Switch Theme:

Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit  [RSS] 

Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/02 00:23:41


Post by: CommanderWalrus


One thing I've noticed on these forums and pretty much everywhere else people discuss 40k is that the conversation is pretty much universally slanted to a more competitive side.
Why is this? IMO the game is more fun played more casually, and it seems many people share this opinion, but yet 90% of the discussion is on how to win at all costs. Whenever a new codex is out the discussion is heavily weighted on how strong it is and not how fun it is. The 9th edition Necron Codex comes to mind since while it doesn't have the most competitive options, it is a blast to play for more casual games since it has so many cool and unique options. But I see almost no one talk about some of these things because it doesn't relate to "meta". Any idea why this is, in general?


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/02 00:33:04


Post by: Canadian 5th


 CommanderWalrus wrote:
One thing I've noticed on these forums and pretty much everywhere else people discuss 40k is that the conversation is pretty much universally slanted to a more competitive side.
Why is this? IMO the game is more fun played more casually, and it seems many people share this opinion, but yet 90% of the discussion is on how to win at all costs. Whenever a new codex is out the discussion is heavily weighted on how strong it is and not how fun it is. The 9th edition Necron Codex comes to mind since while it doesn't have the most competitive options, it is a blast to play for more casual games since it has so many cool and unique options. But I see almost no one talk about some of these things because it doesn't relate to "meta". Any idea why this is, in general?

Casual play is impossible to comment on.

You can't know the skill level of the players involved and there's nothing to peg the power of a 'fluffy' list against unless you reference what a 'competetive' tournament list looks like. This comparison tends to twist the topic in a certain way and over time it becomes the only topic.


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/02 00:41:49


Post by: Slipspace


There's no objective criteria to measure casual play so it's a lot more difficult to talk about. It seems like you're referring to list building with your comment but I'm not sure how you would approach a discussion about that in an open forum. Among your local gaming group it's probably fine to do because you all know each other and have some common ground and common attitudes to work with. In a public forum there just isn't enough common ground to have a constructive discussion about lists.


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/02 01:48:30


Post by: AnomanderRake


Because the current community seems to find competitive play the most interesting thing about any game, at least from the amount of people who try to prove to me that it's not possible I'm not enjoying 8th/9th because of (something about tournament statistics).


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/02 02:02:01


Post by: Sledgehammer


Because alot of people can only have fun if they have a chance to win, and your ability to win isn't determined by your skill on the table. It's determined by how many special rules interactions, strategems and statistical output you can gather into an army. So what does this mean for casual play? It means that there will be a never ending arms race of tailoring lists to be more powerful than before JUST SO YOU CAN HAVE A CHANCE AT WINNING. You cannot approach the game with a casual attitude, because that means that you CANNOT WIN.

I cannot just polp some models down with the boys and have a good game, because my ability to have a fun game WITH THE POSSIBILITY OF WINNING, has no bearing on my ability to play, and everything to do with what models I and my opponent choose to play. My enjoyment of the game is therefore determined by how my opponent chooses to approach the game, and what army they bring. THIS LEADS TO ANIMOSITY AMONGST THE PLAYER BASE! This is why there is so much hate and vitriol spewn about.

Human nature is going to devolve into people trying to do what benefits them, and in this case it's bringing the best army possible within the bounds of the social construct. The way the social construct has played out based on the rules provided by games workshop IS THAT ARMS RACE.


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/02 02:05:46


Post by: Amishprn86


 CommanderWalrus wrote:
One thing I've noticed on these forums and pretty much everywhere else people discuss 40k is that the conversation is pretty much universally slanted to a more competitive side.
Why is this? IMO the game is more fun played more casually, and it seems many people share this opinion, but yet 90% of the discussion is on how to win at all costs. Whenever a new codex is out the discussion is heavily weighted on how strong it is and not how fun it is. The 9th edition Necron Codex comes to mind since while it doesn't have the most competitive options, it is a blast to play for more casual games since it has so many cool and unique options. But I see almost no one talk about some of these things because it doesn't relate to "meta". Any idea why this is, in general?


B.c you play the level and how you want, its a personal thing between you, others, or friends. What is there to talk about?


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/02 02:19:21


Post by: Sledgehammer


 Amishprn86 wrote:
 CommanderWalrus wrote:
One thing I've noticed on these forums and pretty much everywhere else people discuss 40k is that the conversation is pretty much universally slanted to a more competitive side.
Why is this? IMO the game is more fun played more casually, and it seems many people share this opinion, but yet 90% of the discussion is on how to win at all costs. Whenever a new codex is out the discussion is heavily weighted on how strong it is and not how fun it is. The 9th edition Necron Codex comes to mind since while it doesn't have the most competitive options, it is a blast to play for more casual games since it has so many cool and unique options. But I see almost no one talk about some of these things because it doesn't relate to "meta". Any idea why this is, in general?


B.c you play the level and how you want, its a personal thing between you, others, or friends. What is there to talk about?
It's a personal thing where your enjoyment is dependent on someone else. That is fundamentally flawed.


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/02 02:25:19


Post by: the_scotsman


 Sledgehammer wrote:
Because alot of people can only have fun if they have a chance to win, and your ability to win isn't determined by your skill on the table. It's determined by how many special rules interactions, strategems and statistical output you can gather into an army. So what does this mean for casual play? It means that there will be a never ending arms race of tailoring lists to be more powerful than before JUST SO YOU CAN HAVE A CHANCE AT WINNING. You cannot approach the game with a casual attitude, because that means that you CANNOT WIN.

I cannot just polp some models down with the boys and have a good game, because my ability to have a fun game WITH THE POSSIBILITY OF WINNING, has no bearing on my ability to play, and everything to do with what models I and my opponent choose to play. My enjoyment of the game is therefore determined by how my opponent chooses to approach the game, and what army they bring. THIS LEADS TO ANIMOSITY AMONGST THE PLAYER BASE! This is why there is so much hate and vitriol spewn about.

Human nature is going to devolve into people trying to do what benefits them, and in this case it's bringing the best army possible within the bounds of the social construct. The way the social construct has played out based on the rules provided by games workshop IS THAT ARMS RACE.


Ok, sure, all caps noted, but on the other hand, tomorrow I'll be playing a game where my opponent decided he wanted to bring 7 dreadnoughts, so I'll be bringing 3 Talos, a cronos, an avatar of khaine and 2 wraithlords, and we're going to have a big stompy monster mash.

I could have a nearly 100% chance of winning if, based on that information, I chose to bring a whole list full of lascannons or dark lances or something. But you know what's weird is it kind of seems like i'd have less fun than I will with the wraithlords and the crab robots and the on fire guy.


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/02 02:35:04


Post by: Sledgehammer


 the_scotsman wrote:
 Sledgehammer wrote:
Because alot of people can only have fun if they have a chance to win, and your ability to win isn't determined by your skill on the table. It's determined by how many special rules interactions, strategems and statistical output you can gather into an army. So what does this mean for casual play? It means that there will be a never ending arms race of tailoring lists to be more powerful than before JUST SO YOU CAN HAVE A CHANCE AT WINNING. You cannot approach the game with a casual attitude, because that means that you CANNOT WIN.

I cannot just polp some models down with the boys and have a good game, because my ability to have a fun game WITH THE POSSIBILITY OF WINNING, has no bearing on my ability to play, and everything to do with what models I and my opponent choose to play. My enjoyment of the game is therefore determined by how my opponent chooses to approach the game, and what army they bring. THIS LEADS TO ANIMOSITY AMONGST THE PLAYER BASE! This is why there is so much hate and vitriol spewn about.

Human nature is going to devolve into people trying to do what benefits them, and in this case it's bringing the best army possible within the bounds of the social construct. The way the social construct has played out based on the rules provided by games workshop IS THAT ARMS RACE.


Ok, sure, all caps noted, but on the other hand, tomorrow I'll be playing a game where my opponent decided he wanted to bring 7 dreadnoughts, so I'll be bringing 3 Talos, a cronos, an avatar of khaine and 2 wraithlords, and we're going to have a big stompy monster mash.

I could have a nearly 100% chance of winning if, based on that information, I chose to bring a whole list full of lascannons or dark lances or something. But you know what's weird is it kind of seems like i'd have less fun than I will with the wraithlords and the crab robots and the on fire guy.
Yes, this kind of play can occur, but it is the kind of play that exists in spite of the rules themselves.

That is a situation whereby you and another ESTABLISHED FRIEND are forming your own social contract and rules about the game. This is not reinforced in the rules or accommodated in any way. It's essentially a house rule. I cannot appoach a random for a pickup game and play the game that you're talking about as that would require me to dictate to them what kind of army they can and cannot bring. The formation of a game like that requires investing time, commitment, and mutual understanding as well as the formulation of your groups own social rules. That is the antithesis of a casual game.

List building arms races is the de-facto social contract of the game, because that is what the game encourages through its meta.


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/02 02:50:10


Post by: crazysaneman


I would say for two reasons.

First, casual play varies from group to group. Between points variations and houserules there are a NI number of ways to play casually.
Second, most of the threads on this board discuss *theoretical* competitive play because GW balances the game to please the tourneybro waaaaaahcaholics that play in competitive, living on the edge of the theory of the law of averages. As has been shown in the last few editions, GW doesn't *care* about game rules, balance, or supporting the kitbashing community: they want to sell models. That said, if enough tourneybros raise hell about something being "unbalanced" they inevitably hit it with the nerf hammer so hard it rarely ever recovers. See: all of chaos EXCEPT Deathguard. Unless they are about to release a new kit. Then they give it an extra wound, ap, toughness and attack and rewrinte the thing causing such a ruckus to be more powerful, so they can nerf it back to it's original format so you say "at least they nerfed it." XD

In effect: Casual play doesn't matter.

*Rant Time*
My beloved KSons got OBLITERATED by the change to Smite, and while it doesn't make them UNPLAYABLE, it does make them difficult to field effectively. You know, taking that one thing they did well and removing it's usefulness. That coupled with a lack of updating wounds and flamers makes them terrible to play. Now, I hear you "but CSM, that'll change when they get their updated codex" and you're right, it probably will. Until then, however we suffer. It is unacceptable that they still haven't had these small changes made official for ANY chaos without "updated" rules. A simple FAQ is apparently WAY too hard for GW to manage if you don't have a toilet seat as your legions symbol.

No one seriously plays them in tournaments because they are so bad, no one complains about it at the tournament level, nothing changes.
I could tell you about our houserule to include these simple changes that are definitely coming to our local garage gaming group, but it wouldn't matter because it's a houserule.


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/02 02:53:41


Post by: drbored


Because how dare you have fun in this hobby, that's why.

"Casual Play" is also poorly defined. If we cant quantify what we're complaining about with data from tournaments, then what do we have to talk about?


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/02 02:59:33


Post by: Sledgehammer


drbored wrote:
Because how dare you have fun in this hobby, that's why.

"Casual Play" is also poorly defined. If we cant quantify what we're complaining about with data from tournaments, then what do we have to talk about?
The standard way of playing is by extension the best way to play casually as it establishes the base rules in the most common and understandable manner. This is typically matched play, which as we have established, creates a situation where you will have to then communicate with your opponent the power level of the army you are looking to play against in order to have a good game.


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/02 03:00:29


Post by: TangoTwoBravo


It would seem that being casual but also obsessing about winning is a path to frustration.

I will say that the game plays differently when its between two strangers in the store on 40K Saturday and when its between two friends who have pre-arranged the game. Not sure the fault lies with the game.


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/02 03:05:56


Post by: Sledgehammer


TangoTwoBravo wrote:
It would seem that being casual but also obsessing about winning is a path to frustration.

I will say that the game plays differently when its between two strangers in the store on 40K Saturday and when its between two friends who have per-arranged the game. Not sure the fault lies with the game.
I'm sure casual players are thinking to themselves "gee I really like gaunts ghosts, and I want to make a cool army to live out some more adventures with the tanith 1st. I don't care if my regimental rules / codex is so poorly balanced that I cannot forge my own cool experiences with my army in the game because they all get horribly murdered each time i put them on the table!"

There can be some ambivalence around casual playing, but if you're looking to forge your own narrative with an army you put a lot of time, money and work into, only for them to get continuously beaten, you're either going to change your list or give up.


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/02 03:19:22


Post by: Amishprn86


 Sledgehammer wrote:
 Amishprn86 wrote:
 CommanderWalrus wrote:
One thing I've noticed on these forums and pretty much everywhere else people discuss 40k is that the conversation is pretty much universally slanted to a more competitive side.
Why is this? IMO the game is more fun played more casually, and it seems many people share this opinion, but yet 90% of the discussion is on how to win at all costs. Whenever a new codex is out the discussion is heavily weighted on how strong it is and not how fun it is. The 9th edition Necron Codex comes to mind since while it doesn't have the most competitive options, it is a blast to play for more casual games since it has so many cool and unique options. But I see almost no one talk about some of these things because it doesn't relate to "meta". Any idea why this is, in general?


B.c you play the level and how you want, its a personal thing between you, others, or friends. What is there to talk about?
It's a personal thing where your enjoyment is dependent on someone else. That is fundamentally flawed.


I play Sisters, Quins, and now DE in causal games. I just don't take insane comp lists. My game the other night i had 9 Razorwing flocks + Beastmaster, 2 Archons and max Lhamaeans and Medusae's, it was fun and causal still. If you can not make a causal list then you are the problem.


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/02 03:23:51


Post by: Sledgehammer


 Amishprn86 wrote:
 Sledgehammer wrote:
 Amishprn86 wrote:
 CommanderWalrus wrote:
One thing I've noticed on these forums and pretty much everywhere else people discuss 40k is that the conversation is pretty much universally slanted to a more competitive side.
Why is this? IMO the game is more fun played more casually, and it seems many people share this opinion, but yet 90% of the discussion is on how to win at all costs. Whenever a new codex is out the discussion is heavily weighted on how strong it is and not how fun it is. The 9th edition Necron Codex comes to mind since while it doesn't have the most competitive options, it is a blast to play for more casual games since it has so many cool and unique options. But I see almost no one talk about some of these things because it doesn't relate to "meta". Any idea why this is, in general?


B.c you play the level and how you want, its a personal thing between you, others, or friends. What is there to talk about?
It's a personal thing where your enjoyment is dependent on someone else. That is fundamentally flawed.


I play Sisters, Quins, and now DE in causal games. I just don't take insane comp lists. My game the other night i had 9 Razorwing flocks + Beastmaster, 2 Archons and max Lhamaeans and Medusae's, it was fun and causal still. If you can not make a causal list then you are the problem.
Anyone should be able to walk into any store, with any list of models and have a good game without having to establish extra criteria. If you or I have to place limitations on our armies, that creates a source of conflict that must be acknowledged and considered. As it stands the barrier to entry in order to create different lists and entire armies is astronomical. That is inherently not casual.



Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/02 03:25:17


Post by: TangoTwoBravo


 Sledgehammer wrote:
TangoTwoBravo wrote:
It would seem that being casual but also obsessing about winning is a path to frustration.

I will say that the game plays differently when its between two strangers in the store on 40K Saturday and when its between two friends who have per-arranged the game. Not sure the fault lies with the game.
I'm sure casual players are thinking to themselves "gee I really like gaunts ghosts, and I want to make a cool army to live out some more adventures with the tanith 1st. I don't care if my regimental rules / codex is so poorly balanced that I cannot forge my own cool experiences with my army in the game because they all get horribly murdered each time i put them on the table!"

There can be some ambivalence around casual playing, but if you're looking to forge your own narrative with an army you put a lot of time, money and work into, only for them to get continuously beaten, you're either going to change your list or give up.


So building a detailed representation of a force from the Black Library is being casual? Seems fairly intense. We are in control of how we enjoy the game. Wanting to build a specific list from the lore and also wanting to win against someone who has built his list with table-top effectiveness might be a bridge too far. It would seem that having a shared understanding with your opponent of what you want from the game is useful. That is not the same as houseruling.


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/02 03:30:08


Post by: Amishprn86


 Sledgehammer wrote:
 Amishprn86 wrote:
 Sledgehammer wrote:
 Amishprn86 wrote:
 CommanderWalrus wrote:
One thing I've noticed on these forums and pretty much everywhere else people discuss 40k is that the conversation is pretty much universally slanted to a more competitive side.
Why is this? IMO the game is more fun played more casually, and it seems many people share this opinion, but yet 90% of the discussion is on how to win at all costs. Whenever a new codex is out the discussion is heavily weighted on how strong it is and not how fun it is. The 9th edition Necron Codex comes to mind since while it doesn't have the most competitive options, it is a blast to play for more casual games since it has so many cool and unique options. But I see almost no one talk about some of these things because it doesn't relate to "meta". Any idea why this is, in general?


B.c you play the level and how you want, its a personal thing between you, others, or friends. What is there to talk about?
It's a personal thing where your enjoyment is dependent on someone else. That is fundamentally flawed.


I play Sisters, Quins, and now DE in causal games. I just don't take insane comp lists. My game the other night i had 9 Razorwing flocks + Beastmaster, 2 Archons and max Lhamaeans and Medusae's, it was fun and causal still. If you can not make a causal list then you are the problem.
Anyone should be able to walk into any store, with any list of models and have a good game without having to establish extra criteria. If you or I have to place limitations on our armies, that creates a source of conflict that must be acknowledged and considered. As it stands the barrier to entry in order to create different lists and entire armies is astronomical. That is inherently not casual.



When has this been the case in all of 40k? Everyone knows 40k has balancing issues thats why causal games are separated from comp games.


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/02 03:30:27


Post by: Sledgehammer


TangoTwoBravo wrote:
 Sledgehammer wrote:
TangoTwoBravo wrote:
It would seem that being casual but also obsessing about winning is a path to frustration.

I will say that the game plays differently when its between two strangers in the store on 40K Saturday and when its between two friends who have per-arranged the game. Not sure the fault lies with the game.
I'm sure casual players are thinking to themselves "gee I really like gaunts ghosts, and I want to make a cool army to live out some more adventures with the tanith 1st. I don't care if my regimental rules / codex is so poorly balanced that I cannot forge my own cool experiences with my army in the game because they all get horribly murdered each time i put them on the table!"

There can be some ambivalence around casual playing, but if you're looking to forge your own narrative with an army you put a lot of time, money and work into, only for them to get continuously beaten, you're either going to change your list or give up.


So building a detailed representation of a force from the Black Library is being casual? Seems fairly intense. We are in control of how we enjoy the game. Wanting to build a specific list from the lore and also wanting to win against someone who has built his list with table-top effectiveness might be a bridge too far. It would seem that having a shared understanding with your opponent of what you want from the game is useful. That is not the same as houseruling.
How about "your own regiment" or "your own space marine chapter", or "the Ultra Marines". The exact representation of the army is irrelevant. The problem is that whatever that said hypothetical player likes, it is GUARANTEED to not be on the same power level as another player's. Some luck into their power, while others build around it. Either way you look at it, one player is being denied the good game he or she deserves due to a ruleset that is SYSTEMATICALLY DESIGNED to get players to build around power and an every rapidly changing meta.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Amishprn86 wrote:
 Sledgehammer wrote:
 Amishprn86 wrote:
 Sledgehammer wrote:
 Amishprn86 wrote:
 CommanderWalrus wrote:
One thing I've noticed on these forums and pretty much everywhere else people discuss 40k is that the conversation is pretty much universally slanted to a more competitive side.
Why is this? IMO the game is more fun played more casually, and it seems many people share this opinion, but yet 90% of the discussion is on how to win at all costs. Whenever a new codex is out the discussion is heavily weighted on how strong it is and not how fun it is. The 9th edition Necron Codex comes to mind since while it doesn't have the most competitive options, it is a blast to play for more casual games since it has so many cool and unique options. But I see almost no one talk about some of these things because it doesn't relate to "meta". Any idea why this is, in general?


B.c you play the level and how you want, its a personal thing between you, others, or friends. What is there to talk about?
It's a personal thing where your enjoyment is dependent on someone else. That is fundamentally flawed.


I play Sisters, Quins, and now DE in causal games. I just don't take insane comp lists. My game the other night i had 9 Razorwing flocks + Beastmaster, 2 Archons and max Lhamaeans and Medusae's, it was fun and causal still. If you can not make a causal list then you are the problem.
Anyone should be able to walk into any store, with any list of models and have a good game without having to establish extra criteria. If you or I have to place limitations on our armies, that creates a source of conflict that must be acknowledged and considered. As it stands the barrier to entry in order to create different lists and entire armies is astronomical. That is inherently not casual.



When has this been the case in all of 40k? Everyone knows 40k has balancing issues thats why causal games are separated from comp games.
I never said 40k has even been balanced. I'm arguing for an entirely different design paradigm that is antithetical to the meta, stratagem, list building arms-race that is CLEARLY at the very center of 40K's game design.

The difference in competitive play and casual play is what army you bring..... many players don't have the luxury of changing armies all the time, or having multiples of them, even if they did, that's not casual in the first place.


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/02 03:42:02


Post by: bullyboy


40K for sure is a better game when played casually or narratively, but that doesn't really make for a good discussion unless you're trying to perhaps create a specific themed game and are asking for thematic choices from the community to better enjoy the experience.
The thing is, competitive 40K, and adapting the game to work better in that environment will have zero impact on casual game, so there is not much to discuss for the latter. However, improving balance and competitive play has plenty of discussion between members of the community.

I would say I play far more casual games than competitive, but I still participate mostly in the competitive discussions here.


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/02 03:47:45


Post by: Amishprn86


 Sledgehammer wrote:
TangoTwoBravo wrote:
 Sledgehammer wrote:
TangoTwoBravo wrote:
It would seem that being casual but also obsessing about winning is a path to frustration.

I will say that the game plays differently when its between two strangers in the store on 40K Saturday and when its between two friends who have per-arranged the game. Not sure the fault lies with the game.
I'm sure casual players are thinking to themselves "gee I really like gaunts ghosts, and I want to make a cool army to live out some more adventures with the tanith 1st. I don't care if my regimental rules / codex is so poorly balanced that I cannot forge my own cool experiences with my army in the game because they all get horribly murdered each time i put them on the table!"

There can be some ambivalence around casual playing, but if you're looking to forge your own narrative with an army you put a lot of time, money and work into, only for them to get continuously beaten, you're either going to change your list or give up.


So building a detailed representation of a force from the Black Library is being casual? Seems fairly intense. We are in control of how we enjoy the game. Wanting to build a specific list from the lore and also wanting to win against someone who has built his list with table-top effectiveness might be a bridge too far. It would seem that having a shared understanding with your opponent of what you want from the game is useful. That is not the same as houseruling.
How about "your own regiment" or "your own space marine chapter", or "the Ultra Marines". The exact representation of the army is irrelevant. The problem is that whatever that said hypothetical player likes, it is GUARANTEED to not be on the same power level as another player's. Some luck into their power, while others build around it. Either way you look at it, one player is being denied the good game he or she deserves due to a ruleset that is SYSTEMATICALLY DESIGNED to get players to build around power and an every rapidly changing meta.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Amishprn86 wrote:
 Sledgehammer wrote:
 Amishprn86 wrote:
 Sledgehammer wrote:
 Amishprn86 wrote:
 CommanderWalrus wrote:
One thing I've noticed on these forums and pretty much everywhere else people discuss 40k is that the conversation is pretty much universally slanted to a more competitive side.
Why is this? IMO the game is more fun played more casually, and it seems many people share this opinion, but yet 90% of the discussion is on how to win at all costs. Whenever a new codex is out the discussion is heavily weighted on how strong it is and not how fun it is. The 9th edition Necron Codex comes to mind since while it doesn't have the most competitive options, it is a blast to play for more casual games since it has so many cool and unique options. But I see almost no one talk about some of these things because it doesn't relate to "meta". Any idea why this is, in general?


B.c you play the level and how you want, its a personal thing between you, others, or friends. What is there to talk about?
It's a personal thing where your enjoyment is dependent on someone else. That is fundamentally flawed.


I play Sisters, Quins, and now DE in causal games. I just don't take insane comp lists. My game the other night i had 9 Razorwing flocks + Beastmaster, 2 Archons and max Lhamaeans and Medusae's, it was fun and causal still. If you can not make a causal list then you are the problem.
Anyone should be able to walk into any store, with any list of models and have a good game without having to establish extra criteria. If you or I have to place limitations on our armies, that creates a source of conflict that must be acknowledged and considered. As it stands the barrier to entry in order to create different lists and entire armies is astronomical. That is inherently not casual.



When has this been the case in all of 40k? Everyone knows 40k has balancing issues thats why causal games are separated from comp games.
I never said 40k has even been balanced. I'm arguing for an entirely different design paradigm that is antithetical to the meta, stratagem, list building arms-race that is CLEARLY at the very center of 40K's game design.

The difference in competitive play and casual play is what army you bring..... many players don't have the luxury of changing armies all the time, or having multiples of them, even if they did, that's not casual in the first place.


If 1 person is stuck at a certain level they can literally ask to play at that level, odds are one of you can adjust. If no one can adjust dont be so wysiwyg heavy and just proxy, its a game for fun, have fun and try new units.


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/02 03:49:05


Post by: TangoTwoBravo


@Sledge,

People are denied the good games that they are deserved? So gamers have no agency in their good games? Sometimes it takes a little work, but at a minimum it takes the establishment of the parameters. My assumption, barring prior discussion, is that a pick-up game at a store will be under Matched Play conditions and I expect the other player to have built what he considers to be an effective list. So if I decide to bring a themed list I should accept that I will likely face a list built around effectiveness. My enjoyment will come from playing my themed list.

I can see a player having a tough time if they put no effort into their list but also care intensely about winning.


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/02 03:57:24


Post by: Sledgehammer


TangoTwoBravo wrote:
@Sledge,

People are denied the good games that they are deserved? So gamers have no agency in their good games? Sometimes it takes a little work, but at a minimum it takes the establishment of the parameters. My assumption, barring prior discussion, is that a pick-up game at a store will be under Matched Play conditions and I expect the other player to have built what he considers to be an effective list. So if I decide to bring a themed list I should accept that I will likely face a list built around effectiveness. My enjoyment will come from playing my themed list.

I can see a player having a tough time if they put no effort into their list but also care intensely about winning.
Fundamentally I believe that lists are the primary determinate of victory far and away above a players ability to play well. When a player sets out to build a thematic list that adheres to their own lore and parameters, he or she is putting a lot of THEMSELF into their army. It's INCREDIBLY disheartening to come to the conclusion that the army you put all that time and effort developing a back story, and painting minis for is trash on the table due to the whims of fate. I shouldn't have to accept the fact that my army that i put that much time and effort into is just a bunch of faceless cannon fodder for someone else's FOTM net list.

40k does have systems that require skill, but for the most part it's about your list.


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/02 04:25:23


Post by: TangoTwoBravo


 Sledgehammer wrote:
TangoTwoBravo wrote:
@Sledge,

People are denied the good games that they are deserved? So gamers have no agency in their good games? Sometimes it takes a little work, but at a minimum it takes the establishment of the parameters. My assumption, barring prior discussion, is that a pick-up game at a store will be under Matched Play conditions and I expect the other player to have built what he considers to be an effective list. So if I decide to bring a themed list I should accept that I will likely face a list built around effectiveness. My enjoyment will come from playing my themed list.

I can see a player having a tough time if they put no effort into their list but also care intensely about winning.
Fundamentally I believe that lists are the primary determinate of victory far and away above a players ability to play well. When a player sets out to build a thematic list that adheres to their own lore and parameters, he or she is putting a lot of THEMSELF into their army. It's INCREDIBLY disheartening to come to the conclusion that the army you put all that time and effort developing a back story, and painting minis for is trash on the table due to the whims of fate. I shouldn't have to accept the fact that my army that i put that much time and effort into is just a bunch of faceless cannon fodder for someone else's FOTM net list.

40k does have systems that require skill, but for the most part it's about your list.


You can certainly lose the game in the list-building phase. Harder, though, to win it through list-building alone.

Perhaps the enjoyment of putting time and effort into developing a back story for your army and painting it accordingly is enjoyment in and of itself? Declare victory on your own terms!

I am fortunate to have a basement gaming table where I play with friends and family and also belong to a local gaming community so I have some options. When we are not in lockdown we have tournaments that emphasize different things to keep things fresh. The December tournament is meant to feature thematic lists and be friendly to new players. Power-builds are screened out by the TO and last place gets first choice of the Secret Santa prize table. Our February tournament, on the other hand, is a fangs-out gun fight where you bring your hardest list to crush all before you. Or just bring what you want and have fun. But the expectations are known.

Anyhoo.


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/02 04:44:42


Post by: Slayer-Fan123


 bullyboy wrote:
40K for sure is a better game when played casually or narratively

LOL in what manner have the rules ever been good for narrative gaming? Whats narrative about IGOUGO? What's narrative about Lucius The Eternal being garbage when fighting the most generic of characters? What's narrative about a singular CSM squad remembering how to shoot a singular target better?

Anything 40k defenders have given for the game being some narrative tool is just sunken cost in its purest form. Also, the game is absolutely just not built for casual gaming because the effort required to make sure you're not bringing too hard a list to play against makes it not casual to begin with. This is especially true when certain armies with their fluff correct armies are just stupidly better than other armies even being built in a more strict fashion.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
TangoTwoBravo wrote:
 Sledgehammer wrote:
TangoTwoBravo wrote:
@Sledge,

People are denied the good games that they are deserved? So gamers have no agency in their good games? Sometimes it takes a little work, but at a minimum it takes the establishment of the parameters. My assumption, barring prior discussion, is that a pick-up game at a store will be under Matched Play conditions and I expect the other player to have built what he considers to be an effective list. So if I decide to bring a themed list I should accept that I will likely face a list built around effectiveness. My enjoyment will come from playing my themed list.

I can see a player having a tough time if they put no effort into their list but also care intensely about winning.
Fundamentally I believe that lists are the primary determinate of victory far and away above a players ability to play well. When a player sets out to build a thematic list that adheres to their own lore and parameters, he or she is putting a lot of THEMSELF into their army. It's INCREDIBLY disheartening to come to the conclusion that the army you put all that time and effort developing a back story, and painting minis for is trash on the table due to the whims of fate. I shouldn't have to accept the fact that my army that i put that much time and effort into is just a bunch of faceless cannon fodder for someone else's FOTM net list.

40k does have systems that require skill, but for the most part it's about your list.


You can certainly lose the game in the list-building phase. Harder, though, to win it through list-building alone.

Perhaps the enjoyment of putting time and effort into developing a back story for your army and painting it accordingly is enjoyment in and of itself? Declare victory on your own terms!

The ultimate customer to defend GW is the one unironically saying to Forge The Narrative


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/02 05:13:33


Post by: TangoTwoBravo


I was suggesting that folks who want to build narrative lists enjoy doing so and not worry so much about winning. Declare victory on their own terms. Look at this army I have brought to life!

I think that there are people who think that they are great players and then get really upset when they do not win on the tabletop. They find reasons outside of themselves for their loss. Trash rules, trash units, the other guy was a WAAC etc. Probably part of human nature. Protects our egos?

Anyway - enjoy 40K. Or do not! You have some choice in the matter.


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/02 06:02:02


Post by: Sledgehammer


TangoTwoBravo wrote:
I was suggesting that folks who want to build narrative lists enjoy doing so and not worry so much about winning. Declare victory on their own terms. Look at this army I have brought to life!

I think that there are people who think that they are great players and then get really upset when they do not win on the tabletop. They find reasons outside of themselves for their loss. Trash rules, trash units, the other guy was a WAAC etc. Probably part of human nature. Protects our egos?

Anyway - enjoy 40K. Or do not! You have some choice in the matter.
In what world would I find narrative satisfaction in my army being ruthlessly murdered? Nobody sets out to make an inpotent gaggle of morons who show up to get killed every week for any reason other than as a joke.

Look at the Middle Earth Strategy Battle Game and you'll see a game that allows for actual casual gaming. It frustrates me because I know GW is capable of acheving it.

Also the "git good" argument on a topic about casual gaming and how certain armies are trash, says a lot about how the game and the community caters to casual play.


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/02 06:40:12


Post by: ccs


crazysaneman wrote:
I would say for two reasons.

First, casual play varies from group to group. Between points variations and houserules there are a NI number of ways to play casually.
Second, most of the threads on this board discuss *theoretical* competitive play because GW balances the game to please the tourneybro waaaaaahcaholics that play in competitive, living on the edge of the theory of the law of averages. As has been shown in the last few editions, GW doesn't *care* about game rules, balance, or supporting the kitbashing community: they want to sell models. That said, if enough tourneybros raise hell about something being "unbalanced" they inevitably hit it with the nerf hammer so hard it rarely ever recovers. See: all of chaos EXCEPT Deathguard. Unless they are about to release a new kit. Then they give it an extra wound, ap, toughness and attack and rewrinte the thing causing such a ruckus to be more powerful, so they can nerf it back to it's original format so you say "at least they nerfed it." XD

In effect: Casual play doesn't matter.


It most certainly does.
There are legions of people playing casually (and most importantly, buying). Far more than you'll ever account for in your precious tourney data.
If there were a mass exodus of we, the filthy casuals, you so blithely dismiss? Well, just ask any WHFB fan how that ends.



Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/02 06:40:16


Post by: General Kroll


I play mainly casual games, and narrative stuff.

Our group hasn’t used points values once since the advent of power levels and we’ve all been much happier for it.


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/02 07:01:42


Post by: ccs


 Sledgehammer wrote:
TangoTwoBravo wrote:
@Sledge,

People are denied the good games that they are deserved? So gamers have no agency in their good games? Sometimes it takes a little work, but at a minimum it takes the establishment of the parameters. My assumption, barring prior discussion, is that a pick-up game at a store will be under Matched Play conditions and I expect the other player to have built what he considers to be an effective list. So if I decide to bring a themed list I should accept that I will likely face a list built around effectiveness. My enjoyment will come from playing my themed list.

I can see a player having a tough time if they put no effort into their list but also care intensely about winning.
Fundamentally I believe that lists are the primary determinate of victory far and away above a players ability to play well. When a player sets out to build a thematic list that adheres to their own lore and parameters, he or she is putting a lot of THEMSELF into their army. It's INCREDIBLY disheartening to come to the conclusion that the army you put all that time and effort developing a back story, and painting minis for is trash on the table due to the whims of fate. I shouldn't have to accept the fact that my army that i put that much time and effort into is just a bunch of faceless cannon fodder for someone else's FOTM net list.

40k does have systems that require skill, but for the most part it's about your list.


The whims of fate did not dictate that you accept games against those FOTM net lists. That's on YOU.
The whims of fate do not require you to completely sacrifice effectiveness for theme. It's been a long time since I last read a Tanith book, but they're STILL an IG regiment. They get sent to various fronts & operate alongside other Imperial forces of all types. There's no reason your list can't represent that.


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/02 07:13:16


Post by: stroller


I've been playing casually for mumble mumble years. Sure, I like it when I win too.

The "real" win is that my opponent & I have fun.

We've had some games that have been knife edge competitive, others that have been very silly. Only once have we abandoned a game, when one of us said "Let's try this...." and this was too one sided (which in fairness we should have anticipated: "bring all your flyers he said, without having any AA). We reset, played a different combination and had fun with that instead.


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/02 07:14:43


Post by: macluvin


If I play a competitive list I’ll set my own victory conditions for myself. Something fluffy and thematic. And nothing that I even discuss with my opponent; as far as they are concerned they won and I lost never mind that in my head my dudes just had to hold that one objective to be evacuated with fighter/bomber aerial support, or that they got a relic or whatever. Make it fun for yourself; make a match against a competitive player casual to yourself.


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/02 07:37:11


Post by: PenitentJake


I've wondered too about why there is such a concentration of competitive players in Dakka general. And I think that's what it comes down to right there- this is general chat. I would expect greater concentrations of narrative players in the background forum and a greater concentration of people who are content with the hobby due a primary interest in modelling would be in the painting and WIP forums.

Personally, I'd like to see a Crusade forum- I've seen playerson this board who are also Crusaders, but few threads about Crusade. Often, when it comes up in the context of other threads, Crusade play tends to be fairly quickly dismissed by the community at large.

I'm always curious about what people do for campaign play, the strategies they use to grow their Crusade force; I'm curious about how people use their requisitions and battle honouts to reflect the narrative. With this year's WD Tale of four games focusing on Crusade play, I had hoped for discussions of this type in the series, but so far they haven't gone anywhere near as deep as I'd like- they still seem to be approaching the game as if the crusade elements are an add on, rather than integrating that material into the creation of their forces from the ground up.

I'd really like to read about the experiences of anyone who's playing in a Drukari vs Drukari Crusade... It's how I'm planning on growing my army- I'm just a really slow painter. Reading about how other people are using this content would be interesting.


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/02 08:22:10


Post by: Karol


In my expiriance, in places where people have less money to spend on the game, the casual armies do not look as much different from regular tournament lists. Especially if the said lists use a lot of FW stuff, if it was not for marines, the recast armies would be the majority of armies being played.


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/02 08:32:33


Post by: Bosskelot


PenitentJake wrote:
I've wondered too about why there is such a concentration of competitive players in Dakka general.


Judging by the regular statements made in this forum by many regular posters I wouldn't really say that's the case.


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/02 08:33:15


Post by: Vector Strike


I've decided to play 40k basically only as a casual game. I rather cater to other games for the competitive scene.

However, I also care for a more balanced game and I believe the competitive scene can help in that regard.


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/02 08:40:40


Post by: Karol


 Bosskelot wrote:
PenitentJake wrote:
I've wondered too about why there is such a concentration of competitive players in Dakka general.


Judging by the regular statements made in this forum by many regular posters I wouldn't really say that's the case.


Are there any actual ranked players posting on the forum on a regular basis, from any country?


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/02 08:45:37


Post by: ccs


My own most casual list that I've played in the last 6 months is an extremely odd./week Tyranid force.
I 100% expected to lose. In fact it was almost impossible foe the opponent not to win....

You've all seen the movie Alien I presume?
Spaceship crew investigates a wreck, finds a cache of face-hugger pods, one idiot bends over to take a closer look & gets mugged. After that it's off to the races & alot of bad sequels, comics, etc.

So I made a list trying to replicate this as best I could! 40k style. As the catalyst event of a Tyranid invasion.
1x Broodlord - in strategic reserve.
5x Ripper swarms (3 bases each) - in reserve
3x spore mines (9 spores each) - deployed in my zone
3x Biovores (3 in each unit) - deployed as far out of LoS as possible.
1x Spindle Drone unit (4 models) - in my DZ
2x Guardian Drones - in my DZ
Objective markers for this force were 40mm bases with Alien facehugger pods on them.
Terrain was crashed spaceship debris & hull sections.
As this was a "Narrative" game we suspended the requirement that reserves had to enter by turn 3.

The story:
An alien spaceship has crashed. The opponents force has been sent to investigate. Upon arriving on the scene they find strange leathery pods scattered about & several robots of unknown origin engaged in cleanup. Two larger robots take notice and move to intercept....

The action:
Standard 40K mission (forget wich one), take & hold the 4 objectives, score pts.

If I go 1st? Move to shoot with the Guardian Drones, maybe charge? Move Spindles about my DZ.
If I go 2nd? Same, except if any enemies take objectives open fire on them with the hidden Biovores*. Only target units controlling objectives, starting with those closest.

*There's no way I can make the objectives actually attack my opponents units. So I'll just have to simulate the facehuggers bursting forth via sporemine bombards.

The goal here is to wound, preferably kill, at least one model with a sporemine.

The next turn? If any models have died to a spore, then I'll bring a unit of rippers out of reserve as near as possible.
The rippers will then do everything they can to get out of LoS or off the board.
If any do? Then next turn I'll bring the Broodlord into play & go hunting.

If any spore wounded enemies survive the game, or if any rippers escaped, then stage one of the Tyranid infestation has begun & the next game will be against a GSC as things worsen.
Once the GSC WINS a battle? Then I'll move onto a mycetic spore pod/winged based Tyranid list. And so on up the chain of Tyranid army styles/phases of invasion.

W/L/D, so long as I wound/kill a model via sporemine & a ripper flees succefully? Then my forces objective is achieved. Somehow actually winning via mission objectives would be an improbable bonus....

In this particular game I both lost and failed. None of the wounded enemies survived & none of my resulting rippers got away (so no Broodlord).
This'll run again though.



Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/02 08:48:48


Post by: Niiai


 CommanderWalrus wrote:
One thing I've noticed on these forums and pretty much everywhere else people discuss 40k is that the conversation is pretty much universally slanted to a more competitive side.
Why is this? IMO the game is more fun played more casually, and it seems many people share this opinion, but yet 90% of the discussion is on how to win at all costs. Whenever a new codex is out the discussion is heavily weighted on how strong it is and not how fun it is. The 9th edition Necron Codex comes to mind since while it doesn't have the most competitive options, it is a blast to play for more casual games since it has so many cool and unique options. But I see almost no one talk about some of these things because it doesn't relate to "meta". Any idea why this is, in general?


