Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Anpu42 wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:
I'll ask it again; what about 40k in particular makes it a better game for casual, laid back, narrative oriented gaming?

How about it is a broken game with no balance therefore it is best when between a few a few friends who understand what the issue are and can overlook them.

Something you wont find at your LFGS unless you are real lucky, I know I am not one of those and they is why I play in my Dinning Room with like minded people while munching on Cheetos and drinking Red's Apple Ale. [Something else you cant do at the LFGS]

That doesn't make 40K better at being a casual game, it makes it unfit for anything else.

 EVIL INC wrote:
Scroll up and you will be able to re-read the answer you are looking for specifically laid out as you asked.

Where?

Anyone else, feel free to point out what I'm missing.

 EVIL INC wrote:
I said it was designed specifically for that environment.

HOW is it specifically designed for that environment? What specific aspects of 40k are optimized for that kind of gaming? When you answer these questions please remember that "the game sucks too much for anything else" is not an acceptable answer.

 Azreal13 wrote:

 Anpu42 wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:
I'll ask it again; what about 40k in particular makes it a better game for casual, laid back, narrative oriented gaming?

How about it is a broken game with no balance therefore it is best when between a few a few friends who understand what the issue are and can overlook them.

Something you wont find at your LFGS unless you are real lucky, I know I am not one of those and they is why I play in my Dinning Room with like minded people while munching on Cheetos and drinking Red's Apple Ale. [Something else you cant do at the LFGS]

That doesn't make 40K better at being a casual game, it makes it unfit for anything else.

But does not it being unfit for everything else, but in the casual home environment make it Better in the casual home environment or do I not understand what better is?

 Azreal13 wrote:
That doesn't make 40K better at being a casual game, it makes it unfit for anything else.

Exactly. There seems to be this bizarre idea that 40k must be good at something, so if it sucks for competitive play it must be awesome for casual games to make up for it. In reality the rules just suck in general, and the things that make it bad for competitive play are also problems in every other environment.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Anpu42 wrote:
But does not it being unfit for everything else, but in the casual home environment make it Better in the casual home environment or do I not understand what better is?

You're misunderstanding the question. It's not "is 40k better in a casual or competitive environment" it's "is 40k a better casual game than X-Wing/Infinity/MTG/etc".

 Blacksails wrote:

 EVIL INC wrote:
Scroll up and you will be able to re-read the answer you are looking for specifically laid out as you asked.

Where?

Anyone else, feel free to point out what I'm missing.

I suspect we're being EVILed. You know, where he's got a different copy of the thread to everyone else?

Double post

 Azreal13 wrote:


I suspect we're being EVILed. You know, where he's got a different copy of the thread to everyone else?

I'm not even mad.

Its just amazing at this point.

 EVIL INC wrote:
Youve never played a game n your dining room without caring who wins or loses so long as you enjoy spending time with your buddies while you snack and drink beer (or in my case soda)? You know where you can stop mid game to go on a pizza run or stop and watch a movie and come back and just pick up where you left off because there was no pressure on time? Where if someone thinks they can do something and moves their model they are allowed to move it back since they were confused? Where you can have a game master set up the table according to a custom scenerio they designed and want to run the others through and the others are happy for the challenge? This is the sort of game 40k was originally designed for. To me, this is a "beer and prezels" game. If I got my terminology wrong, I'm sorry.

