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.

How come Timmah’s arguments always break down to MTG vs. 40k.

Timmah, can you make an argument without using MTG?

Timmah, your comparaison can never be accurate. MTG uses a closed system of tactics, that is each game is essentially the same with the only variable being card draws.

40k on the other hand has so many other variables in their more open system of tactics, that each game is going to be much different compared to MTG.

I used to play MTG competitively (standard), but found 40k to be much more enjoyable - and even less expensive.

The game of 40k is exponentially more diverse than MTG due to its relative tactical and strategical complexity. The lists have proven to be just as diverse as is evident by so many different lists winning tournaments. Net-decking is far more common than net-listing, making 40k lists more variable than MTG decks.

edit: What I'm trying to get at is the comparaison holds no real value, because the games are too different.

Blackmoor wrote:How come Timmah’s arguments always break down to MTG vs. 40k.

Timmah, can you make an argument without using MTG?

I've yet to see it happen

Ok, I can do my exact same argument using a different game system if that is ok. Sorry that I like to put references in to show how it has worked before. (precedence...)

In Starcraft and warcraft 3, tournaments are pasted all over the internet. You can watch them with commentary to learn build orders, tactics, ect. The community puts a lot of effort into getting these out to the other community members.

Critics of these are welcomed by the community and it grows on it by thinking up new ways to counter the effective strats that are used.

People sometimes get lucky with a crappy strategy that was the correct call at the time. (4 pool zerg) Sometimes it just works because your opponent isn't prepared for it. However it isn't decreed as the best strat ever. Also a lot of these are 3 game sets so you only get 1/2 your win using it.

The community breaks down wins, discusses new strats ect. They have a very open community. 40k players as a community have a very closed community when compared to other gaming systems. I guess I don't know how to explain this any better.

Timmah wrote:Ok, I can do my exact same argument using a different game system if that is ok. Sorry that I like to put references in to show how it has worked before. (precedence...)

In Starcraft and warcraft 3, tournaments are pasted all over the internet. You can watch them with commentary to learn build orders, tactics, ect. The community puts a lot of effort into getting these out to the other community members.

Critics of these are welcomed by the community and it grows on it by thinking up new ways to counter the effective strats that are used.

People sometimes get lucky with a crappy strategy that was the correct call at the time. (4 pool zerg) Sometimes it just works because your opponent isn't prepared for it. However it isn't decreed as the best strat ever. Also a lot of these are 3 game sets so you only get 1/2 your win using it.

The community breaks down wins, discusses new strats ect. They have a very open community. 40k players as a community have a very closed community when compared to other gaming systems. I guess I don't know how to explain this any better.

Forgive me if this is presumptuous but I would like to point you too the following link: http://www.logicalfallacies.info/relevance/weak-analogy/. Weak Analogy Fallacy. You're basic argument boils down to: 40k and <insert game> are both strategy games, so they must share similar characteristics. They don't. Granted I haven't played to many games (that's why I said forgive me for being presumptuous), but I read through the rule book and wonder why on earth you try comparing these things. It's like comparing a game of Chess to USMC Combat Doctrine. Yeah they have a few things in common, but there really is no valid ground for comparison you're making. Nothing wrong with analogy or comparison, but you need to make sure the comparison is a valid, which so far I don't think yours have been. EDIT: Now that I think of it my Chess USMC analogy probably sucks too lol XD.

Granted I get your final point, and perfectly understand what you mean in the end about your opinion on the community. I actually think my initial opinion is that you're right, and from reading all the stuff here I kind of don't see the same "competitive" edge I've seen in other games sites present here (though I don't really miss people being at each other's throats or the regular verbal smack down that follows when someone says something really really stupid). So I kind of agree with you at a first glance, the problem is, your constant use of a logical fallacy distracts everyone from your point and weakens your argument.

I thought this forum is for the discussion of 40k. Aren't there a plethora of MtG forums elsewhere to take your discussion?

G

Really, my experience about MtG community was that 99% of the players had EXTREMELY narrow views about what cards and concepts were viable. It was not at all like the Utopia of Information you present it is - unless it has dramatically chanced since I played.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Timmah wrote:
Secondly, I already said I am very bull headed when it comes to what I think is good. However I am always for critiquing lists and talking about what I think is good or bad (usually this one). People get very offended on here though if your opinion differs from theirs.