I think this is a false assumption. Quite a lot of people are talking about cassual play.


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/02 09:03:37


Post by: Gert


I think people seem to be confusing "casual gaming" with "open gaming" when they are two very different things.
A pick up game at your local club with a set power or points limit is still be casual with restrictions used with matched play.
A game where both people bring top tier meta tourney lists isn't likely to be casual but again still can be casual if you aren't actually competing for anything but bragging rights.
If someone rocks up with 10 Knights vs an army of Grots, you best believe that's going to be both casual and a riot of a game.
Casual doesn't mean you throw the rules out the window it just means you aren't competing for a prize.


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/02 09:28:27


Post by: Andykp


The problem on Dakka seems to be if you try and approach a thing from a casual/narrative gaming point of view you get shouted down by certain “try hard, mouthy, WAAC” types. They are few in number but very vocal and shift the discussion towards competitive every time. I have even had them calling me. A liar for saying I didn’t care who won or lost. As such the discussion tends to focus on the competitive slant.


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/02 09:46:18


Post by: Ordana


 CommanderWalrus wrote:
One thing I've noticed on these forums and pretty much everywhere else people discuss 40k is that the conversation is pretty much universally slanted to a more competitive side.
Why is this? IMO the game is more fun played more casually, and it seems many people share this opinion, but yet 90% of the discussion is on how to win at all costs. Whenever a new codex is out the discussion is heavily weighted on how strong it is and not how fun it is. The 9th edition Necron Codex comes to mind since while it doesn't have the most competitive options, it is a blast to play for more casual games since it has so many cool and unique options. But I see almost no one talk about some of these things because it doesn't relate to "meta". Any idea why this is, in general?
Because this is a discussion forum and there is very little to discuss about casual play?

What units do you use? The ones you like.
What does your army look like? Whatever you want you.

When the answer to almost everything is "it doesn't matter, do what you want/enjoy" there simply is not much to discuss.


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/02 10:07:51


Post by: FrozenDwarf


I think it boils down to the fact that the "casual" aspect honestly dont exist.
We use the term, but i think what we mean by saying it is "house rules" or preset limitations that has a stronger negative effect then the written rules do.

In a sence you could say that drop-in games in local GW shops, is nothing but an exercise in self controll; bring a good winning force and you will quicky find that not many wants to play agasint you in the spesific setting, cus there is an unspoken house rule at play: this is a reqruitment and testing ground, dont obliterate your opponent.

Everyone will at some point turn to competative gaming when their understanding of the game increases.






Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/02 10:22:03


Post by: Sgt. Cortez


 Bosskelot wrote:
PenitentJake wrote:
I've wondered too about why there is such a concentration of competitive players in Dakka general.


Judging by the regular statements made in this forum by many regular posters I wouldn't really say that's the case.


I'm always surprised by dakka polls which often show a majority of players that don't seem to care about the competitve aspect. But then again I also agree with Jake's notion that dakka's discussions often feel very focussed on tournament or competitive play.
In the end it's true what many in this thread say: It's hard to discuss narrative or casual play on an international board because, for example, how to write narrative scenarios or campaigns for the selected armies of your 4 friends is not really something where the guy 5000km away can help you with. Of course you could discuss how to enhance your crusade campaign with more narrative missions, or how to use missions from older editions to spice up the experience because I really don't know how the tournament crowd keeps interest in playing the same boring eternal war missions over and over again. But in the end these things are hard to discuss with strangers. That being said I always like to read Penitentjakes walls of text about his ongoing campaigns, no matter what the topic at hand actually is .


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/02 11:37:45


Post by: AllSeeingSkink


 Sledgehammer wrote:
TangoTwoBravo wrote:
I was suggesting that folks who want to build narrative lists enjoy doing so and not worry so much about winning. Declare victory on their own terms. Look at this army I have brought to life!

I think that there are people who think that they are great players and then get really upset when they do not win on the tabletop. They find reasons outside of themselves for their loss. Trash rules, trash units, the other guy was a WAAC etc. Probably part of human nature. Protects our egos?

Anyway - enjoy 40K. Or do not! You have some choice in the matter.
In what world would I find narrative satisfaction in my army being ruthlessly murdered? Nobody sets out to make an inpotent gaggle of morons who show up to get killed every week for any reason other than as a joke.

Look at the Middle Earth Strategy Battle Game and you'll see a game that allows for actual casual gaming. It frustrates me because I know GW is capable of acheving it.

Also the "git good" argument on a topic about casual gaming and how certain armies are trash, says a lot about how the game and the community caters to casual play.


Yeah, I find the casual vs competitive argument gets a bit silly with people going to one extreme on the other.

A game can be both competitive and casual at the same time. If you just throw competitiveness to the wind you might as well be building dioramas instead or just making "pew pew pew!" noises at each other, it's a game, it's supposed to be competitive. Even if you're playing some special scenario where you are intended to lose (last stand type mission) you're likely playing it to do as much damage to the opponent's force or hold out as long as possible otherwise you're just pointlessly throwing dice.

The fun vs winning discussion is even more absurd. As if you can't have fun whilst also trying to win Some folk act like the words "casual, narrative, fun, relaxed" solely belong together in one category and "competitive, WAAC, try hard" belong uniquely and inexorably in a separate category.


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/02 11:50:51


Post by: stroller


"Everyone will at some point turn to competitive gaming when their understanding of the game increases."

Nonsense. Some folk LIKE tournament play. Some don't.

Competitive play is also easier to discuss, because there are more absolutes.


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/02 12:03:33


Post by: Sgt_Smudge


Sledgehammer wrote:
 Amishprn86 wrote:
B.c you play the level and how you want, its a personal thing between you, others, or friends. What is there to talk about?
It's a personal thing where your enjoyment is dependent on someone else. That is fundamentally flawed.
Why is that fundamentally flawed?

Sledgehammer wrote:I'm sure casual players are thinking to themselves "gee I really like gaunts ghosts, and I want to make a cool army to live out some more adventures with the tanith 1st. I don't care if my regimental rules / codex is so poorly balanced that I cannot forge my own cool experiences with my army in the game because they all get horribly murdered each time i put them on the table!"
Casual player here. I don't care how hard my army gets beaten, because my enjoyment isn't tied to their performance on the tabletop.

There can be some ambivalence around casual playing, but if you're looking to forge your own narrative with an army you put a lot of time, money and work into, only for them to get continuously beaten, you're either going to change your list or give up.
Or, evidently, not.

Sledgehammer wrote:In what world would I find narrative satisfaction in my army being ruthlessly murdered? Nobody sets out to make an inpotent gaggle of morons who show up to get killed every week for any reason other than as a joke.
I think you misunderstand actively trying to get killed with not caring if your models do or not.
When I go and make a list, my first thought is on the narrative, aesthetic, or theme that I'm trying to create. The actual mechanical power of that army is not important. So, yes, it's very easy for me to find narrative satisfaction in that. Evidently, you don't, but that's why you don't play casual 40k, and that's fine.

But maybe stop with the whole "it's impossible to enjoy casual 40k" stuff, because it's evidently not true.


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/02 12:21:13


Post by: TangoTwoBravo


 Sledgehammer wrote:
TangoTwoBravo wrote:
I was suggesting that folks who want to build narrative lists enjoy doing so and not worry so much about winning. Declare victory on their own terms. Look at this army I have brought to life!

I think that there are people who think that they are great players and then get really upset when they do not win on the tabletop. They find reasons outside of themselves for their loss. Trash rules, trash units, the other guy was a WAAC etc. Probably part of human nature. Protects our egos?

Anyway - enjoy 40K. Or do not! You have some choice in the matter.
In what world would I find narrative satisfaction in my army being ruthlessly murdered? Nobody sets out to make an inpotent gaggle of morons who show up to get killed every week for any reason other than as a joke.

Look at the Middle Earth Strategy Battle Game and you'll see a game that allows for actual casual gaming. It frustrates me because I know GW is capable of acheving it.

Also the "git good" argument on a topic about casual gaming and how certain armies are trash, says a lot about how the game and the community caters to casual play.


I am not saying that you or anybody should get good. I am saying that we should be honest with ourselves. The game has always given players considerable freedom in picking their forces. Its not a new thing.

What is the premise of the thread? What is casual play? Does it just mean pickup games? Does it mean games outside of a tournament? I would argue that much of this forum is people making lists and tactics for pickup games, which themselves are usually under Matched Play conditions. Or does casual mean you are relaxed about the game? If that is what it means then I am having a hard time squaring the circle on your intensity about the tabletop performance of your army. If casual means infrequent or irregular play then it should not be a surprise that people do not spend their time on a forum righting about something they do infrequently.

If casual means playing in a relaxed manner where winning is not the first objective then, well, play in a relaxed manner with other like-minded people?

I get the feeling that by casual you mean narrative or maybe themed. And yes, you will likely be at a disadvantage when you bring a narrative list to a pickup game under matched play conditions. I think you need to manage expectations regarding victory when you do that.


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/02 12:22:27


Post by: PaddyMick


Here's a very good recent video on how to improve Open Play:




Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/02 12:35:32


Post by: ERJAK


 CommanderWalrus wrote:
One thing I've noticed on these forums and pretty much everywhere else people discuss 40k is that the conversation is pretty much universally slanted to a more competitive side.
Why is this? IMO the game is more fun played more casually, and it seems many people share this opinion, but yet 90% of the discussion is on how to win at all costs. Whenever a new codex is out the discussion is heavily weighted on how strong it is and not how fun it is. The 9th edition Necron Codex comes to mind since while it doesn't have the most competitive options, it is a blast to play for more casual games since it has so many cool and unique options. But I see almost no one talk about some of these things because it doesn't relate to "meta". Any idea why this is, in general?


What exactly are you supposed to talk about here that could lead to lengthy discussion? Talking about casual play tends to be a handful of sentences at best: "Hey man, I like Skorpechs, they're really cool." "I'm glad you enjoy them!" "Me and my friends wrote a campaign with custom missions and it was a lot of fun!" "That's great man! Me and my friends also make our own campaigns and have fun with them!" You've just covered about 95% of the topic.

Competitive play and painting have a lot more content to discuss so that's why the vast majority of conversation is about those.

To clarify, that doesn't make casual play worse than competitive play, it just means there's not as much to talk about.


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/02 12:48:36


Post by: Gert


I don't think it's that there's less to talk about, more that it's the kind of conversation that works more in person where the discussion is fluid and reactions are instant. The number of times I've gone out for drinks with friends and we've just started talking about meme-lists and game ideas is in the low hundreds.


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/02 12:58:18


Post by: Unit1126PLL


I think there is plenty of narrative lists that can be talked about. People just don't want to. Take, for example, a thread from... I think 6th edition that I participated in:

"Hey so, here's my army. I themed it around an Imperial Guard armored company and have about 400-500 points left to spend after the 10x Russ tanks. What do you think would be fun and thematic with them?"

That was the OP, roughly, IIRC.
What I thought would happen:
"armored infantry is cool in Chimeras but you won't get many. You could try three Thunderbolt Fighters instead. If you really wanted to be cool, though, you could use the lascarbine from the Russ kit and convert up some tank riders - a lot of infantry without Chimeras. Narratively they can get to the battle riding on the Russes. I think for theme they shouldn't have any Heavy Weapons though, as there isn't a lot of space on the tank..."

How it actually went:
"Omg noob taking 10 tanks you will lose every game that is stupid, why take ten?"
[Me, posts a bazillion sources on the 10-tank armored company (3 sqdns of 3 with one Cmd Tank).]
"Omg wow don't put so much stock into the lore, your dudes can do something different. Are you trying to lose games? Wow you must be a fun opponent if I just casually sweep you off the table every game..."

Etc. Eventually the argument petered out. Needless to say, I didn't actually ever figure out what to spend that last quarter or so of my list on.


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/02 13:16:34


Post by: Deadnight


Op

Youre making the usual mistake of declaring the opposite of competitive as casual.

Thr opposite of competitive is non-competitive.

The opposite of casual is serious.

Casual doesn't mean 'more fun'. It means less invested. My wife is a serious football fan. A casual fan, by comparison will probably know the names of at least some of the main players and will be happy when they win, buy won't buy the yearly strips, won't follow the gossip and behind thr scenes chat, won't be into thr politics and if they miss a game or several,meh. In 40k terms casual can manifest as, for example not caring about the game side too much, or even, not caring about thr other aspects of the hobby, like painting or appreciating the value of the lire.

It is entirely possible to be a serious, but not-competitive player.
And it's entirely possible to be a casual yet competitive player.

Neither is wrong.

But to.answer your question as to why these serious view of thr hobby isn't spoken about more, think about it. It's an Internet forum... if you're coming here, you're probably more serious than little Tim who has glued 8 space marines,both hands and an eye together. These forums tend to self select towards the serious and especially the competitive players. Casual players won't really come here and for non-conpetitive, there's not much to talk.sbout in tactics or gen.disc. you'll tend to find 'those people' hanging out in background and painting/modelling. I also tend to find a lot of the home brewers, narrative etc players tend to just do their own thing.


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/02 13:23:51


Post by: Cornishman


To me a casual game are for fun, you are playing for the enjoyment of the game. To me this makes casual gaming for more important than the competitive game.

To me a casual game may often be a pick up game, so I'd expect casual games would often fall under match-play.

It's usually not the done thing to not tweak your list once what your playing which leads to casual lists also being take all comer lists.

This still doesn't answer what a casual game or list is though. A casual list almost by definition in an awkward to actually define space. To me such a list will not designed for optimal possible performance, but still has a reasonable performance to it such that it can be effective. With the emergent property that you should be able to have a good fun game against any faction, without either player getting annihilated simply because one of the player's armies is simply that much stronger.

Thus with casual being very hard to define (one group may casually test out their lists for the next tournament, another group may simply play with what takes their fancy) it is far easier to discuss the competitive game.

Not all codexes, or even options in a given codex have been made equal, so even for the casual player there is a huge benefit in understanding what makes your army work, and it's relative place in the competitive meta. Whilst the usual implication in describing a list as ‘fluffy’ is that it doesn’t prioritise performance, and in absolute performance terms would be expected to fall a significant distance below the peak possible performance for that codex, this relationship is by no means guaranteed.

To me one of issues with 8.5 C:SM, and the current Drukhari and Harlies is that it’s very easy to produce lists that are both quite ‘fluffy’ and rather powerful. With such armies you are pretty much having to consciously design a list to ‘casual’, rather than being able to sling together a bunch of models from your collection together than seems like a good fit.

Where the current absolute peak performance lists for a given faction are driven by a small number of things (e.g. units/ stratagems/ traits etc…) it can relatively easy to avoid accidently over tweaking the performance of a list aimed at casual play simply by avoiding such options.

Where things get more troublesome is where the power of a codex isn’t tied to a particular gimmick, or otherwise ingrained in an army.

For instance for casual games in 8E, using marines I avoided Sallies/ Master Artisan and though I usually brought along a Captain I choose not to Chapter Master him. I’ll freely admit that whilst it was often frustrating not to have the very handy abilities that either (or both) would bring overall I felt it was a lot easier to have a good game against pretty much any other ‘casual’ list without either of them.

Looking at some of the currently top of the pile factions (e.g. Drukhari and Harlies) lots of their power is in brutally cost effective troops and transports for them. Mechanisation is both consistent with the lore of these faction and is the avenue for getting optimal performance for these armies. An army from such a faction even if slung together (i.e. intended to be 'casual') could easily be for more effective (i.e. competitive) than intended.

Now that major competitions are aligned to the core rules absolute performance is (near enough) a constant (no more complications of differential performance in Chapter Approved vs ITC environments), this is something that can easily be talked about.

Even if it accepted that casual (may) usually (often?) talk about TAC lists suitable for pick up play typically in the 1.5k-2k range play that aims for sub-absolute peak performance than this is still huge poorly defined space (e.g. how sub-optimal? What is the level of performance desired?).

In short whist I consider casual play more important than competive, as the specifics of what is considered 'casual' is likely to change (if only slightly) from gaming shop/ circles/ group/ club then this makes it harder to discuss online (one groups casual may be anothers semi-competitive etc...) than competitive play.



Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/02 13:58:22


Post by: Voss


 CommanderWalrus wrote:
One thing I've noticed on these forums and pretty much everywhere else people discuss 40k is that the conversation is pretty much universally slanted to a more competitive side.
Why is this? IMO the game is more fun played more casually, and it seems many people share this opinion, but yet 90% of the discussion is on how to win at all costs. Whenever a new codex is out the discussion is heavily weighted on how strong it is and not how fun it is. The 9th edition Necron Codex comes to mind since while it doesn't have the most competitive options, it is a blast to play for more casual games since it has so many cool and unique options. But I see almost no one talk about some of these things because it doesn't relate to "meta". Any idea why this is, in general?


Here's the thing. Most people _are_ actually talking about casual play. The outliers are just dragging 'tournament statistics' into discussions to 'prove' their assumptions about the game are correct (largely by misreading statistics- the Drukhari are OP thread is hilarious for this, just for the amount of 'data' used to come to wildly opposed conclusions).
The truth is, line between casual and competitive isn't a real one. Its all the same game. The 'bleeding edge' tournament games are possibly a different one, but its important to remember that the discussions about them are being done by armchair spectators who are largely talking out of a very windy cave.

The meta, on the other hand, can be useful to talk about as it gives a baseline for discussion- what kind of armies are often out there (yes, even for 'narrative' games), and how to cope when a new codex shifts how armies work.


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/02 14:04:22


Post by: Sledgehammer


ccs wrote:
 Sledgehammer wrote:
TangoTwoBravo wrote:
@Sledge,

People are denied the good games that they are deserved? So gamers have no agency in their good games? Sometimes it takes a little work, but at a minimum it takes the establishment of the parameters. My assumption, barring prior discussion, is that a pick-up game at a store will be under Matched Play conditions and I expect the other player to have built what he considers to be an effective list. So if I decide to bring a themed list I should accept that I will likely face a list built around effectiveness. My enjoyment will come from playing my themed list.

I can see a player having a tough time if they put no effort into their list but also care intensely about winning.
Fundamentally I believe that lists are the primary determinate of victory far and away above a players ability to play well. When a player sets out to build a thematic list that adheres to their own lore and parameters, he or she is putting a lot of THEMSELF into their army. It's INCREDIBLY disheartening to come to the conclusion that the army you put all that time and effort developing a back story, and painting minis for is trash on the table due to the whims of fate. I shouldn't have to accept the fact that my army that i put that much time and effort into is just a bunch of faceless cannon fodder for someone else's FOTM net list.

40k does have systems that require skill, but for the most part it's about your list.


The whims of fate did not dictate that you accept games against those FOTM net lists. That's on YOU.
The whims of fate do not require you to completely sacrifice effectiveness for theme. It's been a long time since I last read a Tanith book, but they're STILL an IG regiment. They get sent to various fronts & operate alongside other Imperial forces of all types. There's no reason your list can't represent that.
My argument is that if I, or anyone has to dictate terms to another player to get a good game, then the rules themselves do not facilitate casual play. It's as simple as that. The exact army is again irrelevant.


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/02 14:13:03


Post by: Voss


My argument is that if I, or anyone has to dictate terms to another player to get a good game, then the rules themselves do not facilitate casual play. It's as simple as that. The exact army is again irrelevant.

That's so absolute, I'm not sure any casual games exist. Or have ever existed, or could possibly exist in the future.

Your 'whims of fate' remark is equally weird. It assumes other people can't have a good list that they put their 'heart and soul' into that also happens to treat your army like faceless cannon fodder. Is that fine?



Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/02 14:25:51


Post by: Sledgehammer


Voss wrote:
My argument is that if I, or anyone has to dictate terms to another player to get a good game, then the rules themselves do not facilitate casual play. It's as simple as that. The exact army is again irrelevant.

That's so absolute, I'm not sure any casual games exist. Or have ever existed, or could possibly exist in the future.

Your 'whims of fate' remark is equally weird. It assumes other people can't have a good list that they put their 'heart and soul' into that also happens to treat your army like faceless cannon fodder. Is that fine?

Dictating what kind of army you're opponent can, or should have in order to have a good game, due to the current power level of any one given army is entirely antithetical to a good casual game. It puts players in situations where they either must attempt to deny their opponent playing the army, or list that they want to, not play at all, or change their own list. It creates situations where you have to explicitly outline the rules and conditions, outside of the rules of the game and whereby one player will not, or cannot play the army that they want to if they want to have a good time. If i have to do that, then the rules therefore suck for casual gaming. The rules should be the established baseline for an even casual time, they are not.

Yes some players do not care if they win, but that's not really an argument against wanting even, fun matches for players regardless of the list they want to bring. That is a mindset that again, exists outside of the rules themselves.


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/02 14:43:45


Post by: Catulle


 Sledgehammer wrote:
 Amishprn86 wrote:
 CommanderWalrus wrote:
One thing I've noticed on these forums and pretty much everywhere else people discuss 40k is that the conversation is pretty much universally slanted to a more competitive side.
Why is this? IMO the game is more fun played more casually, and it seems many people share this opinion, but yet 90% of the discussion is on how to win at all costs. Whenever a new codex is out the discussion is heavily weighted on how strong it is and not how fun it is. The 9th edition Necron Codex comes to mind since while it doesn't have the most competitive options, it is a blast to play for more casual games since it has so many cool and unique options. But I see almost no one talk about some of these things because it doesn't relate to "meta". Any idea why this is, in general?


B.c you play the level and how you want, its a personal thing between you, others, or friends. What is there to talk about?
It's a personal thing where your enjoyment is dependent on someone else. That is fundamentally flawed.


But one of my favourite things involves my enjoyment being dependent on someone else!


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/02 14:45:20


Post by: Gert


Oh no, someone has brought a tournament-winning list to this pick-up game. I'd rather not fight that would you mind toning it down a bit? No? Ok, that's fine.
Boom, situation resolved.
Funnily enough, anyone can and should choose who they want to play against. Casual play is not "play literally everyone because anything else is not casual".


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/02 14:50:02


Post by: Voss


 Sledgehammer wrote:
Voss wrote:
My argument is that if I, or anyone has to dictate terms to another player to get a good game, then the rules themselves do not facilitate casual play. It's as simple as that. The exact army is again irrelevant.

That's so absolute, I'm not sure any casual games exist. Or have ever existed, or could possibly exist in the future.

Your 'whims of fate' remark is equally weird. It assumes other people can't have a good list that they put their 'heart and soul' into that also happens to treat your army like faceless cannon fodder. Is that fine?

Dictating what kind of army you're opponent can, or should have in order to have a good game, due to the current power level of any one given army is entirely antithetical to a good casual game. It puts players in situations where they either must attempt to deny their opponent playing the army, or list that they want to, not play at all, or change their own list. It creates situations where you have to explicitly outline the rules and conditions, outside of the rules of the game and whereby one player will not, or cannot play the army that they want to if they want to have a good time. If i have to do that, then the rules therefore suck for casual gaming. The rules should be the established baseline for an even casual time, they are not.

Ok, lets try from another angle. What's a game where what you're describing is actually true?
Past the point of Snakes and Ladders or Candyland, I'm not sure I know a game that provides what you want. Or, at least, what you're describing.
Or you're mixing up '40k is not well balanced' for '40k isn't casual,' and those are two very different arguments.



Yes some players do not care if they win, but that's not really an argument against wanting even, fun matches for players regardless of the list they want to bring. That is a mindset that again, exists outside of the rules themselves.

Is this a response to me, or someone else? It seems... unrelated to anything that's been said.


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/02 15:20:27


Post by: Slayer-Fan123


TangoTwoBravo wrote:
I was suggesting that folks who want to build narrative lists enjoy doing so and not worry so much about winning. Declare victory on their own terms. Look at this army I have brought to life!

AKA the perfect GW customer saying FORGE THE NARRATIVE!!!1!


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/02 15:32:54


Post by: TangoTwoBravo


Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
TangoTwoBravo wrote:
I was suggesting that folks who want to build narrative lists enjoy doing so and not worry so much about winning. Declare victory on their own terms. Look at this army I have brought to life!

AKA the perfect GW customer saying FORGE THE NARRATIVE!!!1!


Well, if you want the game to play narratively there is some requirement for you to play it narratively. Since your usual stance on a unit or list is that it is "trash" I am not surprised that you find the game is not very narrative. Playing a game of 40K is not a passive experience like watching a movie. You need to put a little work in. But hey, I don't work for GW and I missed out on the whole "forge the narrative" meme.

Putting a lot of thought and effort into the lore of a list is not very casual. It actually seems a little intense. Players who emphasize the lore/background of their list and are not willing to compromise that to gain tabletop effectiveness will tend to be unhappy if they also really want to win on 40K Saturday at their FLGS. Now, if they play with like-minded friends they might have a different outcome. Maybe play Narrative missions etc.


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/02 16:02:13


Post by: JohnnyHell


So now casual play isn’t casual.

I’ve read everything on Dakka now!

Folks, stop telling other folks how they’re allowed to have fun.


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/02 16:22:21


Post by: Wunzlez


Casual is difficult to talk about because it is a relaxed, if chaotic, way to organise a game.

And there's nothing wrong with that. But any analysis about why something did or did not work within a game will always tend towards areas that are more familiar to competitive players.

It's very difficult to escape the common sense of being efficient in your choices and no matter how casual and relaxed your game is, you can't really have a discussion on tactics without slipping into a competitive area of discussion.

Having said all that, what you can do is organise unique and unusual scenarios with like minded people and then discuss what you did and what was fun about it and what wasn't.

Also army fluff, with an emphasis on lore and maybe bring in painting too.

I just think, most people, are more concerned with mechanics than the more 'artistic' elements, such as writing, story and painting. Because those are much harder to get into and involve a lot of time and effort without immediate feedback.

Whereas rolling dice, looking at stats and maths, and what units are better in a mechanical sense, is just much easier to organise and build structure around.


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/02 16:27:16


Post by: PenitentJake


 FrozenDwarf wrote:
I think it boils down to the fact that the "casual" aspect honestly dont exist.
We use the term, but i think what we mean by saying it is "house rules" or preset limitations that has a stronger negative effect then the written rules do.

In a sence you could say that drop-in games in local GW shops, is nothing but an exercise in self controll; bring a good winning force and you will quicky find that not many wants to play agasint you in the spesific setting, cus there is an unspoken house rule at play: this is a reqruitment and testing ground, dont obliterate your opponent.

Everyone will at some point turn to competative gaming when their understanding of the game increases.



Not I, not I said the spider to the fly.

I've been playing since '89. I've attended exactly one tournament. Never played in a store.

The truth is that casual players far, far exceed the number of competitive players, and the overwhelmingly vast majority of players will never join forums or post their stuff on the internet. The vast majority of players play with a handful of friends and don't give a damn what any of us think. They buy the models they like and they play them against other players who have done the same.

I do agree that the definitions of what is casual vs. what is competitive are loose, and discussion does benefit from clarification.

So when I talk about the two, here's what I mean by the terms:

Competitive:
- plays most often against strangers and most often using matched play rules and points
- chooses forces primarily based on effectiveness in the game
- will tweak and tailor a list to increase odds of winning with other factors being secondary concerns
- makes decisions about whether the game state is good or bad based on balance

Casual:
- more likely to play with friends in private homes; more likely to vary from Matched play rules and points
- chooses models they like- sometimes based on what models look like, sometimes based on their background
- grow their list using the same criteria- buying more of the models they like for appearance or story reasons
- makes decisions about whether the game state is good or bad based on model ranges and availability, whether or not the army "feels" like it should according to background

A lot of people fit these two archetypes loosely; defining what camp the outliers fall into is basically a matter of looking at their priorities- a "competitive" player, given a choice between models that perform equally well will choose the ones they like the most based on appearance or background, but effectiveness is the priority. The "Casual" player, given a choice between units that they like equally based on appearance or fluff will often choose the more optimal unit, that just isn't their priority.

Similarly, competitive players DO care about whether armies feel like they should and whether the range of models is diverse... It's just not their priority. Casual players do care about balance, but it isn't their priority.




Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/02 16:35:20


Post by: bullyboy


Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
 bullyboy wrote:
40K for sure is a better game when played casually or narratively

LOL in what manner have the rules ever been good for narrative gaming? Whats narrative about IGOUGO? What's narrative about Lucius The Eternal being garbage when fighting the most generic of characters? What's narrative about a singular CSM squad remembering how to shoot a singular target better?

Anything 40k defenders have given for the game being some narrative tool is just sunken cost in its purest form. Also, the game is absolutely just not built for casual gaming because the effort required to make sure you're not bringing too hard a list to play against makes it not casual to begin with. This is especially true when certain armies with their fluff correct armies are just stupidly better than other armies even being built in a more strict fashion.



what the heck would you know about narrative gaming, everything is "trash" to you, kinda like your opinion really.
Your community must just really suck for you to have this outlook, sorry about that.


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/02 16:49:17


Post by: Amishprn86


I play causal, narrative, and comp. I have no problem balancing all 3 b.c its not that hard. I honestly don't know anyone that doesn't understand the purpose of each of the 3 and can't balance for each. It seems like a few people in here just doesn't want to play causal.

Speaking of narrative, you can do some really fun stuff with it, saw some narrative players do some really cool stuff, here is an example:

The long term goal was for the Chaos player to steal the Titan in the base, IG won if they could keep them at bay for 5 games. 5k Chaos points in total at the max, and a set amount for IG on each map (Only thing that was a must is Abaddon has to be the WL and not start on game 1)
3 maps: Map 1 open table with bunker type terrain. Map 2 heavy city. Map 3 heavy factory based. Each time Chaos loses they get more points and try again.

1000pts of IG infantry, artillery (basically no tanks) with full side of fortifications (walls, bunkers, trenches only) that are 100% always IG's if any IG is touching them. The Chaos player started with 1k on the table and 1k to DS in via Daemon portals that he can place. The idea was for Chaos to win easily and then more heavy IG units comes in on the City terrain with tanks and such, well.... with some luck roles and unlucky from the Chaos player IG actually won. So the Chaos player said "I think Abaddon is mad and wants to get this over with, i will bring him as well as 3k points. So Now there is only like 500pts of IG left and he is playing 3.5k of his 5k points to just full over run map 1, it was hilarious. Chaos did end up losing in the end b.c on Map 3 IG just had too much and Chaos had loo little left.

Narrative between friends can be super fun and even a bit unbalanced on purpose.


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/02 16:51:27


Post by: Slayer-Fan123


 bullyboy wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
 bullyboy wrote:
40K for sure is a better game when played casually or narratively

LOL in what manner have the rules ever been good for narrative gaming? Whats narrative about IGOUGO? What's narrative about Lucius The Eternal being garbage when fighting the most generic of characters? What's narrative about a singular CSM squad remembering how to shoot a singular target better?

Anything 40k defenders have given for the game being some narrative tool is just sunken cost in its purest form. Also, the game is absolutely just not built for casual gaming because the effort required to make sure you're not bringing too hard a list to play against makes it not casual to begin with. This is especially true when certain armies with their fluff correct armies are just stupidly better than other armies even being built in a more strict fashion.



what the heck would you know about narrative gaming, everything is "trash" to you, kinda like your opinion really.
Your community must just really suck for you to have this outlook, sorry about that.

You didn't disprove my points on Narrative, you merely went "nuh uh". If that's the best rebuttal you got maybe you ought to actually look at the rules you're defending?


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/02 17:26:28


Post by: bullyboy


Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
 bullyboy wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
 bullyboy wrote:
40K for sure is a better game when played casually or narratively

LOL in what manner have the rules ever been good for narrative gaming? Whats narrative about IGOUGO? What's narrative about Lucius The Eternal being garbage when fighting the most generic of characters? What's narrative about a singular CSM squad remembering how to shoot a singular target better?

Anything 40k defenders have given for the game being some narrative tool is just sunken cost in its purest form. Also, the game is absolutely just not built for casual gaming because the effort required to make sure you're not bringing too hard a list to play against makes it not casual to begin with. This is especially true when certain armies with their fluff correct armies are just stupidly better than other armies even being built in a more strict fashion.



what the heck would you know about narrative gaming, everything is "trash" to you, kinda like your opinion really.
Your community must just really suck for you to have this outlook, sorry about that.

You didn't disprove my points on Narrative, you merely went "nuh uh". If that's the best rebuttal you got maybe you ought to actually look at the rules you're defending?


1000's of people worldwide enjoying this game is more proof than is needed to show your opinion that it's "trash" is worthless. Your specific gameplay may be terrible, but that goes against most of the population that continues to play 40K.


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/02 17:35:33


Post by: ERJAK


Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
 bullyboy wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
 bullyboy wrote:
40K for sure is a better game when played casually or narratively

LOL in what manner have the rules ever been good for narrative gaming? Whats narrative about IGOUGO? What's narrative about Lucius The Eternal being garbage when fighting the most generic of characters? What's narrative about a singular CSM squad remembering how to shoot a singular target better?

Anything 40k defenders have given for the game being some narrative tool is just sunken cost in its purest form. Also, the game is absolutely just not built for casual gaming because the effort required to make sure you're not bringing too hard a list to play against makes it not casual to begin with. This is especially true when certain armies with their fluff correct armies are just stupidly better than other armies even being built in a more strict fashion.



what the heck would you know about narrative gaming, everything is "trash" to you, kinda like your opinion really.
Your community must just really suck for you to have this outlook, sorry about that.

You didn't disprove my points on Narrative, you merely went "nuh uh". If that's the best rebuttal you got maybe you ought to actually look at the rules you're defending?


You didn't make any points. You whined about your army not being good enough. That's not what making a point is.


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/02 18:03:49


Post by: ccs


Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
 bullyboy wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
 bullyboy wrote:
40K for sure is a better game when played casually or narratively

LOL in what manner have the rules ever been good for narrative gaming? Whats narrative about IGOUGO? What's narrative about Lucius The Eternal being garbage when fighting the most generic of characters? What's narrative about a singular CSM squad remembering how to shoot a singular target better?

Anything 40k defenders have given for the game being some narrative tool is just sunken cost in its purest form. Also, the game is absolutely just not built for casual gaming because the effort required to make sure you're not bringing too hard a list to play against makes it not casual to begin with. This is especially true when certain armies with their fluff correct armies are just stupidly better than other armies even being built in a more strict fashion.



what the heck would you know about narrative gaming, everything is "trash" to you, kinda like your opinion really.
Your community must just really suck for you to have this outlook, sorry about that.

You didn't disprove my points on Narrative, you merely went "nuh uh". If that's the best rebuttal you got maybe you ought to actually look at the rules you're defending?


What rules do you think we should be looking at here?
We need rules for:
*Movement, LoS, shooting, melee, wounding, armor saves, morale, assorted weapons, etc. Magic/psychic use depending on the game.
*Rules for army composition - force charts, & some form of pts are generally useful (not always needed though). Otherwise you get Age of Sigmar 1.0 :(
So how do these NOT support narrative? Whatever game we play we need these things.

Turn structure? IGOUGO, alt. activation, various forms of simultanious.... They've all worked. GW stuff just tends to use IGOUGO.

Missions? GWs not doing anything special or groundbreaking here. Just making gak up. Any of us can do that. And probably should be when designing narrative scenarios.

Heck, GWs even supporting Narrative via Crusade content. It might be argued how good that is, & complaints that force specific charts only exist for 9e codices, but it exists/is coming.


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/02 20:04:26


Post by: Deadnight


Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
LOL in what manner have the rules ever been good for narrative gaming? Whats narrative about IGOUGO? What's narrative about Lucius The Eternal being garbage when fighting the most generic of characters? What's narrative about a singular CSM squad remembering how to shoot a singular target better?

Anything 40k defenders have given for the game being some narrative tool is just sunken cost in its purest form. Also, the game is absolutely just not built for casual gaming because the effort required to make sure you're not bringing too hard a list to play against makes it not casual to begin with. This is especially true when certain armies with their fluff correct armies are just stupidly better than other armies even being built in a more strict fashion.


As usual, missing the forest for the trees.

The rules are resolution methods, they dont define casual, competitive or narrative. Any rules set can be used for narrative gaming. Player attitude defines 'how' you play.

You mistake the fact that 40k is an admittedly poor ruleset and mistake that as 'proof' that jts no good for narrative..I wouldn't expect much more from a black Knight to be fair.

What makes a game narrative is the players imposing their imagination on the outcome of the dice, at its most fundamental level. At more advanced else, players will'gamebuild' and will construct a scenario (lists, mission objectives etc) that will allow a good narrative to play out.

The game as a narrative tool is not sunken cost. That's pure bitterness. The lore that 40k draws from, the epic world building and atmosphere is what makes it a narrative game. If you want it to be.

Sledgehammer wrote:

My argument is that if I, or anyone has to dictate terms to another player to get a good game, then the rules themselves do not facilitate casual play. It's as simple as that. The exact army is again irrelevant.


I've rarely seen anything in life that didn't have a cost associated, require up front work or some element of compromise. You should try being married! Wargamimg is the junior version. That's the basis of human interaction. If a casual.player can use the rules, the rules can facilitate casual play. pretty sure the board and models dont spontaneously combust if you talk it out with the other guy and play at less than optimum levels. Expecting 'the rules' to adequately cater to rvery variation if player desire is foolish. Rules are not god and you don't owe them blind, unslaving unquestioning adherence and obedience. People can and do talk it out.


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/02 20:54:50


Post by: ccs


 Sledgehammer wrote:
My argument is that if I, or anyone has to dictate terms to another player to get a good game, then the rules themselves do not facilitate casual play. It's as simple as that. The exact army is again irrelevant.


If you or someone else is dictating terms then you're at fault, not the rules.

Outside a tourney setting, deciding what options, pt lvs, difficulty, scenarios, etc to use in your game? You & your opponent should be doing that.


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/02 20:58:10


Post by: AnomanderRake


ccs wrote:
...Outside a tourney setting, deciding what options, pt lvs, difficulty, scenarios, etc to use in your game? You & your opponent should be doing that.


Sure. Should we need to construct our own ban-list of broken units/stratagems/options to have a good game?


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/02 21:01:28


Post by: Racerguy180


TangoTwoBravo wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
TangoTwoBravo wrote:
I was suggesting that folks who want to build narrative lists enjoy doing so and not worry so much about winning. Declare victory on their own terms. Look at this army I have brought to life!

AKA the perfect GW customer saying FORGE THE NARRATIVE!!!1!


Well, if you want the game to play narratively there is some requirement for you to play it narratively. Since your usual stance on a unit or list is that it is "trash" I am not surprised that you find the game is not very narrative. Playing a game of 40K is not a passive experience like watching a movie. You need to put a little work in. But hey, I don't work for GW and I missed out on the whole "forge the narrative" meme.

Putting a lot of thought and effort into the lore of a list is not very casual. It actually seems a little intense. Players who emphasize the lore/background of their list and are not willing to compromise that to gain tabletop effectiveness will tend to be unhappy if they also really want to win on 40K Saturday at their FLGS. Now, if they play with like-minded friends they might have a different outcome. Maybe play Narrative missions etc.


My group takes narrative very seriously, but we are extremely casual when we actually play.

Unbalanced scenarios, endless waves, and escape are just some of the completely unfair stuff we play often.
In the lead up to the game; lists, terrain, deployment, objectives will be coordinated. But once the armies hit the table, we are all about watching the craziness unfold.

So it really doesn't matter about balance cuz we can personalize it to our tastes better than GW ever could.


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/02 21:03:34


Post by: ccs


 AnomanderRake wrote:
ccs wrote:
...Outside a tourney setting, deciding what options, pt lvs, difficulty, scenarios, etc to use in your game? You & your opponent should be doing that.


Sure. Should we need to construct our own ban-list of broken units/stratagems/options to have a good game?


If that's what'll improve the games for all involved in your circle give it a try.
You won't be the first or the last group to do so.


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/02 21:19:22


Post by: tauist


LMAO @ all the jadedness in this thread. It's hilarious, some of yall actually seem insulted by the idea that someone prefers playing less competitively? And anyone who doesn't agree gets the "FORGE THE NARRATIVE, GW:s b*tch LOL" card thrown at them? Seriously, how old were we again?

You say there's nothing to discuss if we are not talking competitive tourney meta stuff. I don't agree, there is lots we could talk about. But perhaps the problem indeed lies in the randos and the General Discussion sub in general.

If you haven't noticed, there's a whole new style of 40K gameplay introduced with 9th ed. It's called crusade play, and it laughs at your meta, mate. It doesn't even use points, and it has many things you can abuse for max WAAC, yet don't get abused.