This is what we call a casual game environment, this is pretty much how every game that my group plays goes......except for the not caring at all about winning and losing. I am not WAAC, I don't want to win EVERY game I play, I don't expect to win EVERY game I play; is it too much to ask of a game that it doesn't require some type of full discussion beforehand to make sure that the game can be competitive? While the main point of playing a game is to have fun, it is disingenuous to make a game that has opposing sides and not to expect people to want to win the game. It is not narrative, and it is certainly not fun, for a game to be over in turn 2 or 3 because your army is totally outclassed by your opponent's army no matter what you do; it is also not narrative when you have to discuss with your opponent/group beforehand how your list is going to be built, or disregard whatever portion of units in your army because if you field them you are already losing. You can play casual games with balanced rules and it is so much easier to do so, and it would also be more narrative because you could use units in your army that are fluffy and narrative without having your army gimped from the outset. I completely stopped going to my local game store simply because making sure that you can have an enjoyable pickup game is a chore. The type of game that "Beer n Pretzels" seems to denote is one where the 2 players don't care about the outcome, but if that is the case, why play a game at all? At that point, you can just talk about all the great things that your units and characters do in battle.

Once more. Some games are designed with playing in that specific environment in mind. That does not make it better in that environment, only that is is not played as well outside of it. You are changing my words to say that it is better inside that environment which is quite possibly untrue. Better than some worse than others depending on the individual game.

The point you are trying to hide and circle about is that when you try to play a game in a way it was not specifically designed for, it will not play near as well as when played as it was intended. This is what was done when it was taken from RT to modern ultra competative international tournament scene.
Without basic fundamental changes, it just does not play near as well as games that were intended for this scene from their very beginning.

 EVIL INC wrote:
Once more. Some games are designed with playing in that specific environment in mind. That does not make it better in that environment, only that is is not played as well outside of it.

Okay, still not answering my question, but I'll least take it as an admission 40k is not the best, or even a good game for any environment.

Irrelevant and poor comparison about polo...

The point you are trying to hide and circle about is that when you try to play a game in a way it was not specifically designed for, it will not play near as well as when played as it was intended. This is what was done when it was taken from RT to modern ultra competative international tournament scene.
Without basic fundamental changes, it just does not play near as well as games that were intended for this scene from their very beginning.

I'm not hiding or circling about anything. I asked a very simple question. Perhaps you may be confusing your own posts for hiding and circling?

Amazingly enough, you've still failed to actually answer my question.

Once more. Some games are designed with playing in that specific environment in mind. That does not make it better in that environment, only that is is not played as well outside of it. You are changing my words to say that it is better inside that environment which is quite possibly untrue. Better than some worse than others depending on the individual game.
let me give you an example. polo is a game designed to played riding horses, swinging the long hammer like clubs and such out in an open field. That is the environment is is designed to be played in. NOW, try to play the same game, same number of horses and so forth without any changes in a 2.5' by 4' bathtub. You will find that the game does not play nearly as well.
The point you are trying to hide and circle about is that when you try to play a game in a way it was not specifically designed for, it will not play near as well as when played as it was intended. This is what was done when it was taken from RT to modern ultra competative international tournament scene.
Without basic fundamental changes, it just does not play near as well as games that were intended for this scene from their very beginning.

 EVIL INC wrote:
Some games are designed with playing in that specific environment in mind.

So are you ever going to explain how 40k is designed to be played in this environment, as opposed to being so horrible in every other environment that playing "beer and pretzels" games is the only way to salvage it? You could start your answer by giving some examples of parts of the game that function especially well in a "beer and pretzels" environment, compared to alternative ways of doing those parts in a similar game that is designed for competitive play.

Edit: and oh good, now we come to the part of the "discussion" where you just keep copy/pasting your previous posts and ignoring all of the questions or responses you get.

Peregrine, you'll have to get your hands on a copy of Rogue Trader. You will see for yourself. I sold my copy a few years back.

 EVIL INC wrote:
Peregrine, you'll have to get your hands on a copy of Rogue Trader. You will see for yourself. I sold my copy a few years back.

Translation: I'm not going to give you an answer, do all of my work for me and come up with an answer that you think I should have said.

 EVIL INC wrote:
Peregrine, you'll have to get your hands on a copy of Rogue Trader. You will see for yourself. I sold my copy a few years back.

As I've also asked (this will be third time), in this discussion, are you talking about 40k as it is now, or 40k as it once was.

If the latter, I question the relevance.