As I recall, when I saw you criticizing 'Ard Boyz Marine list, you began "How did that list do so well?" and concluded in your next message that it must have been because tournament was weak. Thus, you instantly rejected the possibility that the list was actually good, because it didn't fit to your perceptions of "good list".

"O Kettle! Thou art so black!" said the pot.

Backfire wrote:Really, my experience about MtG community was that 99% of the players had EXTREMELY narrow views about what cards and concepts were viable. It was not at all like the Utopia of Information you present it is - unless it has dramatically chanced since I played.

I agree. What is the point of me posting a list that I use. If I think the list is good, then why do I need a critique? I already won with the list. If the point is to show people winning lists they can learn from, then they won't really learn just from a list on paper. As many people have pointed out they will only truely learn by experimenting and playing games with their own lists.

Here is the secret of being a good 40k player and making good lists.

Step 1: make a list

Step 2: play a game with the list

Step 3: Reflect on your game and see what beat you

Step 4: Add unit(s) to counter what you lost to or change in game strategy.

Repeat at step 1


You will need to go through this 4 step process about 10-15 times against different lists.

By Jove he's got it!



G

Sense has been restored!

I don't see whats so difficult about it for everyone to agree that we have a very closed community.

I am not saying 40k and starcraft are the same game or even close to the same.
However their communities react very differently when it comes to the competitive element of it.

Heck we don't even know what the power builds are in 40k currently because no one ever posts crap about tournaments outside of a bat rep here or there.

DarthDiggler wrote:
Here is the secret of being a good 40k player and making good lists.

Step 1: make a list

Step 2: play a game with the list

Step 3: Reflect on your game and see what beat you

Step 4: Add unit(s) to counter what you lost to or change in game strategy.

Repeat at step 1
You will need to go through this 4 step process about 10-15 times against different lists.

There is so many things wrong with this I can't even begin to say anything about it...

You have a lot of balls for someone who has never won any major event.

G

Timmeh, I don’t think the things you’re striving for are necessarily bad things. But I do think you’ll catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. I also think that probably the best way you can start to achieve the results you want is by posting in-depth tactics posts yourself.

It is not being bullheaded for successful players to refuse, or not have the time, to explain everything to you, or us. If we want to learn to be better players, and understand why the winners win, it behooves us to do the study and put in the work. Nor is it bullheaded to not accept at face value comments from the peanut gallery about how their lists could be better, or how their competition was not really competitive. They have demonstrated success. The burden of proof is on the critic to show how they could do better, or how we could do better.

This is a very time-intensive hobby, and I think what you are perceiving as “bullheaded”ness is more that many of the most competitive gamers do not presently feel like investing their time into basically teaching other people better warhammer online.

There are some exceptions. I tend to find that one of the best places to look is in Battle Reports, as competitive players may well enjoy posting reports from tournaments, and they often give some insight into their tactics.

Given that your current approach seems unlikely to succeed at persuading current tourney-winning players to start giving classes, I can suggest two types of threads to try.

1. Discussions of currently successful lists, with reasoned analysis of what they bring and don’t bring in general, match ups against particular armies and in particular missions. This idea is one in which you may successfully solicit feedback from the players of the armies themselves. If you ask directed, respectful questions, you may elicit useful feedback on the reasoning behind the choices those players made.

You could start with threads on Blackmoor, Darkwynn, Shep, and/or Darth Diggler’s lists, based on the comments they’ve already made here (and on BOLS, for Darkwynn). You could copy & paste their comments from the tournament & battle report notes, for easy reference in said new threads. Bear in mind that you need to start from the assumption that there are reasons behind what they choose to take. Sometimes the reasons may not be pure winning/killing power, but given that battle points are still the dominant factor for tourney success, these lists MUST have something going for them.