It would be a great idea to introduce a Narrative/Crusade focused subforum on this board. I'd like some area where people could participate in relaxed, mature discussion about narrative gaming without getting "gakked" on by armchair tournament players.



Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/02 21:25:20


Post by: Deadnight


 AnomanderRake wrote:
ccs wrote:
...Outside a tourney setting, deciding what options, pt lvs, difficulty, scenarios, etc to use in your game? You & your opponent should be doing that.


Sure. Should we need to construct our own ban-list of broken units/stratagems/options to have a good game?


Not necessarily. I mean, if you really, really, really detest something, I think.its fair to say 'I don't want to play against that' and at least some of the time, to expect your desires to be accommodated. It's also to be expected that you give back and play against the thing at least some of the time - same principle as if I do so sthimg nice for my wife, I appreciate it if she returns the gesture.

Regardless, I think.its fair to bring up what you like and what you don't like. If the other person has zero interest in accommodating what's important to you, well, in the real world I'd say she's soon be my ex for a reason...

More than anything though, rather than 'bans', (we're not talking about cancelling things out of the game! Everything g has it's place. Maybe not all the time under every circumstance, but certainly, where its appropriate...) I'd suggest accommodations and different approaches - essentislly 'list-matching' (note, not list tailoring, there is a difference!) rather rather than 'list-building-for-advantage. If you want to bring your souped up tourney list, or a skew list, it's fair game that the other guy knows so he can bring something thay can play on the same level. If he wants to bring his d-list, well, if he's willing to play at your level, be a decent chap and return the gesture.


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/02 22:03:45


Post by: AngryAngel80


It's simple, casual play isn't talked of because they don't need to usually. That is something that goes person to person, place to place.

Second GW does an expert job of making rules that can vary widely from cut throat competitive to you'd only see them in a casual setting, like the most casual of casual. So they like to claim they are eyeing the casual side when they make it suck, but when its over the top ball busting they talk about how " Killer " it is and a great addition to any army !

They really talk out of both sides of their mouth but honestly like the saying sex sells, so does good rules. So they set sights for competitive and press the talk in that direction, unless its kinda meh then they remind us how casual 40k is supposed to be.

Casual doesn't sell burn and churn armies and books though, and FOTM armies do.


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/02 22:09:27


Post by: AnomanderRake


Deadnight wrote:
...More than anything though, rather than 'bans', (we're not talking about cancelling things out of the game! Everything g has it's place. Maybe not all the time under every circumstance, but certainly, where its appropriate...) I'd suggest accommodations and different approaches - essentislly 'list-matching' (note, not list tailoring, there is a difference!) rather rather than 'list-building-for-advantage. If you want to bring your souped up tourney list, or a skew list, it's fair game that the other guy knows so he can bring something thay can play on the same level. If he wants to bring his d-list, well, if he's willing to play at your level, be a decent chap and return the gesture.


Cool. Now what happens when you don't have the expertise to tell the difference between the A-list and the D-list? What happens when one newbie decides they want to play Primaris Marines and another decides they want to play CSM? Who's fault is it that someone bought an A-list Codex and someone else bought a D-list Codex?


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/02 22:26:30


Post by: Gert


If one person knowingly brings a WAAC tourney list against someone who has little to no clue what is competitive, that's not a game problem that's a person problem. If two brand new players are buying armies and one happens to have more good choices than the other then thats just bad luck. If they are friends, which the likely will be, then you'd hope they have a discussion about how to make things fun for both of them. I'd like to think that most people on here are adults and can have a conversation with another person, GW isn't your mum it's not their job to fix your problems. This game is social by nature and if you can't have a discussion with friends or regular opponents about making the game fair and fun then that is very much a you problem.


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/02 22:28:46


Post by: Sledgehammer


 Gert wrote:
If one person knowingly brings a WAAC tourney list against someone who has little to no clue what is competitive, that's not a game problem that's a person problem. If two brand new players are buying armies and one happens to have more good choices than the other then thats just bad luck. If they are friends, which the likely will be, then you'd hope they have a discussion about how to make things fun for both of them. I'd like to think that most people on here are adults and can have a conversation with another person, GW isn't your mum it's not their job to fix your problems. This game is social by nature and if you can't have a discussion with friends or regular opponents about making the game fair and fun then that is very much a you problem.
Human nature will always find ways to make itself evident. It's the rules fault for intentionally catering to game design that emphasizes list building, which will inevitability create a community that belittles people for not following the meta enough to be competitive in the standard way of playing.

Telling people not to take their own lovingly painted miniatures is not an acceptable answer here.


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/02 22:40:46


Post by: Gert


If I was bringing a list that won every single game I played and someone asked me to change it up to give them a chance, I would absolutely do so because fostering a friendly gaming environment is more important to me than winning. If this one guy has a good time then he might bring his friends next time which might lead to more people in a gaming group. The day I care more about winning than everyone involved having a good time is the day I stop doing Warhammer.
Literally the most important rule in Warhammer is "Have fun", if you have a way to make the game more fun for everyone involved that isn't explicitly written in a page in the rulebook then go ahead, you aren't going to be hung, drawn and quartered.


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/02 22:43:46


Post by: Canadian 5th


No game that requires reading several dozen pages of rules and investing hundreds of dollars and dozens of hours into choosing, buying, assembling, and painting models can be truly casual. Before you play your first game of 40k you're already invested in both a monetary and emotional sense simply due to the nature of the game. Thus when your favorite faction gets worse rules than another or suddenly becomes so strong you can't find a game, it's going to hurt at least a little.

This is the nature of the beast that is miniature wargaming and it's all there by design to keep you hooked and spending money.


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/02 22:44:03


Post by: ccs


 AnomanderRake wrote:
Deadnight wrote:
...More than anything though, rather than 'bans', (we're not talking about cancelling things out of the game! Everything g has it's place. Maybe not all the time under every circumstance, but certainly, where its appropriate...) I'd suggest accommodations and different approaches - essentislly 'list-matching' (note, not list tailoring, there is a difference!) rather rather than 'list-building-for-advantage. If you want to bring your souped up tourney list, or a skew list, it's fair game that the other guy knows so he can bring something thay can play on the same level. If he wants to bring his d-list, well, if he's willing to play at your level, be a decent chap and return the gesture.


Cool. Now what happens when you don't have the expertise to tell the difference between the A-list and the D-list?


Then you'll learn. Where do you think you get that xp from?


 AnomanderRake wrote:
What happens when one newbie decides they want to play Primaris Marines and another decides they want to play CSM?


Ah, those poor hypothetical newbies....
Games will be played. What exactly the CSM newb brings will affect his odds of being stomped more so than his primaris counterpart..
Each will make some adjustments to thier lists & more games will be played.



 AnomanderRake wrote:
Who's fault is it that someone bought an A-list Codex and someone else bought a D-list Codex?


The easy scapegoat is the evil/incomptent toy company who hasn't yet updated the D-list book. Not that it matters - as soon as they promote it to A status the peanut gallery will scream for it to be nerfed back to oblivion.....

Also obviously the player is at fault. This is 2021. Our hypothetical newb could have easily gone on-line & done his research before spending $$$.


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/02 22:44:32


Post by: Deadnight


 AnomanderRake wrote:

Cool. Now what happens when you don't have the expertise to tell the difference between the A-list and the D-list? What happens when one newbie decides they want to play Primaris Marines and another decides they want to play CSM? Who's fault is it that someone bought an A-list Codex and someone else bought a D-list Codex?


Firstly, it's no one's 'fault'. Let's step away from this 'blame' culture.

Seckndly, what happens? Like in real life, if you make a mistake or a misjudgement, you learn from it and move on, and use it to inform your future game building. Surely those newbies should have researched first, or surely, we, as veterans of the hobby should offer a guiding hand to said newbies. They take a d grade list? Compliment them on their paint jobs, make them welcome, encourage them for the future, offer tips and guidance, play down your list to the level that they can take a few swings - hey, they're new, you really gonna be a seal clubber? And over time, you'll be their awesome guy who made them love their hobby. Or, you know. Crush them because you want a scalp.


If there's a mismatch, aim to improve. Folks like yourself who are into the competitive circuit will no doubt have zero issues with playing their tourney lists with the aim of both refining their lists and aiming to improve their abilities over time. I genuinly doubt you can out of a uterus as a fully formed and fully levelled up competitive player with an instinctive grasp of top table play. No you started somewhere, you learned, you proby made terrible lists and lost a lot, and over time, you got better. What makes you think alternative perspectives and approaches would be any different?

Personally I find games building and list matching to be a far more intriguing test of someone's skills than 'can they max out the mathematically best options in a codex'. Not that I'm dismissing the latter either.


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/03 00:28:28


Post by: Slayer-Fan123


 bullyboy wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
 bullyboy wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
 bullyboy wrote:
40K for sure is a better game when played casually or narratively

LOL in what manner have the rules ever been good for narrative gaming? Whats narrative about IGOUGO? What's narrative about Lucius The Eternal being garbage when fighting the most generic of characters? What's narrative about a singular CSM squad remembering how to shoot a singular target better?

Anything 40k defenders have given for the game being some narrative tool is just sunken cost in its purest form. Also, the game is absolutely just not built for casual gaming because the effort required to make sure you're not bringing too hard a list to play against makes it not casual to begin with. This is especially true when certain armies with their fluff correct armies are just stupidly better than other armies even being built in a more strict fashion.



what the heck would you know about narrative gaming, everything is "trash" to you, kinda like your opinion really.
Your community must just really suck for you to have this outlook, sorry about that.

You didn't disprove my points on Narrative, you merely went "nuh uh". If that's the best rebuttal you got maybe you ought to actually look at the rules you're defending?


1000's of people worldwide enjoying this game is more proof than is needed to show your opinion that it's "trash" is worthless. Your specific gameplay may be terrible, but that goes against most of the population that continues to play 40K.

Thousands of people can enjoy trash just because of an absurd attachment to the IP.

Would you even seriously say that, if a new company released a game with the same exact rules, it would be well received? Absolutely not, they would be laughed at for thinking it was even close to being a finished ruleset.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
ERJAK wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
 bullyboy wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
 bullyboy wrote:
40K for sure is a better game when played casually or narratively

LOL in what manner have the rules ever been good for narrative gaming? Whats narrative about IGOUGO? What's narrative about Lucius The Eternal being garbage when fighting the most generic of characters? What's narrative about a singular CSM squad remembering how to shoot a singular target better?

Anything 40k defenders have given for the game being some narrative tool is just sunken cost in its purest form. Also, the game is absolutely just not built for casual gaming because the effort required to make sure you're not bringing too hard a list to play against makes it not casual to begin with. This is especially true when certain armies with their fluff correct armies are just stupidly better than other armies even being built in a more strict fashion.



what the heck would you know about narrative gaming, everything is "trash" to you, kinda like your opinion really.
Your community must just really suck for you to have this outlook, sorry about that.

You didn't disprove my points on Narrative, you merely went "nuh uh". If that's the best rebuttal you got maybe you ought to actually look at the rules you're defending?


You didn't make any points. You whined about your army not being good enough. That's not what making a point is.

This applies to any army LOL. Also which one was my army again?


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/03 00:30:16


Post by: Gert


 Canadian 5th wrote:
No game that requires reading several dozen pages of rules and investing hundreds of dollars and dozens of hours into choosing, buying, assembling, and painting models can be truly casual. Before you play your first game of 40k you're already invested in both a monetary and emotional sense simply due to the nature of the game. Thus when your favorite faction gets worse rules than another or suddenly becomes so strong you can't find a game, it's going to hurt at least a little.

This is the nature of the beast that is miniature wargaming and it's all there by design to keep you hooked and spending money.

Thats not what people mean when they talk about being a casual player. Lying down and staring at the sky is casual in the sense that you aren't really doing anything, causal in terms of 40k means "not-competetive". I'm a casual wargame player but that doesn't mean I liked it when for two editions CSM were extremely annoying to play because their rules were pathetic and had maybe five units that were in any way competitive. I just changed my perspective from "am I going to win?" to "am I having a fun time". Warhammer is casual to me because there is nothing forcing me to do anything I don't want to. I don't have super restrictive criteria to meet or regulations to follow to have a good time. I can just plop some models on a table and roll some number cubes.


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/03 00:34:23


Post by: Slayer-Fan123


Deadnight wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
LOL in what manner have the rules ever been good for narrative gaming? Whats narrative about IGOUGO? What's narrative about Lucius The Eternal being garbage when fighting the most generic of characters? What's narrative about a singular CSM squad remembering how to shoot a singular target better?

Anything 40k defenders have given for the game being some narrative tool is just sunken cost in its purest form. Also, the game is absolutely just not built for casual gaming because the effort required to make sure you're not bringing too hard a list to play against makes it not casual to begin with. This is especially true when certain armies with their fluff correct armies are just stupidly better than other armies even being built in a more strict fashion.


As usual, missing the forest for the trees.

The rules are resolution methods, they dont define casual, competitive or narrative. Any rules set can be used for narrative gaming. Player attitude defines 'how' you play.

You mistake the fact that 40k is an admittedly poor ruleset and mistake that as 'proof' that jts no good for narrative..I wouldn't expect much more from a black Knight to be fair.

What makes a game narrative is the players imposing their imagination on the outcome of the dice, at its most fundamental level. At more advanced else, players will'gamebuild' and will construct a scenario (lists, mission objectives etc) that will allow a good narrative to play out.

The game as a narrative tool is not sunken cost. That's pure bitterness. The lore that 40k draws from, the epic world building and atmosphere is what makes it a narrative game. If you want it to be.

If you need to create your own scenarios or self imposed rules balances, you shouldn't pay for the bad rules to begin with. There's zero reason people should be defending one army's fluffy list is significantly worse than another army's, yet we have people doing it anyway.


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/03 00:53:06


Post by: TangoTwoBravo


If someone is doing something they don't enjoy for a hobby, I feel they have a problem on some level? To be clear, I'm OK with them enjoying not enjoying something. I am just wondering why they put themselves through suffering for a hobby. I enjoy 40K. If that stops I will stop. It has happened before. Weird eh?

Wargaming in person is about having somewhat shared expectations, or at least being honest about them. There is give and take. It is the wonder and curse of tabletop wargaming.


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/03 01:20:17


Post by: Canadian 5th


 Gert wrote:
Thats not what people mean when they talk about being a casual player. Lying down and staring at the sky is casual in the sense that you aren't really doing anything, causal in terms of 40k means "not-competetive". I'm a casual wargame player but that doesn't mean I liked it when for two editions CSM were extremely annoying to play because their rules were pathetic and had maybe five units that were in any way competitive. I just changed my perspective from "am I going to win?" to "am I having a fun time". Warhammer is casual to me because there is nothing forcing me to do anything I don't want to. I don't have super restrictive criteria to meet or regulations to follow to have a good time. I can just plop some models on a table and roll some number cubes.

If you were casual you'd play 40k with grey units and empty bases, proxy things you may never buy, and try different armies just to experience different styles of play. I did this for years in my early 20s playing floor wars on an almost but not exactly 4' x 6' rug. We had minimal cash and modeling investment and played more games in a weekend than most of us do in a month these days.

That's casual.


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/03 01:27:33


Post by: AllSeeingSkink


 Gert wrote:
causal in terms of 40k means "not-competetive".
Which is an absurdity brought about by the terrible balance 40k has had for such a long time.

When I play monopoly with the family, it's hard to get more "casual" than that, but it's most certainly "competitive". If I go play some basketball with the guys after work, again, pretty damned "casual", but you can bet everyone is playing "competitively". Indeed if someone shows up and isn't trying to win, they're a bore to play against.

I know those are examples of games with much simpler rules, but it is an example just to highlight how silly this separation of "casual" and "competitive" sounds in the broader sense of versus style games.

I'm a casual wargame player but that doesn't mean I liked it when for two editions CSM were extremely annoying to play because their rules were pathetic and had maybe five units that were in any way competitive. I just changed my perspective from "am I going to win?" to "am I having a fun time". Warhammer is casual to me because there is nothing forcing me to do anything I don't want to. I don't have super restrictive criteria to meet or regulations to follow to have a good time. I can just plop some models on a table and roll some number cubes.


I don't know if you meant it to sound that way, but reading that just made me think you've been beaten into submission so many times you had to let go of caring to enjoy yourself, like some sort of zen experience. Like, if you're going to be whipped everyday, better learn to enjoy it

That's the problem, a game being competitive is good for casuals, so I don't know why casuals are so anti-competitive. It's only in this weird ol' world of 40k where casual has come to mean "not trying to win".

In real terms, (not 40k's special definitions) I've only ever been into casual games, I rarely if ever play tournaments, mostly play pick up games or games with a few close friends, I'm not breaking down and crying if I lose and I still have fun if I don't win.... yet I still TRY to win, and I still care when the rules are broken and unbalanced, otherwise I'd just be building dioramas.


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/03 01:47:58


Post by: aphyon


 CommanderWalrus wrote:
One thing I've noticed on these forums and pretty much everywhere else people discuss 40k is that the conversation is pretty much universally slanted to a more competitive side.
Why is this? IMO the game is more fun played more casually, and it seems many people share this opinion, but yet 90% of the discussion is on how to win at all costs. Whenever a new codex is out the discussion is heavily weighted on how strong it is and not how fun it is. The 9th edition Necron Codex comes to mind since while it doesn't have the most competitive options, it is a blast to play for more casual games since it has so many cool and unique options. But I see almost no one talk about some of these things because it doesn't relate to "meta". Any idea why this is, in general?


Oh the topics do exist see my old editions topic, or Mezmorkis prohammer topic just as examples-
They are just not the majority.


https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/789567.page

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/796101.page


You will notice that we play older editions of the game where lore/fluff was far more important to how the game played to make it feel like the 40K universe. the fact is that every war gamer wants a chance to win but not all war gamers get enjoyment from the game out of JUST winning. some prefer painting or modeling some prefer the game play experience..

The big thing GW lost in the design department was having the armies be both viable and fluffy for a strategic war game.

This is why the 3.5 chaos dex is always held in such high respect. it was the high water mark for chaos, no dex since has even come close to it.

There has always been a segment of meta chasing WAAC (win at all costs) "power gamers" especially after GW instituted the local rogue trader and larger grand tournaments back in 3rd edition.
those players would work at finding ways to run army combos are twist rules in such a way to give them an unfair advantage in a way the designers admitted they never intended.

Instead of playing the models you think "look cool" or building the force in the way it should behave. it becomes a focus on how well a unit "earns it's points back"

This has become especially true with the design direction of 9th where the competitive players were the ones GW went to for advice when they were designing it.

Sure they threw a bone in there with "crusade" but the majority of players do not play it in 9th.

This sadly means that while GW works to price players out of the game making it a rich mans hobby they have also seen a sizable segment of the player base walk away from the game or be on the verge of doing so because it is such a different game than what we know 40K used to feel like.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Which is an absurdity brought about by the terrible balance 40k has had for such a long time.


We just talked about the subject last night at the FLGS, do you realize there are currently 23 factions in the current 40K line?

warmachine/hordes currently has 15 and bloat has become a problem for them as well even though the focus and scale of the game is much more skirmish/smaller


There should be at most about 10 with a few sub-faction supplements like they used to do with the dark angels mini-dex in 3rd for unique faction army lists/special characters & wargear.
USRs were great for the game and should have never been removed.

By having so many different factions and a need to make them be different enough to draw players they have made it impossible to balance the game in the way competitive players want.

Much like BFG still is, 40K (and WHFB ) used to be understood that each faction had certain strengths and weaknesses(aka they were not "balanced" on purpose) that each play had to use or exploit to out general his enemy where points cost mattered internally instead of comparing the performance of a unit of one faction to a unit of the another faction with the comparative battlefield role.


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/03 02:01:36


Post by: Canadian 5th


 aphyon wrote:
This is why the 3.5 chaos dex is always held in such high respect. it was the high water mark for chaos, no dex since has even come close to it.

Just ignore that it was so good that its fluffy lists could beat most tuned but not optimized lists... When players say they want fluff to guide a book what they really mean is that 'this particular aspect of the fluff that I'm hyper fixated upon should be powerful enough that I don't have to work to win with it'.

There has always been a segment of meta chasing WAAC (win at all costs) "power gamers" especially after GW instituted the local rogue trader and larger grand tournaments back in 3rd edition. Those players would work at finding ways to run army combos are twist rules in such a way to give them an unfair advantage in a way the designers admitted they never intended.

Playing the game to the letter of the rules isn't WAAC, it's playing by RAW. GW could write unambiguous rules and close loopholes if they do slip through, but they've *never* made that a priority. So how is it the fault of the players that they've chosen to play with the text of the book and not some nebulous sprite that people claim exists within the book?


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/03 02:06:11


Post by: catbarf


 AnomanderRake wrote:
Deadnight wrote:
...More than anything though, rather than 'bans', (we're not talking about cancelling things out of the game! Everything g has it's place. Maybe not all the time under every circumstance, but certainly, where its appropriate...) I'd suggest accommodations and different approaches - essentislly 'list-matching' (note, not list tailoring, there is a difference!) rather rather than 'list-building-for-advantage. If you want to bring your souped up tourney list, or a skew list, it's fair game that the other guy knows so he can bring something thay can play on the same level. If he wants to bring his d-list, well, if he's willing to play at your level, be a decent chap and return the gesture.


Cool. Now what happens when you don't have the expertise to tell the difference between the A-list and the D-list? What happens when one newbie decides they want to play Primaris Marines and another decides they want to play CSM? Who's fault is it that someone bought an A-list Codex and someone else bought a D-list Codex?


This is exactly my problem with the idea that balance isn't a problem for casual play, and if you have balance concerns as a casual player you're really some tournament WAACer in disguise.

Yes, they'll learn through experience that one list is A-tier and the other is D-tier. 'Experience' here means a series of one-sided battles where the outcome is decided more by the list than by the gameplay. And that's not fun. It's no fun at all to get stomped while you slowly come to realize that oh, this game's balance is pretty bad.

Sure, you can look up advice on the Internet. And then you find that if you want to pursue that fluffy army concept you had, you'll lose every game; if you want to stand a chance you need to drop that unit you liked but which sucks immensely, rearrange your other choices because what's fluffy isn't what's optimal, and take a few meta units that you otherwise had zero interest in, and then you'll be able to go up against the A-lister army.

But don't worry, you'll get the hang of which units are bad and which are good. In fact, maybe you'll get the hang of it faster than your buddy, and then you get to explain why he needs to drop a few overpowered units from his army to make the scenario fair, while in his mind you're being completely unreasonable and he's only been winning because he's better at the game. That's just such a super fun conversation for casual play too.

This is all nonsense. Even designers making explicitly casual games put time and effort into playtesting to make sure the game is fun, has a balance of outcomes, and provides player agency. Casual games with strong imbalance that need houserules or an expert-level understanding of the game dynamic to make fair are commonly known as bad fething games. Make a good casual game and these requirements to referee your own game go away. I never needed this same level of pre-game negotiation and Internet meta researching with Warmachine and I currently don't with Infinity.



Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/03 02:06:20


Post by: aphyon


Just ignore that it was so good that its fluffy lists could beat most tuned but not optimized lists... When players say they want fluff to guide a book what they really mean is that 'this particular aspect of the fluff that I'm hyper fixated upon should be powerful enough that I don't have to work to win with it'.


I still regularly play against the 3.5 chaos dex in our hybrid 5th ed games (just did battle with iron warriors last night) and i can guarantee you that they still have to work for it.

The bigger draw is how the armies behave in a manner they should in the lore translated onto the table top.


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/03 02:07:00


Post by: catbarf


 Canadian 5th wrote:
When players say they want fluff to guide a book what they really mean is that 'this particular aspect of the fluff that I'm hyper fixated upon should be powerful enough that I don't have to work to win with it'.


You don't have the slightest idea what you are talking about.


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/03 02:10:03


Post by: bullyboy


Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
 bullyboy wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
 bullyboy wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
 bullyboy wrote:
40K for sure is a better game when played casually or narratively

LOL in what manner have the rules ever been good for narrative gaming? Whats narrative about IGOUGO? What's narrative about Lucius The Eternal being garbage when fighting the most generic of characters? What's narrative about a singular CSM squad remembering how to shoot a singular target better?

Anything 40k defenders have given for the game being some narrative tool is just sunken cost in its purest form. Also, the game is absolutely just not built for casual gaming because the effort required to make sure you're not bringing too hard a list to play against makes it not casual to begin with. This is especially true when certain armies with their fluff correct armies are just stupidly better than other armies even being built in a more strict fashion.



what the heck would you know about narrative gaming, everything is "trash" to you, kinda like your opinion really.
Your community must just really suck for you to have this outlook, sorry about that.

You didn't disprove my points on Narrative, you merely went "nuh uh". If that's the best rebuttal you got maybe you ought to actually look at the rules you're defending?


1000's of people worldwide enjoying this game is more proof than is needed to show your opinion that it's "trash" is worthless. Your specific gameplay may be terrible, but that goes against most of the population that continues to play 40K.

Thousands of people can enjoy trash just because of an absurd attachment to the IP.

Would you even seriously say that, if a new company released a game with the same exact rules, it would be well received? Absolutely not, they would be laughed at for thinking it was even close to being a finished ruleset.


Again, you are projecting your viewpoint as some form of community standard, and you're totally wrong again.
My 2 other games I play....

Flames of War
Team Yankee.

Not far removed from 40k rules and still very enjoyable.

I'm just not sure what you're aiming for here...


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/03 02:39:56


Post by: Insectum7


 catbarf wrote:
 Canadian 5th wrote:
When players say they want fluff to guide a book what they really mean is that 'this particular aspect of the fluff that I'm hyper fixated upon should be powerful enough that I don't have to work to win with it'.


You don't have the slightest idea what you are talking about.
Seconded.


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/03 03:10:08


Post by: AllSeeingSkink


 aphyon wrote:
By having so many different factions and a need to make them be different enough to draw players they have made it impossible to balance the game in the way competitive players want.

Much like BFG still is, 40K (and WHFB ) used to be understood that each faction had certain strengths and weaknesses(aka they were not "balanced" on purpose) that each play had to use or exploit to out general his enemy where points cost mattered internally instead of comparing the performance of a unit of one faction to a unit of the another faction with the comparative battlefield role.


You're confusing balance with parity.

Armies can have different strengths and weaknesses and still be on a whole balanced against each other. Maybe there might be good match ups and bad match ups, but on a whole there wouldn't be good armies and bad armies.

Often you don't even have to compare a unit to one in another faction, it's quite often the case that a choice in your own faction is objectively bad compared to another choice in your own faction.


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/03 03:24:06


Post by: Slayer-Fan123


 bullyboy wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
 bullyboy wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
 bullyboy wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
 bullyboy wrote:
40K for sure is a better game when played casually or narratively

LOL in what manner have the rules ever been good for narrative gaming? Whats narrative about IGOUGO? What's narrative about Lucius The Eternal being garbage when fighting the most generic of characters? What's narrative about a singular CSM squad remembering how to shoot a singular target better?

Anything 40k defenders have given for the game being some narrative tool is just sunken cost in its purest form. Also, the game is absolutely just not built for casual gaming because the effort required to make sure you're not bringing too hard a list to play against makes it not casual to begin with. This is especially true when certain armies with their fluff correct armies are just stupidly better than other armies even being built in a more strict fashion.



what the heck would you know about narrative gaming, everything is "trash" to you, kinda like your opinion really.
Your community must just really suck for you to have this outlook, sorry about that.

You didn't disprove my points on Narrative, you merely went "nuh uh". If that's the best rebuttal you got maybe you ought to actually look at the rules you're defending?


1000's of people worldwide enjoying this game is more proof than is needed to show your opinion that it's "trash" is worthless. Your specific gameplay may be terrible, but that goes against most of the population that continues to play 40K.

Thousands of people can enjoy trash just because of an absurd attachment to the IP.

Would you even seriously say that, if a new company released a game with the same exact rules, it would be well received? Absolutely not, they would be laughed at for thinking it was even close to being a finished ruleset.


Again, you are projecting your viewpoint as some form of community standard, and you're totally wrong again.
My 2 other games I play....

Flames of War
Team Yankee.

Not far removed from 40k rules and still very enjoyable.

I'm just not sure what you're aiming for here...

Answer the question presented.


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/03 03:41:23


Post by: aphyon


You're confusing balance with parity


In this case what the comp players are looking for it is the same thing.

both players having an equal shot at winning is the ideal balance VS winning is only viable if i take these specific units/resources out of my entire army selection and ignore the rest so they overpower anything my enemy can bring.


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/03 03:55:02


Post by: AnomanderRake


Deadnight wrote:
...Firstly, it's no one's 'fault'. Let's step away from this 'blame' culture.

Seckndly, what happens? Like in real life, if you make a mistake or a misjudgement, you learn from it and move on, and use it to inform your future game building. Surely those newbies should have researched first, or surely, we, as veterans of the hobby should offer a guiding hand to said newbies. They take a d grade list? Compliment them on their paint jobs, make them welcome, encourage them for the future, offer tips and guidance, play down your list to the level that they can take a few swings - hey, they're new, you really gonna be a seal clubber? And over time, you'll be their awesome guy who made them love their hobby. Or, you know. Crush them because you want a scalp.


If there's a mismatch, aim to improve. Folks like yourself who are into the competitive circuit will no doubt have zero issues with playing their tourney lists with the aim of both refining their lists and aiming to improve their abilities over time. I genuinly doubt you can out of a uterus as a fully formed and fully levelled up competitive player with an instinctive grasp of top table play. No you started somewhere, you learned, you proby made terrible lists and lost a lot, and over time, you got better. What makes you think alternative perspectives and approaches would be any different?

Personally I find games building and list matching to be a far more intriguing test of someone's skills than 'can they max out the mathematically best options in a codex'. Not that I'm dismissing the latter either.


Which is why people don't talk about casual play. There is no casual play. If you want to play 40k you have to sign up to do research, balance matchups yourself, take minis that are good rather than minis you like, and get stomped because you bought the wrong models until you have the expertise to figure out which models are playable and which models aren't. You can't plonk models you like down, throw dice, and have a good time, because someone's going to get tabled immediately because they bought a D-list book that nobody on the design team has given two gaks about for fifteen years.


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/03 03:58:42


Post by: Canadian 5th


 catbarf wrote:
 Canadian 5th wrote:
When players say they want fluff to guide a book what they really mean is that 'this particular aspect of the fluff that I'm hyper fixated upon should be powerful enough that I don't have to work to win with it'.


You don't have the slightest idea what you are talking about.

I guess the 3.5e era chaos army sitting behind me and the games I've played both with and against it must never have happened then... That book with only the barest bit of optimization roundly stomped just about everything else that came against it and easily shifted the odds in favor of the player using it for the better. Yes, it was also fluffy, for a particular vision of CSM fluff as it existed at the time, but if you took it and nerfed it until it was, at its best, a slightly below average codex and at its worst wholly uncompetitive nobody would give a whit about how fluffy it is.

EDIT: To put it in a modern context, does anybody give a flying feth about how fluffy GSC and Tau lists are given that they just don't function in 9e? Would you be happy if the designs doubled down on fluffy but worthless rules in their next codex without addressing the issues that make them virtually unplayable? Would you keep playing your own army if, tomorrow, GW came down and raised your points by 15% across the board but gave you some really fluffy rules that work against a few very specific matchups that you'll never see in a PUG gaming setting?


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/03 04:24:19


Post by: aphyon


EDIT: To put it in a modern context, does anybody give a flying feth about how fluffy GSC and Tau lists are given that they just don't function in 9e? Would you be happy if the designs doubled down on fluffy but worthless rules in their next codex without addressing the issues that make them virtually unplayable? Would you keep playing your own army if, tomorrow, GW came down and raised your points by 15% across the board but gave you some really fluffy rules that work against a few very specific matchups that you'll never see in a PUG gaming setting?

You are ignoring the elephant in the room. the reason why nobody gives a feth is BECAUSE 9th ed is designed for comp play not for lore play it is more GAME and less tactical WAR game.

Army list building has always been a strategic part of the game and how you played in on the table was the tactical part, but now with 9th the army list building is pretty well the entire game.

Because the core rules do not support casual play, the people who want the FUN of playing what models they want or want their dudes to behave or fight the way they actually should in the IP. they/we have gone back to playing the game when it supported it. with a few exceptions that is some alignment of 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 7th (without formations)


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/03 04:25:01


Post by: Sgt. Cortez


 AnomanderRake wrote:


Which is why people don't talk about casual play. There is no casual play. If you want to play 40k you have to sign up to do research, balance matchups yourself, take minis that are good rather than minis you like, and get stomped because you bought the wrong models until you have the expertise to figure out which models are playable and which models aren't. You can't plonk models you like down, throw dice, and have a good time, because someone's going to get tabled immediately because they bought a D-list book that nobody on the design team has given two gaks about for fifteen years.


I disagree because that's exactly how my group is playing. The models you like or have painted last dictate the list more often than not as well as the theme. Yes, balancing matchups can also appear when someone says: I saw that video about competitive Tau lists and realized I actually have the miniatures needed for that, I'd like to try it out. But usually people just use what they like, maybe do slight tailoring because we tell each other beforehand which faction we bring. I'd also add this works much better since 8th because balance has vastly improved.
As usual for every wargame I know fun mostly comes from the missions you play, 9th lacks a bit behind in that aspect because it has few narrative missions - but we wrote these in passed editions and we can do so now.
Is this casual in the meaning of the word? I don't know because english is not my first language but for me it's what I understand as "casual".


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/03 04:37:04


Post by: aphyon


Sgt. Cortez wrote:
 AnomanderRake wrote:


Which is why people don't talk about casual play. There is no casual play. If you want to play 40k you have to sign up to do research, balance matchups yourself, take minis that are good rather than minis you like, and get stomped because you bought the wrong models until you have the expertise to figure out which models are playable and which models aren't. You can't plonk models you like down, throw dice, and have a good time, because someone's going to get tabled immediately because they bought a D-list book that nobody on the design team has given two gaks about for fifteen years.


I disagree because that's exactly how my group is playing. The models you like or have painted last dictate the list more often than not as well as the theme. Yes, balancing matchups can also appear when someone says: I saw that video about competitive Tau lists and realized I actually have the miniatures needed for that, I'd like to try it out. But usually people just use what they like, maybe do slight tailoring because we tell each other beforehand which faction we bring. I'd also add this works much better since 8th because balance has vastly improved.
As usual for every wargame I know fun mostly comes from the missions you play, 9th lacks a bit behind in that aspect because it has few narrative missions - but we wrote these in passed editions and we can do so now.
Is this casual in the meaning of the word? I don't know because english is not my first language but for me it's what I understand as "casual".


that is pretty well it. i just built up my full scale mechanicus list (as opposed to my epic list hat i could never afford to buy in full scale) and i wanted to try it out., i only make 1 list to fight everybody and i don't have any need/desire to change it. every now and then for funsies we do silly things on purpose like a few weeks back we did an entire infantry only battle to get some of those less common models on to the table (they are usually parts of different armies/lists but never together at the same time).

We don't care which of the 16 primaris LTs are the best or how many of the 34 strats your using from your faction etc...because those things are not important in the older versions of the game.

What is important is the fact white scars are always mounted, khorne berserkers go nuts even when it isn't good for them, eldar are obsessed with their specific warrior aspects to the ignorance of all else, that tau use technology to their advantage while moving and shooting-giving ground to win battles, DKOK are masters of artillery and trench warfare etc...


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/03 04:38:53


Post by: Canadian 5th


 aphyon wrote:
You are ignoring the elephant in the room. the reason why nobody gives a feth is BECAUSE 9th ed is designed for comp play not for lore play it is more GAME and less tactical WAR game.

Army list building has always been a strategic part of the game and how you played in on the table was the tactical part, but now with 9th the army list building is pretty well the entire game.

Because the core rules do not support casual play, the people who want the FUN of playing what models they want or want their dudes to behave or fight the way they actually should in the IP. they/we have gone back to playing the game when it supported it. with a few exceptions that is some alignment of 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 7th (without formations)

Let me design you a 3e list and myself a list from the same pool of available options.

I'll do everything in my power to give your list a fluffy theme that I know to be weak in practice and do my best to do the same for my army but going the opposite direction. I'll even write up a nice 4-page scenario for how the battle came to happen and what the exact stakes are. Are you down to play such a game with me and would you find it enjoyable if we played the same game weekly? How about if I were to give you a student's budget to upgrade your list with and myself a banker's? Would the fluff still matter then?


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/03 05:12:53


Post by: Sledgehammer


 Canadian 5th wrote:
 aphyon wrote:
You are ignoring the elephant in the room. the reason why nobody gives a feth is BECAUSE 9th ed is designed for comp play not for lore play it is more GAME and less tactical WAR game.

Army list building has always been a strategic part of the game and how you played in on the table was the tactical part, but now with 9th the army list building is pretty well the entire game.

Because the core rules do not support casual play, the people who want the FUN of playing what models they want or want their dudes to behave or fight the way they actually should in the IP. they/we have gone back to playing the game when it supported it. with a few exceptions that is some alignment of 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 7th (without formations)

Let me design you a 3e list and myself a list from the same pool of available options.

I'll do everything in my power to give your list a fluffy theme that I know to be weak in practice and do my best to do the same for my army but going the opposite direction. I'll even write up a nice 4-page scenario for how the battle came to happen and what the exact stakes are. Are you down to play such a game with me and would you find it enjoyable if we played the same game weekly? How about if I were to give you a student's budget to upgrade your list with and myself a banker's? Would the fluff still matter then?
This dude is literally making a fight me IRL argument LOL.


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/03 05:13:57


Post by: H.B.M.C.


 aphyon wrote:
You are ignoring the elephant in the room. the reason why nobody gives a feth is BECAUSE 9th ed is designed for comp play not for lore play it is more GAME and less tactical WAR game.
I've been calling 9th Edition "Tournament Edition" since it came out, as everything appears to have been built and catered to the tournament/event crowd.

I mean, they even talked up all the groups - all event running groups heavily into the tournament scene - that helped them test this edition (yet somehow they kept the Codices from them). It's why the missions are all so dull and are all the same. It's why the scoring system now mirrors tournament scoring. It's why Maelstrom is gone (WD betas notwithstanding).

This is an edition built from the ground up to be for tournaments by the people who play in them.



Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/03 05:21:41


Post by: aphyon


 Canadian 5th wrote:
 aphyon wrote:
You are ignoring the elephant in the room. the reason why nobody gives a feth is BECAUSE 9th ed is designed for comp play not for lore play it is more GAME and less tactical WAR game.

Army list building has always been a strategic part of the game and how you played in on the table was the tactical part, but now with 9th the army list building is pretty well the entire game.

Because the core rules do not support casual play, the people who want the FUN of playing what models they want or want their dudes to behave or fight the way they actually should in the IP. they/we have gone back to playing the game when it supported it. with a few exceptions that is some alignment of 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 7th (without formations)

Let me design you a 3e list and myself a list from the same pool of available options.

I'll do everything in my power to give your list a fluffy theme that I know to be weak in practice and do my best to do the same for my army but going the opposite direction. I'll even write up a nice 4-page scenario for how the battle came to happen and what the exact stakes are. Are you down to play such a game with me and would you find it enjoyable if we played the same game weekly? How about if I were to give you a student's budget to upgrade your list with and myself a banker's? Would the fluff still matter then?


Speculation at best, the fluff lists from 3rd ed were not weak in practice so unless you are trying to design one list for failure you really cannot achieve that outcome.

The following are examples of armies that are both viable and built to the lore/fluff based rules from various older editions.
























Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/03 05:21:53


Post by: Insectum7


 Canadian 5th wrote:
 catbarf wrote:
 Canadian 5th wrote:
When players say they want fluff to guide a book what they really mean is that 'this particular aspect of the fluff that I'm hyper fixated upon should be powerful enough that I don't have to work to win with it'.


You don't have the slightest idea what you are talking about.

I guess the 3.5e era chaos army sitting behind me and the games I've played both with and against it must never have happened then... That book with only the barest bit of optimization roundly stomped just about everything else that came against it and easily shifted the odds in favor of the player using it for the better. Yes, it was also fluffy, for a particular vision of CSM fluff as it existed at the time, but if you took it and nerfed it until it was, at its best, a slightly below average codex and at its worst wholly uncompetitive nobody would give a whit about how fluffy it is.

On the one hand, I'm pretty sure I could dig up a quote from you saying that "individual anecdotes about player experience are worthless", which would include yours.

On the other hand, my individual anecdote about Chaos 3.5 is that I routinely roflstomped it with my loyalists.