 Battlesong wrote:

 EVIL INC wrote:
Youve never played a game n your dining room without caring who wins or loses so long as you enjoy spending time with your buddies while you snack and drink beer (or in my case soda)? You know where you can stop mid game to go on a pizza run or stop and watch a movie and come back and just pick up where you left off because there was no pressure on time? Where if someone thinks they can do something and moves their model they are allowed to move it back since they were confused? Where you can have a game master set up the table according to a custom scenerio they designed and want to run the others through and the others are happy for the challenge? This is the sort of game 40k was originally designed for. To me, this is a "beer and prezels" game. If I got my terminology wrong, I'm sorry.

This is what we call a casual game environment, this is pretty much how every game that my group plays goes......except for the not caring at all about winning and losing. I am not WAAC, I don't want to win EVERY game I play, I don't expect to win EVERY game I play; is it too much to ask of a game that it doesn't require some type of full discussion beforehand to make sure that the game can be competitive? While the main point of playing a game is to have fun, it is disingenuous to make a game that has opposing sides and not to expect people to want to win the game. It is not narrative, and it is certainly not fun, for a game to be over in turn 2 or 3 because your army is totally outclassed by your opponent's army no matter what you do; it is also not narrative when you have to discuss with your opponent/group beforehand how your list is going to be built, or disregard whatever portion of units in your army because if you field them you are already losing. You can play casual games with balanced rules and it is so much easier to do so, and it would also be more narrative because you could use units in your army that are fluffy and narrative without having your army gimped from the outset. I completely stopped going to my local game store simply because making sure that you can have an enjoyable pickup game is a chore. The type of game that "Beer n Pretzels" seems to denote is one where the 2 players don't care about the outcome, but if that is the case, why play a game at all? At that point, you can just talk about all the great things that your units and characters do in battle.

The advantage though of the casual home environment is after a few times you no longer Need to have those discussions because they we worked out last time. You can then focus on the other things like creating fun scenarios and things like that.
One of the most fun games we ever did was a "Magnificent 7" Scenario.
I brought 7 Character and Our Ork player just took all of his Orks [About 2,000 Points, No Vehicles, but Bikes were ok].
We played for a few turns and then we calculated my points vs how many of Points of Orks I killed off. If I killed off more Points than my points I won [I did].

This is what Unbound should be about.

I hail from Rogue Trader era, I've no idea the point he's trying to make.

I only came in for the softback version, maybe the hardback has some mysticism I'm heretofore unaware of.

 Anpu42 wrote:
The advantage though of the casual home environment is after a few times you no longer Need to have those discussions because they we worked out last time. You can then focus on the other things like creating fun scenarios and things like that.
One of the most fun games we ever did was a "Magnificent 7" Scenario.
I brought 7 Character and Our Ork player just took all of his Orks [About 2,000 Points, No Vehicles, but Bikes were ok].
We played for a few turns and then we calculated my points vs how many of Points of Orks I killed off. If I killed off more Points than my points I won [I did].

This is what Unbound should be about.

In that scenario (environment and all) I question the necessity of a 'rule' like Unbound. What I'm gathering about your environment is that you could have previously done anything you wanted so long as it was agreed upon by your friends. In that case, your group wouldn't need Unbound to be published.

For pick up gamers, Unbound creates another hoop to jump through at best, and at worst provides a barrier between players. As a rule, I think its absolutely useless in what it provides to the player base. Groups like yourselves don't need to be told they can do what they want, and it only serves to hamper the pick up and tournament/league gamers.

So your saying you have personal knowledge of my finances over the last 10 years as to exactly which of my gaming supplies I have sold and not sold and why? Exactly how have you gained this knowledge because it can not have been through any legal means.

For the at least 3rd time now.

I did NOT say RT or even current 40k was better played in a basement than any other game in existance past present or future.