While I know you’re aware of most of these already, I’m going to link several battle reports which include tactical commentary. I’m also including a Warhammer Fantasy report by Jarrett Messing, a top US WH player, who just won his first GT this past September. It’s a very detailed report, with some really excellent insights.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/262479.page
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/217900.page#375310
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/261905.page
http://warmongers.ziggyqubert.com/wmbb/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=7640&hilit=necro+battle+report

2. Discussions of actual tabletop tactics. How and why to deploy in certain ways, or use reserve to advantage. How to deploy in response to particular enemy tactics or builds. How to maneuver to achieve a Win in Capture & Control with a Spearhead deployment, which is a mission/deployment combination which has a reputation for producing Draws.

These types of threads tend to be pretty complex and time-consuming. Describing tabletop situations in detail tends to take a lot of words, and/or good diagrams. Panzerleader has recently started a couple threads like this in the Tactics forum;I think they have some really solid ideas and might make a good starting point. One issue here is that I think a large number of forum posters don’t really want to put a lot of time and effort into posting. You’ll note that Panzerleader’s first Challenge post drew quite a bit of feedback and a good number of posts. The second gave a more detailed scenario, with excellent questions and a great diagram, but drew only one response.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/262935.page
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/259930.page
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/260838.page

Green Blow Fly wrote:You have a lot of balls for someone who has never won any major event.

G

If only those who have won "major events" are allowed to participate this is going to be very, very quiet discussion.

That's not what he's saying. He's saying that hectoring and talking down to the players who have shown success is probably not the best way to...
a) elicit their assistance
or
b) convince us of his own insight

Green Blow Fly wrote:

Deadshane1 wrote:

I'm probably almost as good a 40k player as Marc...

...and here is a good example of not reading the ENTIRE sentence therefore taking the idea that was meant, trashing it, then drawing an incorrect conclusion.

...besides the fact its off topic.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Green Blow Fly wrote:You have a lot of balls for someone who has never won any major event.

G

pot/kettle

Green Blow Fly wrote:You have a lot of balls for someone who has never won any major event.

G

Actually I just won the "Timmah Fan Club Open 40k tournament" it was a grueling 1 round match with the 1 other person that showed.

I thought more people would show, but I am betting travel costs and such were too high.


I am not saying being bull headed is an insult. Sometimes its required to weed through the BS. But when you only accept the comments that praise your list, its usually a bad thing. You don't get any communications going. Also, there are very few intensive bat reps where people lose or do moderately well. These middle of the pack players are usually the ones grinding it out with other great players and just getting draws because of luck of the draw and the skill of their opponent.

No offense, but someone posting how they destroyed 5 other players that were below there skill level doesn't really show tactics and such. (not pointing fingers at anyone, but it seems to be the way it goes if you are going to get best overall)

Anyways, I don't mean it as an insult that our hobby is very closed when it comes to info. Its a lot of work to type of players lists without something like army building. Maybe we need a better way of accepting tournament lists. Like the normal paper sheet as well as a flash drive with a army builder file on it of your army. So that the TO can easily publish the lists and what order you finished.

It just seems like a lot of people are resistant to this because they feel like they will lose their competitive edge if people know their list/tactics.

Imo you get more competitive events when everyone is on close to the same page information wise. You should win based on your player skill, not because you found the counter to everyones list (maybe one event, but after that it should be out there for the public)

Timmah wrote:I don't see whats so difficult about it for everyone to agree that we have a very closed community.

I am not saying 40k and starcraft are the same game or even close to the same.
However their communities react very differently when it comes to the competitive element of it.

Heck we don't even know what the power builds are in 40k currently because no one ever posts crap about tournaments outside of a bat rep here or there.

DarthDiggler wrote:
Here is the secret of being a good 40k player and making good lists.

Step 1: make a list

Step 2: play a game with the list

Step 3: Reflect on your game and see what beat you

Step 4: Add unit(s) to counter what you lost to or change in game strategy.

Repeat at step 1
You will need to go through this 4 step process about 10-15 times against different lists.

There is so many things wrong with this I can't even begin to say anything about it...

Oh please tell me what is wrong with this. I have used this formula myself to win 7 Chicagoland galdiators including Adepticon, to win the Adepticon team event and finish in the top 5 two other times, to finish in the top 10 in the ard Boyz both years I played, and to win or finish with the most Battle points in innumerable tournaments since 1999. You see you force me to recite my resume because it shows that this idea works. You are looking for a shortcut to success and that is the path of a failure. Anything worth having in life needs to be worked for and you need to work to get a good list.