So take your choice

But more to the point, I loved that book even though I didn't play Chaos. And I didn't love it for the super competetive stuff. I loved it for the flavorful options and imagery it evoked. It was just a fun book to make armies with!


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/03 05:32:51


Post by: Amishprn86


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
 aphyon wrote:
You are ignoring the elephant in the room. the reason why nobody gives a feth is BECAUSE 9th ed is designed for comp play not for lore play it is more GAME and less tactical WAR game.
I've been calling 9th Edition "Tournament Edition" since it came out, as everything appears to have been built and catered to the tournament/event crowd.

I mean, they even talked up all the groups - all event running groups heavily into the tournament scene - that helped them test this edition (yet somehow they kept the Codices from them). It's why the missions are all so dull and are all the same. It's why the scoring system now mirrors tournament scoring. It's why Maelstrom is gone (WD betas notwithstanding).

This is an edition built from the ground up to be for tournaments by the people who play in them.



Have you played Crusade? Its far from anything like tournament play.


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/03 05:40:14


Post by: AnomanderRake


 Amishprn86 wrote:
...Have you played Crusade? Its far from anything like tournament play.


Except for the fact that if you don't do your netlist research and make sure to use models that are good rather than models you like you can and will still get tabled in two turns every game. I know there are people that have a fine time playing Crusade, but if you already don't like 9th Crusade doesn't fix anything.


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/03 05:44:40


Post by: Amishprn86


 AnomanderRake wrote:
 Amishprn86 wrote:
...Have you played Crusade? Its far from anything like tournament play.


Except for the fact that if you don't do your netlist research and make sure to use models that are good rather than models you like you can and will still get tabled in two turns every game. I know there are people that have a fine time playing Crusade, but if you already don't like 9th Crusade doesn't fix anything.


Then that is not a causal environment, see my other posts, it takes 2 to want a good game. If 1 person is being that guy then give them time outs (aka don't play with them).


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/03 05:44:57


Post by: ccs


 Canadian 5th wrote:

Let me design you a 3e list and myself a list from the same pool of available options.


Define "pool of available options". Same codex? All 3e codex?, All the options (Codex + FW + WD + Journal, etc) in 3e?
I will warn you, I don't consider 3e DE an option as I don't play with models I don't like. Since the only two models in the DE range of that era I liked were the two slave girls from Vects raider.... Well, it's pretty hard to make an army out of 2 models that didn't have rules.


 Canadian 5th wrote:
Are you down to play such a game with me


I'm a bit lazy these days, and I only play in-person, so you'll have to come to my local shop if you want a game. Bust out your passport & proof of vaccination. And bring a mask as the shop requires it atm.


 Canadian 5th wrote:
and would you find it enjoyable if we played the same game weekly?


F* no. That's why there's different missions, new scenarios, you alter game sizes up/down etc. Even the boardgames I play are highly variable.

 Canadian 5th wrote:
How about if I were to give you a student's budget to upgrade your list with and myself a banker's?


Define "a student's budget".... I can do quite a bit with limited resources though.

 Canadian 5th wrote:
Would the fluff still matter then?


Always.


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/03 05:47:39


Post by: Canadian 5th


 Insectum7 wrote:
On the one hand, I'm pretty sure I could dig up a quote from you saying that "individual anecdotes about player experience are worthless", which would include yours.

On the other hand, my individual anecdote about Chaos 3.5 is that I routinely roflstomped it with my loyalists.

So take your choice

But more to the point, I loved that book even though I didn't play Chaos. And I didn't love it for the super competetive stuff. I loved it for the flavorful options and imagery it evoked. It was just a fun book to make armies with!

A game must be designed around just such anecdotes even though any given one of them fails to represent the entire truth of the game. A game should strive to be as fun as it can be as often as it can be and in as many circumstances as it can be. It should be designed in such a way that, outside of rare events, it only produces positive anecdotes from its core audience and generally garners praise from those that may only align with one or two of its many game design goals. Can you truthfully say that 40k has ever managed this and that it has gotten closer to meeting these logical aims with every passing edition?

 aphyon wrote:
 Canadian 5th wrote:
 aphyon wrote:
You are ignoring the elephant in the room. the reason why nobody gives a feth is BECAUSE 9th ed is designed for comp play not for lore play it is more GAME and less tactical WAR game.

Army list building has always been a strategic part of the game and how you played in on the table was the tactical part, but now with 9th the army list building is pretty well the entire game.

Because the core rules do not support casual play, the people who want the FUN of playing what models they want or want their dudes to behave or fight the way they actually should in the IP. they/we have gone back to playing the game when it supported it. with a few exceptions that is some alignment of 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 7th (without formations)

Let me design you a 3e list and myself a list from the same pool of available options.

I'll do everything in my power to give your list a fluffy theme that I know to be weak in practice and do my best to do the same for my army but going the opposite direction. I'll even write up a nice 4-page scenario for how the battle came to happen and what the exact stakes are. Are you down to play such a game with me and would you find it enjoyable if we played the same game weekly? How about if I were to give you a student's budget to upgrade your list with and myself a banker's? Would the fluff still matter then?


Speculation at best, the fluff lists from 3rd ed were not weak in practice so unless you are trying to design one list for failure you really cannot achieve that outcome.

The following are examples of armies that are both viable and built to the lore/fluff based rules from various older editions.




















Every army you've listed here is either Imperium or Eldar... How about if I made a fluffy list designed around a pocket of a Tyranid swarm that was running extremely light on leader beats and primarily composed of gants and other creatures that don't function well when left to making instinctive behavior rolls? That is a perfectly fluffy list and yet one that I doubt you would win many games with.

ccs wrote:
Define "pool of available options". Same codex? All 3e codex?, All the options (Codex + FW + WD + Journal, etc) in 3e?
I will warn you, I don't consider 3e DE an option as I don't play with models I don't like. Since the only two models in the DE range of that era I liked were the two slave girls from Vects raider.... Well, it's pretty hard to make an army out of 2 models that didn't have rules.

I pick your entire list from codex to wargear using the entire range of options that existed at the end of 3rd edition. I then write fluff for that list that matches with the lore as it stood at the end of 3rd edition. I do this with the aim of giving you the least mechanically functional list that the fluff allows for.

For my own list, I'll do the same but with the aim of making the most mechanically viable force that can be justified by the fluff.


F* no. That's why there's different missions, new scenarios, you alter game sizes up/down etc. Even the boardgames I play are highly variable.

I've just described playing 3e with a bad list that you can't afford to upgrade in a shop full of players with better lists. Given how basic that editions matched play scenarios were even that doesn't offer much solace to such an unfortunate soul.

Define "a student's budget".... I can do quite a bit with limited resources though.

Minimum wage @ 24 hours per week, minus the cost of average living expenses for the area you live in, and assuming that this student only spends 25% of his remaining discretionary budget on this hobby and doesn't have more than a few hours per week to devote to the game. I'm literally aiming to show 40k at its worst here to prove that it is fundamentally broken.


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/03 06:08:37


Post by: aphyon


Every army you've listed here is either Imperium or Eldar... How about if I made a fluffy list designed around a pocket of a Tyranid swarm that was running extremely light on leader beats and primarily composed of gants and other creatures that don't function well when left to making instinctive behavior rolls? That is a perfectly fluffy list and yet one that I doubt you would win many games with.




I used those examples as they were the easiest and most obvious to find and identify.
As it so happens i have recently run a themed tyranid all assault army using the 4th ed codex and it worked just fine and i even used it against the 3.5 khorne berserker army (and won) from the codex you seem to think is an auto win button.

BTW Instinctive behavior rolls were the 5th ed codex and did not matter with the 4th dex (which is still overall the best nid codex for thematic play) and it is easy to counter by bringing enough synapse if you choose to go that route.







Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/03 06:28:32


Post by: Karol


 AnomanderRake wrote:


Which is why people don't talk about casual play. There is no casual play. If you want to play 40k you have to sign up to do research, balance matchups yourself, take minis that are good rather than minis you like, and get stomped because you bought the wrong models until you have the expertise to figure out which models are playable and which models aren't. You can't plonk models you like down, throw dice, and have a good time, because someone's going to get tabled immediately because they bought a D-list book that nobody on the design team has given two gaks about for fifteen years.


This, and If they do not do it, then really bad things can happen. The whole play what you want thing is nice in theory, but in reality if you didn't pick one of the armies, which have units that can carry the stuff you like, then it is not very enjoyable to play with and against an army, which will not just lose, but rather not participate in the game.

And then comes the extra stuff like, if your army isn't fully painted you get a handicap, so big that you lose the game each time.


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/03 06:33:51


Post by: Canadian 5th


 aphyon wrote:
I used those examples as they were the easiest and most obvious to find and identify.
As it so happens i have recently run a themed tyranid all assault army using the 4th ed codex and it worked just fine and i even used it against the 3.5 khorne berserker army (and won) from the codex you seem to think is an auto win button.

BTW Instinctive behavior rolls were the 5th ed codex and did not matter with the 4th dex (which is still overall the best nid codex for thematic play) and it is easy to counter by bringing enough synapse if you choose to go that route.


You don't get it so easy. You get the worst list I can make from the 2001 3rd edition Tyranid codex to take against any codex chosen from before the 4th edition main rule book was published.

This includes using:

Instinctive Behavior

Beyond the immediate reach of the hive mind, lesser Tyranid creatures will often revert back to their basic, often animalistic instincts. To represent this, at the start of the Tyranid turn any broods outside Synapse control range must take a Morale check for being All On Your Own (this being the equivalent Tyranid situation). If failed, roll for the brood's reaction on the table below.

So as not to violate board rules I'll not quote that table in full but will say that 1-2 meant pinned, 3-4 meant falling back to the nearest cover, and 5-6 meant moving 2d6" towards the nearest enemy as if making a sweeping advance.

It's also funny that this rule exists prior to 5th edition...


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/03 06:39:02


Post by: CommanderWalrus


Thank you for the responses everyone. Your explanations make sense and I think a lot of interesting discussion has been started. Though I hope everyone remembers to be polite in general, we owe our fellow man at least a little charity no matter what.
Also, funnily enough it wasn't too long after this post that I found an online group of people discussing Crusade Rules/narrative play and playing for a story instead of winning. So I guess this discussion does happen, just not as much. I'm silly.


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/03 06:46:43


Post by: aphyon


@Canadian 5th


Once again you miss the entire point you are purposely trying to force a loss so you can always be right-it is a form of reverse list tailoring. it comes across as a very thin attempt to hide WAAC player behavior. the entire point of the fluff lists when they existed is that they were both in alignment with the lore and also viable lists. some were very restrictive in their options like ravenwing/deathwing and some were less specific like a green tide list for orks (did a battle against a 4th ed ork codex greed tide army -over 100 on foot-recently as well-he won by objectives with only 5 models left in play and i only had 8).

Additionally our group uses the codexes from editions 3-7 in the 5th edition core rules sets that BEST represent the lore as such the 5th ed nid codex is not preferred as it's use of instinctive behavior is applied in a manner that is not in the lore as well as it lacks the biomorphic adaptability the nids are known for. .

That is why i mentioned previously the 3.5 chaos codex-NOBODY uses any other chaos codex (although we may import a newer model in from them from time to time) in our games because none of the rest of them that came after both meet the standards of lore rules&viability.



Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/03 06:49:11


Post by: Deadnight


Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
If you need to create your own scenarios or self imposed rules balances, you shouldn't pay for the bad rules to begin with. There's zero reason people should be defending one army's fluffy list is significantly worse than another army's, yet we have people doing it anyway.


As I said, missing the forest for the trees.

You are mistaking two very different things.

I see very few people 'defending' imbalance here. Very few people, outside of, say, Traditio, would say 'it's a good thing that tau are significantly less powerful than everyone else's.
What people are doing is suggesting work around, alternative approaches and fixes at their end to deal with these issues.

Youre a classic black Knight. You are so busy screaming at gw, you think everyone not screaming at gw and not being apoplectic with rage like you is the enemy and is somehow defending the things you are screaming about, just because they're not angry and screaming like you. You're wrong. Get over your hate. In my expenitence, the people working out their issues and game building with each othet are getting a lot more out of their games and their love for their hobby than you are.

In terms of 'paying for the rules', I also pay for the lore and other stuff that comes packaged in a codex/rulebook. Rules are a bonus, as I see it.

AnomanderRake wrote:

Which is why people don't talk about casual play. There is no casual play. If you want to play 40k you have to sign up to do research, balance matchups yourself, take minis that are good rather than minis you like, and get stomped because you bought the wrong models until you have the expertise to figure out which models are playable and which models aren't. You can't plonk models you like down, throw dice, and have a good time, because someone's going to get tabled immediately because they bought a D-list book that nobody on the design team has given two gaks about for fifteen years.



I'm.not sure why you are quoting me/directing this towards me, it's not something I was addressing? Surely this is better directed towards op?

There very much is casual play but its nature you won't see it discussed here much on a serious board with players/hobbyists who mostly come from the 'serious' end of the scale. As well, ironically, casual play needs a 'guiding hand'.

I mean, you can play Monopoly casually as well, but I bet there's whole books and articles written by someone very serious about it on Monopoly game theory to play the best game of Monopoly that you can.

Here's the thing, I don't disagree. I love this hobby of mine. I put a lot of money and a lot of time into this hobby. Half the reason we got the house we did was I could get a room at the end and turn it into a hobby room (xbox, two cabinets with all 1000+ of my doods) painting desk etc. I think I'd be a very foolish person if I put all this time and effort and money into.something and then didn't do anything much wiyh it ot didn't care about it. I kinda need to be a bit serious at this point, especially after nearly 20 years of hobbying.

And that's the thing. Like most things in real life you can 'arse about' with it, but at a certain point, if you want to go further, get better at it etc, you gotta step up to the plate and put some effort in. It's as true for running, cooking, weight lifting, painting etc. Hell even 'netflix and chill' requires a bit of research to avoid the dross. Wargaming is a very enjoyable, but expensive and time consuming hobby. I think its worth it to put that bit of effort in.


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/03 06:55:38


Post by: Canadian 5th


 aphyon wrote:
Once again you miss the entire point you are purposely trying to force a loss so you can always be right-it is a form of reverse list tailoring. it comes across as a very thin attempt to hide WAAC player behavior. the entire point of the fluff lists when they existed is that they were both in alignment with the lore and also viable lists. some were very restrictive in their options like ravenwing/deathwing and some were less specific like a green tide list for orks (did a battle against a 4th ed ork codex greed tide army -over 100 on foot-recently as well-he won by objectives with only 5 models left in play and i only had 8).

I'm reducing the problem to its state of least complexity. Modern 40k started with 3rd edition, so I to start here. In addition to being first, the 3rd edition of 40k has the least rules and, according to posters in this very thread, the single fluffiest codex to have ever been written (3.5 Chaos). To remove subjectivity from the process I aim to create two lists at extremes of the spectrum in terms of rules but which are exactly equal in terms of fluff to show that the two have never been in alignment, except as happy accidents, for any of 40k's long history. In doing such, I will show that 40k cannot be played casually as the balance is far too loose to allow for such a careless play without creating hard feelings for a certain subset of players using a certain subset of lists.

Your rebuttals have all been claims that I have missed the point or incorrect assertions about the state of the rules in the edition I have chosen to pen my proof in.


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/03 07:17:22


Post by: aphyon


Each faction has had one codex that was the best for core rules/mechanics that fit the lore than any other to come before or after it without counting newer models that may have been added later. for most factions that was either 3rd or 4th edition with a few exceptions in 5th. the 3.5 chaos codex is not alone in this.


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/03 07:32:03


Post by: ccs


 Canadian 5th wrote:

ccs wrote:
Define "pool of available options". Same codex? All 3e codex?, All the options (Codex + FW + WD + Journal, etc) in 3e?
I will warn you, I don't consider 3e DE an option as I don't play with models I don't like. Since the only two models in the DE range of that era I liked were the two slave girls from Vects raider.... Well, it's pretty hard to make an army out of 2 models that didn't have rules.

I pick your entire list from codex to wargear using the entire range of options that existed at the end of 3rd edition. I then write fluff for that list that matches with the lore as it stood at the end of 3rd edition. I do this with the aim of giving you the least mechanically functional list that the fluff allows for.

For my own list, I'll do the same but with the aim of making the most mechanically viable force that can be justified by the fluff.


Just saying, you bring me any 3e era DE models (except the slave girls) & you'll have come a long way for nothing.


 Canadian 5th wrote:
F* no. That's why there's different missions, new scenarios, you alter game sizes up/down etc. Even the boardgames I play are highly variable.

I've just described playing 3e with a bad list that you can't afford to upgrade in a shop full of players with better lists. Given how basic that editions matched play scenarios were even that doesn't offer much solace to such an unfortunate soul.


Now you're channeling Karol? Playing in the toxic wastes of Poland vs a bunch of donkey-caves & completely lacking even the tinniest bit of will/creativity to better your army?

 Canadian 5th wrote:
Define "a student's budget".... I can do quite a bit with limited resources though.

Minimum wage @ 24 hours per week, minus the cost of average living expenses for the area you live in, and assuming that this student only spends 25% of his remaining discretionary budget on this hobby and doesn't have more than a few hours per week to devote to the game.


We'll just pretend that's a thing in my area & call the funds available for 40k $30/$35/week. Like I said, I can do a lot with little. This is enough.


 Canadian 5th wrote:
I'm literally aiming to show 40k at its worst here to prove that it is fundamentally broken.


So you've embarked on a fool's errand.
Especially with the $ aspect - because there's any # of pasttimes that people with $30 to spend per week will find prohibitively expensive (unless they're smart & creative -& no, playing with empty black bases counts for neither).


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/03 07:55:39


Post by: vict0988


 CommanderWalrus wrote:
Thank you for the responses everyone. Your explanations make sense and I think a lot of interesting discussion has been started. Though I hope everyone remembers to be polite in general, we owe our fellow man at least a little charity no matter what.
Also, funnily enough it wasn't too long after this post that I found an online group of people discussing Crusade Rules/narrative play and playing for a story instead of winning. So I guess this discussion does happen, just not as much. I'm silly.

Link?

I made some narrative warzone rules rewrites, I think casuals deserve good rules as well. I also discuss why I think the changes are needed. https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/796068.page


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/03 08:32:45


Post by: Insectum7


 Canadian 5th wrote:
 aphyon wrote:
Once again you miss the entire point you are purposely trying to force a loss so you can always be right-it is a form of reverse list tailoring. it comes across as a very thin attempt to hide WAAC player behavior. the entire point of the fluff lists when they existed is that they were both in alignment with the lore and also viable lists. some were very restrictive in their options like ravenwing/deathwing and some were less specific like a green tide list for orks (did a battle against a 4th ed ork codex greed tide army -over 100 on foot-recently as well-he won by objectives with only 5 models left in play and i only had 8).

I'm reducing the problem to its state of least complexity. Modern 40k started with 3rd edition, so I to start here. In addition to being first, the 3rd edition of 40k has the least rules and, according to posters in this very thread, the single fluffiest codex to have ever been written (3.5 Chaos). To remove subjectivity from the process I aim to create two lists at extremes of the spectrum in terms of rules but which are exactly equal in terms of fluff to show that the two have never been in alignment, except as happy accidents, for any of 40k's long history. In doing such, I will show that 40k cannot be played casually as the balance is far too loose to allow for such a careless play without creating hard feelings for a certain subset of players using a certain subset of lists.

Your rebuttals have all been claims that I have missed the point or incorrect assertions about the state of the rules in the edition I have chosen to pen my proof in.

Careless play is not the same thing as casual play. Casual play is simply the idea of not playing in full-bore-competetive mode, which can be anything from fluffy lists to narrative scenarios with built-in imbalances. Throwing up two random fluffy lists and then playing "for keeps" is precisely missing the point, especially as a dedicated group of casual players will often discuss their lists ahead of time for the sake of theme.

Skew lists of competetive playes can wind up with the same results by virtue of rock-scissor-paper-like interaction.

Chaos 3.5 could make many fluffy lists. Some of which were good, some of which were not good. What made the book enjoyable was options, customizeability and character, not the fact that Siren could be abused as a power. I'm sure that made it enjoyable to some, but it's certainly not why I think the book is the gold standard for a Chaos book.


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/03 08:39:43


Post by: Karol


Deadnight 798035 11113461 wrote:

In terms of 'paying for the rules', I also pay for the lore and other stuff that comes packaged in a codex/rulebook. Rules are a bonus, as I see it.


That is good for you, but how does it help all the legion of people who bought the models and rules to play the game , and not to paint models, read lore or other stuff?

That is a bit like someone with a fine set of rules, telling someone with a bad set of rules that the game is okey, because they are having fun.



Now you're channeling Karol? Playing in the toxic wastes of Poland vs a bunch of donkey-caves & completely lacking even the tinniest bit of will/creativity to better your army?


only what I talk about has nothing to do with toxicity, and everything with different play enviroments being build based around the fact that people have different levels of income. There is a difference in to playing the game, when you have 30$ per week and someone who has 30$ or less per month.
Took me over 3 years to realise that people in other countries consider having multiple armies as something normal, while here a ton of people quit before they mange to save up enough to buy one army. You don't think that the need to have one working army, while you can't afford multiple armies, doesn't have an impact how a meta is shaped?

The sole fact that a lot of games are played at home in some areas makes it a heck lot of different comparing to those places where you play mostly at stores.


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/03 08:40:03


Post by: tneva82


 CommanderWalrus wrote:
One thing I've noticed on these forums and pretty much everywhere else people discuss 40k is that the conversation is pretty much universally slanted to a more competitive side.
Why is this? IMO the game is more fun played more casually, and it seems many people share this opinion, but yet 90% of the discussion is on how to win at all costs. Whenever a new codex is out the discussion is heavily weighted on how strong it is and not how fun it is. The 9th edition Necron Codex comes to mind since while it doesn't have the most competitive options, it is a blast to play for more casual games since it has so many cool and unique options. But I see almost no one talk about some of these things because it doesn't relate to "meta". Any idea why this is, in general?


They do. There's no competive games in game that can't be played competively like gw games.

All games in 40k are beer&pertzel games by definition.


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/03 08:43:50


Post by: Karol


Nothing that has a 700$+ cost can be considered b&p. When you start costing like a playstation, you leave the casual for fun area of costs. 100$ for full game, yeah that is B&P, but not w40k. Not even when majority of the models in the area re recasts.


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/03 08:48:25


Post by: Amishprn86


Karol wrote:
Nothing that has a 700$+ cost can be considered b&p. When you start costing like a playstation, you leave the casual for fun area of costs. 100$ for full game, yeah that is B&P, but not w40k. Not even when majority of the models in the area re recasts.


So your telling me video game players are all competitive and not laid back playing games for causl and fun with many drinking beer and eating snacks when doing so? B.c if so then i have been lied to my entire life and I guess I'm a pro gaming, hmm I wonder what team I can be on for Horizon Zero Dawn?


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/03 08:57:44


Post by: JohnnyHell


I think this thread neatly outlines to OP why there isn’t much casual play discussion. It gets drowned out and shut down by people without the willpower to simply not post about something they don’t enjoy. This thread is a sad demonstration of why there’s less casual play chat than there could be.


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/03 09:03:40


Post by: Deadnight


Karol wrote:

That is good for you, but how does it help all the legion of people who bought the models and rules to play the game , and not to paint models, read lore or other stuff?

That is a bit like someone with a fine set of rules, telling someone with a bad set of rules that the game is okey, because they are having fun.


Yes but Not really. It's someone whose figured out an approach that makes the game work for them, and they're now enjoying their games and are having fun. Am I wrong in having fun? Am I wrong in telling people I'm having fun and enjoying my gsmes? Am I wrong in suggesting this approach? You not taking up the advice- well that's on you. Go ahead, be miserable. Be a martyr. I can't make you enjoy your games but I can sure enjoy mine.


I buy the same books as you. I just don't subscribe to the 'cult of officialdom' that treats rules as a bitter angry god thst demands unquestioning obedience and zero deviation.

If you're only in it to play the game - firstly there is nothing wrong with that, but from my pov you're missing out on a lot of what this hobby is about, and what, imo makes it great.

If you're buying gw rules and models just to play gw games, firstly, that is in my mind the worst reason to get into gw games. You're missing out on so much of what makes this hobby great. it doesn't take much research to learn gw's rules writing isn't the best, is pretty crap more often than not, and frankly, if that's what you're after, you're going in with your eyes shut and determined to stick it out, and aren't interested in the lore, hobbyimg or other stuff, you're being foolish, you're going to be bitterly disappointed by gw, and only less slightly less bitterly disappointed by the other ttgs as frankly, all of them have flaws and limitations - it's the nature of the medium, really.
Far better, imo to find other aspects of the game/hobby and other approaches that mitigate this. Ot worst case scenario, consider if this hobby really is for you.

Anyway, How does it help? I'm providing advise on different perspectives and different approaches to this game/hobby that have in some ways, made me fall in love with my hobby again and which I feel may benefit others other than myself. Its called 'learning'. You should always be willing to listen to advise and other perspectives from other folks. Now if you choose not to take up this advise that's fine, but if you don't and you stay miserable, maybe consider that your approach, and your community that insists on a toxic approach is what is contributing to your frustration.

Karol wrote:
Nothing that has a 700$+ cost can be considered b&p. When you start costing like a playstation, you leave the casual for fun area of costs. 100$ for full game, yeah that is B&P, but not w40k. Not even when majority of the models in the area re recasts.


So wrong...

So.i guess I can't casually play my xbox one and all my games then? I can't have an 'easy game that I can faff about with then?

I guess I've been videogaming wrong for thirty years now...



Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/03 09:16:32


Post by: Karol


So wrong...

So.i guess I can't casually play my xbox one and all my games then? I can't have an 'easy game that I can faff about with then?


Well maybe it is just my low english skill. But casual to me is something that is unimportant in its outcome. Doesn't mean if you win or lose. Money on the other hand makes everything serious. If playing w40k cost 100-150$, well then I would say it could be a casual game, even if the real armies cost more. The thing about w40k is though, that it does not cost 100-150$. And when something costs two of your moms monthly salaries, it stops to be in the the cathegory where you don't care about the out comes. Specially when there is such a huge gap between bad and good armies, and being a bad army doesn't mean you cost less.

Or to make an easy example. Imagine you buy an xbox in Poland, and you don't live in one of the 5-6 biggest cities, and then find out that to play it you need a good internet connection 24/7 or it just turns itself off. There is a reason why I used a playstation in my example. Same can be said about almost no one here using apple products etc a 1000$ army with books and updates + hours spent painting is not something that could be describe as a casual hobby around here, and yes I do know that there are people in the world that considered collecting yachts and jet liners as a hobby.


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/03 09:29:21


Post by: Deadnight


Karol wrote:
So wrong...

So.i guess I can't casually play my xbox one and all my games then? I can't have an 'easy game that I can faff about with then?


Well maybe it is just my low english skill. But casual to me is something that is unimportant in its outcome. Doesn't mean if you win or lose. Money on the other hand makes everything serious. If playing w40k cost 100-150$, well then I would say it could be a casual game, even if the real armies cost more. The thing about w40k is though, that it does not cost 100-150$. And when something costs two of your moms monthly salaries, it stops to be in the the cathegory where you don't care about the out comes. Specially when there is such a huge gap between bad and good armies, and being a bad army doesn't mean you cost less.

Or to make an easy example. Imagine you buy an xbox in Poland, and you don't live in one of the 5-6 biggest cities, and then find out that to play it you need a good internet connection 24/7 or it just turns itself off. There is a reason why I used a playstation in my example. Same can be said about almost no one here using apple products etc a 1000$ army with books and updates + hours spent painting is not something that could be describe as a casual hobby around here, and yes I do know that there are people in the world that considered collecting yachts and jet liners as a hobby.


You should have done your research then on your xbox and if it's unworkable, consider an alternative approach. In this case, playstation. In wargaming terms, a different perspective and way of playing.

Your initisl point was it can't be beer an pretzels if it costs a bit. That's patently false. Stop trying to row back.

You can absolutely be serious about your hobby, spend big bucks, and enjoy beer and pretzel type games. The two are not mutually exclusive.

Especially if it costs money you should be serious about it, you should consider the best way of getting value out of it. Which is why you should consider the alternative advice and perspectives from.folks who have mitigated a lot of the issues that you embrace unquestioningly.


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/03 09:29:49


Post by: Karol


Wrote an unreadable wall of text.

To make it simple. I did research. No tells you that an army can be bad and stay bad, when they sell it. And me being me at 13, I did not expect something that costs that much be of such low quality and with the company that makes it not wanting to fix it.

I don't have an Xbox or Playstation or a tablet, because I bought my army. I wouldn't buy an xbox where I live, because how it works, or rather doesn't, is common knowladge. And on the forums I was told to pick the stuff I liked and play that. And I did, and it ended really bad.

There is no outside stuff for me to do in the hobby anyway. GW doesn't have novels about my army, the last new models came out in 7th ed, and my stuff is already painted, although the bases being colour coded somehow count as not painted, but I ain't going to fix that.

So no I don't think that stuff that cost upwards of 1000$, which is around 2 normal salaries in my area, is for me or people living in my area something casual or that makes it a B&P game. Not when beer costs 1,5$ and a bag of pretzels around 0,75$.


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/03 09:59:30


Post by: JohnnyHell


Significant misapprehension in your posts, Karol.

You can absolutely spend the required cash to play 40K, enjoy the hobby and social aspect, and not give two hoots if you win or lose so long as it’s a fun game. The cash spent on 40K is not solely towards winning games of 40K, for most folk. If that’s your whole goal then you might feel burnt if you lose. But there is lot happens off the gaming table that is valid hobby and people love.

Just because you don’t share a mindset does not mean it doesn’t exist.

I know you got tricked into buying GK and have been your scene’s whipping boy for several editions, and that colours your outlook, but try seeing things from someone else’s POV and you might grok things better.


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/03 10:04:47


Post by: Canadian 5th


 JohnnyHell wrote:
I know you got tricked into buying GK and have been your scene’s whipping boy for several editions, and that colours your outlook, but try seeing things from someone else’s POV and you might grok things better.

I know you were born poor and ended up getting kicked down the rungs of society's greased ladder for your entire life, and that colours your outlook, but try imagining how sweet life is for the upper-classes and you'll see why your experience is invalid.


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/03 10:07:25


Post by: Not Online!!!


yup, for the price the B&P game demands, it's laughable what get's let through.


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/03 10:37:34


Post by: Gert


How have people turned playing a game casually into a competition?


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/03 10:45:43


Post by: Tyel


I'm not sure dakka spends much time talking about competitive 40k.

It just talks about "balance" - which is a topic you can weigh in on regardless of knowledge or experience. By contrast its hard to enter a discussion on two players just having a good time. It turns out 40k is quite fun if you play it with friends - which may serve as a tonic for all the people who can't understand why it continues to be commercially successful - but I'm not sure what to say beyond that.

I do think "fluff" has sort of stopped being a feature of list building - although I think in some way that's because GW has sort of embraced it themselves. So going beyond where the rules (chapter tactics and other bonuses) are taking you feels stranger than perhaps it did in the old days.

So for example the new DE codex may be the most overpowered thing since Marines 2.0 since the Knights Codex since 7th edition Eldar since.... etc.

But is it fluffy? Well.. kinda. If you think an Incubi should chop marines down left and right they do that.

But to my mind there isn't much in that book that allows personal fluff expression. Your army - even if you lean really heavily into one of the subfactions - will look much like everyone else's. Unless you go really off the reservation - lets say no transports and random bad custom chapter tactics. At that point I'm not sure I'm satisfying a fluff vision, I'm just making a bad list for the sake of it.

To a degree I think this is just a mentality thing. I find it often in computer games - when I know nothing, I can just have fun. Once I know a lot however its jarring to go "I'm going to combine suboptimal thing with suboptimal thing and look at my complete lack of synergy". The result is just "oh this doesn't work as well" - which I knew would be the case. Exploration has given way to a focus on results. I might not like it, but its hard to go back.


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/03 11:08:32


Post by: JohnnyHell


 Canadian 5th wrote:
 JohnnyHell wrote:
I know you got tricked into buying GK and have been your scene’s whipping boy for several editions, and that colours your outlook, but try seeing things from someone else’s POV and you might grok things better.

I know you were born poor and ended up getting kicked down the rungs of society's greased ladder for your entire life, and that colours your outlook, but try imagining how sweet life is for the upper-classes and you'll see why your experience is invalid.


I genuinely don’t know if this is agreement, rebuttal, Rule 1 violation or what! Help me out and explain?


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/03 11:12:24


Post by: Amishprn86


delete


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/03 11:20:19


Post by: Unit1126PLL


I have Canadian5th on ignore so I am only getting half the conversation and it is hilarious.

The type of guy that would be shunned in any play environment warrants a response on Dakka - which is why we can't talk about casual play. People don't ignore the clown in the room like you can IRL.


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/03 11:24:50


Post by: Voss


 JohnnyHell wrote:
 Canadian 5th wrote:
 JohnnyHell wrote:
I know you got tricked into buying GK and have been your scene’s whipping boy for several editions, and that colours your outlook, but try seeing things from someone else’s POV and you might grok things better.

I know you were born poor and ended up getting kicked down the rungs of society's greased ladder for your entire life, and that colours your outlook, but try imagining how sweet life is for the upper-classes and you'll see why your experience is invalid.


I genuinely don’t know if this is agreement, rebuttal, Rule 1 violation or what! Help me out and explain?


Canadian's 'rephrasing' what you said to Karol, because apparently 'obviously' you're actually going for oppressive class warfare in your stance.

However you want to take it, I wouldn't bother with engaging it.


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/03 13:04:02


Post by: the_scotsman


The wild thing, for me, is the fact that it's easier - and I know, I know, everyone is going to jump down my throat and say BUT WHAT IF I JUST HAPPENED TO CHOOSE EXACTLY THE COMPETITIVE UNITS OF JUST THIS EXACT MOMENT WHAT THEN but, outside of bizarre outliers like that that do happen, its easier and cheaper to just not...make super competitive skew lists.

I've played somewhere that it's just not all that common practice for anyone to keep up with the competitive joneses for the longest time, and the net result is just that you generally end up with less one-sided PUGs, more games that actually last to turn 5, and everyone involved saves a ton of money.

There are flukes, obviously. In 7th ed, we had a longstanding Saim-Hann player who got the whole scatter laser jetbike thing dropped into his lap, and while his army did include several Vypers which were one of the few bad eldar units at the time and his bikes did all adhere to the old 'one heavy weapon in 3" restriction, he was pretty dang miserable to play against for a while. The biggest mess occurred when Space Marines 2.0 basically shattered the meta, because we had five or six players with all-primaris or mostly-primaris army lists that ended up head and shoulders above everyone else, and because there were so many space marine players present, didnt feel any pressure to dial back on their lists at all because nobody else was doing it.

In all my time of playing since the beginning of fifth, I've never seen someone actually manage to coincidentally create a real, honest to god competitive S-tier army list by accident. The Eldar player in 7th had no wraithknights, had Vypers and Shining Spears (which were both bad at the time) and had mostly shuricat/shuricannon jetbikes rather than the meta scatter lasers.

With the marine 2.0 lists, it was like

-one guy playing Iron Hands who had the usual 'played SM before primaris' list of mostly firstborn tanks+the primaris troops from the various starter boxes

-two guys playing space wolves with mostly the unique space wolf units eg wulfen thunderwolves shield dreads etc

-one guy playing BA with the BA unique stuff+primaris troops

-one guy playing ravenguard with the new primaris sneaky boys

-one guy playing salamanders+blood angels who liked dreadnoughts and wanted to bring as many dreadnoughts as possible

-a couple dark angels players mostly focusing on the deathwing

-a guy playing all bike and jump pack white scars

-a guy playing super classic all-primaris ultramarine gunpile with either guilliman or the new calgar model

the closest to an up to the moment competitive list was probably the raven guard player? but he never had the thing they were really notorious for which was sneak-striking the big chunky guys straight into your lines turn 1.

Sure, you could be our resident raven guard player and you could get your new SM 2.0 codex and you could be like 'oh boy time to get a couple boxes of Assault Cents and paint 'em up!' but...why? He was already winning games really easily with his awesome new codex rules. He hated the way centurions looked, and they didnt fit at all with the theme of his army. they'd cost him like 120 dollars for the full squad of six and take like 20 hours to paint up, and to get what? To make him win games in 1 hour instead of 1.5 hours?

At the end of the day, people understand that what goes around, comes around. What's amazing right now is unlikely to stay that way for 6 months. So the general, unspoken club policy is that people just don't tend to choose to buy things just to get the rules that those things have right now, and they tend not to throw models in the garbage if the balancing cycle of the game has moved past them. Sure, every once in a while, something being really competitive catches someone's attention and they build a unit in a particular way, but then people tend to just keep them on after they're not top tier anymore because gak's not free. The guy who bought into Militarum Tempestus because he'd always liked how they looked but they suddenly became really good in early 8th is still playing his MT army now that they're lower-tier, as is the guy who got into custodes when they were having a moment.

Its incredible to me that there apparently exist groups out there where the norm is dropping hundreds and hundreds of dollars and dozens of hours trying to chase the dragon of having an up-to-the-moment tournament tier list at any given time. That's so many times more effort than just everyone building their collections at a reasonable, affordable pace, and what do you get for it? A group that's just impenetrable by new players or returning collectors? Shorter, less interesting games? a 4x more expensive hobby?


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/03 13:17:12


Post by: Sledgehammer


 Gert wrote:
How have people turned playing a game casually into a competition?
This is human nature like i stated before. This thread shows the arms-race in action. Rules have to attempt to accommodate for that in the listbuilding phase or people are just going to get blown out before the game even starts.


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/03 13:17:13


Post by: Unit1126PLL


Well, on the whole "accidentally good army list" front, that happened to me with both 40k and AoS.

In 2017, I created a fun Slaanesh Daemons army. The lore was built around the idea of a "court" of six Keepers of Secrets around an Exalted Keeper. So seven Keepers, all using 3rd party models because the current keeper at the time was from like 2nd edition.

Suddenly, in 2019, an explosion of new Slaanesh releases (new battletome for AoS) and abrupt support for an army that everyone genuinely thought would be killed off. In AoS, Keeper spam became the super amazing ridiculous list, and so I quit playing.

Come 9th edition 40k, and once again keepers of secrets are the gold standard for a tough, fast, fighty melee unit on a small board. The max allowed KoS is not an uncommon list.

Fortunately the latest AoS battletome toned them back down, but jeepers batman.


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/03 13:28:14


Post by: the_scotsman


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Well, on the whole "accidentally good army list" front, that happened to me with both 40k and AoS.

In 2017, I created a fun Slaanesh Daemons army. The lore was built around the idea of a "court" of six Keepers of Secrets around an Exalted Keeper. So seven Keepers, all using 3rd party models because the current keeper at the time was from like 2nd edition.

Suddenly, in 2019, an explosion of new Slaanesh releases (new battletome for AoS) and abrupt support for an army that everyone genuinely thought would be killed off. In AoS, Keeper spam became the super amazing ridiculous list, and so I quit playing.

Come 9th edition 40k, and once again keepers of secrets are the gold standard for a tough, fast, fighty melee unit on a small board. The max allowed KoS is not an uncommon list.

Fortunately the latest AoS battletome toned them back down, but jeepers batman.


Sure, it happens, absolutely. You 100% get people who just own a particular army and then a new codex comes out and that army is amazing, and then obviously, you get people busting that army out again after it's been generally sitting on a shelf or whatever. and when an army is down near the bottom, people tend to not play it as much - my least played armies right now are Thousand Sons and Genestealer Cults and Craftworld Eldar for a reason.

but this idea that those armies existing in theory invalidates others is a pure fantasy. In reality, if you have a group of people who aren't interested in chasing the meta dragon, it is almost always vastly MORE possible for people to be playing the top factions, the 'meh' factions, and the bottom factions against each other because the people who stumble into the top factions rarely have every unit or combo that makes that faction truly top-tier.

And if they do? Then they win a lot of games for a while, people chuckle about how busted their gak is now, sometimes in the most extreme circumstances they may have trouble getting a game or they may choose to play less broken armies for a bit.

Then a couple months pass, a couple more codexes come out or a CA drops or whatever, and the guy who's got the accidentally top-tier army doesn't anymore.

It's wild that there are people out there like this tiger dude that are so utterly laser-focused on top tier competitive play that they chalk up groups choosing to spend vastly more money and time and effort than is necessary to play worse games on purpose to 'human nature.'

I'd argue that the desire to not spend as much time or money to constantly be buying new units is actually a lot truer to 'human nature' than this constant expenditure state, which requires the input of a constant media diet of competitive meta-analyses, staying on top of every new book and rule release, often an addiction to websites purposefully set up to fuel that behavior like ebay, and a desire to use the exuse of a third party ruleset to allow for behavior that in other settings would be considered interpersonally repuganant.