I DID say that it was originally(RT) designed to not be played in an ultra competetive tournament environment. I would probobly go on to say not in any kind of tournament environment but PURELY for light entertainment (such as would normally be played in the "basement".
This is not to say it is better in the basement than any other game just that it was not really designed to be played outside of it.

Other games can be played in the basement just as easily and effectively and you can have just as much fun doing it.
(please note this is not about which is a better game overall) HOWEVER, many of the other games were designed to also be played competetively (or outside of the basement). For example chess. This means that those other games are more well rounded and likely more balanced because of that.

That IS the point. 40k has been turned into an international ultra competative tournament game when it was not originally designed to be that. When the game designers sat about and created the game. I am sure the conversations went more along the lines of

"ELVES IN SPACE!! Lets give them ninja star guns and jetbikes!"
"Only if I get to have my space dwarves wearing sunglasses and cigars"
"*general laughter* SURE, you can have your space dwarves."
"whispers amongst the others* "givem a few years and then the dwarves are GONE. GONE I say."

Rather than anything along the lines of what was going to be allowed in tournaments or rulings on FAQs.

 EVIL INC wrote:
So your saying you have personal knowledge of my finances over the last 10 years as to exactly which of my gaming supplies I have sold and not sold and why? Exactly how have you gained this knowledge because it can not have been through any legal means.

wat

For the at least 3rd time now.

Oh boy.

I did NOT say RT or even current 40k was better played in a basement than any other game in existance past present or future.

Would you like me to quote, again where you explicitly stated 40k was designed for basement/casual/whatever gameplay, more than other games? Which, as I've asked, what about 40k makes it better for that kind of play. The connection being that a game designed for that kind of play ought to be better for that kind of play, otherwise we can reasonably conclude that the game was either not designed for that or failed in its attempt.

I DID say that it was originally(RT) designed to not be played in an ultra competetive tournament environment. I would probobly go on to say not in any kind of tournament environment but PURELY for light entertainment (such as would normally be played in the "basement".
This is not to say it is better in the basement than any other game just that it was not really designed to be played outside of it.

Okay, so RT wasn't designed for tournaments. The relevance of that is...?

How that ties in with the thread is that the unbound is a step back towards the time of RT.
My feelings on thats in the frame of mind and intentions of how you build your unboundlist. You can be making an ultra killy tourney list or you could be making a pure fluff weaker list for fun.

My feeling are that 2 seperate sets of rules could work. One set up for the just for fun fluffy games in a relaxed environment (what I mistakenly called a beer and pretzels game". this set could include stuff like unbound because you wouldnt really have anything to gain by "abusing" it.
Another set of rules for tournament environments with much more balance which would likely require a total rewrite.
This way, you could make both "sides" happy or at least less unhappy.

But you've still failed to explain what makes a game "casual" and why a "casual" game has to be different from a game with good rules?

Well feth me and call me Suzy.

A fairly clear point from EVIL!

I mean, it doesn't answer any of my questions, and its side stepped a lot of the earlier issues, but its at least on topic and understandable.

Yes, two sets of rules is one way of doing that. Downside is that it would end up dividing the playerbase into two large camps with floaters in betwee. Upside is that distinction would be clear and clean.

I'd just prefer one good ruleset. A good, concise, well written and well balanced rule set caters equally to the fluffiest of casual fluff bunnies as it does to the hardest of winningest tournament goers, and everyone in between.

To that end, I feel Unbound is completely, 100% useless. Its lazy, it causes more problems than it solves, and its fairly comical, as far as rules go.

To the OP:

Unbound doesn't necessarily break the game, it just opens the door and invites the bull into the china shop. Unbound used to be a thing that friendly players could agree upon before hand.

"I want to play an all Terminators, Dreadnaughts, and other 1st company stuff next time." "Ok, I want to play all Tanks next time, let's play a Cleanse mission and it can be your boys dropping into my tank company's compound to try to prevent them being used two games from now..."

"Hey Bud, I want to try out a scout company for my Guard, I'm going to use a lot of Fast Attack choices, and all my units will be embarked in transports, even if they normally couldn't. That cool?"

