't have a conversation with your opponent this hobby isn't for you, I'm afraid.
Strange...I've played hundreds of games of Epic or Blood Bowl or X-Wing or any number of other wargames without needing to do this. Could it be that your definition of "hobby" is just completely wrong? Any game is improved by removing the need to negotiate terms with your opponent prior to playing. That means games need to achieve a certain level of balance (not perfect balance) so I can be confident that a decent, non-skew list will provide a good game in most circumstances. Then I'm free to actually socialise with my opponent rather than immediately starting at cross-purposes.
No wargame is improved by the sort of "socialising" you're talking about. It's not an insurmountable obstacle but it is an obstacle that doesn't need to be there.
ccs 788838 10817630 wrote:
Kind of.
I almost always play mono forces. ATM the armies I have have at the ready are SW, SM Dreadnoughts, Dark Angels, and Ad-Mech*. Each force has it's own case. Each case contains about 5k pts worth of stuff. Included in that case is Codex, other pages I'll need, dice, tokens, cards, tape measure, etc.
So yeah, whichever force I've brought that day? Barring something that's literally been dropped from the game (shoved into Legends doesn't count) & lives only on my shelf, you're looking at my entire collection of it.
We generally play 2k pts. With any of my cases I can easily scale it up/down (or more/less powerful) as needed. Should the day ever come when I randomly need to field more than 5k I guess I'll be screwed/playing at a disadvantage....
Other than my Guard & Tyranids (wich are still in storage) every force I own follows this pattern of everything fitting in 1 case.
Now and then I'll bring a large Knight/a Thunder Hawk/a Termite/or a Warhound Titan - thus requiring a second case. But those games are known ahead of time.
*Once the Ad-Mech archeocopter thing comes out the 'Mech will be needing a larger case....
So this end with one guy having 2000 pts of X and another having 2000pts of Y, X is much powerful then Y. X guy tells the Y guy he should spend money on weaker models, so he can have fun. The Y guy tells the X guy, that maybe he should have either bought a good army or maybe he should buy good models. Game doesn't happen. And if the store doesn't have 40 people playing in it, you are very soon limited to playing 2-3 people over and over again. And if your army is really good or really bad, you may have no one to play against.
This is before any social stuff, people not liking each other, people wanting to play a specific army or specific models. It would just wreck the ability for anyone to find multiple opponents. At the same time other games, including ones made by GW, do not seem to have such problems.
The force your opponent to buy and play with models he doesn't want is a very w40k thing. Never seen in it in inifnity or kill team. And I have a feeling that Xwing and warmachine are probably the same, because historical players don't force others to buy specific models either.
Amishprn86 wrote: Then you have a nice local. My local is comp X-wing and you will need to talk to them about playing a no comp game if you want a friendly game.
This is something a lot of people forget when they discuss 40k. Everyone has a different meta scene but a lot of posters on Dakka are under the impression that everyone is playing by the same standards.
Even if stuff is different and metas are different, the chance a 13y old in UK , Spain and Italy building his first 2000pts list is willing to suddenly spend money on 500-700pts of stuff to make the game more fair for someone else is extremly low.
It is only a thing for people playing for 10+ years with multiple armies or more then 2000pts in a faction. Which helps new players in absolutly no way. And I doubt GW is tailoring the game for people who have 10000pts . And if they do, then they should say it.
Karol wrote: Even if stuff is different and metas are different, the chance a 13y old in UK , Spain and Italy building his first 2000pts list is willing to suddenly spend money on 500-700pts of stuff to make the game more fair for someone else is extremly low.
It is only a thing for people playing for 10+ years with multiple armies or more then 2000pts in a faction. Which helps new players in absolutly no way. And I doubt GW is tailoring the game for people who have 10000pts . And if they do, then they should say it.
Just brings up the point raised in this or other threads (that all seem to end up circling the same points).
When I was 13 I might get a box or something at Christmas and Birthday, and maybe scrouged up some pocket money through the year to acquire another couple.
The idea of just sitting down and blowing £500-1000 (in today's money - obviously it was less then, but my pocket money was about 15-50% what children apparently get on average today) would seem like madness.
Putting together a 2k army on this basis would take a year or two, in which time the meta would almost certainly shift. Having cool models to show off to your other 13 year old friends tended to be a bigger driver then "mathhammer dictates this is the best."
Now I accept that people do seemingly do this to enter the hobby today - and in that case, yes, I guess if everyone else only plays top 8 LVO performing LVO lists, and you turn up with your "max Reivers Black Templars list" then thats going to suck. But... its also a really weird way to engage with the hobby.
But its also this debate about talking with the hobby.
I'm left believing certain posters turn up at their FLGS and go.
"40k?
"Yeah."
"2k points"
"Yeah."
Two. Hours. Later
"You win."
"Thx"
"Bye"
"Cya."
And...thats it. Which I guess I can imagine, but it seems so weirdly socially awkward and stilted that even as a weirdly socially awkward nerd I can't imagine it.
Karol wrote: Even if stuff is different and metas are different, the chance a 13y old in UK , Spain and Italy building his first 2000pts list is willing to suddenly spend money on 500-700pts of stuff to make the game more fair for someone else is extremly low.
It is only a thing for people playing for 10+ years with multiple armies or more then 2000pts in a faction. Which helps new players in absolutly no way. And I doubt GW is tailoring the game for people who have 10000pts . And if they do, then they should say it.
I know your meta is gakky but for the most part I don't and haven't known any 13 year olds who would pick up this game with any sort of aim to build a competitive army. When I was 13 I was allowed to buy one of the lower priced blister packs when we went to the city and I'd get a big box for Christmas or my birthday and usually I'd only get what I thought was cool and for the most part we never even played the game correctly.
Hell, we have an 18 year old who just joined the group and he only buys what he thinks looks cool, still not sure if he even knows how to build an army come to think of it.
Karol wrote: Even if stuff is different and metas are different, the chance a 13y old in UK , Spain and Italy building his first 2000pts list is willing to suddenly spend money on 500-700pts of stuff to make the game more fair for someone else is extremly low.
It is only a thing for people playing for 10+ years with multiple armies or more then 2000pts in a faction. Which helps new players in absolutly no way. And I doubt GW is tailoring the game for people who have 10000pts . And if they do, then they should say it.
I know your meta is gakky but for the most part I don't and haven't known any 13 year olds who would pick up this game with any sort of aim to build a competitive army. When I was 13 I was allowed to buy one of the lower priced blister packs when we went to the city and I'd get a big box for Christmas or my birthday and usually I'd only get what I thought was cool and for the most part we never even played the game correctly.
Hell, we have an 18 year old who just joined the group and he only buys what he thinks looks cool, still not sure if he even knows how to build an army come to think of it.
I'm still like that, and it majorly sucks. I'll buy a new model because it's cool (e.g. Keeper of Secrets) and then watch it get blasted off the board each and every game turn 1 without fail, unless there is terrain. If there's terrain sufficient to block LOS to a keeper, then maybe I'll get to use it if I can navigate around the ruin (since they can't go through them).
It's to the point that I'll be like "let me buy another keeper and paint it up all cool and golden so it's EXALTED for the new rules" and then some part of me says "Ehh, eugh, is it really worth it not to just use your existing models? It's not like anyone else cares, and it'll just get killed over and over anyways."
