Xenomancers wrote:karandrasss wrote:bananathug wrote:Get them to try objective based games? I didn't think it was that important until I tried it and realized how many options for wining/losing it opened and how it added another layer onto list building.
I love your idea of trying to come up with local mission packs and having to construct an army that can do more than one type of mission is fun (and that's why we play right?)
And I think you answered your own question because your local meta turns into eldar vs eldar.
DE vs altoric + yanarri. Shining spears vs whatever.
And yeah, then the game turns into who has the biggest model collection/most time/or is willing to spend the most on the new hotness. I'm not sure how that isn't apparent to your group.
It seems like you are a leader in your community (which is awesome!!! thank you for your time!!). Hell try to just organize a one day 3 round tourney using ITC packs and see what happens? If they like to play I think they'll show up and have a good time. I don't think it makes the game worse in any way.
I think the prevailing thought is
40k has always been like that - the "meta" (meta being what's good at killing, ah those five Wraithknight lists...) shifts based on what
GW wants to sell, and that's how the game is played. Funny thing is there are some who would argue there is still strategy in end game objectives when they're almost always afterthoughts. Yeah really hoping this thread will pave the way to a better mission format in my community. It's a reaaaaal tough sell though. Like you come to a game with scoresheets and that's way too much bookkeeping, apparently.
People are pretty set in their ways on this subject. You aren't going to make a difference. Everyone wants to think they are playing
40k the right way and everyone experience with the game is different to.
I play some other games. World of warships and leauge of legends.
If you actaully experience the different metas on different servers you will come to the same conclusion.
In WOWs Russian server is a slug fests - everyone drives full speed at the enemy ships and the games are over in 5-10 minutes with battleships fighting at 2-3km or ramming each other to finish the game. On the US server everyone stays as far apart as they possibly can and fire over islands out of
LOS and the games are often decided by points when the 20 min time limit runs out. Who is playing the game right? Who knows...but they are playing with the same ships.
IMO though - there is no question who is having more fun.
So you think a tabling meta is more fun?
Automatically Appended Next Post: 
Daedalus81 wrote:
Marmatag wrote:Tournament
40k is like blitz chess. 2.5 hours is plenty for 4 turns.
You know I'd be curious to see how the game plays if people played with the expectation for 4 turns.
It almost feels right.
I'm also curious if - with both players looking to table each other and not thinking of objectives at all - 2.5 hours is really too short, with the exception of armies with multiple 20-30 model squads.