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/03 13:31:19


Post by: Unit1126PLL


My problem is I literally quit playing AoS over that. I felt pretty terrible playing my Slaanesh with that first battletome.

I haven't actually played Slaanesh since though I hear the new tome is okay.

Just wish the game could be balanced so I didn't have to feth around with my lore (not-keepers, suddenly!) or my opponent's enjoyment.


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/03 13:34:34


Post by: the_scotsman


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
My problem is I literally quit playing AoS over that. I felt pretty terrible playing my Slaanesh with that first battletome.

I haven't actually played Slaanesh since though I hear the new tome is okay.

Just wish the game could be balanced so I didn't have to feth around with my lore (not-keepers, suddenly!) or my opponent's enjoyment.


You do seem to fall face-first into the trap I generally warn any new player about: themed lists that revolve around spamming one unit or one category of unit to the exclusion of all others. You are by no means a bad person for doing that, and it's a common inclination people have, but it is in my opinion usually a mistake.

A skewed list is always going to spend a greater fraction of its time unenjoyably OP or unenjoyably UP than a varied list. If you choose a unit at random and make that unit 50% or more of your points, and I choose units and random within a faction and just bring 1-2 of each of them, I will end up with a generally average, usable list much more commonly than you will.


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/03 13:37:06


Post by: Unit1126PLL


Well, yes, but depending on faction that isn't an army to me.

What people call "theme" I call "narrative" or whatever. But the whole "my army is 2 basilisks, 2 Russes, 2 hellhounds, 2 guard squads, 2 conscript squads..." Etc makes me go

"Wtf type of regiment is this?"

Now I will grant that Daemons are one of the few that could get away with "1 of everything" highlander style lists, but as you point out this tends to be my personal preference the other way.


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/03 13:38:26


Post by: Gert


 Sledgehammer wrote:
This is human nature like i stated before. This thread shows the arms-race in action. Rules have to attempt to accommodate for that in the listbuilding phase or people are just going to get blown out before the game even starts.

My post was nothing to do with the game itself, rather people attempting to "out casual" each other with more inane and stupid definitions of casual gaming.


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/03 13:41:23


Post by: JohnnyHell


Voss wrote:
 JohnnyHell wrote:
 Canadian 5th wrote:
 JohnnyHell wrote:
I know you got tricked into buying GK and have been your scene’s whipping boy for several editions, and that colours your outlook, but try seeing things from someone else’s POV and you might grok things better.

I know you were born poor and ended up getting kicked down the rungs of society's greased ladder for your entire life, and that colours your outlook, but try imagining how sweet life is for the upper-classes and you'll see why your experience is invalid.


I genuinely don’t know if this is agreement, rebuttal, Rule 1 violation or what! Help me out and explain?


Canadian's 'rephrasing' what you said to Karol, because apparently 'obviously' you're actually going for oppressive class warfare in your stance.

However you want to take it, I wouldn't bother with engaging it.



Ohhh I see. An attempted “fixed that for you” that in no way reflects the intent or meaning of my post? Cool, cool. Waste of forum space then, I see. Thanks for the explanation as it was such an odd post I was clueless.


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/03 13:47:33


Post by: Sledgehammer


 Gert wrote:
 Sledgehammer wrote:
This is human nature like i stated before. This thread shows the arms-race in action. Rules have to attempt to accommodate for that in the listbuilding phase or people are just going to get blown out before the game even starts.

My post was nothing to do with the game itself, rather people attempting to "out casual" each other with more inane and stupid definitions of casual gaming.
That's my point, this is a display of the same human nature.


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/03 14:04:51


Post by: Gert


Taking Dakka posts as a signifier of human nature is about as unscientific as saying Earth is the centre of the universe. You have a bunch of outliers who don't represent the majority of people in the hobby declaring "casual gaming isn't real" and taking it as fact. To repeat what someone else has already said, most Warhammer players will never post on a forum.


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/03 14:40:51


Post by: Dai


Yet 100% of philosophy 101 edgelords will!


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/03 14:42:52


Post by: Unit1126PLL


To be frank I would take "most warhammer players will never post on a forum" with a grain of salt.

Maybe not DakkaDakka itself. But they will be active in FB groups, on reddit, and other websites in general. The age where someone can plausibly do a hobby without engaging with it on the internet at all is gone, I think, and my suspicion is that anyone enthusiastic about the hobby will engage with it digitally as well as physically.


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/03 14:52:12


Post by: Deadnight


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
To be frank I would take "most warhammer players will never post on a forum" with a grain of salt.

Maybe not DakkaDakka itself. But they will be active in FB groups, on reddit, and other websites in general. The age where someone can plausibly do a hobby without engaging with it on the internet at all is gone, I think, and my suspicion is that anyone enthusiastic about the hobby will engage with it digitally as well as physically.


Not necessarily.

There's five in my core group. im the only one on forums and one of two who actively 'likes' wargaming stuff on the book of faces, and the other one hasn't done much 'liking' in a long time, and even then, it was looking at new releases rather than tactics chatter.

Thata 20% actively engaged online so yeah its an assertion I find entirely plausible.


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/03 15:01:12


Post by: Slayer-Fan123


Deadnight wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
If you need to create your own scenarios or self imposed rules balances, you shouldn't pay for the bad rules to begin with. There's zero reason people should be defending one army's fluffy list is significantly worse than another army's, yet we have people doing it anyway.


As I said, missing the forest for the trees.

You are mistaking two very different things.

I see very few people 'defending' imbalance here. Very few people, outside of, say, Traditio, would say 'it's a good thing that tau are significantly less powerful than everyone else's.
What people are doing is suggesting work around, alternative approaches and fixes at their end to deal with these issues.

Youre a classic black Knight. You are so busy screaming at gw, you think everyone not screaming at gw and not being apoplectic with rage like you is the enemy and is somehow defending the things you are screaming about, just because they're not angry and screaming like you. You're wrong. Get over your hate. In my expenitence, the people working out their issues and game building with each othet are getting a lot more out of their games and their love for their hobby than you are.

In terms of 'paying for the rules', I also pay for the lore and other stuff that comes packaged in a codex/rulebook. Rules are a bonus, as I see it.

This is honestly hilarious. It really is.

Your workarounds are exactly the problem I've been talking about. Instead of making GW "game designers" do their jobs properly, we got people like you still defending their buying of absurdly expensive codices because "rules are a bonus" to you. This is exactly the white knight behavior that keeps the power creep going. "Oh don't worry, just because your TAC army is bad just buy some other models". "Oh your TAC army is too good, buy some other models". This isn't about skew lists, this is the fact some fluff armies are literally broken compared to other armies.

If you're going to take the approach you keep preaching you don't even need the rules as you're always modifying them to YOUR liking. Just randomly throw around some dice and see who rolled better.

Also I think it's hilarious nobody has been able to answer the question I've been asking: if a brand new game came out of nowhere with a different IP but had the same exact rules and prices, would you buy it or give it a good review?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 JohnnyHell wrote:
Voss wrote:
 JohnnyHell wrote:
 Canadian 5th wrote:
 JohnnyHell wrote:
I know you got tricked into buying GK and have been your scene’s whipping boy for several editions, and that colours your outlook, but try seeing things from someone else’s POV and you might grok things better.

I know you were born poor and ended up getting kicked down the rungs of society's greased ladder for your entire life, and that colours your outlook, but try imagining how sweet life is for the upper-classes and you'll see why your experience is invalid.


I genuinely don’t know if this is agreement, rebuttal, Rule 1 violation or what! Help me out and explain?


Canadian's 'rephrasing' what you said to Karol, because apparently 'obviously' you're actually going for oppressive class warfare in your stance.

However you want to take it, I wouldn't bother with engaging it.



Ohhh I see. An attempted “fixed that for you” that in no way reflects the intent or meaning of my post? Cool, cool. Waste of forum space then, I see. Thanks for the explanation as it was such an odd post I was clueless.

Then what else did you mean?


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/03 15:05:32


Post by: Unit1126PLL


Deadnight wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
To be frank I would take "most warhammer players will never post on a forum" with a grain of salt.

Maybe not DakkaDakka itself. But they will be active in FB groups, on reddit, and other websites in general. The age where someone can plausibly do a hobby without engaging with it on the internet at all is gone, I think, and my suspicion is that anyone enthusiastic about the hobby will engage with it digitally as well as physically.


Not necessarily.

There's five in my core group. im the only one on forums and one of two who actively 'likes' wargaming stuff on the book of faces, and the other one hasn't done much 'liking' in a long time, and even then, it was looking at new releases rather than tactics chatter.

Thata 20% actively engaged online so yeah its an assertion I find entirely plausible.


Interesting.

Without social media, my local WG group wouldn't function. Almost all of our members are digitally active, watching battle reports and participating in FB discussions either in our local club, on our store page, or elsewhere.

So, for my anecdote, 100% of my club (over 80 people) are digitally active, otherwise they couldn't be club members.


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/03 15:25:07


Post by: Sgt. Cortez


 the_scotsman wrote:
The wild thing, for me, is the fact that it's easier - and I know, I know, everyone is going to jump down my throat and say BUT WHAT IF I JUST HAPPENED TO CHOOSE EXACTLY THE COMPETITIVE UNITS OF JUST THIS EXACT MOMENT WHAT THEN but, outside of bizarre outliers like that that do happen, its easier and cheaper to just not...make super competitive skew lists.

I've played somewhere that it's just not all that common practice for anyone to keep up with the competitive joneses for the longest time, and the net result is just that you generally end up with less one-sided PUGs, more games that actually last to turn 5, and everyone involved saves a ton of money.

At the end of the day, people understand that what goes around, comes around. What's amazing right now is unlikely to stay that way for 6 months. So the general, unspoken club policy is that people just don't tend to choose to buy things just to get the rules that those things have right now, and they tend not to throw models in the garbage if the balancing cycle of the game has moved past them. Sure, every once in a while, something being really competitive catches someone's attention and they build a unit in a particular way, but then people tend to just keep them on after they're not top tier anymore because gak's not free. The guy who bought into Militarum Tempestus because he'd always liked how they looked but they suddenly became really good in early 8th is still playing his MT army now that they're lower-tier, as is the guy who got into custodes when they were having a moment.

Its incredible to me that there apparently exist groups out there where the norm is dropping hundreds and hundreds of dollars and dozens of hours trying to chase the dragon of having an up-to-the-moment tournament tier list at any given time. That's so many times more effort than just everyone building their collections at a reasonable, affordable pace, and what do you get for it? A group that's just impenetrable by new players or returning collectors? Shorter, less interesting games? a 4x more expensive hobby?


I agree with this and I think it's a good assessment of the common 40K groups. People don't build lists, they build collections. They have a goal or a picture of their army in mind and build that up over years. And while building (and painting) they of course play with what they got so far, more often than not stuff that's in cheap start collecting's and things where some people on dakka say: "this is unplayable, this unit is shelved, nobody plays it". Yes they do. People have their models painted and want to see them on the table, rules (or strength of rules) don't matter.
Yes, sometimes due to rules changes you realize you can play a competitve list after you've built up an army for years. And maybe you do that for some time, but usually people don't play the same list more than a couple of times because things get boring then. I don't think I've ever played the exact same list twice outside of some little events where we played 4 games on one day. And I believe that's actually the common approach to 40K.


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/03 15:32:16


Post by: Deadnight


Slayer-Fan123 wrote:


This is honestly hilarious. It really is.


Your close mindedness blinds you.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Your workarounds are exactly the problem I've been talking about. Instead of making GW "game designers" do their jobs properly, we got people like you still defending their buying of absurdly expensive codices because "rules are a bonus" to you. This is exactly the white knight behavior that keeps the power creep going. "Oh don't worry, just because your TAC army is bad just buy some other models". "Oh your TAC army is too good, buy some other models". This isn't about skew lists, this is the fact some fluff armies are literally broken compared to other armies.


You are hilarious. People doing gaming DIY, talking out their own games, applying workarounds and making them work for them is the problem? I've heard it all now.

Ridiculous.

I expect the game designers to make great models and lore. I appreciate some form of game, especially something immersive, but I appreciate with this medium, there are only so many things that can be captured and there will be sharp edges. Rules are like the seasons. They change. They're malleable.ill also add the caveat the rules set doesn't have to be brilliant or even good in its entirety. If there's enough of it that's good or clever or engaging or even good enough and I'm able to work with it, I'll take that and consider the designers job acceptable. I approach all ttgs i play with the understanding that some assembly is required at the front end. Gw games are no different.

I'm no white Knight. I'm a realist. Its not 'white Knight behaviour' to enjoy the lore and world building, its not white Knight behaviour to enjoy buyimg models I like to paint and play with. Its not white Knight behaviour to enjoy the painting and hobbying of gw stuff and its not white Knight behaviour to home brew and talk it out with the other guy. Like I said, your whole viewpoint is skewed, ts like anything that isn't projecting bile at gw is your enemy too.

While I quite enjoy the 'specialist games', and boxed games, especially shadespire, newcromunda and warcey (alongside the classic lotr sbg)I'm.not blind to their faults. I also have plenty problems with gw's rules for 40k. At best, 40ks rules are a clunky awkward and barely functional mess.

I'd love to see gw write cleaner rules. While I'm happy to work around the issues at my end, I'd love to see better balance. Plenty things gw can do. As a player, there's plenty things I can do too. Both sides of the exact same coin. I simply choose to focus on where my efforts will actually yield results.

And yeah it's a pain that some fluff armies are broken and others are trash. But I've got news for you - that's ttgs in general. I've never played a game where that wasn't the case.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:


If you're going to take the approach you keep preaching you don't even need the rules as you're always modifying them to YOUR liking. Just randomly throw around some dice and see who rolled better.


There's a difference between homebrewimg and game building and throwing around some dice, bjt I wouldn't expect a black Knight suchbas yourself to notice or care. this absurd projection of yours doesn't devalue the approach that actual works for folks like me.

Rules are fundamentally resolution mechanisms, they're not god. I'll use them if I have them especially if they come associated for models I've bought. If they work, great. If they don't, I'll.tweak.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:


Also I think it's hilarious nobody has been able to answer the question I've been asking: if a brand new game came out of nowhere with a different IP but had the same exact rules and prices, would you buy it or give it a good review?


Trap question.

Depends on the models and the lore is the honest answer. If the models are great, and the lore us engaging we'd give the game a go. If we came up against rules issues we'd talk it out and make it work.for ourselves. And then I'd say to folks like you ww enjoy playing it, this is how we make it work etc.


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/03 15:47:03


Post by: TangoTwoBravo


@Slayerfan,

I tend to mess up multi-quotes, so I just copy-pasted your question. You asked the question: "if a brand new game came out of nowhere with a different IP but had the same exact rules and prices, would you buy it or give it a good review?"

Parking what the point of the question is, I guess it would depend on the IP? Flames of War, at its heart, has much of 40K's underlying design. IP is very important to tabletop miniatures wargames because we are investing money, time and energy into the models. I think at some level the IP has to speak to us. Game mechanics matter, but they aren't everything. For that its worth, I am happier with the 40K game design direction in 8th/9th than I was for the 3rd to 7th Editions.

People bring up games with purportedly superior game design such as Infinity. Don't know much about it, but if you are looking for the miniatures they are in my FLGS' 50% bargain bin under the WMH stuff. Lots of "perfect" games out there that don't get much table time.

Is the crux of this thread the tension between "fluff" and "crunch.?" Some want their lists to be fluffy and crunchy and get mad when their vision of their fluffy force loses on the tabletop? Fluffy is highly subjective, especially in a made-up universe like 40K. Somebody could call their Jan 2020 Ironhands list with two Leviathans "fluffy." My current Deathwing list is quite fluffy. Its also terrifyingly effective against some opponents right now. And it would have fallen apart in Jan 2020 in a half-ways competitive game (I took 15 Deathwing Terminators to a tourney in Dec 2019).

Is it wrong that we adjust our lists to the situation? Tabletop wargaming is a social interaction. A little emotional intelligence before/during/after a game can do wonders for a gaming community. Some honest communication can also helpful: "I am prepping for a tourney next month" or "I would like to try out a themed list. Here are the parameters? Up for a game?"

GW wrote the rules, but its up to the community to be, well, a community.


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/03 16:08:33


Post by: Karol


 Gert wrote:
Taking Dakka posts as a signifier of human nature is about as unscientific as saying Earth is the centre of the universe. You have a bunch of outliers who don't represent the majority of people in the hobby declaring "casual gaming isn't real" and taking it as fact. To repeat what someone else has already said, most Warhammer players will never post on a forum.


I can't agree with that. When you see 60+ pages of threads of why marines are killing the game at 58% win rate, and then you see the same people defend armies with 78% win rates, as "maybe a bit over the power curve", you get a great lesson about human psyche. I was getting more and more angry each year, not understanding why the entire community doesn't riot at GW to fix GK. And then I saw what happened to my friends primaris IH, who over a night went from someone laughted at with a bad army, to that power gamer you should never play against. And suddenly I understood that this is just like school. People from other deperaments do not care about you, your events, your funding, if you have a good time or a chance to go to regionals. they only care about their own stuff. And GW games are the same, as long as their stuff is good people are okey with the game. The games stops being okey, if their army suddenly becomes weaker. But you are right, most people do not post on forums, unless it is the sell army section of a local forum or facebook group.


Some honest communication can also helpful: "I am prepping for a tourney next month" or "I would like to try out a themed list. Here are the parameters? Up for a game?"

GW wrote the rules, but its up to the community to be, well, a community.

And all of this works only in places where people have the option to change stuff, and not just struggle to buy the 2000pts and then stop buying stuff. Or they are people 20-30 years older then you, and making them do anything has an exactly zero chance to happen, specially when they know that an edition later there will be one or two of all the new players left playing the game. Probably fewer after another edition. Right now of the people that started w40k at my old store, that still play are 4 people including me, and out of those 4 only 2 play on a regular basis. But they had a huge help in the form of both their father and older brother playing at the old store too.


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/03 16:14:26


Post by: Inquisitor Lord Katherine


 CommanderWalrus wrote:
One thing I've noticed on these forums and pretty much everywhere else people discuss 40k is that the conversation is pretty much universally slanted to a more competitive side.
Why is this? IMO the game is more fun played more casually, and it seems many people share this opinion, but yet 90% of the discussion is on how to win at all costs. Whenever a new codex is out the discussion is heavily weighted on how strong it is and not how fun it is. The 9th edition Necron Codex comes to mind since while it doesn't have the most competitive options, it is a blast to play for more casual games since it has so many cool and unique options. But I see almost no one talk about some of these things because it doesn't relate to "meta". Any idea why this is, in general?


Because there's nothing worth talking about about noncompetitive play.

Competitive play is approached as problem to be solved, which thus prompts discussions, whether about balance or about how to solve it. Casual play isn't, and if you approach it that way it with intent to be optimal and win it becomes competitive and no longer casual.

Also, like what is there to say to others about casual play anyway? "I had the great game where I exploded my enemy's land raider and it was cool and cinematic and I used my imagination!" "Yeah, great, cool story lady, this affects my 40k experience so profoundly and I care so much about how your personal games go and your story in your head of your little plastic people."


And we do share casual play things sometimes, where its either funny, or germane to an extent discussion about the game.


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/03 16:17:45


Post by: the_scotsman


 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
 CommanderWalrus wrote:
One thing I've noticed on these forums and pretty much everywhere else people discuss 40k is that the conversation is pretty much universally slanted to a more competitive side.
Why is this? IMO the game is more fun played more casually, and it seems many people share this opinion, but yet 90% of the discussion is on how to win at all costs. Whenever a new codex is out the discussion is heavily weighted on how strong it is and not how fun it is. The 9th edition Necron Codex comes to mind since while it doesn't have the most competitive options, it is a blast to play for more casual games since it has so many cool and unique options. But I see almost no one talk about some of these things because it doesn't relate to "meta". Any idea why this is, in general?


Because there's nothing worth talking about about noncompetitive play.

Competitive play is approached as problem to be solved, which thus prompts discussions, whether about balance or about how to solve it. Casual play isn't, and if you approach it that way it with intent to be optimal and win it becomes competitive and no longer casual.

Also, like what is there to say to others about casual play anyway? "I had the great game where I exploded my enemy's land raider and it was cool and cinematic and I used my imagination!" "Yeah, great, cool story lady, this affects my 40k experience so profoundly and I care so much about how your personal games go and your story in your head of your little plastic people."


I don't know about you, but I could probably type pages about how best to achieve particular common fluff-scenarios using custom mission mechanics.


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/03 16:37:02


Post by: Gert


Spoiler:
 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:


Because there's nothing worth talking about about noncompetitive play.

Competitive play is approached as problem to be solved, which thus prompts discussions, whether about balance or about how to solve it. Casual play isn't, and if you approach it that way it with intent to be optimal and win it becomes competitive and no longer casual.

Also, like what is there to say to others about casual play anyway? "I had the great game where I exploded my enemy's land raider and it was cool and cinematic and I used my imagination!" "Yeah, great, cool story lady, this affects my 40k experience so profoundly and I care so much about how your personal games go and your story in your head of your little plastic people."


And we do share casual play things sometimes, where its either funny, or germane to an extent discussion about the game.

I disagree. I'd rather read about people's campaigns, personal army background, player-made characters, and stories developed around games than "THIS ARMY IS OP!!" "GW HAS RUINED MY LIFE ". Your Dudes is IMO one of the most important aspects of the hobby and I've found that when people have a connection to their collection beyond "this unit will win me games", the collective experience is always better.


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/03 16:38:47


Post by: Insectum7


^Yeah there are still problems that can be "solved", however they are more niche and contextual, and therefore less universal. Some would say less relevant, but I wouldn't be too quick to write off the problem space altogether.


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/03 16:39:04


Post by: PenitentJake


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I've been calling 9th Edition "Tournament Edition" since it came out, as everything appears to have been built and catered to the tournament/event crowd.

I mean, they even talked up all the groups - all event running groups heavily into the tournament scene - that helped them test this edition (yet somehow they kept the Codices from them). It's why the missions are all so dull and are all the same. It's why the scoring system now mirrors tournament scoring. It's why Maelstrom is gone (WD betas notwithstanding).

This is an edition built from the ground up to be for tournaments by the people who play in them.



That's funny, because I've been referring to it as the Narrative edition.

I've been wanting games to grow from small skirmish to full scale apocalypse battles since 1989. That happens now, with changes to army composition (detachment limits), table size, objectives and bespoke missions for all sizes of game for the first time in 34 years.

I've been waiting for a way that troops can earn promotions- not just experience, but actual unit changes in game- like starting as a captain and growing into a chapter master. Once again, for the first time in 34 years, that's possible.

I've been waiting for relics linked to specific histories and geograpihies in specific thatres of war that are discoverable in game and have a lasting effect upon the army. Once again, something that finally exists after 34 years.

If you choose not to play Crusade, I really don't want to hear your opinion on whether or not 9th succeeds when it comes to narrative play. And by "Play Crusade" I don't mean forcing yourself to engage in a single game for the sake of confirming your bias and then moving on; I mean starting with a 25PL force and growing it to 150-200 PL by engaging in ongoing campaign play using bespoke Crusade content from BRB, dexes and flashpoints and mission packs. I can almost guarantee you that your ideas about whether or not 9th supports narrative play will change.

We have never had this degree of support for narrative escalation and progression. If you choose not to use the tools, that's fine. But to claim they don't exist because you refuse to use them is more than a little disingenuous and totally off base.


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/03 16:39:20


Post by: JNAProductions


 Gert wrote:
Spoiler:
 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:


Because there's nothing worth talking about about noncompetitive play.

Competitive play is approached as problem to be solved, which thus prompts discussions, whether about balance or about how to solve it. Casual play isn't, and if you approach it that way it with intent to be optimal and win it becomes competitive and no longer casual.

Also, like what is there to say to others about casual play anyway? "I had the great game where I exploded my enemy's land raider and it was cool and cinematic and I used my imagination!" "Yeah, great, cool story lady, this affects my 40k experience so profoundly and I care so much about how your personal games go and your story in your head of your little plastic people."


And we do share casual play things sometimes, where its either funny, or germane to an extent discussion about the game.

I disagree. I'd rather read about people's campaigns, personal army background, player-made characters, and stories developed around games than "THIS ARMY IS OP!!" "GW HAS RUINED MY LIFE ". Your Dudes is IMO one of the most important aspects of the hobby and I've found that when people have a connection to their collection beyond "this unit will win me games", the collective experience is always better.
We've got a whole Proposed Rules subforum.


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/03 16:41:49


Post by: Unit1126PLL


 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
 CommanderWalrus wrote:
One thing I've noticed on these forums and pretty much everywhere else people discuss 40k is that the conversation is pretty much universally slanted to a more competitive side.
Why is this? IMO the game is more fun played more casually, and it seems many people share this opinion, but yet 90% of the discussion is on how to win at all costs. Whenever a new codex is out the discussion is heavily weighted on how strong it is and not how fun it is. The 9th edition Necron Codex comes to mind since while it doesn't have the most competitive options, it is a blast to play for more casual games since it has so many cool and unique options. But I see almost no one talk about some of these things because it doesn't relate to "meta". Any idea why this is, in general?


Because there's nothing worth talking about about noncompetitive play.

Competitive play is approached as problem to be solved, which thus prompts discussions, whether about balance or about how to solve it. Casual play isn't, and if you approach it that way it with intent to be optimal and win it becomes competitive and no longer casual.

Also, like what is there to say to others about casual play anyway? "I had the great game where I exploded my enemy's land raider and it was cool and cinematic and I used my imagination!" "Yeah, great, cool story lady, this affects my 40k experience so profoundly and I care so much about how your personal games go and your story in your head of your little plastic people."


And we do share casual play things sometimes, where its either funny, or germane to an extent discussion about the game.


I could have pages and pages of discussion on different special / proposed rules for unique subfactions (player-created of course) like relics, stratagems, warlord traits, doctrines, even specialize unit datasheets.

I could spend a ton of time comparing notes about characters and how they might react in a given scenario between players - no two Slaanesh daemons are alike, you know, so my warlord and your warlord would probably handle the same problem in different ways. Like what?

I could probably talk for ages about ways to convert unique characters or armies out of the greater game-o-sphere, using 3rd party models and bits.

I could expound endlessly on inspirations for armies and different themes and what fits a "theme" best - e.g. if I wanted to play an army themed around the 501st from Star Wars, what army is best? etc.

EDIT:
And the proposed rules subform is nice, but I am talking about something slightly more formal and official than that. Not just "here's what me and my group play or here is some theoryhammer about a rule I am considering" but rather like "here is the entire datasheet for my special character, feel free to use her in your games because she is a daemon and can be anywhere" or whatever.


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/03 16:46:27


Post by: the_scotsman


...You can do that in the Proposed Rules forum, I do all the time. Just the other day I posted a full datasheet for a couple Necromunda gangs in 40k because I love to use them as proxy guard units in my inquisitorial weirdos army and its more fun to make some simple rules for their unique rules.


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/03 16:50:47


Post by: Unit1126PLL


 the_scotsman wrote:
...You can do that in the Proposed Rules forum, I do all the time. Just the other day I posted a full datasheet for a couple Necromunda gangs in 40k because I love to use them as proxy guard units in my inquisitorial weirdos army and its more fun to make some simple rules for their unique rules.


That forum at least locally is considered largely a joke because it's not "official".

This obsession with "officialdom" exists because competitive play is the gold standard. Trying to shift the perception of the world off of competitive play to casual play would make that perception less severe - and is exactly what this thread is about.

Competitive play is the current gold standard. Yes, us fluffbunnies could go play in the silly corner where people don't have to take us seriously, it's true.


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/03 16:53:33


Post by: JNAProductions


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
 the_scotsman wrote:
...You can do that in the Proposed Rules forum, I do all the time. Just the other day I posted a full datasheet for a couple Necromunda gangs in 40k because I love to use them as proxy guard units in my inquisitorial weirdos army and its more fun to make some simple rules for their unique rules.


That forum at least locally is considered largely a joke because it's not "official".

This obsession with "officialdom" exists because competitive play is the gold standard. Trying to shift the perception of the world off of competitive play to casual play would make that perception less severe - and is exactly what this thread is about.

Competitive play is the current gold standard. Yes, us fluffbunnies could go play in the silly corner where people don't have to take us seriously, it's true.
Which is why I really wish GW would make characters and units more customizable.

There should be barely any unique characters-Calgar, for instance, should be a specific load-out of Ultramarines Chapter Master. Kharne, specific Chaos Lord load-out. Swarmlord, specific Hive Tyrant load-out. The Primarchs can stay unique, but whether or not they should've been introduced is another question entirely.


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/03 16:57:37


Post by: Blndmage


Why not a Crusade forum?


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/03 16:58:15


Post by: JNAProductions


 Blndmage wrote:
Why not a Crusade forum?
Ask in the Nuts and Bolts forum.


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/03 17:06:43


Post by: Insectum7


 JNAProductions wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
 the_scotsman wrote:
...You can do that in the Proposed Rules forum, I do all the time. Just the other day I posted a full datasheet for a couple Necromunda gangs in 40k because I love to use them as proxy guard units in my inquisitorial weirdos army and its more fun to make some simple rules for their unique rules.


That forum at least locally is considered largely a joke because it's not "official".

This obsession with "officialdom" exists because competitive play is the gold standard. Trying to shift the perception of the world off of competitive play to casual play would make that perception less severe - and is exactly what this thread is about.

Competitive play is the current gold standard. Yes, us fluffbunnies could go play in the silly corner where people don't have to take us seriously, it's true.
Which is why I really wish GW would make characters and units more customizable.

There should be barely any unique characters-Calgar, for instance, should be a specific load-out of Ultramarines Chapter Master. Kharne, specific Chaos Lord load-out. Swarmlord, specific Hive Tyrant load-out. The Primarchs can stay unique, but whether or not they should've been introduced is another question entirely.
^Exalt like 1000 times!

I hated when chapter/army specific rules began to get more "special character locked", and character/army customization is where a bunch of the fun is at.

Oh hey . . . Here we are talking about Chaos 3.5 again all of a sudden. Character building in that book was an absolute blast.


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/03 17:27:08


Post by: Gert


 JNAProductions wrote:
We've got a whole Proposed Rules subforum.

Which covers rules, not story or background. If I wanted to see a player-made datasheet for a character or unit I would go there but that's not what I was talking about.


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/03 17:37:50


Post by: Charistoph


 Insectum7 wrote:
 JNAProductions wrote:
Which is why I really wish GW would make characters and units more customizable.

There should be barely any unique characters-Calgar, for instance, should be a specific load-out of Ultramarines Chapter Master. Kharne, specific Chaos Lord load-out. Swarmlord, specific Hive Tyrant load-out. The Primarchs can stay unique, but whether or not they should've been introduced is another question entirely.
^Exalt like 1000 times!

I hated when chapter/army specific rules began to get more "special character locked", and character/army customization is where a bunch of the fun is at.

Oh hey . . . Here we are talking about Chaos 3.5 again all of a sudden. Character building in that book was an absolute blast.

Yeah, Blue 4th and 5th Edition codices were really bad at that situation with having too strong a focus on having the Charater determine your army's build style. I get the reason why. They spent a while requiring opponent's permission to use them in their rules. Then they limited them to specific game sizes. Tournaments just out-right banned them (so competitive players did, too). So those models rarely sold. Having them be a focus turned that around, and tournaments started allowing them because of people wanting to play those styles. Thank goodness we've gone away from that.

I loved the character building options for Chaos 3.5. It was one of the best design schemes in concept. Tyranids 3rd and 4th were also very well done. Space Marines 4th was decent, but could have used a little more work. The point of being able to design your army how YOU wanted was what made them enjoyable to a lot of people.

As a side note, the Formations of 7th Edition were remarkably fluffy. Too bad GW ruined them by adding so many extra good rules, if not free models, that it punished anyone who didn't have access to them.


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/03 18:23:58


Post by: catbarf


 Charistoph wrote:
As a side note, the Formations of 7th Edition were remarkably fluffy. Too bad GW ruined them by adding so many extra good rules, if not free models, that it punished anyone who didn't have access to them.


Formations are as constraining as they are fluffy for the reason you describe. Even the most casual of players can recognize that if their army concept doesn't fit into the limited set of formations, they're missing out on free stuff. It encourages players to basically pick a formation and build their army around its requirements.

The strength of 3rd/4th Ed codices like Tyranids, CSM, Imperial Guard, and SM was that they let you define your army characteristics from a blank slate. You picked the traits you wanted, then had total freedom to build out your army accordingly. That afforded a lot more flexibility than a narrow set of formations with a predefined theme.

AoS has a better implementation of the formations concept because they have an intrinsic points cost. No freebies, and it's perfectly viable to just not take a formation.


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/03 18:28:58


Post by: Inquisitor Lord Katherine


Unit1126PLL wrote:
 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

Because there's nothing worth talking about about noncompetitive play.

Competitive play is approached as problem to be solved, which thus prompts discussions, whether about balance or about how to solve it. Casual play isn't, and if you approach it that way it with intent to be optimal and win it becomes competitive and no longer casual.

Also, like what is there to say to others about casual play anyway? "I had the great game where I exploded my enemy's land raider and it was cool and cinematic and I used my imagination!" "Yeah, great, cool story lady, this affects my 40k experience so profoundly and I care so much about how your personal games go and your story in your head of your little plastic people."


And we do share casual play things sometimes, where its either funny, or germane to an extent discussion about the game.


I could have pages and pages of discussion on different special / proposed rules for unique subfactions (player-created of course) like relics, stratagems, warlord traits, doctrines, even specialize unit datasheets.

I could spend a ton of time comparing notes about characters and how they might react in a given scenario between players - no two Slaanesh daemons are alike, you know, so my warlord and your warlord would probably handle the same problem in different ways. Like what?

I could probably talk for ages about ways to convert unique characters or armies out of the greater game-o-sphere, using 3rd party models and bits.

I could expound endlessly on inspirations for armies and different themes and what fits a "theme" best - e.g. if I wanted to play an army themed around the 501st from Star Wars, what army is best? etc.

EDIT:
And the proposed rules subform is nice, but I am talking about something slightly more formal and official than that. Not just "here's what me and my group play or here is some theoryhammer about a rule I am considering" but rather like "here is the entire datasheet for my special character, feel free to use her in your games because she is a daemon and can be anywhere" or whatever.

Unit1126PLL wrote:
That forum at least locally is considered largely a joke because it's not "official".

This obsession with "officialdom" exists because competitive play is the gold standard. Trying to shift the perception of the world off of competitive play to casual play would make that perception less severe - and is exactly what this thread is about.

Competitive play is the current gold standard. Yes, us fluffbunnies could go play in the silly corner where people don't have to take us seriously, it's true.



Three things:

One:
I would also argue those four things you listed aren't casual play. I would consider them, in order: Fanfiction, Lore Discussion, Modelling, and Modelling.
To me, Casual play is two people getting together to put their models on the tabletop to play a friendly game with a token regard for winning or concerns other than casually having fun. This is distinct from competitive play, where whether in a organized event, just at the store, or together with friends, the intent is to play your best and aim to win, or narrative play, where the focus is on recreation of a specific event or story. I, Katherine, appreciate all of these modes of play, but I don't see value in having a discussion with the denizens of the internet about casual play. Approaching it with a strategy or tactics or balance discussion means you're approaching it with a competitive mindset and you've turned your casual game into a competitive one, and if you're uptight about the lore, then you're probably angling for a narrative game.

As an addendum, while I came to this hobby from historical wargames and thus have an intrinsic appreciation for narrative scenario play, I don't see particular value in narrative play in the context of Warhammer 40k because of it's fictional and your-dudes centric nature which means there's no particularly increased narrative value from playing out a scenario versus playing a casual or competitive game, you can use your imagination to tell the story of your-dudes just as well.


Two:
Discussion of rules ideas in the context of improving the game model or balance aren't particularly casual concepts. They can have discussion value without being implemented, as they derive from an exploration of the balance of the game or the accuracy of it's model [thus grounded in either competitive or narrative concerns].


Finally:
I'm under no illusion that anybody cares about my fanfiction. [If I posted it on FF.net, someone might care if it's a good read or interaction with the lore, but they're still not going to care about it on the tabletop]. If I were to write a special character's datacard and want to use them, I also wouldn't be having that discussion with the internet, I would be having it with the person across the table from me explaining why they should care about me letting me have my fanfiction character from outside the context of the system with essentially arbitrary balance into the game.


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/03 18:29:24


Post by: JNAProductions


Does anyone have access to the old 3.5 CSM Dex? I'm very curious about it, but I didn't get into 40k till far after then.


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/03 18:39:48


Post by: aphyon


 JNAProductions wrote:
Does anyone have access to the old 3.5 CSM Dex? I'm very curious about it, but I didn't get into 40k till far after then.


You can buy it online for like $10 off ebay if you want a hard copy otherwise online sites like the trove have it for viewing pleasure.


Need to go back to this point-
I agree with this and I think it's a good assessment of the common 40K groups. People don't build lists, they build collections


Completely not true.

EVERY army i built from 3rd-5th was planned out at the set points limit before i bought a single model. GW was and still is to expensive to just randomly buy minis. it is the reason i never bought the box sets because i didn't need half the stuff in the box so it really didn't save me any money to buy them when i needed specific models.

in order
1.but the codes
2.learn the army
3.choose the models
4.buy only the models you need in your army (you can always change it up later)


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/03 18:43:50


Post by: Gadzilla666


 JNAProductions wrote:
Does anyone have access to the old 3.5 CSM Dex? I'm very curious about it, but I didn't get into 40k till far after then.

What do you want to know? I'll have to check the book for anything not Night Lords related, as I never tried to memorize anything not related to my Legion, and they were a bit more limited than others because of the whole "not worshipping Chaos, not using daemons other than Furies" thing.


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/03 18:44:44


Post by: JNAProductions


 Gadzilla666 wrote:
 JNAProductions wrote:
Does anyone have access to the old 3.5 CSM Dex? I'm very curious about it, but I didn't get into 40k till far after then.

What do you want to know? I'll have to check the book for anything not Night Lords related, as I never tried to memorize anything not related to my Legion, and they were a bit more limited than others because of the whole "not worshipping Chaos, not using daemons other than Furies" thing.
Everything, basically. Which is a heck of a lot more than I expect an internet stranger to provide, but I do appreciate the offer.


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/03 18:48:47


Post by: Gadzilla666


 JNAProductions wrote:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:
 JNAProductions wrote:
Does anyone have access to the old 3.5 CSM Dex? I'm very curious about it, but I didn't get into 40k till far after then.

What do you want to know? I'll have to check the book for anything not Night Lords related, as I never tried to memorize anything not related to my Legion, and they were a bit more limited than others because of the whole "not worshipping Chaos, not using daemons other than Furies" thing.
Everything, basically. Which is a heck of a lot more than I expect an internet stranger to provide, but I do appreciate the offer.

Yeah, if you want "everything", I'd suggest picking up an old copy or something like Aphyon suggested. Basic rules stuff I could probably explain here.


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/03 19:18:54


Post by: TangoTwoBravo


 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
Spoiler:
Unit1126PLL wrote:
 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

Because there's nothing worth talking about about noncompetitive play.

Competitive play is approached as problem to be solved, which thus prompts discussions, whether about balance or about how to solve it. Casual play isn't, and if you approach it that way it with intent to be optimal and win it becomes competitive and no longer casual.

Also, like what is there to say to others about casual play anyway? "I had the great game where I exploded my enemy's land raider and it was cool and cinematic and I used my imagination!" "Yeah, great, cool story lady, this affects my 40k experience so profoundly and I care so much about how your personal games go and your story in your head of your little plastic people."


And we do share casual play things sometimes, where its either funny, or germane to an extent discussion about the game.


I could have pages and pages of discussion on different special / proposed rules for unique subfactions (player-created of course) like relics, stratagems, warlord traits, doctrines, even specialize unit datasheets.

I could spend a ton of time comparing notes about characters and how they might react in a given scenario between players - no two Slaanesh daemons are alike, you know, so my warlord and your warlord would probably handle the same problem in different ways. Like what?

I could probably talk for ages about ways to convert unique characters or armies out of the greater game-o-sphere, using 3rd party models and bits.

I could expound endlessly on inspirations for armies and different themes and what fits a "theme" best - e.g. if I wanted to play an army themed around the 501st from Star Wars, what army is best? etc.

EDIT:
And the proposed rules subform is nice, but I am talking about something slightly more formal and official than that. Not just "here's what me and my group play or here is some theoryhammer about a rule I am considering" but rather like "here is the entire datasheet for my special character, feel free to use her in your games because she is a daemon and can be anywhere" or whatever.

Unit1126PLL wrote:
That forum at least locally is considered largely a joke because it's not "official".

This obsession with "officialdom" exists because competitive play is the gold standard. Trying to shift the perception of the world off of competitive play to casual play would make that perception less severe - and is exactly what this thread is about.

Competitive play is the current gold standard. Yes, us fluffbunnies could go play in the silly corner where people don't have to take us seriously, it's true.



Three things:

One:
I would also argue those four things you listed aren't casual play. I would consider them, in order: Fanfiction, Lore Discussion, Modelling, and Modelling.
To me, Casual play is two people getting together to put their models on the tabletop to play a friendly game with a token regard for winning or concerns other than casually having fun. This is distinct from competitive play, where whether in a organized event, just at the store, or together with friends, the intent is to play your best and aim to win, or narrative play, where the focus is on recreation of a specific event or story. I, Katherine, appreciate all of these modes of play, but I don't see value in having a discussion with the denizens of the internet about casual play. Approaching it with a strategy or tactics or balance discussion means you're approaching it with a competitive mindset and you've turned your casual game into a competitive one, and if you're uptight about the lore, then you're probably angling for a narrative game.

As an addendum, while I came to this hobby from historical wargames and thus have an intrinsic appreciation for narrative scenario play, I don't see particular value in narrative play in the context of Warhammer 40k because of it's fictional and your-dudes centric nature which means there's no particularly increased narrative value from playing out a scenario versus playing a casual or competitive game, you can use your imagination to tell the story of your-dudes just as well.


Two:
Discussion of rules ideas in the context of improving the game model or balance aren't particularly casual concepts. They can have discussion value without being implemented, as they derive from an exploration of the balance of the game or the accuracy of it's model [thus grounded in either competitive or narrative concerns].


Finally:
I'm under no illusion that anybody cares about my fanfiction. [If I posted it on FF.net, someone might care if it's a good read or interaction with the lore, but they're still not going to care about it on the tabletop]. If I were to write a special character's datacard and want to use them, I also wouldn't be having that discussion with the internet, I would be having it with the person across the table from me explaining why they should care about me letting me have my fanfiction character from outside the context of the system with essentially arbitrary balance into the game.


Have to say you have summed up my thoughts pretty well. Fanficton is the word that popped into my head! The "fluff" of my list doesn't need to be spelled out in cringeworthy fanfic detail for my opponent. It should be self-evident in the look/army composition.

I also came into 40K from historicals (and still play both styles of wargames). Tabletop wargaming, in my experience, relies on matched play conditions for prolonged success outside of small, tightly knit groups. Even with Flames of War, the lion share of my games are two lists at agreed upon values/time period without regards for a "story." I have several scenario-based WW2 tabletop games and they failed to get going because you needed specific lists. FOW worked(s) because you just need to agree on points/time period and you can have a game with your historical toys, even if the fight is ahistorical.

I find that "fluff" is in the eye of the beholder. My spidey-senses tingle when an opponent tells me he has brought "a fluffy list." Fluffy as a porcupine. Or a snapping turtle.


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/03 19:24:42


Post by: PenitentJake


The customizibility of 3/ 3.5 era was fabulous- I played nids, and it was great.

You get very little of that in basic data sheets in 9th, it's true. You can get something that approaches customization out of Crusade, but even that is limited compared to those older dexes, and as these custom options are based on experience, they may not be available until the unit reaches a particular threshold or until you earn enough requisition points to purchase them as upgrades.

To be clear:
- yes the third addition area was better for customization
- Crusade will not entirely make up for the loss of that customization
- BUT Crusade will provide access to more customization options than you have without it


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/03 19:31:44


Post by: Inquisitor Lord Katherine


TangoTwoBravo wrote:
 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
Spoiler:
Unit1126PLL wrote:
 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

Because there's nothing worth talking about about noncompetitive play.

Competitive play is approached as problem to be solved, which thus prompts discussions, whether about balance or about how to solve it. Casual play isn't, and if you approach it that way it with intent to be optimal and win it becomes competitive and no longer casual.

Also, like what is there to say to others about casual play anyway? "I had the great game where I exploded my enemy's land raider and it was cool and cinematic and I used my imagination!" "Yeah, great, cool story lady, this affects my 40k experience so profoundly and I care so much about how your personal games go and your story in your head of your little plastic people."


And we do share casual play things sometimes, where its either funny, or germane to an extent discussion about the game.


I could have pages and pages of discussion on different special / proposed rules for unique subfactions (player-created of course) like relics, stratagems, warlord traits, doctrines, even specialize unit datasheets.

I could spend a ton of time comparing notes about characters and how they might react in a given scenario between players - no two Slaanesh daemons are alike, you know, so my warlord and your warlord would probably handle the same problem in different ways. Like what?

I could probably talk for ages about ways to convert unique characters or armies out of the greater game-o-sphere, using 3rd party models and bits.

I could expound endlessly on inspirations for armies and different themes and what fits a "theme" best - e.g. if I wanted to play an army themed around the 501st from Star Wars, what army is best? etc.

EDIT:
And the proposed rules subform is nice, but I am talking about something slightly more formal and official than that. Not just "here's what me and my group play or here is some theoryhammer about a rule I am considering" but rather like "here is the entire datasheet for my special character, feel free to use her in your games because she is a daemon and can be anywhere" or whatever.

Unit1126PLL wrote:
That forum at least locally is considered largely a joke because it's not "official".

This obsession with "officialdom" exists because competitive play is the gold standard. Trying to shift the perception of the world off of competitive play to casual play would make that perception less severe - and is exactly what this thread is about.

Competitive play is the current gold standard. Yes, us fluffbunnies could go play in the silly corner where people don't have to take us seriously, it's true.



Three things:

One:
I would also argue those four things you listed aren't casual play. I would consider them, in order: Fanfiction, Lore Discussion, Modelling, and Modelling.
To me, Casual play is two people getting together to put their models on the tabletop to play a friendly game with a token regard for winning or concerns other than casually having fun. This is distinct from competitive play, where whether in a organized event, just at the store, or together with friends, the intent is to play your best and aim to win, or narrative play, where the focus is on recreation of a specific event or story. I, Katherine, appreciate all of these modes of play, but I don't see value in having a discussion with the denizens of the internet about casual play. Approaching it with a strategy or tactics or balance discussion means you're approaching it with a competitive mindset and you've turned your casual game into a competitive one, and if you're uptight about the lore, then you're probably angling for a narrative game.

As an addendum, while I came to this hobby from historical wargames and thus have an intrinsic appreciation for narrative scenario play, I don't see particular value in narrative play in the context of Warhammer 40k because of it's fictional and your-dudes centric nature which means there's no particularly increased narrative value from playing out a scenario versus playing a casual or competitive game, you can use your imagination to tell the story of your-dudes just as well.


Two:
Discussion of rules ideas in the context of improving the game model or balance aren't particularly casual concepts. They can have discussion value without being implemented, as they derive from an exploration of the balance of the game or the accuracy of it's model [thus grounded in either competitive or narrative concerns].


Finally:
I'm under no illusion that anybody cares about my fanfiction. [If I posted it on FF.net, someone might care if it's a good read or interaction with the lore, but they're still not going to care about it on the tabletop]. If I were to write a special character's datacard and want to use them, I also wouldn't be having that discussion with the internet, I would be having it with the person across the table from me explaining why they should care about me letting me have my fanfiction character from outside the context of the system with essentially arbitrary balance into the game.


Have to say you have summed up my thoughts pretty well. Fanficton is the word that popped into my head! The "fluff" of my list doesn't need to be spelled out in cringeworthy fanfic detail for my opponent. It should be self-evident in the look/army composition.

I also came into 40K from historicals (and still play both styles of wargames). Tabletop wargaming, in my experience, relies on matched play conditions for prolonged success outside of small, tightly knit groups. Even with Flames of War, the lion share of my games are two lists at agreed upon values/time period without regards for a "story." I have several scenario-based WW2 tabletop games and they failed to get going because you needed specific lists. FOW worked(s) because you just need to agree on points/time period and you can have a game with your historical toys, even if the fight is ahistorical.

I find that "fluff" is in the eye of the beholder. My spidey-senses tingle when an opponent tells me he has brought "a fluffy list." Fluffy as a porcupine. Or a snapping turtle.


Pretty much! I never play scenarios or anything for Flames of War, but I would if someone offered a pack of them. In general, I find that miniatures games are more likely to be played symmetrically out of context, and traditional wargames are more likely to be played to a scenario. I think both the mindset and context play a factor.

I came into the hobby from playing Avalon Hill hex based games like Panzer Leader or Arab Israeli Wars. To some sadness, I haven't had a game of those in a long time, though I'm still invested in historical wargaming.


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/03 19:40:40


Post by: Unit1126PLL


TangoTwoBravo and Inquisitor Lord Katherine, do you two think it is possible to play a scenario-less narrative game?

For historicals, this niche is impossible - i.e. a battle between two forces that never truly clashed will always not be "part of the story" (because the story is already written).

But, let's say we have a PUG using matched play rules and I bring the 2nd Concordian Super Heavy Tank Regiment. I want the dice to tell the story about what happens to my tanks in the battle and whether they succeed or fail. irrespective of the attitude of my opponent. Is that possible?

If so, then, could it not be possible to set my own objectives? For example, my opponent might win on VPs with Titanslayer or whatever, but I won in the "fluff" because I blew up their [Macguffin, say, a Stompa].

If I can set my own objectives and declare victory based on that, it's a small step to customizing other rules, such as the movement speed of my tanks (e.g. they always go 8" instead of 10" because they are heavier than the usual Mechanicus production variant).

Then, perhaps, the tanks gain a 2+ armor save - this is why they're heavier, because they have thicker armor (or whathaveyou).

At what point did I transition from actual 40k into "fanfic" 40k? The last one? Why? Is it only because I got a competitive advantage? Or the first one, where I declared victory despite what the VPs tell me? Why there, if that's your answer? Etc.


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/03 19:42:45


Post by: Mezmorki


All I gotta say is that I played a game of 3rd edition Feral Orks vs. 7th Edition Tau and the Ork's kicked ass.

I really miss the old customization options (but hey, what's why there's ProHammer!).


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/03 20:08:27


Post by: TangoTwoBravo


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
TangoTwoBravo and Inquisitor Lord Katherine, do you two think it is possible to play a scenario-less narrative game?

For historicals, this niche is impossible - i.e. a battle between two forces that never truly clashed will always not be "part of the story" (because the story is already written).

But, let's say we have a PUG using matched play rules and I bring the 2nd Concordian Super Heavy Tank Regiment. I want the dice to tell the story about what happens to my tanks in the battle and whether they succeed or fail. irrespective of the attitude of my opponent. Is that possible?

If so, then, could it not be possible to set my own objectives? For example, my opponent might win on VPs with Titanslayer or whatever, but I won in the "fluff" because I blew up their [Macguffin, say, a Stompa].

If I can set my own objectives and declare victory based on that, it's a small step to customizing other rules, such as the movement speed of my tanks (e.g. they always go 8" instead of 10" because they are heavier than the usual Mechanicus production variant).

Then, perhaps, the tanks gain a 2+ armor save - this is why they're heavier, because they have thicker armor (or whathaveyou).

At what point did I transition from actual 40k into "fanfic" 40k? The last one? Why? Is it only because I got a competitive advantage? Or the first one, where I declared victory despite what the VPs tell me? Why there, if that's your answer? Etc.


If you said you were going to be in my neighbourhood and you wanted to play a game of 40K I would say - "For sure - Dakkanaughts unite!" And if you had a scenario in mind for your Superheavy Company and I could adapt my force to bring that scenario to life I would also say "For sure!"

If we met at a pick-up game without prior coord, though, as long as your force was Matched Play, Battleforged current points values I'm good. Because that would be what I had in my cases for that day. You could tell me the story of your Superheavy company as you deployed it and I would say "Cool." Its a pick-up game, and even if I am prepping for the next local tourney I am likely just testing a component of my list and winning/losing isn't always a big deal (especially with strangers). Maybe I am just testing my list's ability so score specific Secondaries. Which brings me to my next point/answer: the 9th Ed Secondaries offer us a way to "Declare Victory" in a narrative manner even if we lose on points.

I had an Inquisitor list (first time for me since 2nd Ed) with some Scions and Guard tanks at a PUG in November. My opponent had tourney-worthy Harlequins. I knew I would likely lose, but I picked Psychic Ritual as a Secondary and committed to it: The Inquisitor was closing/opening a breach and the Harlies were at accidental cross-purposes blah blah blah. Even though I lost on points, I achieved that Secondary. Fun game with a bit of narrative. So there are likely ways for your with a Superheavy Company to "declare victory" within the constraints/restraints of a 9th Ed Matched Play by choosing appropriate Secondaries.

I will say, though, that I would be a little hesitant with you making up your own statistics for your vehicles. I think that is a Bridge Too Far for a pickup game. Pre-arranged as a Twist? Sure. Be helpful to understand the motivation and what costs you were paying in your army for those bonuses. I have bent rules at PUGs when the fixed terrain makes certain units invalid.

At a PUG I would also be hesitant to play you if you were not using Battle Forged detachments (but using CPs Strats) and your own points values. PUGs rely on a framework of underlying assumptions which your tinkering has undermined. Pre-arranged, though, with full transparency might be a different story.


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/03 20:28:23


Post by: Inquisitor Lord Katherine


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
TangoTwoBravo and Inquisitor Lord Katherine, do you two think it is possible to play a scenario-less narrative game?

For historicals, this niche is impossible - i.e. a battle between two forces that never truly clashed will always not be "part of the story" (because the story is already written).

But, let's say we have a PUG using matched play rules and I bring the 2nd Concordian Super Heavy Tank Regiment. I want the dice to tell the story about what happens to my tanks in the battle and whether they succeed or fail. irrespective of the attitude of my opponent. Is that possible?

If so, then, could it not be possible to set my own objectives? For example, my opponent might win on VPs with Titanslayer or whatever, but I won in the "fluff" because I blew up their [Macguffin, say, a Stompa].

If I can set my own objectives and declare victory based on that, it's a small step to customizing other rules, such as the movement speed of my tanks (e.g. they always go 8" instead of 10" because they are heavier than the usual Mechanicus production variant).

Then, perhaps, the tanks gain a 2+ armor save - this is why they're heavier, because they have thicker armor (or whathaveyou).

At what point did I transition from actual 40k into "fanfic" 40k? The last one? Why? Is it only because I got a competitive advantage? Or the first one, where I declared victory despite what the VPs tell me? Why there, if that's your answer? Etc.


First point, as I said:
"As an addendum, while I came to this hobby from historical wargames and thus have an intrinsic appreciation for narrative scenario play, I don't see particular value in narrative play in the context of Warhammer 40k because of it's fictional and your-dudes centric nature which means there's no particularly increased narrative value from playing out a scenario versus playing a casual or competitive game, you can use your imagination to tell the story of your-dudes just as well."
This is, of course, when it become fanfiction. That's great though, give yourself a story! 40k is build on the idea of fanfiction - "your dudes". Be advised, I'm not going to call the game your victory though, I'm going to call it mine, because you didn't win the game, I did.

After that, that's over the line for a Pick Up Game. Because when we're playing and you've got a rich story in your head it doesn't have a major effect on the overall gameplay experience that would require agreeing upon. But writing your own rules does cross the line for when your fanfiction is intruding into my gameplay experience.



Anyway, if we were all in the same area:
And you said "I want to play a pick up game" with your super heavy tank company, and your list was in all ways compliant, I'm good. I'll probably do the 'ignore you, but respectfully pretend to care' if your description of your tank company's fluff takes more than a few minutes. I might even "return the favor" to tell you about how I've got all the tactical markings and stuff on my Leman Russ tanks based off those from the British Army in 1944 until your eyes also glaze over. But, after all of that, we'll have a good game and I've got no problems with however you record it in your fluff book, because I don't have to care if I don't want to.

If you said "I'm giving my tanks 2+ armor in exchange for 8" move and have adjusted the points to this" I'd be like "Uhh, what?" Now, you've crossed the line into forcing me to care about and subscribe to your fanfiction in order to play you. I am, of course, nonconfrontational, so depending on how I felt, I might either tell you "no", find someone else who will play by the standard rules to play with, or play anyway and tell my friends about how I met this person who insisted on using their own rules for baneblades in our game.


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/03 20:39:38


Post by: PenitentJake


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
TangoTwoBravo and Inquisitor Lord Katherine, do you two think it is possible to play a scenario-less narrative game?

For historicals, this niche is impossible - i.e. a battle between two forces that never truly clashed will always not be "part of the story" (because the story is already written).

But, let's say we have a PUG using matched play rules and I bring the 2nd Concordian Super Heavy Tank Regiment. I want the dice to tell the story about what happens to my tanks in the battle and whether they succeed or fail. irrespective of the attitude of my opponent. Is that possible?

If so, then, could it not be possible to set my own objectives? For example, my opponent might win on VPs with Titanslayer or whatever, but I won in the "fluff" because I blew up their [Macguffin, say, a Stompa].

If I can set my own objectives and declare victory based on that, it's a small step to customizing other rules, such as the movement speed of my tanks (e.g. they always go 8" instead of 10" because they are heavier than the usual Mechanicus production variant).

Then, perhaps, the tanks gain a 2+ armor save - this is why they're heavier, because they have thicker armor (or whathaveyou).

At what point did I transition from actual 40k into "fanfic" 40k? The last one? Why? Is it only because I got a competitive advantage? Or the first one, where I declared victory despite what the VPs tell me? Why there, if that's your answer? Etc.


This sounds like almost exactly how I play.

My "best" table top experience was an 8 player apocalypse game; there were eight objectives on the board, and after they were placed, each player got to decide what the objective represented. I picked an objective marker in the ruins of Church; I was playing Order of Our Martyred Lady, and Saint Katherine's fluff was that she had been the shield bearer for Alicia Dominica, so I decided the objective would be Saint Katherine's shield.

My Cannoness was martyred trying to close the distance to the church, but the Palatine managed to retrieve the relic.

My team lost the battle, and I think I was the lowest scoring player on my team. It really didn't matter to me, because my Palatine had earned her promotion to full canoness, replacing the fallen matriarch by virtue of discovering an ancient relic that had been missing for 4000 years; after the game I built a canoness model with a storm shield to represent the character, and she's featured in a number of games since. GW, of course, has since seen fit to give me this model in plastic- you can find her leading the Triumph of Saint Katherine... Only I played the story that brought that relic home 11 years earlier.

Given Inquisitor Lord Katherine's definition of casual vs. not casual, I think that I should shift my semantics; previously I had been writing from the viewpoint of Not Competitive = Casual, by which standard I would fall into the casual group. However, as Katherine points out, I'm probably a narrative player as a more accurate definition. I never play games that aren't part of an ongoing story. My opponent has the option of contributing detail to that story if they are also a narrative player, but if they prefer to just play and let me fill in the blanks based on what the dice do, then that's how we play.

My opponent may not know that my Seraphim have developed a grudge against a particular squad leader because he killed their superior... But I do, and in the next game, when that unit of Seraphim spends the entire game harrasing that leader's squad, he doesn't need to know why they're doing it... I know, and that's all that matters.

I remember showing a friend an Adeptus Arbites trooper with a scratch built purity seal- when he commented on the seal, I said, "Yeah, funny story- the trooper earned that purity seal because he was one of the survivors of the unit who tar-pitted your daemon prince in the second game I played against you."

It blew his mind to see that his army had ended up having a tangible, lasting impact on my own army; he hadn't even known he was part of my story until then.


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/03 20:55:23


Post by: TangoTwoBravo


Casual play sounds very involved.


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/03 21:05:34


Post by: Unit1126PLL


TangoTwoBravo wrote:If you said you were going to be in my neighbourhood and you wanted to play a game of 40K I would say - "For sure - Dakkanaughts unite!" And if you had a scenario in mind for your Superheavy Company and I could adapt my force to bring that scenario to life I would also say "For sure!"

If we met at a pick-up game without prior coord, though, as long as your force was Matched Play, Battleforged current points values I'm good. Because that would be what I had in my cases for that day. You could tell me the story of your Superheavy company as you deployed it and I would say "Cool." Its a pick-up game, and even if I am prepping for the next local tourney I am likely just testing a component of my list and winning/losing isn't always a big deal (especially with strangers). Maybe I am just testing my list's ability so score specific Secondaries. Which brings me to my next point/answer: the 9th Ed Secondaries offer us a way to "Declare Victory" in a narrative manner even if we lose on points.

I had an Inquisitor list (first time for me since 2nd Ed) with some Scions and Guard tanks at a PUG in November. My opponent had tourney-worthy Harlequins. I knew I would likely lose, but I picked Psychic Ritual as a Secondary and committed to it: The Inquisitor was closing/opening a breach and the Harlies were at accidental cross-purposes blah blah blah. Even though I lost on points, I achieved that Secondary. Fun game with a bit of narrative. So there are likely ways for your with a Superheavy Company to "declare victory" within the constraints/restraints of a 9th Ed Matched Play by choosing appropriate Secondaries.


Right but not all the possible narrative victory conditions are in the secondaries, and furthermore the primary may overwhelm the secondaries anyways - what I am talking about is deliberately ignoring the mission in favor of my narrative one (e.g. moving off of a primary objective to get a shot at a narrative target).

I will say, though, that I would be a little hesitant with you making up your own statistics for your vehicles. I think that is a Bridge Too Far for a pickup game. Pre-arranged as a Twist? Sure. Be helpful to understand the motivation and what costs you were paying in your army for those bonuses. I have bent rules at PUGs when the fixed terrain makes certain units invalid.

At a PUG I would also be hesitant to play you if you were not using Battle Forged detachments (but using CPs Strats) and your own points values. PUGs rely on a framework of underlying assumptions which your tinkering has undermined. Pre-arranged, though, with full transparency might be a different story.


But why, though? Why would you be hesitant? Why is me making them up any worse or better than GW making them up? This is what I mean when I say players are overly focused on "officialdom". I don't think a 2+ save on 8" move baneblades (even at their current cost) is any worse balanced than anything else GW themselves have come up with.

I generally blame this on competition / the drive to make 40k "competitive" in that it fits in the competition framework (i.e. "a pre-anticipated set of strict rules in pursuit of fairness") and pulls it away from casual.

Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
First point, as I said:
"As an addendum, while I came to this hobby from historical wargames and thus have an intrinsic appreciation for narrative scenario play, I don't see particular value in narrative play in the context of Warhammer 40k because of it's fictional and your-dudes centric nature which means there's no particularly increased narrative value from playing out a scenario versus playing a casual or competitive game, you can use your imagination to tell the story of your-dudes just as well."

Do you not see any value in narrative-play D&D either, because it's fictional and has a your-character-centric nature? And I think the "use your imagination" excuse is lazy. It'd be like using the rules for Chess in DND and saying "I know you wanted to play a noble cleric in plate armor but you're the bishop, just use your imagination." I can "use my imagination" to do anything at anytime with anyone including by myself, so the fact that I could also use it to fabricate the storyline in my head somewhat defeats the purpose of also playing the game alongside it. I can always just make up stories, but they may not be as good or compelling as the story the dice and models tell on the tabletop.

This is, of course, when it become fanfiction. That's great though, give yourself a story! 40k is build on the idea of fanfiction - "your dudes". Be advised, I'm not going to call the game your victory though, I'm going to call it mine, because you didn't win the game, I did.

Is it possible for both of us to win based on differing criteria? If not, why not? If so, why won't you recognize my criteria as equally valid as yours? "Officialdom?"

After that, that's over the line for a Pick Up Game. Because when we're playing and you've got a rich story in your head it doesn't have a major effect on the overall gameplay experience that would require agreeing upon. But writing your own rules does cross the line for when your fanfiction is intruding into my gameplay experience.

But that's what collaborative storytelling is. That's why games like DND are so damn compelling - because the characters and GM and players all riff off of each other to write a better story than any of them could by themselves

Anyway, if we were all in the same area:
And you said "I want to play a pick up game" with your super heavy tank company, and your list was in all ways compliant, I'm good. I'll probably do the 'ignore you, but respectfully pretend to care' if your description of your tank company's fluff takes more than a few minutes. I might even "return the favor" to tell you about how I've got all the tactical markings and stuff on my Leman Russ tanks based off those from the British Army in 1944 until your eyes also glaze over. But, after all of that, we'll have a good game and I've got no problems with however you record it in your fluff book, because I don't have to care if I don't want to.

So essentially you're okay so long as the game is competitive, and the narrative/fluffbunny/casual stuff is just suffering (in your view) before we get to the competitive meat.

If you said "I'm giving my tanks 2+ armor in exchange for 8" move and have adjusted the points to this" I'd be like "Uhh, what?" Now, you've crossed the line into forcing me to care about and subscribe to your fanfiction in order to play you. I am, of course, nonconfrontational, so depending on how I felt, I might either tell you "no", find someone else who will play by the standard rules to play with, or play anyway and tell my friends about how I met this person who insisted on using their own rules for baneblades in our game.

Why, though? Why is that such a terrible badwrongfun thing to do? Would a 2+ save 8" move Baneblade statline be a totally Out-Of-Context problem for a 40k army to handle? Or are you just adhering to officialdom because it's "official" and ever so shall it be?

This is why discussions about non-competitive games get no-selled and why the "Proposed Rules" forum is a joke to most people. The default setting is one of competition, and furthermore makes the assumption that the rules-as-written of the game are the most fair they could be.


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/03 21:07:23


Post by: Sgt_Smudge


TangoTwoBravo wrote:
Casual play sounds very involved.
Perhaps what the issue is is rather with what "casual play" is supposed to mean in context.

Here, I believe casual play is referring to "mechanical gameplay victory is not the primary goal of the participant".


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/03 21:11:12


Post by: Unit1126PLL


I would define casual play as "any form of play where winning the game matters less than having fun (in some people's case, fun = collaborative storytelling, in other people's case it's seeing cool models hit the table, in still more people's case it's a time to be social while rolling dice, etc).".

It's why I generally don't think competitive players CAN play casually, because to them "fun = victory" so their very existence automatically makes the prior paragraph impossible.


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/03 21:18:18


Post by: Sgt_Smudge


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I would define casual play as "any form of play where winning the game matters less than having fun (in some people's case, fun = collaborative storytelling, in other people's case it's seeing cool models hit the table, in still more people's case it's a time to be social while rolling dice, etc).".

It's why I generally don't think competitive players CAN play casually, because to them "fun = victory" so their very existence automatically makes the prior paragraph impossible.
Yes, I'd agree with that definition. By the very nature of 40k, it's not a "casual" game by cost or effort, so that should naturally rule out the "not invested" meaning of the term.

I think that the "mechanical victory is not the goal of a casual player" is the more apt definition.


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/03 21:36:02


Post by: Unit1126PLL


Yeah we basically said the same thing lol


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/03 21:49:10


Post by: Canadian 5th


To quote DashofPepper:

"Playing is fun. Winning is more fun. So play to win."


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/03 22:04:04


Post by: TangoTwoBravo


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Spoiler:
TangoTwoBravo wrote:If you said you were going to be in my neighbourhood and you wanted to play a game of 40K I would say - "For sure - Dakkanaughts unite!" And if you had a scenario in mind for your Superheavy Company and I could adapt my force to bring that scenario to life I would also say "For sure!"

If we met at a pick-up game without prior coord, though, as long as your force was Matched Play, Battleforged current points values I'm good. Because that would be what I had in my cases for that day. You could tell me the story of your Superheavy company as you deployed it and I would say "Cool." Its a pick-up game, and even if I am prepping for the next local tourney I am likely just testing a component of my list and winning/losing isn't always a big deal (especially with strangers). Maybe I am just testing my list's ability so score specific Secondaries. Which brings me to my next point/answer: the 9th Ed Secondaries offer us a way to "Declare Victory" in a narrative manner even if we lose on points.

I had an Inquisitor list (first time for me since 2nd Ed) with some Scions and Guard tanks at a PUG in November. My opponent had tourney-worthy Harlequins. I knew I would likely lose, but I picked Psychic Ritual as a Secondary and committed to it: The Inquisitor was closing/opening a breach and the Harlies were at accidental cross-purposes blah blah blah. Even though I lost on points, I achieved that Secondary. Fun game with a bit of narrative. So there are likely ways for your with a Superheavy Company to "declare victory" within the constraints/restraints of a 9th Ed Matched Play by choosing appropriate Secondaries.


Right but not all the possible narrative victory conditions are in the secondaries, and furthermore the primary may overwhelm the secondaries anyways - what I am talking about is deliberately ignoring the mission in favor of my narrative one (e.g. moving off of a primary objective to get a shot at a narrative target).

I will say, though, that I would be a little hesitant with you making up your own statistics for your vehicles. I think that is a Bridge Too Far for a pickup game. Pre-arranged as a Twist? Sure. Be helpful to understand the motivation and what costs you were paying in your army for those bonuses. I have bent rules at PUGs when the fixed terrain makes certain units invalid.

At a PUG I would also be hesitant to play you if you were not using Battle Forged detachments (but using CPs Strats) and your own points values. PUGs rely on a framework of underlying assumptions which your tinkering has undermined. Pre-arranged, though, with full transparency might be a different story.


But why, though? Why would you be hesitant? Why is me making them up any worse or better than GW making them up? This is what I mean when I say players are overly focused on "officialdom". I don't think a 2+ save on 8" move baneblades (even at their current cost) is any worse balanced than anything else GW themselves have come up with.

I generally blame this on competition / the drive to make 40k "competitive" in that it fits in the competition framework (i.e. "a pre-anticipated set of strict rules in pursuit of fairness") and pulls it away from casual.

Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
First point, as I said:
"As an addendum, while I came to this hobby from historical wargames and thus have an intrinsic appreciation for narrative scenario play, I don't see particular value in narrative play in the context of Warhammer 40k because of it's fictional and your-dudes centric nature which means there's no particularly increased narrative value from playing out a scenario versus playing a casual or competitive game, you can use your imagination to tell the story of your-dudes just as well."

Do you not see any value in narrative-play D&D either, because it's fictional and has a your-character-centric nature? And I think the "use your imagination" excuse is lazy. It'd be like using the rules for Chess in DND and saying "I know you wanted to play a noble cleric in plate armor but you're the bishop, just use your imagination." I can "use my imagination" to do anything at anytime with anyone including by myself, so the fact that I could also use it to fabricate the storyline in my head somewhat defeats the purpose of also playing the game alongside it. I can always just make up stories, but they may not be as good or compelling as the story the dice and models tell on the tabletop.

This is, of course, when it become fanfiction. That's great though, give yourself a story! 40k is build on the idea of fanfiction - "your dudes". Be advised, I'm not going to call the game your victory though, I'm going to call it mine, because you didn't win the game, I did.

Is it possible for both of us to win based on differing criteria? If not, why not? If so, why won't you recognize my criteria as equally valid as yours? "Officialdom?"

After that, that's over the line for a Pick Up Game. Because when we're playing and you've got a rich story in your head it doesn't have a major effect on the overall gameplay experience that would require agreeing upon. But writing your own rules does cross the line for when your fanfiction is intruding into my gameplay experience.

But that's what collaborative storytelling is. That's why games like DND are so damn compelling - because the characters and GM and players all riff off of each other to write a better story than any of them could by themselves

Anyway, if we were all in the same area:
And you said "I want to play a pick up game" with your super heavy tank company, and your list was in all ways compliant, I'm good. I'll probably do the 'ignore you, but respectfully pretend to care' if your description of your tank company's fluff takes more than a few minutes. I might even "return the favor" to tell you about how I've got all the tactical markings and stuff on my Leman Russ tanks based off those from the British Army in 1944 until your eyes also glaze over. But, after all of that, we'll have a good game and I've got no problems with however you record it in your fluff book, because I don't have to care if I don't want to.

So essentially you're okay so long as the game is competitive, and the narrative/fluffbunny/casual stuff is just suffering (in your view) before we get to the competitive meat.

If you said "I'm giving my tanks 2+ armor in exchange for 8" move and have adjusted the points to this" I'd be like "Uhh, what?" Now, you've crossed the line into forcing me to care about and subscribe to your fanfiction in order to play you. I am, of course, nonconfrontational, so depending on how I felt, I might either tell you "no", find someone else who will play by the standard rules to play with, or play anyway and tell my friends about how I met this person who insisted on using their own rules for baneblades in our game.

Why, though? Why is that such a terrible badwrongfun thing to do? Would a 2+ save 8" move Baneblade statline be a totally Out-Of-Context problem for a 40k army to handle? Or are you just adhering to officialdom because it's "official" and ever so shall it be?

This is why discussions about non-competitive games get no-selled and why the "Proposed Rules" forum is a joke to most people. The default setting is one of competition, and furthermore makes the assumption that the rules-as-written of the game are the most fair they could be.



The viability of pick-up game scenes is based on common underlying assumptions about the game going to be played. GW provide the framework and we play within it. Two close friends playing basement hammer for 20 years can bend that framework to their hearts' content. But me as a stranger at a PUG where you have made your own rules? No thanks. For me its not about winning that PUG, its about being able to focus those 3 hours away from life responsibilities on playing and not teasing out your new rules/modifications. My preparation before the game was focused on Matched Play with a Battleforged List. If my opponent has done the same and we use GT2020 we can get gaming.

Is GW game design perfect? Nope. But its part of the underlying framework - my opponent and I are not the ones tilting the table. When we are not in lockdown I play, usually, at least one Matched Play game a week at the FLGS. I expect the units to use the datasheets as printed etc - helps keep it straight in our heads. As for wanting your Baneblade to have a 2+ save, why not just play it as it is presented in the book with a 3+?

For those who say that "Casual = playing for fun", how do you define what is fun for people? Maybe some people find winning fun? Is that bad? Additionally, there are people at tournaments who are quite laid back, casual even. Just saying. Some people even adjust how they play to the situation.


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/03 22:06:57


Post by: Inquisitor Lord Katherine


 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Do you not see any value in narrative-play D&D either, because it's fictional and has a your-character-centric nature? And I think the "use your imagination" excuse is lazy. It'd be like using the rules for Chess in DND and saying "I know you wanted to play a noble cleric in plate armor but you're the bishop, just use your imagination." I can "use my imagination" to do anything at anytime with anyone including by myself, so the fact that I could also use it to fabricate the storyline in my head somewhat defeats the purpose of also playing the game alongside it. I can always just make up stories, but they may not be as good or compelling as the story the dice and models tell on the tabletop.

This is, of course, when it become fanfiction. That's great though, give yourself a story! 40k is build on the idea of fanfiction - "your dudes". Be advised, I'm not going to call the game your victory though, I'm going to call it mine, because you didn't win the game, I did.

Is it possible for both of us to win based on differing criteria? If not, why not? If so, why won't you recognize my criteria as equally valid as yours? "Officialdom?"

After that, that's over the line for a Pick Up Game. Because when we're playing and you've got a rich story in your head it doesn't have a major effect on the overall gameplay experience that would require agreeing upon. But writing your own rules does cross the line for when your fanfiction is intruding into my gameplay experience.

But that's what collaborative storytelling is. That's why games like DND are so damn compelling - because the characters and GM and players all riff off of each other to write a better story than any of them could by themselves



Uh, as a long time GM, D&D is not a tactical wargame. You are playing together with your friends cooperatively though challenges the GM creates for you as the protagonists of your own world, not playing against me in a stand up game where we're both supposedly using our understanding of the mechanics and tactical abilities to defeat the other. Even if we're not trying very hard, when I'm playing 40k against your my role isn't to create fun challenges of NPC's for you the protagonist to lead your army though. Our relationship when playing D&D is very different from our relationship when playing 40k.

Also, I won't accept you claiming victory because we just played a game against each other, and I won by the previously agreed upon metrics. Like seriously, that's really bad form; propaganda like that is fun and all from an in-universe perspective, but like seriously, if you lost, accept defeat and come back next time for round two.



 Unit1126PLL wrote:

So essentially you're okay so long as the game is competitive, and the narrative/fluffbunny/casual stuff is just suffering (in your view) before we get to the competitive meat.


It's not suffering, but do you think that your opponent honestly cares about your fanfiction? Post it on FF.net, or on a blog for people to read it, those are appropriate venues for it.

Likewise, I can prattle on for hours about soviet armor doctrine or something else like that, but I'm under no illusion that you care to hear about it, and you'll just think I'm either absurdly self-centered or that I have some problem functioning normally in social situations.



 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Why, though? Why is that such a terrible badwrongfun thing to do? Would a 2+ save 8" move Baneblade statline be a totally Out-Of-Context problem for a 40k army to handle? Or are you just adhering to officialdom because it's "official" and ever so shall it be?

This is why discussions about non-competitive games get no-selled and why the "Proposed Rules" forum is a joke to most people. The default setting is one of competition, and furthermore makes the assumption that the rules-as-written of the game are the most fair they could be.


Official, in fact, has value, because it means that it's a common language that we're all able to communicate with without having to extensively agree upon things, that makes sure all of use are playing on the same playing field. Even if it's not perfectly balanced, it's better than effectively mechanical anarchy, since the mechanics of the game keep it together and functional as an opposed game,



Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/03 22:10:15


Post by: Unit1126PLL


Nothing what you said is "wrong". The default assumption for a PUG is essentially competitive play, though.

As for your last paragraph, I already addressed it. For people whom fun=victory, they are not casual players. They couldn't play for a reason other than to win, since they have fun winning. That is fine, but not casual. If they can flex and find different things fun at different times, obviously they can be casual players - and I agree. Some people at a tournament could be casual. I never said otherwise.

Edit:
Katherine, the game may be opposed but that doesn't mean victory is the only important thing. You can oppose one another while also telling a story together.

That by itself neatly refutes all your points, since they beg the question. You assume the game is competitive (since there is a winner and a loser) and then when asked about playing non-competitively you seem to be saying "impossible! It's a wargame and we are opponents!" which is obviously false at face value, since plenty of people can be opponents in 40k while also telling a collaborative story.


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/03 22:18:50


Post by: AnomanderRake


 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
TangoTwoBravo wrote:
Casual play sounds very involved.
Perhaps what the issue is is rather with what "casual play" is supposed to mean in context.

Here, I believe casual play is referring to "mechanical gameplay victory is not the primary goal of the participant".


That may be an overly-simplistic definition. If we're engaged in the fundamental basic activity of playing a game you are by definition trying to win; you can push minis around and make "pew pew" noises, sure, but I don't know that I'd define that as "playing 40k", and even if victory is not your primary goal I've never met anyone who had a game where they got tabled in two turns and came away from it saying they had fun rather than saying "what was the point of that, then?" To my mind the big difference between "casual" play and "competitive" play is whether you're buying stuff casually (buying minis you like, trying to buy one army and use the same minis over a long period of time) or buying stuff competitively (buying things that win whether or not you like them, hopping armies when stuff gets nerfed/buffed to keep an advantage).


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/03 22:19:55


Post by: Inquisitor Lord Katherine


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Nothing what you said is "wrong". The default assumption for a PUG is essentially competitive play, though.

As for your last paragraph, I already addressed it. For people whom fun=victory, they are not casual players. They couldn't play for a reason other than to win, since they have fun winning. That is fine, but not casual. If they can flex and find different things fun at different times, obviously they can be casual players - and I agree. Some people at a tournament could be casual. I never said otherwise.

Edit:
Katherine, the game may be opposed but that doesn't mean victory is the only important thing. You can oppose one another while also telling a story together.

That by itself neatly refutes all your points, since they beg the question. You assume the game is competitive (since there is a winner and a loser) and then when asked about playing non-competitively you seem to be saying "impossible! It's a wargame and we are opponents!" which is obviously false at face value, since plenty of people can be opponents in 40k while also telling a collaborative story.


Uh what? Our relationship as opponents in a wargame isn't the relationship between GM and player. As I said, I'm a whole another player playing off against you. Even if I'm not trying very hard and mostly here to roll dice and have fun, I'm not an NPC to the story of your protagonists; I'm playing the game and my own people are my own heroes.

The fundamental core premise of your statement is incongruent with the nature of the game. Like, sure you can be opponents and have an emerging story, but the story is the consequence of the actions you take in opposition to each other, not the other way around. Then you'd just be following a script.



Also, casual players can have fun in victory. People casually play all kinds of games and find fun in winning. A casual player is just [i]casual/i] about the game; it's not a subject of life or death, and if they're not doing well they're still having fun because they're present and participating.


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/03 22:22:10


Post by: warhead01


 Canadian 5th wrote:
To quote DashofPepper:

"Playing is fun. Winning is more fun. So play to win."