It was the sort of thing you needed to agree with an opponent before you set up. Such battles weren't necessarily about a competitive, "Fair" game. It was about trying something fun. It wasn't FORCED on competitive players. Fluffy players could still play fluffy when they wanted, because they weren't terribly concerned about the rules to begin with.

Even in 7th, so long as players aren't actively trying to dump a load on their opponents, unbound isn't too bad. It's all about the reward for winning. If the guys you play against view the rush of the win as being more important than a mutually enjoyable game... that's their personalities. If money is on the line, they have every reason to try to win at all costs. It's not bad, but maybe not what you're into.

I'd like a tighter rule set, with better balance, and such, but I've been playing for 18 years, and enjoyed every edition for it's own merits. I'm lucky to still play against most of the guys I started with, so we all have pretty similar ideas about "good form". Hopefully, you either find some people with a different play-style, or you can convince your buddies to try more "conventional" 40k again.

 Blacksails wrote:
Well feth me and call me Suzy.

A fairly clear point from EVIL!

I mean, it doesn't answer any of my questions, and its side stepped a lot of the earlier issues, but its at least on topic and understandable.

Yes, two sets of rules is one way of doing that. Downside is that it would end up dividing the playerbase into two large camps with floaters in betwee. Upside is that distinction would be clear and clean.

I'd just prefer one good ruleset. A good, concise, well written and well balanced rule set caters equally to the fluffiest of casual fluff bunnies as it does to the hardest of winningest tournament goers, and everyone in between.

To that end, I feel Unbound is completely, 100% useless. Its lazy, it causes more problems than it solves, and its fairly comical, as far as rules go.

I didnt change anything. I just finally said what you wanted to hear instead of something you disagreed with. That meant that you didnt ignore it.

Call me wishy washy or an idealist. i want everyone to be happy which is just not gonna happen with a single set of rules.
Good points about it diving the player base. Bt dont you think it is already divided? 2 sets of rules was just an off the wall idea and not something I'm putting stock in. like i said, I just started checking into DUST and found that they have 2 set of rules and that the players on their forums actually seem to get along because they all get what they want and have nothing to complain about. Of course, I havnt checked into a LOT of their forums either so cant put a lot of stock in it.

My point about RT not being designed for tournaments is that it is a square peg being pounded into that round hole with only "minor" tweaks in each edition (figure of speach) rather than the total rewrite that is needed to make it effective in that environment.

Azreal13, that is not what I said at all.

 Blacksails wrote:
I'd just prefer one good ruleset. A good, concise, well written and well balanced rule set caters equally to the fluffiest of casual fluff bunnies as it does to the hardest of winningest tournament goers, and everyone in between.

Meh. Fluff bunnies (or purely social players) and hardest of winningest tournament goers make poor opponents, regardless of the rules. It's just a different attitude that can't be reconciled.

To illustrate, let's pick a game with static units, starting positions and rules: a ranked chess player who also wants to win every game is a poor partner for someone who plays just for fun, because a 20-0 scoreboard isn't really interesting to anyone. At some time, one of them will say they're wasting their time.

I guess I'm pretty weird. On computer and console games, I'm fiercely competitive. I mean, I'm not happy if there's a leaderboard and I'm not in the top 10; and I'll pour in 2000 hours and practice the most monotonous things to get there. But in a tabletop wargame, I'm extremely social, and would much rather enjoy the company of other players. I'm the sort of guy where if a game is going really badly for an opponent, and someone else is done at their table, I'll invite them to pop over with a few squads as reinforcements.

 EVIL INC wrote:

Azreal13, that is not what I said at all.

No, I know, I was telling you what you hadn't said. So for you to tell me that what I said was what you hadn't said is somewhat redundant.

 EVIL INC wrote:
I didnt change anything. I just finally said what you wanted to hear instead of something you disagreed with. That meant that you didnt ignore it.