DarthDiggler wrote:

Oh please tell me what is wrong with this. I have used this formula myself to win 7 Chicagoland galdiators including Adepticon, to win the Adepticon team event and finish in the top 5 two other times, to finish in the top 10 in the ard Boyz both years I played, and to win or finish with the most Battle points in innumerable tournaments since 1999. You see you force me to recite my resume because it shows that this idea works. You are looking for a shortcut to success and that is the path of a failure. Anything worth having in life needs to be worked for and you need to work to get a good list.

Honestly, you know what my response is going to be, so I am not even going to state my opinion because its just going to open up a flame war. So just pretend I had no comment on your list building ideas.

Ok?

(I retract them in favor of continuing the current discussion)

(Edited) ...who wants the candy, but doesn't want to do the work to get the candy.

Timmah wrote:I am not saying being bull headed is an insult. Sometimes its required to weed through the BS. But when you only accept the comments that praise your list, its usually a bad thing.

Yes, it's a bad thing. And when you accuse people of only accepting praise, you are insulting them. That may be what you perceive has happened in those threads, but I think you need to practice a little bit more self-awareness and care in your posting. In my observation every time you have received a "closed" response it's been in reaction to an insulting and/or confrontational approach from you.

Timmah wrote:You don't get any communications going. Also, there are very few intensive bat reps where people lose or do moderately well. These middle of the pack players are usually the ones grinding it out with other great players and just getting draws because of luck of the draw and the skill of their opponent.

I'd encourage you to go back through Blackmoor's older reports. He's got a pretty good number of moderate results as well.

Timmah wrote:No offense, but someone posting how they destroyed 5 other players that were below there skill level doesn't really show tactics and such. (not pointing fingers at anyone, but it seems to be the way it goes if you are going to get best overall)

And you manage to squeeze another shot in, cheapening the achievements of people who've won Best Overall. In my experience most tournaments don't give you multiple opportunities to "club baby seals". You might get a lucky draw round one against a soft opponent, but usually a very high Battles score after round one immediately puts you up against someone good.

That aside, I think there are some other good reports out there. The really great ones tend to be rare, as they require a lot of work to produce. But there's certainly a large pool of them to draw from.

I think a cool, productive exercise for you might be to dig through the battle reports forum and articles section and come up with ten or twelve detailed ones that give real tactical insight. We could then have a "best of" thread, and maybe some focused tactical threads talking about lessons learned from given reports. That kind of positive feedback might also encourage more people to post really high-quality reports which properly describe tactics and the reasoning behind them.

Mannahnin wrote:

Timmah wrote:I am not saying being bull headed is an insult. Sometimes its required to weed through the BS. But when you only accept the comments that praise your list, its usually a bad thing.

Yes, it's a bad thing. And when you accuse people of only accepting praise, you are insulting them.

I don't mean it to be, but its usually the case that people praise a bat rep and then move on. Very little discussion actually happens. Now check the 2 I posted in (ardboyz and wildwestshootout). Yes, there was a page or 2 or 5 of flaming, but afterwards there was multiple pages of discussion on how the list worked and why it worked. Sure it was all to prove my position wrong, but it did bring about more insight into the list and ideas behind it.

You've got to start somewhere.

Where else do you propose to start? Are you going to pay tourney-winning players to give classes?

Since I started war gamming back in summer 2008 I've played in a number of RTT's, Indy GTs, 5 game tournaments, and 2 years of 'Ard Boys. I have yet to play the same scenario twice in any tournament. It seems to me that the scenarios end up getting weirder and weirder at each event. Reading about the Wild West Shootout's "Football" and "No terrain" scenarios sends a shiver down my spine. From what I've read, no one liked those scenarios, yet they were 40% of the tournament.

Match ups are as important as the scenario. Would Blackmoor have won against Shep in the 4th "No terrain" scenario? Maybe, either way, I'm guessing that Shep would have had a much better chance of winning that game over the "Football" game they were matched up in. When Skkipper beat me at TSHIFT it was in a kill points mission, I might have lost any other game we played against one another, but IMO the mission type that gave him the best chance to win against me was Kill points. What type of army you are matched up against makes a world of difference in each scenario.