As a casual player I have no problems playing to win.
I do find winning less memorable than a tie but it depends on how close the game is some times loosing by a hair is just as good a as win.
No one plays to get off the roller coaster.


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/03 22:26:00


Post by: PenitentJake


 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

Uh, as a long time GM, D&D is not a tactical wargame. You are playing together with your friends cooperatively though challenges the GM creates for you as the protagonists of your own world, not playing against me in a stand up game where we're both supposedly using our understanding of the mechanics and tactical abilities to defeat the other. Even if we're not trying very hard, when I'm playing 40k against your my role isn't to create fun challenges of NPC's for you the protagonist to lead your army though. Our relationship when playing D&D is very different from our relationship when playing 40k.



While true by default, you may have noticed that the Book of Rust actually recommends someone take the role of GM to guide the campaign. This, I think, is what Crusaders are indicating; while by default, 40k is different than D&D, it has always possessed the potential to move in that direction; Kill Team, Necromunda... all of there games were experiments with campaign play and progression systems. Ninth Edition's Crusade system is the evolution of those experiments.





Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/03 22:32:44


Post by: TangoTwoBravo


We can still have an emergent narrative from our Matched Play game. It comes from the moments when fun things happen. But as Katherine has already stated, it is not a role-playing game. Your opponent is not a monster in the dungeon for you to defeat. They are an evenly matched opponent striving against you on a field of battle with agreed upon parameters.

Can it be played as a role-playing game? Sure - but it takes two people where one is happy to be "the DM" and run the shooting gallery/ gunnery lane for your Baneblades. Might be fun for you, but probably not for the other person in any sustained way. I could see a dad running games like that for his kids, but any given Saturday at the FLGS? Nope.

Miniwargaming has a little campaign like that on right now and its kinda cool, but I wouldn't expect it to be common-place.


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/03 22:33:02


Post by: Blndmage


What about someone having a themed army, that's not Battleforged, so no dynasties/etc, that is looking for a pickup game at standard points levels (500, 1000, 2000)?

They're sacrificing a lot mechanically to run what they want.


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/03 22:45:52


Post by: Unit1126PLL


Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:Uh what? Our relationship as opponents in a wargame isn't the relationship between GM and player. As I said, I'm a whole another player playing off against you. Even if I'm not trying very hard and mostly here to roll dice and have fun, I'm not an NPC to the story of your protagonists; I'm playing the game and my own people are my own heroes.

Why do you assume that you're an NPC? Two players can roleplay and PVP at the same time. It happens in some of my DND sessions, and it happens in online RPGs. RPVP is a thing and 40k fits that niche well.

The fundamental core premise of your statement is incongruent with the nature of the game. Like, sure you can be opponents and have an emerging story, but the story is the consequence of the actions you take in opposition to each other, not the other way around. Then you'd just be following a script.

I agree completely with this statement and fail to see how what I said is different from it. I am not saying the game should be scripted. I'm saying "let the dice tell the story."

Also, casual players can have fun in victory. People casually play all kinds of games and find fun in winning. A casual player is just [i]casual/i] about the game; it's not a subject of life or death, and if they're not doing well they're still having fun because they're present and participating.

They can have fun in victory, sure, but they're more competitive than someone who isn't if so - which makes them "less casual." I agree it's a spectrum and not an even divide.

TangoTwoBravo wrote:We can still have an emergent narrative from our Matched Play game. It comes from the moments when fun things happen. But as Katherine has already stated, it is not a role-playing game. Your opponent is not a monster in the dungeon for you to defeat. They are an evenly matched opponent striving against you on a field of battle with agreed upon parameters.

Yes, I agree with all of this. I don't know why this disproves anything I said, other than that the agreement is assumed to be "what is official" in general, presumably in the interest of fairness - nevermind that it's neither more fair nor really filling any other niche that well except to exist.

TangoTwoBravo wrote:Can it be played as a role-playing game? Sure - but it takes two people where one is happy to be "the DM" and run the shooting gallery/ gunnery lane for your Baneblades. Might be fun for you, but probably not for the other person in any sustained way. I could see a dad running games like that for his kids, but any given Saturday at the FLGS? Nope.

Miniwargaming has a little campaign like that on right now and its kinda cool, but I wouldn't expect it to be common-place.

Why can't you tell a story and be opponents at the same time? As I told Katherine, RPVP is a thing. It's possible for NEITHER player to be an NPC and for them to still fight and tell a story as they do - even if one ends up defeated in the end. It can still be a beautiful story.


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/03 23:18:05


Post by: H.B.M.C.


 catbarf wrote:
The strength of 3rd/4th Ed codices like Tyranids, CSM, Imperial Guard, and SM was that they let you define your army characteristics from a blank slate. You picked the traits you wanted, then had total freedom to build out your army accordingly. That afforded a lot more flexibility than a narrow set of formations with a predefined theme.
Whilst I adore the choice those Codices provided, I can't help but point out that the main mechanic behind them was "giving up" other things, often things you never planned on taking in the first place, and if the sacrifice or cost of your flexibility isn't really a cost at all, then that's not balanced in the slightest.


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/03 23:21:28


Post by: Charistoph


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
 catbarf wrote:
The strength of 3rd/4th Ed codices like Tyranids, CSM, Imperial Guard, and SM was that they let you define your army characteristics from a blank slate. You picked the traits you wanted, then had total freedom to build out your army accordingly. That afforded a lot more flexibility than a narrow set of formations with a predefined theme.
Whilst I adore the choice those Codices provided, I can't help but point out that the main mechanic behind them was "giving up" other things, often things you never planned on taking in the first place, and if the sacrifice or cost of your flexibility isn't really a cost at all, then that's not balanced in the slightest.

Sometimes the downgrades or exclusions can provide as much character as the advantages.


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/03 23:46:34


Post by: H.B.M.C.


More my point was that if I'm having to give up things I never intended to take in the first place, then I'm not really paying for or sacrificing anything.

I always think back to the Guard Doctrines.

"My army can Deep Strike and get +1 Initiative for free in every squad, and all I have to do is not take Preachers and Sanctioned Psykers, things I wasn't going to take anyway? Oh woe is me!"

Or Iron Warriors:

"I can get another Heavy Support slot and all I have to do is not take any of the useless Fast Attack options that no one ever took in a CSM army anyway? How will I cope?!?!?

Or Marines:

"I can get Tank Hunters and other bonuses on my Marines, and to do that I have to not take allies from the Daemonhunter or Witch Hunter Codices? I don't think I can manage such a choice!!!"



Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/03 23:50:42


Post by: Unit1126PLL


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
More my point was that if I'm having to give up things I never intended to take in the first place, then I'm not really paying for or sacrificing anything.

I always think back to the Guard Doctrines.

"My army can Deep Strike and get +1 Initiative for free in every squad, and all I have to do is not take Preachers and Sanctioned Psykers, things I wasn't going to take anyway? Oh woe is me!"

Or Iron Warriors:

"I can get another Heavy Support slot and all I have to do is not take any of the useless Fast Attack options that no one ever took in a CSM army anyway? How will I cope?!?!?

Or Marines:

"I can get Tank Hunters and other bonuses on my Marines, and to do that I have to not take allies from the Daemonhunter or Witch Hunter Codices? I don't think I can manage such a choice!!!"



That has to do with choice viability. If you weren't going to take those things anyways, then those things were probably pretty gak. If GW knew how to balance the game (and if we accept the thesis that they have improved on that front here in 9th) then giving up, say, the modern Attack Bike would actually be a sacrifice.

Like if giving up Sanctioned Psykers and Priests is not a drawback, then Sanctioned Psykers and Priests were too crap to show up in "normal" lists that didn't take doctrines anyways. This indicates they'd need a buff, not that the doctrine concept is inherently flawed.


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/04 00:13:58


Post by: AngryAngel80


 Gert wrote:
If one person knowingly brings a WAAC tourney list against someone who has little to no clue what is competitive, that's not a game problem that's a person problem. If two brand new players are buying armies and one happens to have more good choices than the other then thats just bad luck. If they are friends, which the likely will be, then you'd hope they have a discussion about how to make things fun for both of them. I'd like to think that most people on here are adults and can have a conversation with another person, GW isn't your mum it's not their job to fix your problems. This game is social by nature and if you can't have a discussion with friends or regular opponents about making the game fair and fun then that is very much a you problem.


Late to the talk but that isn't really true. When we started playing, me and my friends, we didn't try and dial down our lists. We tried to buff our own lists up, see if we could match the other guy at least. If we just couldn't and our forces were just bad or lacking in a fundamental way where we couldn't at least match the other player in some regard. If we found that out we thought, and I think rightly so, that the rules were broken or the armies were ill balanced.


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/04 00:13:59


Post by: catbarf


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
That has to do with choice viability. If you weren't going to take those things anyways, then those things were probably pretty gak. If GW knew how to balance the game (and if we accept the thesis that they have improved on that front here in 9th) then giving up, say, the modern Attack Bike would actually be a sacrifice.

Like if giving up Sanctioned Psykers and Priests is not a drawback, then Sanctioned Psykers and Priests were too crap to show up in "normal" lists that didn't take doctrines anyways. This indicates they'd need a buff, not that the doctrine concept is inherently flawed.


Or, more simply, it indicates that things like Deep Strike ought to have a points cost. That's how most of the advantages were balanced.

I think HBMC is being unfair here. One of those examples isn't accurate to 4th Ed and another is misleading.

In the 4th Ed codex, Marines couldn't just get Tank Hunters for free. You had to pay 3pts per model, and pick a chapter flaw from the list. Yeah, so taking We Stand Alone and not being allowed to have Allies was an easy choice- but you weren't getting anything for free. And if you wanted your chapter to have more than one positive trait, you were required to take a major disadvantage (We Stand Alone was minor), which imposed heavy restrictions on your listbuilding. Even if you worked around those too, again, you still have to pay for your upgrades.

In the case of Guard, army-wide Deep Strike was free (although I should point out that this was in an era where DS was extremely risky, not a no-brainer like it is now), but most other traits were paid for. You paid 10pts per unit to get re-roll 1s, or 20pts per unit to upgrade to a 4+ save. A squad of Vostroyans with their innate accuracy and heavier armor were a full 50% more expensive than bare-bones Guardsmen. There was a tradeoff. The free upgrades were things like Close Order Drill, where if every single model in a squad is in base to base contact, you get +1I and +1Ld. And the Ld bonus didn't apply if you were using a nearby officer's Ld. Yeah, really swept the top tables with that one. And then on top of the innate cost for most of the upgrades, the Doctrines system locked you out from a bunch of the rarer units unless you bought them back.

So like, yeah, if you have to pay for upgrades and opting into the system locks you out from certain choices, I think that's completely fine and really not that hard to balance. The Iron Warriors example is the odd one out because if you were min-maxing there were no disadvantage. If it were something like having to pay points to unlock an extra HS slot and lose your FA slots, I think that would be fine.

It's really not a super complex idea- have upgrades both cost points and come with corresponding soft drawbacks that constrain listbuilding. You can stack upgrades on your units, and you can even listbuild around all the stuff that it locks you out of, but you still have to pay points to keep it fair.


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/04 00:25:17


Post by: Sgt_Smudge


Canadian 5th wrote:To quote DashofPepper:

"Playing is fun. Winning is more fun. So play to win."
Perhaps winning is more fun to some, but winning comes second to other factors for me, so I definitely don't play with "winning" as my primary goal.
Is that too hard to imagine?

AnomanderRake wrote:
 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
TangoTwoBravo wrote:
Casual play sounds very involved.
Perhaps what the issue is is rather with what "casual play" is supposed to mean in context.

Here, I believe casual play is referring to "mechanical gameplay victory is not the primary goal of the participant".


That may be an overly-simplistic definition. If we're engaged in the fundamental basic activity of playing a game you are by definition trying to win; you can push minis around and make "pew pew" noises, sure, but I don't know that I'd define that as "playing 40k", and even if victory is not your primary goal I've never met anyone who had a game where they got tabled in two turns and came away from it saying they had fun rather than saying "what was the point of that, then?"
I have to disagree. The activity of playing the game isn't necessarily to meet a "win" condition - the win condition of the game could also be viewed as a thing to incentivise mechanics, and to perhaps theme an engagement, but playing to win isn't always true of everything. But this is coming from someone with a background in collaborative play, both on tabletop and off, and so for me, "play" is oftentimes detached from a win condition.

Pushing minis around and going pew pew without a care in the world about any sort of objective is definitely "playing 40k" in my eyes.


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/04 00:32:39


Post by: Canadian 5th


 JohnnyHell wrote:
I genuinely don’t know if this is agreement, rebuttal, Rule 1 violation or what! Help me out and explain?

Karol lives in a country with roughly half the purchasing power of the US, Canada, UK, and Germany. That doesn't mean that 40k costs him only twice as much relative to the members of this forum though as often the average wage of a nation is higher than its median wage. So 40k could easily cost Karol, a young student in a relatively poor nation, 4x more than it costs most members of this forum.

Thus dismissing his view on how the cost of a game changes how somebody interacts with it because 40k costs you relatively less of your total budget is the same as dismissing the views of a minority or person of a different class from your nation because you've never faced the same challenges and barriers as they have. It's very classist to think that 40ks level of budgetary investment isn't a significant issue for some people who've purchased an army that they can't reasonably update with any sort of regularity.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Canadian 5th wrote:To quote DashofPepper:

"Playing is fun. Winning is more fun. So play to win."
Perhaps winning is more fun to some, but winning comes second to other factors for me, so I definitely don't play with "winning" as my primary goal.
Is that too hard to imagine?

As a sports fan, yes. I don't cheer for my team to go out and try their best, I cheer for them to win. When I was younger and played sports I sure as hell wanted to do what I could to help my team win. Even now when I play a game like League I'm trying to emulate what the best players in the world due to the best of my own limited ability. I get frustrated when I play well and lose and even more frustrated when I play poorly and win.

Even multiplayer games like MtG's Commander format are more fun when there's no clear strongest and weakest deck or player at the table. You can be in the best position to win but you don't want to be the pity deck that nobody attacks because they feel sorry for you or the top deck where everybody groans when you start shuffling up your cards. I avoid shop play because I find this balance too elusive and because I proxy 90% of the cards I use.

For 40k which requires even more investment than my group's current eternal format MtG I'd want to aim for at least an 8 out of 10 in terms of optimization for my list. This gives me a chance against the tip-top tournament lists and lets me play a skewed but ultimately fun game against lists that are closer to a 6. I can't help you if you brought anything lower in power than that and didn't set your expectations beforehand. If you play me with such a list, likely due to shop table space constraints, I will play to table you as swiftly as possible so I can move on and find a more enjoyable game.


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/04 00:54:31


Post by: AnomanderRake


 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
...Pushing minis around and going pew pew without a care in the world about any sort of objective is definitely "playing 40k" in my eyes.


Do you find "we just push minis around and make pew pew noises with no regard for any rules" requires much discussion?


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/04 01:01:06


Post by: solkan


I'm going to advance support for the hypothesis that no one really talks about casual play here because the forum is a remarkably bad format for talking about casual play in a manner that's useful.

Because what you'd want in that sort of situation is a blog, or video channel, where you get a lot of content coming from one end (the person talking about what's going on in their game) and commentary from the audience. Even if it ends up that people start swapping stories, it's more likely that they'd end up swapping links to their blog entries or video posts.

Forums are wonderful and great, but they're terrible at handling the sort of content.


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/04 01:25:41


Post by: ccs


 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

Uh what? Our relationship as opponents in a wargame isn't the relationship between GM and player. As I said, I'm a whole another player playing off against you. Even if I'm not trying very hard and mostly here to roll dice and have fun, I'm not an NPC to the story of your protagonists; I'm playing the game and my own people are my own heroes.


Loser's the other guys NPC.


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/04 01:43:55


Post by: H.B.M.C.


 catbarf wrote:
Like if giving up Sanctioned Psykers and Priests is not a drawback, then Sanctioned Psykers and Priests were too crap to show up in "normal" lists that didn't take doctrines anyways. This indicates they'd need a buff, not that the doctrine concept is inherently flawed.
I agree and disagree.

Yes, you're right, you didn't lose anything by giving up Sanctioned Psykers and Priests because they were so crap you never took them even in a non-Doctrine army. That is an indication that they needed to be fixed.

But, the overall point still stands: If it's not something you intended to take in the first place (regardless of why you weren't going to take that choice), then you're not actually giving anything up. The balance for the rule isn't being used.

 catbarf wrote:
I think HBMC is being unfair here. One of those examples isn't accurate to 4th Ed and another is misleading.
I don't think I am, and I'm certainly not being misleading.

Please remember, I loved using these rules. Doctrine Guard and the 3.5 Chaos Codices were my fav books that GW produced at the time (maybe even ever, alongside 2nd Ed Tyranids and maybe the Anphelion Project). But the core concept of "giving something up to get something good" remains flawed, and has never been better exemplified than within those amazing books.

 catbarf wrote:
In the 4th Ed codex, Marines couldn't just get Tank Hunters for free.
I never said they could. I know it had a cost. That cost was appropriate for the benefits you gained. But taking in the first place required you to give something up... except it didn't, because "not bringing allies" isn't an actual disadvantage if you weren't taking them anyway.

 catbarf wrote:
In the case of Guard, army-wide Deep Strike was free (although I should point out that this was in an era where DS was extremely risky, not a no-brainer like it is now), but most other traits were paid for. You paid 10pts per unit to get re-roll 1s, or 20pts per unit to upgrade to a 4+ save. A squad of Vostroyans with their innate accuracy and heavier armor were a full 50% more expensive than bare-bones Guardsmen. There was a tradeoff. The free upgrades were things like Close Order Drill, where if every single model in a squad is in base to base contact, you get +1I and +1Ld. And the Ld bonus didn't apply if you were using a nearby officer's Ld. Yeah, really swept the top tables with that one. And then on top of the innate cost for most of the upgrades, the Doctrines system locked you out from a bunch of the rarer units unless you bought them back.
I specifically chose Close Order Drill and Drop Troops as they were the two best examples of not really giving anything up to gain something for free. As for the specifics on Close Order Drill, you didn't take it for the Ld boost. You took it for the I4. But the specifics of COD don't actually matter, because it doesn't change the core point:

Gaining benefits through the process of giving up other things is inherently flawed if you never intended to take those things in the first place. Obfuscating that point by going into the nitty gritty of how COD worked, or how 3rd-7th Deep Strike wasn't as reliable as it is now does not change that.

 catbarf wrote:
It's really not a super complex idea- have upgrades both cost points and come with corresponding soft drawbacks that constrain listbuilding. You can stack upgrades on your units, and you can even listbuild around all the stuff that it locks you out of, but you still have to pay points to keep it fair.
The problem is the 'soft' drawbacks are not drawbacks at all. Trade offs need to be paid for, which is why points systems work in the first place.

If you want to give out extra bonuses or rules, even if those new abilities have to be paid for with additional points, the method of gaining access to those new bonuses/rules can't be through the sacrifice of things that were never going to be taken in the first place. That's not a sacrifice.

 solkan wrote:
I'm going to advance support for the hypothesis that no one really talks about casual play here because the forum is a remarkably bad format for talking about casual play in a manner that's useful.
I completely agree here. Discussion of casual play is the realm of battle reports and videos and blogs, not forum posts.

The only thing that would enter the realm of Dakka would be proposed narrative rules based upon play.



Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/04 02:15:18


Post by: Galas


The proper way of making custom regimental/chapter/etc... doctrines is with the opportunity cost.

Yeah, if you weren't gonna take any tank and you don't take any rule that buffs them, are you really losing anything? Not really. But thats the point, another tank heavy army would take other options. If both armies have the same number of special rules, then thats good and fine.

In general, the rules that exclude you for taking X units aren't really good for this kind of system. In a balanced enviroment were most units have a role and a place, you should take the rules that help you make work the list you want to play.


Using MESBG as an example. You have the black rider legendary legion. Thats a army to play basically the 9 black riders (The nazgul). You could arguee "You could play a 9 nazgul list using Mordor. If you won't take any other option, you are basically gaining a ton of buffs without really giving anything in return". And you would be half right. Is true that having that legendary legion theres no point in running 9 nazguls in mordor. But thats because the opportunity cost of using the Black Riders legendary legion makes you play a complete different army that needs his owns rules to properly function.

Maybe other better example is the Balrog moria legion, were you gain some buffs and lose a ton of options. "You are not giving anything if you were gonna take the balrog and those exact units aniway" Technically yes. But you are giving the opportunity cost of all those other options and the tactical play they allow.
Of course this works in LOTR because there most options are balanced and when you give away some unit or hero options, normally, thats a drawback on itself, and even if you were gonna take exactly the units in the thematic, limited list, you gain normally different rules, not just pure bonuses.

This applies to the example of Priest and Psykers. If they were worthwile, is true that you aren't technically losing anything if you were not gonna take them in the first place. But if not taking them in the first place puts you at a tactical disadvantage, gaining different buffs or options in exchange is a worthwile exchange, and a good oportunity cost that allows other kind of lists to work in different ways.

Other example would be for example a no-transport Dark Eldar army. Yeah, if you weren't taking transports in the first place you are gaining "free buffs". But thats the point. You receive those buffs to allow for another, different playstile to arose from a different set of unit options in the same army list.


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/04 02:58:59


Post by: TangoTwoBravo


 Blndmage wrote:
What about someone having a themed army, that's not Battleforged, so no dynasties/etc, that is looking for a pickup game at standard points levels (500, 1000, 2000)?

They're sacrificing a lot mechanically to run what they want.


I think Matched Play requires Battle Forged armies. Trying to visualize a themed army that is not organized into Detachments?

I am not saying I would refuse the game, but for pickup games Matched Play with Battle Forge is the standard I prefer. Variety is good, though, so I suppose if the list was intriguing I’d give it a go? There is always Open Play.


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/04 03:56:21


Post by: Blndmage


TangoTwoBravo wrote:
 Blndmage wrote:
What about someone having a themed army, that's not Battleforged, so no dynasties/etc, that is looking for a pickup game at standard points levels (500, 1000, 2000)?

They're sacrificing a lot mechanically to run what they want.


I think Matched Play requires Battle Forged armies. Trying to visualize a themed army that is not organized into Detachments?

I am not saying I would refuse the game, but for pickup games Matched Play with Battle Forge is the standard I prefer. Variety is good, though, so I suppose if the list was intriguing I’d give it a go? There is always Open Play.


I've actually got a theme throughout my collection, which I had to shift as I couldn't run it back in 4th.

My Necrons are built around the earliest stages of an awakening tomb: Scarabs, Tomb Spyders, Tomb Stalkers and Sentinels, maybe some Sentry Pylons.

There's no HQ that fits. Since then, with the reboot, and more so the recent Codex, there's options that will work, but still mean I can't run a slumbering Tomb. I have to, at the minimum have 1 awake Necron, and can never run all 54 bases of Scarabs.

Honestly, with the current edition not being Battleforged means no CP, no Strats, let alone losing some special rules, I can't think of a list I can make, that's wouldn't struggle without those.


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/04 04:40:13


Post by: Racerguy180


 Blndmage wrote:
TangoTwoBravo wrote:
 Blndmage wrote:
What about someone having a themed army, that's not Battleforged, so no dynasties/etc, that is looking for a pickup game at standard points levels (500, 1000, 2000)?

They're sacrificing a lot mechanically to run what they want.


I think Matched Play requires Battle Forged armies. Trying to visualize a themed army that is not organized into Detachments?

I am not saying I would refuse the game, but for pickup games Matched Play with Battle Forge is the standard I prefer. Variety is good, though, so I suppose if the list was intriguing I’d give it a go? There is always Open Play.


I've actually got a theme throughout my collection, which I had to shift as I couldn't run it back in 4th.

My Necrons are built around the earliest stages of an awakening tomb: Scarabs, Tomb Spyders, Tomb Stalkers and Sentinels, maybe some Sentry Pylons.

There's no HQ that fits. Since then, with the reboot, and more so the recent Codex, there's options that will work, but still mean I can't run a slumbering Tomb. I have to, at the minimum have 1 awake Necron, and can never run all 54 bases of Scarabs.

Honestly, with the current edition not being Battleforged means no CP, no Strats, let alone losing some special rules, I can't think of a list I can make, that's wouldn't struggle without those.


Which is utterly stupid, an army should function on its own with out the "help" of strats/wombo combo.

I'd play you no problem, the whole battleforged bs is matched play, so we can play narrative/open or whatever.


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/04 04:50:05


Post by: Unit1126PLL


If you were not going to take an option anyways, then you were already on theme for whatever that option was excluded from and you deserve to be rewarded for being on-theme.

Like a tank company with restricted access to infantry. Sure you might not have taken many infantry, but at least this way you are compensated somewhat instead of just shooting yourself in the foot (since you wouldn't take them anyways).


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/04 05:14:15


Post by: Seabass


 solkan wrote:
I'm going to advance support for the hypothesis that no one really talks about casual play here because the forum is a remarkably bad format for talking about casual play in a manner that's useful.

Because what you'd want in that sort of situation is a blog, or video channel, where you get a lot of content coming from one end (the person talking about what's going on in their game) and commentary from the audience. Even if it ends up that people start swapping stories, it's more likely that they'd end up swapping links to their blog entries or video posts.

Forums are wonderful and great, but they're terrible at handling the sort of content.


This, this 1000%. on here I rarely ever post, and when I do it's typically something regarding competitive content or something along those lines. But in my local gang, it's all about the crusade right now, and we have been having run with multiple different crusades from the start of 9th.

the point is, casual and narrative play is centered around the experience and the nuance of the situation surrounding them, and a forum just doesn't provide the context behind it without presenting a wall of text that no one is going to read.


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/04 08:08:11


Post by: Not Online!!!


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
If you were not going to take an option anyways, then you were already on theme for whatever that option was excluded from and you deserve to be rewarded for being on-theme.

Like a tank company with restricted access to infantry. Sure you might not have taken many infantry, but at least this way you are compensated somewhat instead of just shooting yourself in the foot (since you wouldn't take them anyways).


Ehhh, i think opportunity cost indeed and the rebalancing of that, is very important in regards to making such systems for customizability work.

And yes Chaos 3.5, had some serious issues on that front as had most dexes of the same calibre.
Otoh, conceptually 3.5 was an highpoint design and theme wise. and a shitshow otherwise.

FW did it better some time later with R&H in IA13. But that design also used 2-3 generic unit types that got modified via points cost in most cases. (nowadays if i think about it GW would need about 10 differing datasheets to represent it but 8 and 9th are just from a streamlining perspective the worst case scenario that made it worse for all involved...). It however also tied access to some god specific units to mark/ equivalents (with pts cost associated) to the warlord and in limited number aswell. So it also unlocked units which you may or may not needed / wanted. Wanted to have snipers / better Vets? Yeah you don't give your arch demagogue a mark to get access to 3 squads of marauders. Wanted plague zombies to lean into attrition more? Nurgle it is for 1 unit. Wanted to be able to recycle your militia? Yeah you need a master of the horde specialisation for 20 pts and are forced to field atleast 2 renegade militia platoons . also only squads of 15 + members can get recycled and only on a 5+. Etc.

Basically it worked more with modification and gaining acess interchangeably for what you wanted rather than just outright rewarding you for skewing, which is in essence what IW did.


The shame there though was, that it was 6th and 7th edition and GW just broke the game then.

Otoh, if you have a bit of fantasy indeed adapting those old rulesets into a more modern form of 40k is working fine and dandy, indeed i dare say you can use them somewhat easily even with 8th/9th without much fuss and get an actually interesting chaos army, unlike CSM / CD without needing to pledge yourself to DG or TS.


TL : DR:
GW had people that could design customizable and interesting unit types ruleswise for players to kitbash and make their dudes out off, even somewhat competently.
It's just that kitbashing and other such things potentially invite 3rd parties into the hobby and remove the insularity of GW as the HOBBY tm.


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/04 10:27:26


Post by: JohnnyHell


As a reminder the OP asked why there was little discussion of casual play.

We have pages and pages of demonstration why now. Some folk just won’t let people discuss the very concept without telling them it’s wrong, doesn’t exist, is more work than competitive, only competitive has value, detours into relative worth, just reams of Stop Enjoying Somethinv I Don’t. Step back and take a breath folks, the whole thing is a pretty sad spectacle.


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/04 11:23:59


Post by: Unit1126PLL


Here is a honest-to-god casual game question.

Would you play someone who showed up with a Vigilus detachment? They are not allowed in games played out of the GT pack thingy but they remain viable in other situations (including non-GT-pack Matched Play if I am not mistaken).


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/04 11:44:03


Post by: Not Online!!!


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Here is a honest-to-god casual game question.

Would you play someone who showed up with a Vigilus detachment? They are not allowed in games played out of the GT pack thingy but they remain viable in other situations (including non-GT-pack Matched Play if I am not mistaken).

Depends, doesn't it?

F.e. someone shows up with cultist detachment for a WB army? Sure, why not, maybee the only way to get some working cultists.
Someone shows up with the daemonkin detachment 20 possessed a MoP, Sorcer, marks them slaanesh and little else. ...
Why do you bring a former now ilegalised tournament list to a casual match?

Vice versa someone shows up with fallen ? Yeah sure, also drop Ro3 because how else do you intend to play them?

One can understand intention of a list and question asked.


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/04 11:48:36


Post by: Amishprn86


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Here is a honest-to-god casual game question.

Would you play someone who showed up with a Vigilus detachment? They are not allowed in games played out of the GT pack thingy but they remain viable in other situations (including non-GT-pack Matched Play if I am not mistaken).


100% would, I even am fine letting people play legends b.c why not? Heck I play legends for casual games lol and they are terrible too but I have them and want to play them.


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/04 11:49:38


Post by: TangoTwoBravo


 JohnnyHell wrote:
As a reminder the OP asked why there was little discussion of casual play.

We have pages and pages of demonstration why now. Some folk just won’t let people discuss the very concept without telling them it’s wrong, doesn’t exist, is more work than competitive, only competitive has value, detours into relative worth, just reams of Stop Enjoying Somethinv I Don’t. Step back and take a breath folks, the whole thing is a pretty sad spectacle.


I think that Unit, Katherine and I are having a dialogue about pick up games. I don't think we are making value judgements. Just because I prefer Matched Play for my pick up games doesn’t mean I am saying people playing narrative are having fun the wrong way. I hope that people play the way they enjoy. I do think that people often use Casual when they really mean “narrative” or as a way to separate themselves from tournament players. Makes it hard to discuss Casual play when there is no working definition.


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/04 11:51:15


Post by: Sgt. Cortez


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Here is a honest-to-god casual game question.

Would you play someone who showed up with a Vigilus detachment? They are not allowed in games played out of the GT pack thingy but they remain viable in other situations (including non-GT-pack Matched Play if I am not mistaken).


Of course. Nobody in my group has the GT book (cause nobody cared about it... We do have the crusade book, though) and we play with legends just fine, why would we restrict Vigilus? Our Nightlords player used the Raptor detachment several times and it didn't break the game.


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/04 12:05:17


Post by: the_scotsman


 AnomanderRake wrote:
 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
...Pushing minis around and going pew pew without a care in the world about any sort of objective is definitely "playing 40k" in my eyes.


Do you find "we just push minis around and make pew pew noises with no regard for any rules" requires much discussion?


I like that these are the two options, in your head.

Give you an example, real quick: This past weekend I was in a hurry, but still wanted to get a game in. I asked "hey, don't have as much time this week, how 'bout a 1500pt game." and my opponent said "sure, want to play against 7 dreadnoughts?"

At this point, if my primary objective is winning, boy howdy do I have a pretty easy time of that, huh? I've got the minis fully painted to put down a list that's just positively bristling with dark lances and blaster kabalites with that new sweet 75% winrate drukhari.

The thing was though, my primary goal was to go play a game of 40k for about 2.5 hours, to take a break from the yardwork I'd been doing the day before and still had scheduled the next day. Tabling my opponent in 1.5 to 2 turns over the course of an hour and going back home to get right back to hauling dirt and planting isn't exactly the break I had in mind.

The main objective of 'lets have as many walker fights as possible' seemed to be a more entertaining possibility, so I show up with an avatar of khaine, a wraithlord, a cronos, 3 talos, and a wraithseer with minimal support elements. Midway through trying to set up the mission via the GT pack, we decided that the space wolves 'issue a challenge' secondary sounded more fun than the mission as a whole, so we just went with

"1 point if you kill an opposing unit in melee, 1 point if your unit kills the enemy unit they've called out for a challenge, 1 point if you kill your challenge target in melee. Characters can only challenge Characters, other units can't challenge Characters." took about 1 minute to come up with.

I wound up losing the game (too many dreadnoughts surviving on 1-2 wounds) and had more fun than if I'd taken the info I had about my opponent's list and just showed up with a list that could easily win the game.

It's really weird to have to sort of explain this kind of play, because it's honestly pretty bizarre how it seems like there are lots of people online who fundamentally don't get where the enjoyment comes from if you're not using any available information you have to make sure you win the game as hard as possible. It's like trying to explain why a good joke is funny.


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/04 12:06:38


Post by: Deadnight


TangoTwoBravo wrote:

I think that Unit, Katherine and I are having a dialogue about pick up games. I don't think we are making value judgements. Just because I prefer Matched Play for my pick up games doesn’t mean I am saying people playing narrative are having fun the wrong way. I hope that people play the way they enjoy. I do think that people often use Casual when they really mean “narrative” or as a way to separate themselves from tournament players. Makes it hard to discuss Casual play when there is no working definition.


Youre not wrong.

I'm less bothered about matched play as I play with a small group of like minded players. Our 'understanding' trumps the need for a rules set that allows you to play against a total stranger (not that I'd want to do that anyway, at least until I know what kind of game they're after).

You are correct however in stating there is no working definition for casual play. I've seen a dozen different versions promoted on this thread alone. Imo, too often people use casual not so much to define 'narrative', but rather as 'not tournament' and by extension, 'not competitive'. At the more extreme ends this declaration of 'not competitive' is also a catch all term for anything that isn't tournament play and cam be a very deliberate snub to those playstyles as well as an attempt to devalue those that enjoy a different approach.

Casual means 'less invested', indifferent, without serious intent or commitment. Narrative play, at least at the higher end, is a serious business, takes a lit if work and requires a very strong understanding of the game. Narrative is it's own thing, it's not 'casual', or as some haters claim 'throwing dice around and making pew pew noises'.

The opposite of casual is 'serious' in my mind, rather than 'competitive'.

Casual/serious and conpetitive/non competitive track different things and should not be confused with each other.





Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/04 12:07:37


Post by: warhead01


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Here is a honest-to-god casual game question.

Would you play someone who showed up with a Vigilus detachment? They are not allowed in games played out of the GT pack thingy but they remain viable in other situations (including non-GT-pack Matched Play if I am not mistaken).


I don't keep up all that much so why wouldn't I play against it. If I know ahead of time, or remember too, I'll pack my Ork units from the Index and use the FW Index Mekka Dreads. And are we using 8th or 9th for the rule set. do I need my Maelstrom of war cards. It's just that simple for me. Orks wrecking face = a good time.


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/04 12:32:37


Post by: Catulle


 the_scotsman wrote:
It's really weird to have to sort of explain this kind of play, because it's honestly pretty bizarre how it seems like there are lots of people online who fundamentally don't get where the enjoyment comes from if you're not using any available information you have to make sure you win the game as hard as possible. It's like trying to explain why a good joke is funny.


...the... aristocrats?



Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/04 13:21:27


Post by: Sgt_Smudge


Canadian 5th wrote:
 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Canadian 5th wrote:To quote DashofPepper:

"Playing is fun. Winning is more fun. So play to win."
Perhaps winning is more fun to some, but winning comes second to other factors for me, so I definitely don't play with "winning" as my primary goal.
Is that too hard to imagine?

As a sports fan, yes.
In which case, sincerely, I can only feel sorry for what you're missing.
I don't cheer for my team to go out and try their best, I cheer for them to win. When I was younger and played sports I sure as hell wanted to do what I could to help my team win. Even now when I play a game like League I'm trying to emulate what the best players in the world due to the best of my own limited ability. I get frustrated when I play well and lose and even more frustrated when I play poorly and win.
...
If you play me with such a list, likely due to shop table space constraints, I will play to table you as swiftly as possible so I can move on and find a more enjoyable game.
That's absolutely fine for you - if that's the only way you find enjoyment, pursue that. But not everyone shares that same trait, and at least recognising that other people find enjoyment differently and that it is a different, but valid, way, would go a long distance.

AnomanderRake wrote:
 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
...Pushing minis around and going pew pew without a care in the world about any sort of objective is definitely "playing 40k" in my eyes.


Do you find "we just push minis around and make pew pew noises with no regard for any rules" requires much discussion?
Yes, I think it deserves as much discussion as people are willing to give it. I certainly don't agree with the seeming impression I'm getting of "I think pushing minis around with no regard for rules is stupid so we shouldn't discuss it".

If you don't want to discuss it, don't, but don't cut off that avenue for people who can and do.

the_scotsman wrote:It's really weird to have to sort of explain this kind of play, because it's honestly pretty bizarre how it seems like there are lots of people online who fundamentally don't get where the enjoyment comes from if you're not using any available information you have to make sure you win the game as hard as possible. It's like trying to explain why a good joke is funny.
Yeah, if you simply can't understand how to enjoy something beyond game mechanics, there's going to be a very difficult disconnect here.


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/04 13:28:35


Post by: Karol


Yeah, if you simply can't understand how to enjoy something beyond game mechanics, there's going to be a very difficult disconnect here.

Have you ever done sports in your life? Like on a regional or country level. Because it is like that.
But even ultras, they don't really care about the match that much, or who wins in the end, although it is not like they are sad if they win the championships, but in general what they care about is training and the next group fight with other teams. There is a really small batch that do work on stuff like fireworks or banners. Playing w40k to play w40k is like that. You don't really have to like or want to do anything else related.


In which case, sincerely, I can only feel sorry for what you're missing.

How does that even work. If someone doesn't want or like to paint, and even less read stuff in english or really horrible translations in their own language. Then what are they missing exactly? That is like me being alergic to crab, and someone telling me I miss stuff, because I don't eat them.


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/04 13:31:20


Post by: Dai


Warhammer is not a competitive sport - it was created to be as much a co-op exercise as it was a competitive one. Both are valid and most people will incorporate both into their hobby.

You don't smash your own team mate for the glory of scoring the try yourself.


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/04 13:35:30


Post by: Sgt_Smudge


Karol wrote:
Yeah, if you simply can't understand how to enjoy something beyond game mechanics, there's going to be a very difficult disconnect here.

Have you ever done sports in your life?
For the fun of playing it? Absolutely. When I play a physical game, I'm mostly playing it for the excuse to socialise, to stretch my legs, to bond over a mutual activity.
I don't care who wins.
Playing w40k to play w40k is like that. You don't really have to like or want to do anything else related.
It's really not. If that's how you play 40k, that's your way of playing, but it's not the only, or even the one "correct", way to play.


In which case, sincerely, I can only feel sorry for what you're missing.

How does that even work.
It's a turn of phrase. I can be sorry for what someone else is lacking. I can be sorry that my friends might not share the same tastes as me, because I feel that they are missing something that I deem valuable. They might not share that same value, but I can still lament their lack of something I see as valuable.


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/04 13:38:00


Post by: Sgt. Cortez


Karol wrote:
Yeah, if you simply can't understand how to enjoy something beyond game mechanics, there's going to be a very difficult disconnect here.

Have you ever done sports in your life? Like on a regional or country level. Because it is like that.
But even ultras, they don't really care about the match that much, or who wins in the end, although it is not like they are sad if they win the championships, but in general what they care about is training and the next group fight with other teams. There is a really small batch that do work on stuff like fireworks or banners. Playing w40k to play w40k is like that. You don't really have to like or want to do anything else related.


In which case, sincerely, I can only feel sorry for what you're missing.

How does that even work. If someone doesn't want or like to paint, and even less read stuff in english or really horrible translations in their own language. Then what are they missing exactly? That is like me being alergic to crab, and someone telling me I miss stuff, because I don't eat them.


Well if the competitive mindset is your thing I guess it's hard to understand playing for fun. For me on the other hand I never really cared about the competitive aspect of sports, it was even what kept me away from it. Playing was okay, but I never understood those competitive players that became really grumpy when losing or had only fun when winning.
And it's the same with 40K. Tournaments to me seem like a really stripped down version of the game where you reduce it to one style of mission, don't tell a story and your Minis become nothing more than tokens. But that's not what I play wargames for.


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/04 13:41:13


Post by: bullyboy


Karol wrote:
Yeah, if you simply can't understand how to enjoy something beyond game mechanics, there's going to be a very difficult disconnect here.