Well, first of all, I never claimed you changed anything.

Second of all, NO ONE was understand ANYTHING you were saying. The problem lies not with me, but squarely with you. If no onse understands what you're saying, you need to re-evaluate how you discuss things and make points.

Call me wishy washy or an idealist. i want everyone to be happy which is just not gonna happen with a single set of rules.

If by everyone, you mean literally every single human being on the planet, then sure. However, a well made ruleset creates positive gaming communities which grow and succeed. Oddly enough, poor rulesets lose players and create poor gaming communities. All it takes is a cursory look at GW and other companies like Corvus Belli or PP.

So yes, a single set of rules can easily please far more people than you give it credit for.

Good points about it diving the player base. Bt dont you think it is already divided? 2 sets of rules was just an off the wall idea and not something I'm putting stock in. like i said, I just started checking into DUST and found that they have 2 set of rules and that the players on their forums actually seem to get along because they all get what they want and have nothing to complain about. Of course, I havnt checked into a LOT of their forums either so cant put a lot of stock in it.

It is already divided. Two sets would just make that distinction clearer. I can't say for sure how it would affect the game, as I suppose Magic has things called formats (unless I'm mistaken) and its doing fine.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Talys wrote:

Meh. Fluff bunnies (or purely social players) and hardest of winningest tournament goers make poor opponents, regardless of the rules. It's just a different attitude that can't be reconciled.

To illustrate, let's pick a game with static units, starting positions and rules: a ranked chess player who also wants to win every game is a poor partner for someone who plays just for fun, because a 20-0 scoreboard isn't really interesting to anyone. At some time, one of them will say they're wasting their time.

I guess I'm pretty weird. On computer and console games, I'm fiercely competitive. I mean, I'm not happy if there's a leaderboard and I'm not in the top 10; and I'll pour in 2000 hours and practice the most monotonous things to get there. But in a tabletop wargame, I'm extremely social, and would much rather enjoy the company of other players. I'm the sort of guy where if a game is going really badly for an opponent, and someone else is done at their table, I'll invite them to pop over with a few squads as reinforcements.

I disagree. I'm going to go out on a limb and assume most wargamers do not self identify as some sort of absolute between casual and tournament, nor does that correlate with desire to create fluffy games.

Purely anecdotal, but it illustrates how your point is flawed. I enjoy competitive games. Wether its 40k, or World of Tanks, I enjoy playing things to the best of my ability. I also enjoy playing purely fluffy, campaign oriented, scenario based matches using a themed list. I will happily throw down against an array of players, and regardless of my list or result in the game, I can be a pleasant opponent.

A well written ruleset would allow people like myself, and any others, to more readily game against a wider array of players without having to re-tool lists to ensure everything is within the same bracket. Further, a better set of rules would also allow for the creation of fluffier lists and have games feel more in line with stated fluff and lore.

Just because someone is a top tournament winner does not mean they can't (or won't) gladly play the most ridiculous themed scenario. A better ruleset benefits people palying themed/scenario games, while it benefits tournaments by being better balanced and having less rules disputes/abuse/gimmicks, thus promoting skill more.

I honestly dont think you make much effort to understand me. It is much more "fun to poke fun at the outsider who has disabilities than try to understand them. Of course, that may just be my view.
I always have a point and it is usually a good one. Not always entirely relevent but always well thought out. I would ask that you have a little patience with me and make an effort to understand rather than just shouting me down and making fun. Unfortunately, that makes it even harder to find the right words.

I'm not saying a single good rule set wouldnt work. I rather think it could. The 2 different sets was just a random idea I thought I'd voice.
MTG has different rule sets or like you said formats. I have a deck or two remnents somewhere but dont really play anymore. I do remember being told I couldnt use them in the big tournament setting because it wasnt legal but that there was another "type 2" or something that was set up "just for fun" where I could use them. Of course, not being a big MTG player, they might have dumbed down the terms for me which I appreciated at the time.