Luck is also huge. But luck can also be aided with sound tactics and solid list building. One of the reasons I've been so fond of my Salamanders has been the twin linking ability. However, if I'm shooting 10+ multi meltas at a single wraithlord and still can't kill it (happened), I'm not going to win the game. On the same token, if I fire assault cannon at the wraithlord and manage to get hot with rending and do three wounds the game has a much better chance of going well for me (happened as well). It is up to me as a general to build a list and use tactics to get by on what I consider "Average Luck." If I lose the game because I rolled nothing but 1’s or 2’s I’m fine, but if I screw up and attack the wrong units, then I’m pretty hard on myself.

More often than not I tend to find myself on the first couple of tables going into the second day of 5 game tournaments. I’ve yet to win anything, but see myself making fewer tactical mistakes. List building is a big part of my success, but I’ve come to find that what I like to use may not be other players first pick. My most effective units might not show up on a “best of” list, but they fill a roll in my army. Most generals have evolved past the need of a “Best of” list and know what they are lo0oking for in an army.

I think that most tournament winners are excellent generals who can adept tactics to maximize their force’s ability to perform in a given scenario against the opponent they are paired with. However, no matter how good the list or match-up is, you’ll still need some luck from the dice to win.

Modquisition on.
As a reminder, guys lets keep this to a slow simmer shall we.

As stated before a main difference between 40k and MTG is that ANY player can make ANY power deck by spending around 50$ in singles (type 2) and invest virtually 0 time

That allows for a much higher competative level imo but 40k you have to spend what, 1000$ on a mech guard army? Or spend tons of time converting a jetlock army? Not to mention painting for any army

Different animal all together.. if there was 0 time involved and it took much money to throw down a top army would you see more of them? Perhaps

People dont "love" their decks in magic quite the same as the army they put tons of hours of themselves into.. That is why you'll never see cookie cutter armies crowd the field

I think if the community as a whole started asking for TO's to publish top 8 or even top 4 lists here (or one of the players who is a member) it would go a long way in starting to open up conversation on what the winning builds are.

If you start having 2-3 (theres that many small rtt's a week across the US right?) posts a week with top 4 lists, you can very quickly start to break down which lists are succeeding and which lists aren't.



@Kirasu
A competitive Type 2 deck is going to run you close to $300-$400.

The barrier is more in how fast you can set up either. MTG takes shipping time. 40K takes shipping and painting time.

But yes, people are much more resistant to change in 40k than they are in MTG.

Youd then have to further break down the lists by demographics area because 40k isnt as easy to just "change" lists as a card game

The metagame in MTG is virtually world wide with the same lists winning and then the same counter lists countering.. and then the same countering counter lists!

Look at deck.. Press "add to cart"..then check mail voila power deck

Not gonna happen in 40k on any more than an extremely small scale (IE 2 players)

Seriously comparing Shipping time vs assembling + painting time? :p 2 days and ZERO of your hours invested vs shipping time + tons of your hours invested?

40k definitely has more barriers to entry than Magic. That's not a good thing, though. A 40k army will generally run you about 200-800 dollars plus painting time, which is a sizable investment. Changing your build usually requires further time and money. This is unfortunately not good for competitive play, as it makes shifting builds generally difficult. In ideal competitive scenarios, shifting builds or strategies has no cost other than your mental retooling and takes no time; making a 40k army can take months and costs hundreds of dollars.


In order to make 40k more competitive, I would do the following things:

-Mandate one points value (probably 2,000) for all major tournaments
-Come up with a system for regulating tournament scenarios to prevent "screw you" missions like those seen at the Wild West Shootout (and, to a lesser extent, 'Ard Boyz)
-Come up with a unified FAQ and ruling system to keep rules consistent
-Publish tournament results online, preferably with a ranking system

This would put everyone as much on the same page as possible. Obviously, differences in terrain and so on make it so that you can't totally standardize games-- and that's a good thing! However, some action should be taken to draw down the current craziness.

Note that all these things could be done by the community without any action on GW's part. These changes obviously wouldn't turn 40k into a perfect competitive game, but they would be a good improvement over the current system.

I strongly agree with Fetterkey on this point.