Have you ever done sports in your life? Like on a regional or country level. Because it is like that.
But even ultras, they don't really care about the match that much, or who wins in the end, although it is not like they are sad if they win the championships, but in general what they care about is training and the next group fight with other teams. There is a really small batch that do work on stuff like fireworks or banners. Playing w40k to play w40k is like that. You don't really have to like or want to do anything else related.


In which case, sincerely, I can only feel sorry for what you're missing.

How does that even work. If someone doesn't want or like to paint, and even less read stuff in english or really horrible translations in their own language. Then what are they missing exactly? That is like me being alergic to crab, and someone telling me I miss stuff, because I don't eat them.


Mate, played competitive sports through college, you can turn off that "switch", it's not hard to do.
Think about casual games of 40K as a 3D movie going on in front of you. You may lose the game, and some times badly, but the little cinematic events that happen can stick with you and be discussed with friends down the line. The sgt in a squad that refused to die when outnumbered 10-1, a lasgun taking the last wound from a rampaging dread...etc, etc. This is what casual and narrative gaming creates. It can start before a game with choosing a mission from all the different sources (I've played many of the Vigilus and Chapter Approved missions), then building an army with that mission in mind (likewise your opponent). You then play normally, except you may choose to do certain actions that you wouldn't in a competitive situation (it's more fun to see my lone character charge that blob and die gloriously than to hide behind this big piece of terrain becasue it's the last turn and denies the opponent points).

i also have the ability to turn on my competitive switch if I'm going to a tournament, I'm not a robot.


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/04 13:46:49


Post by: Karol


For the fun of playing it? Absolutely. When I play a physical game, I'm mostly playing it for the excuse to socialise, to stretch my legs, to bond over a mutual activity.
I don't care who wins.

Then that is not sport. sports are played to win, every trainer will tell you that first day of sports school or training camp.



It's really not. If that's how you play 40k, that's your way of playing, but it's not the only, or even the proper, way to play.

If majority of people play the game within one rule set, then the rule set is the reality. It is like saying that you will try to play sports out side of control of IOC. you do that you automatically don't do sports, you play and playing ain't sport.

But even if you were right, and matched play was not the proper way to play, which kind of rises the question of all the books and rules being printed and not being free, there is still the majority rule. If majority does something in a specific way, then it is official and good. And non of the background activities releated to w40k are required to play the game. Just like do sports you don't even need to read and write, heck I have seen schools have players who didn't even spoke polish or russian, but one can't really argue with a 1,85 120kg 16 year old in the youth division.


It's a turn of phrase. I can be sorry for what someone else is lacking. I can be sorry that my friends might not share the same tastes as me, because I feel that they are missing something that I deem valuable. They might not share that same value, but I can still lament their lack of something I see as valuable.

But why say it, if it isn't true. People don't care about those no releated to them and even less about those they don't agree or who are different. You don't feel sorry for him, it feels more like you are trying to moral high ground over the other person, as if somehow they were not doing something the proper way or not getting the full expiriance. It is like starting an argument with , when I grew up I started to do this, as if hinting that before the actions were those of a child and immature, and there for wrong.


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/04 14:25:20


Post by: bullyboy


Karol wrote:
For the fun of playing it? Absolutely. When I play a physical game, I'm mostly playing it for the excuse to socialise, to stretch my legs, to bond over a mutual activity.
I don't care who wins.

Then that is not sport. sports are played to win, every trainer will tell you that first day of sports school or training camp.



No Karol, you are wrong. That is not what a sport is. Your trainers lied to you (probably after taking a muscle biopsy and sending you to the correct sports Gulag and injecting you with steroids, lol).



Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/04 14:32:40


Post by: Sgt_Smudge


Karol wrote:
For the fun of playing it? Absolutely. When I play a physical game, I'm mostly playing it for the excuse to socialise, to stretch my legs, to bond over a mutual activity.
I don't care who wins.

Then that is not sport. sports are played to win, every trainer will tell you that first day of sports school or training camp.
Not really sure how to tell you this, but that's probably the most reductive take I've seen on the matter.

A couple of kids kicking a ball at an open goal for the sheer sake of kicking around a ball is sport.
A game of basketball where everyone's quite forgotten the score and are quite happy taking wild shots is sport.
Creating an intricate and physically fulfilling gymnastics routine because it feels good on your own body is sport.

The idea that sport can only be undertaken for a set win condition is hilariously limiting. If you can only enjoy it that way, that's down to you, but it's not been, and has never been, the only way to enjoy it.


It's really not. If that's how you play 40k, that's your way of playing, but it's not the only, or even the proper, way to play.

If majority of people play the game within one rule set, then the rule set is the reality.
The majority of 40k players aren't tournament players. In fact, I'd even hazard to guess that most people who have 40k models don't play them nearly as much as they just collect or paint them - on a global scale, that is.
It is like saying that you will try to play sports out side of control of IOC. you do that you automatically don't do sports, you play and playing ain't sport.
Uh, that's simply not true.
Just because you're not playing under official rules of guidelines doesn't change the fact that you're playing a sport, that's a ridiculously elitist viewpoint.

But even if you were right, and matched play was not the proper way to play,
There is no "proper" way outside of whatever works for you. You seem to think that there is a single one "proper" way. There isn't.
If majority does something in a specific way, then it is official and good.
That's not how that works at all.

The majority of theatre follows specific conventions and stylistic qualities, but that doesn't make it "official" or even "good", and it doesn't disqualify convention breaking material as "unofficial" or "bad".

Majority opinion is still just an opinion.
And non of the background activities releated to w40k are required to play the game.
And likewise, playing the game isn't required to paint or collect. It's entirely possible to enjoy 40k without ever rolling a dice.

And I'd actually be willing to guess that there's an incredibly large proportion of the 40k fanbase who don't play at all.
Just like do sports you don't even need to read and write, heck I have seen schools have players who didn't even spoke polish or russian, but one can't really argue with a 1,85 120kg 16 year old in the youth division.
O-kayyyy? What relevance does that have on the topic?

It's a turn of phrase. I can be sorry for what someone else is lacking. I can be sorry that my friends might not share the same tastes as me, because I feel that they are missing something that I deem valuable. They might not share that same value, but I can still lament their lack of something I see as valuable.

But why say it, if it isn't true.
It is true. I can feel sorrow for what I perceive to be someone else's loss. They might not see it as a loss, which is completely valid for them, but I can still regret that they don't share my particular taste. But regardless, I have no right to enforce my taste on them.
People don't care about those no releated to them and even less about those they don't agree or who are different.
You don't speak for all people. Certainly not me.

I'm sorry that you don't grasp that, but not everyone believes the same as you.
You don't feel sorry for him
Oh, I forgot I was sharing my brain with another person! Silly me!
it feels more like you are trying to moral high ground over the other person, as if somehow they were not doing something the proper way or not getting the full expiriance.
Perhaps it feels that way to you, but it is most assuredly not. I think I've made myself rather clear by stating that regardless how I feel on the matter, I encourage people to find enjoyment however they like, because their experiences are valid. I only ask that they extend the same virtue.


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/04 14:57:06


Post by: Purifying Tempest


Coming from a 0% tournament, 100% "casual" player on why I don't talk about my "casual" experiences on a web forum:

I simply don't care for the feedback loop that exists on the internet. I'll share stories and experiences, but at the end of the day... how we play our games is our business We have fun regardless of Dakka's involvement, so why involve Dakka when all they're going to do is flame us for making subpar decisions? Or laugh at us for finding ways to give the win to the other player (via painting rules in close games, or some other goofy solution to give another player a hard-earned W). Or, god forbid, playing a little under your competition to get them that extra supply they wanted to field the new beefy unit, or the experience to get a battle honor they've been clamoring for?

Dakka cannot provide insight or enjoyment for our experience, and sharing some of the cool things we do with each other with an online community only invites that negative element of the community to blast everything we do in the spirit of having fun with each other. So at the end of the day... there just isn't any value in sharing, especially when the online topic focuses so much on eviscerating each other with ruthless lists and playing with tactics that assume the other player is as devolved of morals and ethics as we ourselves are.

The social contract doesn't exist in online spaces, that's just the internet. I think there should be one, but until the community is ready to accept that people play differently than they do... or they play for different reasons... then the garage hammer crowd is going to continue having a good time far away from these sorts of places


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/04 15:03:18


Post by: the_scotsman


Purifying Tempest wrote:


The social contract doesn't exist in online spaces, that's just the internet.


I think if the 21st century has taught us anything, it's that there's basically no limit to the sociopathy of 'online'. No cause is so virtuous, no person so intellectually rigorous, no act or opinion so unforgivably abhorrent that the inherent sociopathy of the anonymous internet can't turn it to utter garbage.

But hey, it makes money, and as long as it makes money, it ain't a-changin'.


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/04 15:24:39


Post by: ccs


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Here is a honest-to-god casual game question.

Would you play someone who showed up with a Vigilus detachment? They are not allowed in games played out of the GT pack thingy but they remain viable in other situations (including non-GT-pack Matched Play if I am not mistaken).


Sure, why wouldn't I?
You want to make it "legal"? Then we'll just say we're playing Open - with 99.9999% of the matched play rules + Vig, + a GT mission.


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/04 15:45:36


Post by: Gert


Who's comparing 40k to sports? I do Warhammer because it isn't sports. Sports is exercise and exercise is pain.


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/04 15:47:13


Post by: ccs


Karol wrote:
For the fun of playing it? Absolutely. When I play a physical game, I'm mostly playing it for the excuse to socialise, to stretch my legs, to bond over a mutual activity.
I don't care who wins.

Then that is not sport. sports are played to win, every trainer will tell you that first day of sports school or training camp.



It's really not. If that's how you play 40k, that's your way of playing, but it's not the only, or even the proper, way to play.

If majority of people play the game within one rule set, then the rule set is the reality. It is like saying that you will try to play sports out side of control of IOC. you do that you automatically don't do sports, you play and playing ain't sport.

But even if you were right, and matched play was not the proper way to play, which kind of rises the question of all the books and rules being printed and not being free, there is still the majority rule. If majority does something in a specific way, then it is official and good. And non of the background activities releated to w40k are required to play the game. Just like do sports you don't even need to read and write, heck I have seen schools have players who didn't even spoke polish or russian, but one can't really argue with a 1,85 120kg 16 year old in the youth division.


It's a turn of phrase. I can be sorry for what someone else is lacking. I can be sorry that my friends might not share the same tastes as me, because I feel that they are missing something that I deem valuable. They might not share that same value, but I can still lament their lack of something I see as valuable.

But why say it, if it isn't true. People don't care about those no releated to them and even less about those they don't agree or who are different. You don't feel sorry for him, it feels more like you are trying to moral high ground over the other person, as if somehow they were not doing something the proper way or not getting the full expiriance. It is like starting an argument with , when I grew up I started to do this, as if hinting that before the actions were those of a child and immature, and there for wrong.


Your perception of how things work is not reality.


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/04 16:28:24


Post by: TangoTwoBravo


 Blndmage wrote:
TangoTwoBravo wrote:
 Blndmage wrote:
What about someone having a themed army, that's not Battleforged, so no dynasties/etc, that is looking for a pickup game at standard points levels (500, 1000, 2000)?

They're sacrificing a lot mechanically to run what they want.


I think Matched Play requires Battle Forged armies. Trying to visualize a themed army that is not organized into Detachments?

I am not saying I would refuse the game, but for pickup games Matched Play with Battle Forge is the standard I prefer. Variety is good, though, so I suppose if the list was intriguing I’d give it a go? There is always Open Play.


I've actually got a theme throughout my collection, which I had to shift as I couldn't run it back in 4th.

My Necrons are built around the earliest stages of an awakening tomb: Scarabs, Tomb Spyders, Tomb Stalkers and Sentinels, maybe some Sentry Pylons.

There's no HQ that fits. Since then, with the reboot, and more so the recent Codex, there's options that will work, but still mean I can't run a slumbering Tomb. I have to, at the minimum have 1 awake Necron, and can never run all 54 bases of Scarabs.

Honestly, with the current edition not being Battleforged means no CP, no Strats, let alone losing some special rules, I can't think of a list I can make, that's wouldn't struggle without those.


Ok - If you were at our FLGS 40k Saturday when we get back to pick up games and you said “‘I have this unbound yet themed army” I would break out my Open War deck and we’d have a game. I would park my Stratagems etc. Having said that, my preference on a given Saturday would be Matched Play GT 2020 pack. Open for different styles, though, to keep things fresh and also widen our community! If it was a pre- arranged game I would try to come up with an opposing force that would fit the theme (some kind of exploration force). That’s not a pick up game, but just putting that out there.


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/04 16:42:32


Post by: Racerguy180


Unit1126PLL wrote:Here is a honest-to-god casual game question.

Would you play someone who showed up with a Vigilus detachment? They are not allowed in games played out of the GT pack thingy but they remain viable in other situations (including non-GT-pack Matched Play if I am not mistaken).

Why wouldn't I?


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/04 16:43:34


Post by: Canadian 5th


ccs wrote:
Your perception of how things work is not reality.

I'm pretty sure that Karol goes to a school focused on sports as a means to get students into post-secondary education via sports scholarships. So it very likely is - or recently was - a major part of his reality.

Posters here are quick to assume that a middle-class version of life is everybody else's baseline and that simply isn't true.


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/04 16:57:29


Post by: Unit1126PLL


Good discussion guys! I have the two instigators in the thread on ignore it seems (lots of replies to Canadian 5th and Karol) so I'll let the discussion continue ongoing, but I think we're getting lots of insights about casual play.

1) It's difficult to discuss on a forum for 2 reasons: forums aren't a conducive medium to the sort of discussion necessary, and forumgoers are often hostile or at least unhelpful when discussing casual play.

2) Casual play has a variety of meanings, ranging from "indifferent" to "non-competitive" and no one has really agreed with anyone else's definition that I've seen (except me and Sgt. Smudge )

3) Dakka DOES discuss casual play sometimes (e.g. the Proposed Rules forum)

4) Competitive play offers more to talk about than casual play.

Did I miss any?


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/04 17:00:00


Post by: ccs


 Canadian 5th wrote:
ccs wrote:
Your perception of how things work is not reality.

I'm pretty sure that Karol goes to a school focused on sports as a means to get students into post-secondary education via sports scholarships. So it very likely is - or recently was - a major part of his reality.

Posters here are quick to assume that a middle-class version of life is everybody else's baseline and that simply isn't true.


That doesn't change the fact that his perception of how a great many things in the world actually work - what's a sport, why people do things, people not caring about one another, or even how 40k is generally played - is inaccurate.
Sure, some of it might be somewhat accurate to his exact local. But overall? It is certainly the limited understanding of a child.


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/04 17:02:06


Post by: Racerguy180


Pretty much sums it up.

Casual is best done with friends/like-minded players, in person. It just doesn't translate well to 1's & 0's.


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/04 17:14:04


Post by: Canadian 5th


ccs wrote:
That doesn't change the fact that his perception of how a great many things in the world actually work - what's a sport, why people do things, people not caring about one another, or even how 40k is generally played - is inaccurate.
Sure, some of it might be somewhat accurate to his exact local. But overall? It is certainly the limited understanding of a child.

Anything done at the highest level values winning at all costs over anything else. The world is a ruthless place where all the major players play zero-sum games.

Microsoft ruined many other small companies by strangling them in the cradle the moment it was large enough that it could afford million-dollar settlements and they could barely afford to show up in court. Every single sports league has had repeated scandals about cheating that manifest in everything from PEDs to literally hacking another team's computers to steal scouting or financial data. Even in beer leagues, there is often one team that just takes the game way more seriously than the rest and wins by playing in a way the other teams may not find fun.

It is human nature to compete. If it wasn't we'd never have developed the technology and social structure that we have.


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/04 17:42:01


Post by: catbarf


 Canadian 5th wrote:
Anything done at the highest level values winning at all costs over anything else.


'It's only a sport if you value winning because professional sports players only value winning and this is somehow relevant'.

Yeah no.


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/04 17:53:53


Post by: Gert


"Cheating and breaking the law is ok if you win" is a spicy take. I mean it's a depressingly accurate one but still.


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/04 18:01:06


Post by: Insectum7


 Gert wrote:
"Cheating and breaking the law is ok if you win" is a spicy take. I mean it's a depressingly accurate one but still.
"Doing the maximum to win without incurring penalties which would forfeit said win."

Aka, do whatever you can but either don't get caught cheating, or cheat in a way such that the penalty (such as a fine, etc.) Doesn't stop you from still winning.


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/04 18:03:27


Post by: Deadnight


Canadian 5th 798035 11115022 wrote:
Anything done at the highest level values winning at all costs over anything else. The world is a ruthless place where all the major players play zero-sum games.



One more reason not to emulate or celebrate 'high level values' of ruthless bastards. Plenty other people worth looking up to instead.

Because some arsehole does it is no reason for me to do it.

Competition can be fine. Push 'we're better than those people' too far and you have problems.


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/04 19:34:08


Post by: Blndmage


We're not talking about working for a Corporation, we're talking about playing Warhammer.


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/04 19:35:31


Post by: Gert


Aaaannnnd goodbye thread.


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/04 19:36:23


Post by: Canadian 5th


 Blndmage wrote:
We're not talking about working for a Corporation, we're talking about playing Warhammer.

I'm talking about how life is a struggle and merely using the artifice of sport and capitalism as examples. Games are a reflection of life and should be played with the same vigor lest they become boring.


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/04 20:38:48


Post by: waefre_1


Or you could play games and do sports in a more relaxed and laid-back manner as a respite from the rat race. Not everyone wants to come home to a second job that they're not even getting paid for.


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/04 21:16:57


Post by: skchsan


He is entitled to his opinions. Not everyone plays sports for participation medals, and that's totally fine. There are competitive people and there are more laid back people.

The underlying problem in this thread is that everyone has their own internalized definition of what constitutes a "casual" game/players.

The way I read it, Canadian 5th is only arguing against the notion/implication that anything that's not actual GT setting or an actual 'competition' falls under casual, and that it's wrong to play a casual game of 40k with winning as the goal. All he's claiming is that there is nothing wrong with playing a tight game even in casual settings with the goal to win - winning is just as a valid way to enjoy the game as any other 'casual' fun that can be had while playing 40k.

Everyone has a different views on what they consider 'fun', period. No one's telling you to go play with someone who you consider 'unfun' because they focus on winning the game. Just go find another 'friend' to play with, that's all. No need to get all sour because some people enjoy playing to win.


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/04 21:26:32


Post by: Easy E


Why does no one talk about casual play? Because there is nothing to talk about. You either had fun or you didn't. Not much else to saw.


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/04 21:30:30


Post by: Gert


What he is suggesting is that the only right way to play is to play to win, which people are disagreeing with because funnily enough, personal enjoyment is a subjective matter. At which point he went waaaayy off-topic with stuff that has pretty much nothing to do with the topic of playing 40k to justify "there is no such thing as casual wargaming".


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Easy E wrote:
Why does no one talk about casual play? Because there is nothing to talk about. You either had fun or you didn't. Not much else to saw.

10 thread pages would seem to suggest otherwise.


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/04 21:59:07


Post by: skchsan


 Gert wrote:
What he is suggesting is that the only right way to play is to play to win, which people are disagreeing with because funnily enough, personal enjoyment is a subjective matter. At which point he went waaaayy off-topic with stuff that has pretty much nothing to do with the topic of playing 40k to justify "there is no such thing as casual wargaming".


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Easy E wrote:
Why does no one talk about casual play? Because there is nothing to talk about. You either had fun or you didn't. Not much else to saw.

10 thread pages would seem to suggest otherwise.
And there is no particular issue with him thinking the way he thinks in terms of how you view what 'casual' entails and how you play the game, is there? There isn't anything factual about this that demands 4 pages worth of witch hunt IMO.

If he's wrong, he's wrong. If he's right, then he's right. No amount of chatter from the peanut gallery that is internet will change a way a person thinks, especially in an informal setting such as this.

I personally think the term 'casual' was too muddied along the course of this discussion to yield any meaningful discussion going forward.


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/04 22:20:00


Post by: Easy E


Those 10 pages are mostly gate keeping and "wrong fun" style posts. So, like I said. Not much to say about it and I AM a casual player.....


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/04 22:25:34


Post by: Slipspace


 Canadian 5th wrote:
 Blndmage wrote:
We're not talking about working for a Corporation, we're talking about playing Warhammer.

I'm talking about how life is a struggle and merely using the artifice of sport and capitalism as examples. Games are a reflection of life and should be played with the same vigor lest they become boring.


Which is your opinion, but not a fact. Which is pretty much what this entire thread has been about, but people like you seem to constantly miss.

It's just as accurate to say people play games as an escape from the very struggles that real life throws at them. The fact people in this thread have already clearly stated they play games in that fashion proves that your assertion is not universally true. I'd argue miniature wargames probably represent that better than most given their ability to provide a creative outlet in terms of both the modelling/painting side of things and the expression of creativity in creating your army list.


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/04 23:01:53


Post by: Canadian 5th


 Gert wrote:
What he is suggesting is that the only right way to play is to play to win, which people are disagreeing with because funnily enough, personal enjoyment is a subjective matter. At which point he went waaaayy off-topic with stuff that has pretty much nothing to do with the topic of playing 40k to justify "there is no such thing as casual wargaming".

My argument is that I don't think a hobby that has as much investment can be casual and that the reason casual and narrative players avoid competitive players is that they'd have less fun if they got tabled by turn two every game. Of course, some players who think they're casual will try to handwave this away by calling anybody with a tuned list a WAAC power gamer who uses omega cheese and wants to win in the list-building stage. We're playing the same game, my comp list can be just as well painted and modeled as yours, I could even write a few pages of fluff and battle honors for key units; so why is my playing to win without a desire to handicap myself somehow wrong bad fun?


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/04 23:40:16


Post by: Gert


When I finish work or need a break from assignments, I will sit at my desk, stick on a movie or show and paint my minis to chill out.
If and when I can get a chance to play some 40k/AoS/BA/Necromunda/30k/whatever else, I'm doing it more for the social aspect of playing a wargame, meeting up with friends, or going to a local store and having a game there. Do I want to win? Sure I do but I'm not going to have my whole experience ruined if I lose the game. I just bought the Drukhari Combat Patrol but I didn't start Drukhari because their rules were top tier, I started them because space elf pirates are cool, the models are great and I have four Chaos armies and two Imperial and needed a change. Warhammer fills exactly the same role as gaming or reading, it's something I do so my whole life isn't working or studying.

Competitive gaming is absolutely a thing with Warhammer but outright stating there can't be anything other than competitive hobbyists is an extremely poor argument when there is ample evidence to the contrary.
Nobody is saying "all competitive players are WAAC power nerds with no skill in painting or modeling". Nobody is saying your version of fun is wrong. What people are saying is that your version of fun is not the only version of fun because it is a subjective concept and therefore cannot be defined one way or another.


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/05 03:14:36


Post by: H.B.M.C.


 Canadian 5th wrote:
I'm talking about how life is a struggle...
But why are you talking about that?

That's not the topic of this thread. At all.


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/05 08:29:54


Post by: Dai


Again, a lot of people see the person one plays Warhammer with as both a teammate and an opponent. As I said you don't take your teammate out for the glory of the winning score.

It's a little more nuanced due to the fact that you are playing against each other but to many it really is not a real competitive endeavour.

I don't know about a witchhunt but I certainly think it will be beneficial for Karol to hear opposing views, the world is not as bleak as he assumes.


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/05 08:46:49


Post by: Tiberias


 Canadian 5th wrote:
 Gert wrote:
What he is suggesting is that the only right way to play is to play to win, which people are disagreeing with because funnily enough, personal enjoyment is a subjective matter. At which point he went waaaayy off-topic with stuff that has pretty much nothing to do with the topic of playing 40k to justify "there is no such thing as casual wargaming".

My argument is that I don't think a hobby that has as much investment can be casual and that the reason casual and narrative players avoid competitive players is that they'd have less fun if they got tabled by turn two every game. Of course, some players who think they're casual will try to handwave this away by calling anybody with a tuned list a WAAC power gamer who uses omega cheese and wants to win in the list-building stage. We're playing the same game, my comp list can be just as well painted and modeled as yours, I could even write a few pages of fluff and battle honors for key units; so why is my playing to win without a desire to handicap myself somehow wrong bad fun?


If you want to play that way, find like minded people play your way. You wanting to play without a "handicap" can be bad fun for the people you play with depending on what those people are in for.
If you for example are playing dark eldar and you had a game with a friend in a non-tournament setting, and said friend doesn't always want to play with super tuned lists, wouldn't it be reasonable for that friend to ask you to turn your dark eldar list down a bit so you both can have fun playing? It's all about expectations and the context of how you want to play.


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/05 08:50:22


Post by: Karol


As I said you don't take your teammate out for the glory of the winning score.

How often were you in a situation where out of a 8-12 people in the class only 2 get a sports scholarship, or 1-2 get added to a national youth team? I can tell you that people are willing to do anything to throw others under the bus, team or no team. There is a reason why every good trainer tells you to never accept food, drink or help from anyone, including fellow team mates, because they may just be setting you up to be disqualifed.

I mean just two years ago, two guys from the Dutch wrestling team got DQ, because seals on their gear were damaged. And the only way for it to happen would be to either them doing it , which would make no sense, their trainer doing it, possible but still strange or someone from their team who got in to top 8 instead of them after the DQ and getting the qualifire.

The thing that goes on in gymnast teams for girls is attrocious, and it is a cross nation cross time know thing. It was horrible in the 90s and it is horrible now. There is a reason why so many of them drop out and start doing everything else, but that.

Football teams, bike teams specially the professional ones where they juice the living hell out of each other. How do you people think they find out they are taking stuff? Because people snitch on each other. The russians lost the right to hymn and flag, just because 3 people and a trainer felt done wrong.

My argument is that I don't think a hobby that has as much investment can be casual and that the reason casual and narrative players avoid competitive players is that they'd have less fun if they got tabled by turn two every game.

no worries mr Canadia, someone will soon inform you that because there are people who collect XVI century paintings and deep sea yachts, w40k as a hobby is a miniscule investment comparing to real hobbies.


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/05 09:02:42


Post by: Tiberias


Karol wrote:
As I said you don't take your teammate out for the glory of the winning score.

How often were you in a situation where out of a 8-12 people in the class only 2 get a sports scholarship, or 1-2 get added to a national youth team? I can tell you that people are willing to do anything to throw others under the bus, team or no team. There is a reason why every good trainer tells you to never accept food, drink or help from anyone, including fellow team mates, because they may just be setting you up to be disqualifed.

I mean just two years ago, two guys from the Dutch wrestling team got DQ, because seals on their gear were damaged. And the only way for it to happen would be to either them doing it , which would make no sense, their trainer doing it, possible but still strange or someone from their team who got in to top 8 instead of them after the DQ and getting the qualifire.

The thing that goes on in gymnast teams for girls is attrocious, and it is a cross nation cross time know thing. It was horrible in the 90s and it is horrible now. There is a reason why so many of them drop out and start doing everything else, but that.

Football teams, bike teams specially the professional ones where they juice the living hell out of each other. How do you people think they find out they are taking stuff? Because people snitch on each other. The russians lost the right to hymn and flag, just because 3 people and a trainer felt done wrong.

My argument is that I don't think a hobby that has as much investment can be casual and that the reason casual and narrative players avoid competitive players is that they'd have less fun if they got tabled by turn two every game.

no worries mr Canadia, someone will soon inform you that because there are people who collect XVI century paintings and deep sea yachts, w40k as a hobby is a miniscule investment comparing to real hobbies.


I don't understant that sports analogy. I am by no means saying you are wrong by stating that there are many sketchy things going on in professional sports, but what does that have to do with playing 40k? People applying for sports scholarships are trying to dedicate their life to that sport and make a living there (at least for some time until they are too old), the pressure and incentive to do anything to gain an advantage there is obviously very high. I don't understand how that translates in any way to playing 40k....I dare to say that 99% of people in this thread are not trying to make a living being a professional 40k player, for the vast majority it is simply a hobby.


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/05 09:06:31


Post by: stroller


And ... I'm out. Casual discussion no longer casual.... have fun folks.


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/05 09:26:15


Post by: Sgt_Smudge


Canadian 5th wrote:
ccs wrote:
Your perception of how things work is not reality.

I'm pretty sure that Karol goes to a school focused on sports as a means to get students into post-secondary education via sports scholarships. So it very likely is - or recently was - a major part of his reality.
I've bolded the relevant parts - most notably how Karol's experience only pertains to his reality, and not everyone else's.

Now, if all the other posters here were saying how "everyone's a lovely person" and "there are no bad eggs" and "our experience of life is the only true one", you'd have a point. But that's not what other posters are saying. What's happening is that Karol's (and I mean this in the tamest possible way) warped world view, brought about by presumably an incredibly toxic environment, does not apply for everyone else, but he is claiming that it does. The only user here who is overwriting the lived experiences of other users here is Karol.

Posters here are quick to assume that a middle-class version of life is everybody else's baseline and that simply isn't true.
Agreed - and likewise, Karol's version of life isn't the same as mine. So when Karol turns around and essentially implies that I shouldn't be capable of having the outlook on life that I do, why on earth should I not call that out?

Canadian 5th wrote:Anything done at the highest level values winning at all costs over anything else.
Remind me where I said I played 40k at the highest levels?
It is human nature to compete. If it wasn't we'd never have developed the technology and social structure that we have.
That is a hilarious misunderstanding of what "human nature" is.

It's animal nature to mindlessly compete and horde resources, to crab bucket the competition. It's human nature (and the nature of some of the most successful species) to co-operate, to support one another, to help and provide. One of the oldest human remains we can find is of an elderly person with signs of healed broken limbs. There's no way they could have supported for themselves in their age and physical condition during the time they were alive, yet the remains indicate that they lived long after the breakage of their bones. The only logical outcome is that, millennia ago, humans were supporting and helping one another - before empires, before cities, before "society".

That's my take on the baloney that is "life can only be a competition".

Canadian 5th wrote:Games are a reflection of life and should be played with the same vigor lest they become boring.
Disagree. Vigour doesn't mean winning.

skchsan wrote:He is entitled to his opinions. Not everyone plays sports for participation medals, and that's totally fine. There are competitive people and there are more laid back people.
He is entitled to his opinions, yes. As am I, and everyone else. I don't see anyone erasing his opinions or saying he can't have them. The issue is that he's imposing his opinions and attitudes that "the game can only be competitive" on everyone else.

The way I read it, Canadian 5th is only arguing against the notion/implication that anything that's not actual GT setting or an actual 'competition' falls under casual, and that it's wrong to play a casual game of 40k with winning as the goal. All he's claiming is that there is nothing wrong with playing a tight game even in casual settings with the goal to win - winning is just as a valid way to enjoy the game as any other 'casual' fun that can be had while playing 40k.
But what I'm seeing is that Canadian is outright unable to recognise that winning isn't always the goal, and claims that such enjoyment is impossible.
There is nothing wrong with playing a tight game in casual settings, but that's also not what everyone wants to play either.

Everyone has a different views on what they consider 'fun', period. No one's telling you to go play with someone who you consider 'unfun' because they focus on winning the game. Just go find another 'friend' to play with, that's all. No need to get all sour because some people enjoy playing to win.
Again, I don't think anyone is getting sour that people play to win. What is evident is that people are getting sour because some people *don't* play to win.

Canadian 5th wrote:My argument is that I don't think a hobby that has as much investment can be casual
Which definition of casual are we using here?
so why is my playing to win without a desire to handicap myself somehow wrong bad fun?
It's not wrong - I've outright encouraged you to enjoy that, if that's what you like. But it's not the same for everyone - which you ought to respect.

Not everyone plays to win. And that's just as valid as playing to win.


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/05 10:10:50


Post by: Slipspace


Karol wrote:
As I said you don't take your teammate out for the glory of the winning score.

How often were you in a situation where out of a 8-12 people in the class only 2 get a sports scholarship, or 1-2 get added to a national youth team?


What does that have to do with 40k? The more relevant question is how often was winning a game of 40k the thing standing between someone and a scholarship? Karol, you really need to stop making these ridiculous comparisons and start to understand that your situation is only one of a large number of very different situations. 40k is not an Olympic sport, it's not getting people scholarships to prestigious schools or universities. Even if an activity could have that sort of importance riding on its outcome, that's never the only situation where that activity is done. Winning Wimbledon in tennis or the US Open in golf are some of the top accolades a professional sportsperson can achieve. But I can play tennis or golf as a social activity, with the final score less relevant than the chance to spend time with friends doing a mutually enjoyable activity.


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/05 10:38:54


Post by: Horla


If you can’t play Warhammer without being competitive and wanting to crush the other component, how come I can play Warhammer on my own against myself and still really enjoy it even if I’m crushing myself?


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/05 14:24:01


Post by: waefre_1


 Horla wrote:
If you can’t play Warhammer without being competitive and wanting to crush the other component, how come I can play Warhammer on my own against myself and still really enjoy it even if I’m crushing myself?

Likely some gross personal defect on your part, I'm sure
Spoiler:
/sarcasm for maximal clarity
Also, this thread is giving me some serious deja vu regarding previous discussions I've seen re: games like Classic WoW (eg. people getting gak from beardier sorts for taking an extra 30 mins to clear a portion of one raid when the guild isn't even attempting a speedrun), anyone else feeling that?


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/05 14:29:58


Post by: Voss


No. It's far too polite for WoW discussions to be comparable.

It isn't great, but it's still better than that.


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/05 14:32:05


Post by: the_scotsman


 waefre_1 wrote:
 Horla wrote:
If you can’t play Warhammer without being competitive and wanting to crush the other component, how come I can play Warhammer on my own against myself and still really enjoy it even if I’m crushing myself?

Likely some gross personal defect on your part, I'm sure
Spoiler:
/sarcasm for maximal clarity
Also, this thread is giving me some serious deja vu regarding previous discussions I've seen re: games like Classic WoW (eg. people getting gak from beardier sorts for taking an extra 30 mins to clear a portion of one raid when the guild isn't even attempting a speedrun), anyone else feeling that?


Yes, obviously. There's a whole subset of men in nerdy spaces who need to compensate for having what they perceive as a 'childish' hobby by pursuing it with a 'professional' serious attitude and look down on anyone who doesn't have that level of insecurity.


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/05 15:22:28


Post by: Lord Zarkov


 the_scotsman wrote:
 waefre_1 wrote:
 Horla wrote:
If you can’t play Warhammer without being competitive and wanting to crush the other component, how come I can play Warhammer on my own against myself and still really enjoy it even if I’m crushing myself?

Likely some gross personal defect on your part, I'm sure
Spoiler:
/sarcasm for maximal clarity
Also, this thread is giving me some serious deja vu regarding previous discussions I've seen re: games like Classic WoW (eg. people getting gak from beardier sorts for taking an extra 30 mins to clear a portion of one raid when the guild isn't even attempting a speedrun), anyone else feeling that?


Yes, obviously. There's a whole subset of men in nerdy spaces who need to compensate for having what they perceive as a 'childish' hobby by pursuing it with a 'professional' serious attitude and look down on anyone who doesn't have that level of insecurity.


Too true.

IMO CS Lewis definitely had it right:

CS Lewis wrote: “When I became a man I put away childish things, including the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up.”


Embrace the ridiculousness of 40k and grown adults playing with toy soldiers!


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/05 15:51:13


Post by: Horla


 waefre_1 wrote:
 Horla wrote:
If you can’t play Warhammer without being competitive and wanting to crush the other component, how come I can play Warhammer on my own against myself and still really enjoy it even if I’m crushing myself?

Likely some gross personal defect on your part, I'm sure

You’ve been talking to my family, haven’t you?


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/06 22:52:39


Post by: Platuan4th


 Horla wrote:
 waefre_1 wrote:
 Horla wrote:
If you can’t play Warhammer without being competitive and wanting to crush the other component, how come I can play Warhammer on my own against myself and still really enjoy it even if I’m crushing myself?

Likely some gross personal defect on your part, I'm sure

You’ve been talking to my family, haven’t you?


This thread suddenly got too real.


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/07 09:42:21


Post by: gaovinni


TangoTwoBravo wrote:
I was suggesting that folks who want to build narrative lists enjoy doing so and not worry so much about winning. Declare victory on their own terms. Look at this army I have brought to life!


This right here. This is the attitude I value and have. I am also lucky to have friends who do this also. We build our armies for a theme like my full wych cults with bests and all that for the past ten years or fluffy catachan or then just a cool looking unit without considering it's power. We do not play to win, we play to have fun.

I also play at my local store against a casual list and tournament lists and I play as I have models on the table even if it's two models left with no way to win. That is actually the moment when you can just throw all sensible tactics out the window and do stupid stuff while thinking "could I pull it off... let's try!" To me individual units heroic deeds and all stuff like that is the thing. Managing to pull off cool things. Win or lose, I don't care and if I managed to do something awesome I'm definately happy.

Also it is a game of dice. There are propabilities but anything can happen. I have rolled 8 rolls of 6 with 10 D6 but also 10 rolls of 1 with 12 D6.


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/07 11:51:51


Post by: AngryAngel80


 Canadian 5th wrote:
 Blndmage wrote:
We're not talking about working for a Corporation, we're talking about playing Warhammer.

I'm talking about how life is a struggle and merely using the artifice of sport and capitalism as examples. Games are a reflection of life and should be played with the same vigor lest they become boring.


This is such a strange idea. I can be competitive and life can be a struggle however, neither of that is life. No one lays on their death bed and says " Man I was so happy I worked so hard and kicked so much butt in games ! They weren't dull at all ! " I'd hope they'd think " I enjoyed every moment I could, I made the positive differences and I did right by my loved ones and those who helped me in life. "

Maybe I'm just way idealistic but breaking life down to that just makes it feel sort of, why even bother ? Why not then burn it all down, do whatever feels great and screw the rest. A very strange and simple view imo.

Games do not need to be signs of lifes struggle, games should perhaps be able to have competition and ups and downs but at the end they should be what takes you away from the daily struggles. That is why people, mostly, do them. No one I know is fired up to play some warhammer because they can't wait to work it like their job because life is tough so games should be equally tough. I just play it because I enjoy it and it's fun and I can put in it what I want to and take out the same win or lose.

Now people are entitled to their opinion, and I'm no casual for life, but if people feel like they have to work games hard because life is struggle that just feels wrong to me.


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/07 13:47:44


Post by: Unit1126PLL


I do find it interesting that a couple definitions of "casual play" have been provided and (generally) agreed upon in earlier pages, but people say 'you can't talk about it because no one knows what it means' still.


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/07 19:11:05


Post by: Canadian 5th


If people here are so 'casual' why do they care if they play nothing but WAAC tournament grinders? If you care enough to set up a crusade campaign or a narrative game that isn't exactly casual.


Why does nobody talk about casual play? @ 2021/05/07 20:29:57


Post by: Karol


Slipspace wrote:
Karol wrote:
As I said you don't take your teammate out for the glory of the winning score.

How often were you in a situation where out of a 8-12 people in the class only 2 get a sports scholarship, or 1-2 get added to a national youth team?


What does that have to do with 40k? The more relevant question is how often was winning a game of 40k the thing standing between someone and a scholarship? Karol, you really need to stop making these ridiculous comparisons and start to understand that your situation is only one of a large number of very different situations. 40k is not an Olympic sport, it's not getting people scholarships to prestigious schools or universities. Even if an activity could have that sort of importance riding on its outcome, that's never the only situation where that activity is done. Winning Wimbledon in tennis or the US Open in golf are some of the top accolades a professional sportsperson can achieve. But I can play tennis or golf as a social activity, with the final score less relevant than the chance to spend time with friends doing a mutually enjoyable activity.


It doesn't have to be olympics. And by the way, people do the same thing to each other without scholarships. All it takes is for two streets or blocks to play against each other, specially when people are watching or when people just plain don't like each other. Yes scholarship examples are the easiest for me to think about, because this is my daily life. What kind of a example do you want me to give, that people at work do the same stuff to each other, that siblings do it to get inheritance etc. Doesn't mean that stuff can't be enjoyable. Also the prerequisit of having friends to play w40k is another one of those bizzar ones for me, that come along with the gigantic multi army collections, own houses to play games and cars to transport those collections so you can pre build armies on the spot. w40k cost a ton of money, a lot of people don't even finish getting an army, because the struggle is so hard and the nerfs to armies, so big. Nothing which is that expensive can be considered casual.


Also if you think the results are unimportant, buy and build an army and then lose every game with it for 3 years, while seeing it nerfed over and over again. While watching other people who bought stuff like tablets or bikes with their money, have fun on a daily basis. Do it for 3 years and we can talk about mutally enjoyable activities.