Switch Theme:

Why does nobody talk about casual play?  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in gb
Lit By the Flames of Prospero






 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.
   
Made in us
Second Story Man





Astonished of Heck

 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.

Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Megavolt wrote:They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right.
 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Annandale, VA

 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.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/05/03 18:24:24


   
Made in us
Monster-Slaying Daemonhunter





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.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/05/03 18:29:37


Guardsmen, hear me! Cadia may lie in ruin, but her proud people do not! For each brother and sister who gave their lives to Him as martyrs, we will reap a vengeance fiftyfold! Cadia may be no more, but will never be forgotten; our foes shall tremble in fear at the name, for their doom shall come from the barrels of Cadian guns, fired by Cadian hands! Forward, for vengeance and retribution, in His name and the names of our fallen comrades! 
   
Made in us
Insect-Infested Nurgle Chaos Lord





In My Lab

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.

Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne! 
   
Made in us
Grumpy Longbeard





washington state USA

 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)



GAMES-DUST1947/infinity/B5 wars/epic 40K/5th ed 40K/victory at sea/warmachine/battle tactics/monpoc/battletech/battlefleet gothic/castles in the sky,/heavy gear 
   
Made in us
Daemonic Dreadnought




The dark hollows of Kentucky

 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.
   
Made in us
Insect-Infested Nurgle Chaos Lord





In My Lab

 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.

Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne! 
   
Made in us
Daemonic Dreadnought




The dark hollows of Kentucky

 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.
   
Made in ca
Jinking Ravenwing Land Speeder Pilot



Canada

 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.

All you have to do is fire three rounds a minute, and stand 
   
Made in ca
Longtime Dakkanaut





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
   
Made in us
Monster-Slaying Daemonhunter





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.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/05/03 19:34:11


Guardsmen, hear me! Cadia may lie in ruin, but her proud people do not! For each brother and sister who gave their lives to Him as martyrs, we will reap a vengeance fiftyfold! Cadia may be no more, but will never be forgotten; our foes shall tremble in fear at the name, for their doom shall come from the barrels of Cadian guns, fired by Cadian hands! Forward, for vengeance and retribution, in His name and the names of our fallen comrades! 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut







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.
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran






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!).

Want a better 40K?
Check out ProHammer: Classic - An Awesomely Unified Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition 40K... for retro 40k feels!
 
   
Made in ca
Jinking Ravenwing Land Speeder Pilot



Canada

 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.

All you have to do is fire three rounds a minute, and stand 
   
Made in us
Monster-Slaying Daemonhunter





 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.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/05/03 20:38:21


Guardsmen, hear me! Cadia may lie in ruin, but her proud people do not! For each brother and sister who gave their lives to Him as martyrs, we will reap a vengeance fiftyfold! Cadia may be no more, but will never be forgotten; our foes shall tremble in fear at the name, for their doom shall come from the barrels of Cadian guns, fired by Cadian hands! Forward, for vengeance and retribution, in His name and the names of our fallen comrades! 
   
Made in ca
Longtime Dakkanaut





 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.
   
Made in ca
Jinking Ravenwing Land Speeder Pilot



Canada

Casual play sounds very involved.

All you have to do is fire three rounds a minute, and stand 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut







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.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2021/05/03 21:08:01


 
   
Made in gb
Ultramarine Librarian with Freaky Familiar





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".


They/them

 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut







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.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/05/03 21:12:14


 
   
Made in gb
Ultramarine Librarian with Freaky Familiar





 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.


They/them

 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut







Yeah we basically said the same thing lol
   
Made in ca
Secretive Dark Angels Veteran




Vancouver, BC

To quote DashofPepper:

"Playing is fun. Winning is more fun. So play to win."
   
Made in ca
Jinking Ravenwing Land Speeder Pilot



Canada

 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.

All you have to do is fire three rounds a minute, and stand 
   
Made in us
Monster-Slaying Daemonhunter





 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,

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/05/03 22:08:09


Guardsmen, hear me! Cadia may lie in ruin, but her proud people do not! For each brother and sister who gave their lives to Him as martyrs, we will reap a vengeance fiftyfold! Cadia may be no more, but will never be forgotten; our foes shall tremble in fear at the name, for their doom shall come from the barrels of Cadian guns, fired by Cadian hands! Forward, for vengeance and retribution, in His name and the names of our fallen comrades! 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut







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.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/05/03 22:13:58


 
   
Made in us
Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter







 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).

Balanced Game: Noun. A game in which all options and choices are worth using.
Homebrew oldhammer project: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/790996.page#10896267
Meridian: Necromunda-based 40k skirmish: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/795374.page 
   
Made in us
Monster-Slaying Daemonhunter





 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.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/05/03 22:23:57


Guardsmen, hear me! Cadia may lie in ruin, but her proud people do not! For each brother and sister who gave their lives to Him as martyrs, we will reap a vengeance fiftyfold! Cadia may be no more, but will never be forgotten; our foes shall tremble in fear at the name, for their doom shall come from the barrels of Cadian guns, fired by Cadian hands! Forward, for vengeance and retribution, in His name and the names of our fallen comrades! 
   
Made in us
Mekboy Hammerin' Somethin'




Crescent City Fl..

 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.

"Pathetic earthlings. Hurling your bodies out into the void, without the slightest inkling of who or what is out here. If you had known anything about the true nature of the universe, anything at all, you would've hidden from it in terror."
My blog http://warhead01.blogspot.com/2014/02/the-art-of-ork.html 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: