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.

One simple question, why are you still here then? It's been a year already, fantasy isn't going back and you've clearly stated you don't clearly like AoS, that is a bad game. What do you think you're accomplishing here, saving us from a game we actually like because we didn't go and think about how breaking the game since we actually want to ENJOY it instead of breaking it?
You yourself said it: no good game would allow. I wouldn't allow for 10 nagashes, mainly telling the dude in question that he had been a moron and wasted a thousand dollars and didn't want to play against such a boring army. Those things could only be feasible in the naysayer's minds or in cases where people mutually agreed to try and break it together between eacht other, which is fine if that way they have fun between each other.
But no, you and your entitlement need to go and sneer at people commenting how bad is the thing they are enjoying and how they are mightly clubbering the Big Bad Company's knees, since the crisis or other external factor's couldn't have "influenced". By the way, did you know that in this year their finances have IMPROVED? (moderately but it's still an improvement, specially considering that 40k IS declining) B-b-but you and your mighty cohorts of rightfully angered customers are not buying anymore!? How can it be!? Could it be that there was a transition and thus the initial stages weren't as good as the end times of the old setting? Could it be that they have been replacing the mob of salty fans who were impossible to satisfy (I want them to advance the plotlin- to oh no they killed X character, I want them to go back... what the hell are you doing reversing the story!? Backpedaling cowards!) by another one?

Come on let's not devolve this into an argument. We are all having a semi-decent discussion here (although some folks are a bit "passionate" about their viewpoints).

I get Hobojebus' viewpoint, even if I don't agree (because "breaking" AOS on the first day IMHO speaks volumes to the player, not necessarily the game itself, especially when the game straight up says it's more of a social game and you should talk to your opponent).

I'm sorry but I just imagine like this stereotypical nerd (you know the kind, morbidly obese, Gandalf type beard, glasses, smelly) cackling with glee over finding this "killer combo" and relishing how he's going to "pwn all those noobs" at the game shop with it. A bit far-fetched perhaps but the idea that someone is going to immediately focus on ways to break the game or abuse the rules, as I said before, speaks more to the type of player and less so to the game.

Wayniac wrote:
Yeah. I mean, I want to win too but not at the cost of having fun and, perhaps more so, making sure my opponent has fun too. Usually the no nonsense WAAC mentality that Peregrine seems to espouse results in one player having fun, and the other often wondering why they wasted an entire day just to get steamrolled by some jerk who doesn't care about anything but themselves. This is still a social game, BOTH players should have fun, and if that means the WAAC type needs to not bring X because X is super good, then so be it. For a tournament, then sure bring your A game because the expected setup is that everyone else will too (and in that case the person who doesn't needs to have the right expectations going in). But casual games are the place to ensure both people are having a good time, not one getting blown out because there's no restraint and then, worse trying to justify it by saying that "winning is fun".

Why does the "WAAC" player have an obligation to deliberately use bad strategies while their opponent seems to have no obligation to get better at the game and bring stronger lists/strategies?

Shunning someone who makes for unfun games is the only way the community can deal with that sort of person, otherwise what often happens is that they run everyone else off, and everyone loses.

No, the way to deal with it is to play good games that are balanced enough to handle a person bringing strong lists. For example, when I play X-Wing it works just fine if people bring competitive lists. AoS with points is at least a step in the right direction.

I've heard several horror stories about how the WAAC types come in and, like a Genestealer Cult, begin to infest everything with their mentality so that people who aren't making tournament-level lists just give up, and then eventually the game dies because it's just the same few WAAC types engaging in insularism and isolationism amongst themselves.

I've heard several horror stories about how the "casual" types come in and, like a Genestealer Cult, begin to infest everything with their mentality so that people who aren't making weak "casual" lists just give up, and then eventually the game dies because it's just the same few "casual" types engaging in insularism and isolationism amongst themselves.

 DarkBlack wrote:
hobojebus and Peregrine, you're clearly playing the wrong game. No offence, not liking AoS is fine, really. I know it sucks that Warhammer is no longer what you want from a game. GW, is, however, under no obligation to consider what you want when they decide on the direction they want to go in.
GW wanted to target a market/type of gamer that you are not an example of, sorry I feel for you, AoS is not quite my style either.

Of course GW is under no obligation to make a good product. They're free to publish garbage aimed at a "market" that doesn't exist, and make design decisions that hurt "casual" players. And I don't play AoS, especially no-points AoS. But this is a discussion of "why no-points AoS is bad", not "how much money does everyone spend on AoS".

Not having points is not such a bad idea for a game that is meant to be played casually and definitely declared AoS to be such a game.

No, it's a terrible idea for a game that is meant to be played casually. A casual game should be playable "out of the box" with no time spent on negotiation how to balance it, and that means points.

 Peregrine wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
Yeah. I mean, I want to win too but not at the cost of having fun and, perhaps more so, making sure my opponent has fun too. Usually the no nonsense WAAC mentality that Peregrine seems to espouse results in one player having fun, and the other often wondering why they wasted an entire day just to get steamrolled by some jerk who doesn't care about anything but themselves. This is still a social game, BOTH players should have fun, and if that means the WAAC type needs to not bring X because X is super good, then so be it. For a tournament, then sure bring your A game because the expected setup is that everyone else will too (and in that case the person who doesn't needs to have the right expectations going in). But casual games are the place to ensure both people are having a good time, not one getting blown out because there's no restraint and then, worse trying to justify it by saying that "winning is fun".

Why does the "WAAC" player have an obligation to deliberately use bad strategies while their opponent seems to have no obligation to get better at the game and bring stronger lists/strategies?

Oh please. "WAAC" is not the same as competitive and you know this. Stop pretending that someone being "competitive" automatically equates to "WAAC".

The WAAC player is someone who does not care for a game to be a fair or balanced affair. They want to crush the other player, period.

A good competitive player is someone who can understand what is or is not going to be a fun game for both players.

Shunning someone who makes for unfun games is the only way the community can deal with that sort of person, otherwise what often happens is that they run everyone else off, and everyone loses.

No, the way to deal with it is to play good games that are balanced enough to handle a person bringing strong lists. For example, when I play X-Wing it works just fine if people bring competitive lists. AoS with points is at least a step in the right direction.

It really wasn't. It was a way of effectively adding a second way to play; one which will push out the other versions in certain localities.

I've heard several horror stories about how the WAAC types come in and, like a Genestealer Cult, begin to infest everything with their mentality so that people who aren't making tournament-level lists just give up, and then eventually the game dies because it's just the same few WAAC types engaging in insularism and isolationism amongst themselves.

I've heard several horror stories about how the "casual" types come in and, like a Genestealer Cult, begin to infest everything with their mentality so that people who aren't making weak "casual" lists just give up, and then eventually the game dies because it's just the same few "casual" types engaging in insularism and isolationism amongst themselves.

I'm sure you have...I haven't. Care to share some of them?

Because realistically, in many of those stories? I suspect you'll find out that it was the WAAC player being gradually ostracized for being a jerk.

Win At All Costs. That's WAAC stands for: it means that entertainment be damned, oppoenent input be damned, etc. only the win and the VPs are what matters. This is the problem of the superfriends lists, I suppose we must bring an ironstar if they bring a barkstar, apparently. And don't come with x-wing when I've seen lists utterly trash others in a one sided slaughter.
And curiously enough we can play good games because guess what: we actually communicate and give input to each other regarding how more engaging we can make the match.

Point in case: I and my opponent argued the lists, wondering what we'd like to bring and how we'd counter each other. Then we played and gave tips and inputs to each other. We had a good balanced game that was fun (and epic, that loss of mine was a good comeback on his part). But if someone comes says: I've brought this, I'm going to win, let's play. And his input never goes beyond how to remove my models without ANY interaction with me you can guess that game won't be good and it can happen with ANY game.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Oh please. "WAAC" is not the same as competitive and you know this. Stop pretending that someone being "competitive" automatically equates to "WAAC".

I'm not saying this. But that's the way other people are using WAAC: to describe someone who brings a powerful list and tries to win, not someone who rules lawyers/cheats/etc and actually does whatever it takes to win.

A good competitive player is someone who can understand what is or is not going to be a fun game for both players.

Sure, and then the good competitive player can say "you're obviously not trying to win, I'll play someone else". A competitive game does not, however, include "I'm going to deliberately make bad decisions so that you can have a better chance of winning".

It really wasn't. It was a way of effectively adding a second way to play; one which will push out the other versions in certain localities.

No, it was adding a first way to play. AoS without points is a dead game. AoS with points has at least a chance of working.

I'm sure you have...I haven't. Care to share some of them?

This thread stands as a pretty good example, where people are gleefully celebrating the idea banning anyone who takes a list that is "too powerful".

XWing has this same issue yes. If you are playing xwing competitively and are not running one of the max combo lists, you are going to have a very difficult time.

Warmahordes has the same feature.

Which splits down into those that think if you are good at the game then you should be chasing the meta and using top tier lists or else you are not good, and the other camp which wants to have a good game without having to resort to fielding one of the uber lists.

GHB points help add structure to AOS. That was good. As far as balance, they are pretty shoddy. IMO. YMMV.

WAAC is a player that will do anything to win. They are usually power gamers too, but not all power gamers are WAAC. Powergamers will gleefully break the game if its in the rules to do so, but WAAC players will go a step beyond and also cheat where they can get away with it.

To some that is the same basic difference but technically its not. A power gamer is just breaking the game within the confines of the rules. A waac player is breaking the game and cheating when they can get away with it as well.

 auticus wrote:
XWing has this same issue yes. If you are playing xwing competitively and are not running one of the max combo lists, you are going to have a very difficult time.

Warmahordes has the same feature.

Which splits down into those that think if you are good at the game then you should be chasing the meta and using top tier lists or else you are not good, and the other camp which wants to have a good game without having to resort to fielding one of the uber lists.

GHB points help add structure to AOS. That was good. As far as balance, they are pretty shoddy. IMO. YMMV.

WAAC is a player that will do anything to win. They are usually power gamers too, but not all power gamers are WAAC. Powergamers will gleefully break the game if its in the rules to do so, but WAAC players will go a step beyond and also cheat where they can get away with it.

To some that is the same basic difference but technically its not. A power gamer is just breaking the game within the confines of the rules. A waac player is breaking the game and cheating when they can get away with it as well.

I'm actually reminded of WotC and how they categorize the people who play MtG:

"A Timmy/Tammy is characterized by their tendency to use big creatures and cast big spells. Large, exciting plays motivate them. Timmies are most associated with playing for fun, and all kinds of huge creatures, fantastic spells, and mythical enchantments. They are the most social archetype, enjoying the interaction that Magic provides. A stereotypical Timmy/Tammy is usually a younger player with a simple (yet fun for them) deck. They do not care whether they win or lose, but want to have fun playing really big effects.

Some subgroups of Timmies are:
Power Gamers love playing big creatures and big spells as they smash their way to victory. They equate power with fun.
Social Gamers thrive on the social aspect of the game. Their only interest is interacting with their friends. Thus, they tend towards multiplayer variants.
Diversity Gamers experience all the different deck types and formats. They always try something different because they enjoy constant exploration.
Adrenalin Gamers enjoy the variance in the game, playing cards and decks that don't have a predictable outcome. They love cards that work differently each time you play them like coin flip cards.

Timmies see Johnnies as too focused on certain combos and Spikes too bent on winning.

A Johnny/Jenny is characterized by their tendency to build complex and creative decks. Johnny/Jenny is most commonly known as a 'combo player', and they sometimes choose for elaborate but ineffective win conditions. They like to find interesting combinations of cards that can win the game or give them an advantage. Johnny may be a player who seeks niche cards, or cards widely reputed as bad, and tries to "break" them, exploiting them in ways to give abnormal power and win the game. Johnnies are happiest when their decks work and they win their way; for them, one in many leaves them happy, if that win is on their own terms.

Some subgroups of Johnnies are:
Combo Players are fascinated by the interaction of the cards. They find combinations that no one else has. They want to build decks that will impress all who see them.
Offbeat Designers are driven by ideas. They are proving their ability to find answers for any challenge. What if the deck only had lands? What if the deck never played permanents?
Deck Artists use deck building as a form of self-expressive art. They build decks that do things like embody the elf culture, for example.
Uber Johnny thrives on doing the undoable. He proves that what conventional wisdom says can't be done, can be done. To him, no card is too bad to find a use for like One with Nothing.

Johnnies see Timmies as simplistic and Spikes as uptight and unoriginal.

A Spike (of any gender) is characterized by their competitive nature and they play primarily to prove how good they are. Spike will find the best deck in the format, even if it requires copying another innovator's work (see netdecking). Spike's cards are effective, designed to secure a fast and effective victory over opponents. If Spike plays several games and loses only one, but feels they should have won it, they may be malcontent.

Some subgroups of Spikes are:
Innovators pride themselves on their ability to judge new cards. Their goal is to find the next broken thing. Their dream is to spawn the next dominant deck.
Tuners try to dominate by fine-tuning the known decks. Known as min/maxers in the role-playing side of gaming.
Analysts plan on winning not by having the best deck in a vacuum, but by having the deck best suited for any particular environment. They are very focused on the sideboard.
Nuts & Bolts focuses their energies in perfecting their own gameplay. They try to understand their own internal flaws and work to improve them. They tend to spend more of their time on Limited formats.

Spikes see Timmies as rookies and Johnnies as eccentric and annoying."

The problem with AoS is that it was seemingly designed to appeal to "Timmy" alone.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Oh please. "WAAC" is not the same as competitive and you know this. Stop pretending that someone being "competitive" automatically equates to "WAAC".

I'm not saying this. But that's the way other people are using WAAC: to describe someone who brings a powerful list and tries to win, not someone who rules lawyers/cheats/etc and actually does whatever it takes to win.

A good competitive player is someone who can understand what is or is not going to be a fun game for both players.

Sure, and then the good competitive player can say "you're obviously not trying to win, I'll play someone else". A competitive game does not, however, include "I'm going to deliberately make bad decisions so that you can have a better chance of winning".

It really wasn't. It was a way of effectively adding a second way to play; one which will push out the other versions in certain localities.

No, it was adding a first way to play. AoS without points is a dead game. AoS with points has at least a chance of working.

I'm sure you have...I haven't. Care to share some of them?

This thread stands as a pretty good example, where people are gleefully celebrating the idea banning anyone who takes a list that is "too powerful".

Peregrine, you seem to be a master at distorting other people's words: when did he EVER say the competitive player out to make bad decissions? If by bad decissions means: I'm going to build a cool looking army that is strong but not over the top unbeatable or ridiculously BORING to play against, then check your perspective.
Also AoS has been well alive and quite strong I must say for this last year. But hey you're a guru of finances so you must know what you talk about.

Celebrating that a jerk is gone is hardly something to be held against someone. It goes beyond the list's power, something you don't seem to grasp.

And honestly this thread ought to be locked since we are simply going in a circular discussion.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Oh please. "WAAC" is not the same as competitive and you know this. Stop pretending that someone being "competitive" automatically equates to "WAAC".

I'm not saying this. But that's the way other people are using WAAC: to describe someone who brings a powerful list and tries to win, not someone who rules lawyers/cheats/etc and actually does whatever it takes to win.

That is adding caveats to something which is not necessarily the case. WAAC players are those who try to win at all costs. Period.

Cheating is something that is strictly restricted to cheaters. It has nothing to do with WAAC mentality. Cheaters are cheaters.

A good competitive player is someone who can understand what is or is not going to be a fun game for both players.

Sure, and then the good competitive player can say "you're obviously not trying to win, I'll play someone else". A competitive game does not, however, include "I'm going to deliberately make bad decisions so that you can have a better chance of winning".

Again, this is you adding caveats to something that is not necessarily the case.

I played Wood Elves in 8th. I could throw damn near everything I had at some of the higher tier armies, but if I didn't do everything absolutely perfect or I did not have one specific unit or upgrade?

It was game over. It had nothing to do with how competitive I or my opponent were or our lists. It had everything to do with the way their armies functioned.

It really wasn't. It was a way of effectively adding a second way to play; one which will push out the other versions in certain localities.

No, it was adding a first way to play. AoS without points is a dead game. AoS with points has at least a chance of working.

That's opinion, and it's an opinion not shared by everyone. AoS without points was a game that worked great when you had people who interacted socially on a regular basis and could talk to each other.

I'm sure you have...I haven't. Care to share some of them?

This thread stands as a pretty good example, where people are gleefully celebrating the idea banning anyone who takes a list that is "too powerful".

So you don't actually have any real stories?

Lord Kragan wrote:
Peregrine, you seem to be a master at distorting other people's words: when did he EVER say the competitive player out to make bad decissions? If by bad decissions means: I'm going to build a cool looking army that is strong but not over the top unbeatable or ridiculously BORING to play against, then check your perspective.

That's exactly what "bad decisions" means. If you're deliberately making bad choices in list building then you aren't playing competitively. Making a cool looking army that doesn't try too hard to win is fine, but it isn't competitive.

Also AoS has been well alive and quite strong I must say for this last year. But hey you're a guru of finances so you must know what you talk about.

That directly contradicts all of the information I've seen, that AoS was a failure on release and adding points was a recognition of this fact. We don't have GW's internal numbers, but the ones from third-party stores suggest pretty strongly that AoS was not selling well.

Celebrating that a jerk is gone is hardly something to be held against someone. It goes beyond the list's power, something you don't seem to grasp.

And yet all of the complaints about the "jerk" have to do with list power.

I'm pretty sure his "stories" were just done to turn around my sentence, since it was word for word the same but replaced WAAC with casual.

Anyways, as I said my issue is people who care ONLY about winning. You can win, you can be good at the game WITHOUT caring so much about winning that you deny your opponent fun. That is the definition of WAAC, beardy, cheesy, filthy, whatever the current term du jour is for "that type" of player who puts their own fun above their opponent's fun and having a good game.

I've played plenty of games in the past (and in Warmachine lately, which IS a competitive focused game) that were enjoyable, and both myself and my opponent had fun. In Warmachine, we always play to win, but we don't play to where one of us has fun and the other just wasted their time in an unwinnable or unenjoyable game.

The issue here is that people like Peregrine seem to equate the two together: One cannot have fun unless one wins, and therefore to win one must pull any and all stops allowed by the rules (key word there, I doubt Peregrine or anyone advocates CHEATING), maybe because it's "the rules" so they feel like they can do it even if it's borderline questionable (e.g. using a vague rule interpretation because your point is valid), but he seems to be the type of player who sees the game as a mental exercise that he can only enjoy if he wins the game; my problem is he seems to be advocating that it's okay for HIM to have fun if his opponent doesn't, by essentially playing the David Sirlin "scrub" card i.e. someone who doesn't want to pull anything short of cheating to win the game. The problem is that 40k is basically a game made for scrubs, by scrubs, and applying a Sirlin-esque mindset isn't how the game is intended to work. I've read his book, and it's a great book but it's nothing that applies to 40k. Now Warmachine or X-Wing perhaps.

Peregrine is basically arguing the equivalent of stating that Akuma in street fighter is way more powerful than everyone else in the game, so I'm going to use him all the time because he gives me the best chance of winning (the irony being that Sirlin talks about a hard ban on Akuma because he's so much more powerful that every competitive Street Fighter event would be Akuma vs. Akuma), and anyone who doesn't use Akuma is making a bad decision and not playing competitively.

I would agree with that assessment.

That's not a bad decision, that's not minmaxing but semanthics, you clearly ain't going to change your opinion. Specially when brining the most over the top list shouldn't be done in a casual game which is our focus.

Not in Europe, the one i've seen have been greatly positive: there was a bit of letdown at the beginning (I'll admit it) and it has grown. You know, the USA ain't the center of the world, do you know it, don't you?

But, you don't understand it, nor will you ever be able to grasp it. Just look Deldar list previous to their codex getting the gutter: they would be balls to the wall mighty, razing tournaments... IF they pulled their plan pefectly. Against that list which required a mesmerizing skill and dance people wouldn't mind itl. Because it requires interaction and skill, deeds and doing.
Bringing an I-WIN button certainly doesn't look interesting to me and I'd like people to not bring it always.

Lord Kragan wrote:
That's not a bad decision, that's not minmaxing but semanthics, you clearly ain't going to change your opinion. Specially when brining the most over the top list shouldn't be done in a casual game which is our focus.

Not in Europe, the one i've seen have been greatly positive: there was a bit of letdown at the beginning (I'll admit it) and it has grown. You know, the USA ain't the center of the world, do you know it, don't you?

But, you don't understand it, nor will you ever be able to grasp it. Just look Deldar list previous to their codex getting the gutter: they would be balls to the wall mighty, razing tournaments... IF they pulled their plan pefectly. Against that list which required a mesmerizing skill and dance people wouldn't mind itl. Because it requires interaction and skill, deeds and doing.
Bringing an I-WIN button certainly doesn't look interesting to me and I'd like people to not bring it always.

Europe seems to think outside the box a lot in many games, I know in Warmachine for example the Europeans (and Australians) do things that nobody does in the US because they don't see it as working, yet it does.

But yes, you are absolutely right. The issue is that the counter argument is always how "casual" games are filled with people who don't want to "win", or that it's stopping people from playing what they want, basically turning around the argument of "fun" by talking about a hypothetical person whose fun comes from winning and whose "list they want to play" is some filth min-maxed list.

Or how casual gamers don't have the ability to win and thats why they are casual thats my favorite one.

Because I spent almost a decade powerlisting and I did very well and placed high at pretty much every event I went to.

I just shifted focus to what game I wanted to play after I got bored of facing the same things.

Just because I'm curious, someone mentioned Sirlin and the "Scrub-mentality" - what's your take on AoS vis-a-vis this:

"Consider two groups of players who play a non-degenerate game: a group of good players and a group of scrubs. The scrubs will play "for fun" and not explore the extremities of the game. They won't find the most effective tactics and abuse them mercilessly. The good players will. The good players will find incredibly overpowering tactics and patterns. As they play the game more, they'll be forced to find counters to those tactics. The majority of tactics that at first appear unbeatable end up having counters, though they are often difficult to discover. The counter tactic prevents the first player from doing the tactic, but the first player can then use a counter to the counter. The second player is now afraid to use the counter and they're again vulnerable to the original overpowering tactic. (See the Yomi Layer chapter of my book on Playing to Win or this more visual summary on yomi layers.)

Notice that the good players are reaching higher and higher levels of play. They found the "cheap stuff" and abused it. They know how to stop the cheap stuff. They know how to stop the other player from stopping it so they can keep doing it. And as is quite common in competitive games, many new tactics will later be discovered that make the original cheap tactic look wholesome and fair. Often in fighting games, one character will have something so good it's unfair. Fine, let him have that. As time goes on, it will be discovered that other characters have even more powerful and unfair tactics. Each player will attempt to steer the game in the direction of their own advantages, much how grandmaster chess players attempt to steer opponents into situations in which their opponents are weak.

The group of scrubs won't know the first thing about all the depth I've been talking about. Their argument is basically that ignorantly mashing buttons with little regard to actual strategy is more "fun." Or to be more charitable, their argument could be that the game becomes less fun if they use tactic X, or character X, or whatever. That might be true temporarily until they figure out how to beat whatever it is, but ultimately the experts are having a more nuanced exchange, more opportunity for expression, for clever plays, for smart strategies, and so on.

The scrubs' games might be more "wet and wild" than games between the experts, which are usually more controlled and refined. But any close examination will reveal that the experts are having a great deal of fun on a higher level than the scrub can imagine. Throwing together some circus act of a win isn't nearly as satisfying as reading your opponent's mind to such a degree that you can counter their every move, even their every counter.

And if the two groups meet, of course the experts will absolutely destroy the scrubs with any number of tactics they've either never seen, or never been truly forced to counter. This is because the scrubs have not been playing the same game. The experts were playing the actual game while the scrubs were playing their own homemade variant with restricting, unwritten rules. The actual game really should be more fun if it's not degenerate."

http://www.sirlin.net/articles/playing-to-win

Garbage, honestly. It basically conflates the idea of pushing the game to its limits (finding new strategies) with never actually bothering to other aspects of the game that would come out of more laidback approaches (such as the narrative battles). It also seems to conflate good player with people with only the interest of winning, which is a WAAC. For that person there will be a 50% (or whatever percentatge you want to attribute) of the time that he won't have fun, AT ALL. Also there's more to this game thant the cheap stuff and you guys know it. If you abuse the cheap stuff you won't see the other stuff which may not fill the bill or counter it but it can be fun to play and all. At the end of the day what he's saying is simply: exploit "cheesy" combos damn it! In a game where exist thematic armies this shouldn't be the norm.

Also I love how isolationist is the article with the whole "abandon emotional baggage" bullpucky (I'm reading the article in sirlin.net). Honestly, I and my friend who plays freeguild will try and explore the games rules, thinking of tactics and counterstrategies. And we have fun because we take it laidback we tell us, ah nevermind, and don't bother TOO much. It is, after all, a game, and it doesn't need a bloody path to enlightement.

As I said, I don't think Sirlin can be applied to any Warhammer game. The game is much more meant to be a fun social thing than purely competitive. I do not think with Warhammer in particular that the "experts" are having more fun than the scrubs, because Warhammer is a game that specifically caters to scrubs and pushes scrub gameplay (remember: In this context scrub isn't derogatory)

I've read that particular passage (although I think you changed it, since I don't recall talk of a "degenerate game" in the version I'm familiar with), in fact I used it as an argument against my Warmachine group for NOT playing in a competitive manner but wanting to try weird "special snowflake" type lists or flat out say they would refuse to play against certain casters/models. So don't talk to me about Sirlin and "Scrub" mentality, because I'm familiar with it under the right circumstances, and like I said I used it (and still do once in a while) as a reason why Warmachine SHOULD be played competitively.

Warhammer, AOS in particular, is not the right circumstance for Sirlin, because A) how imbalanced the game is with or without points, and B) because the game is intended to be much more engaging than just "let's play a game and see who's better". Sirlin applies to a lot of games; competitive video gaming, Magic, I'd even say Warmachine and X-Wing (can't speak to like Infinity but maybe that too). But not Warhammer, and I only mentioned it because some folks here to seem to want to apply similar concepts to a game that doesn't support it. I wouldn't apply Sirlin's concepts to historical gaming either. Warhammer is actually closer to the part of Sirlin's book where he talks about hard and soft bans, again using Akuma (Street Fighter) as the example, Akuma is hard banned because he's so much more powerful than everyone else that there's zero reason NOT to use him if he was allowed (similar to Warhammer with many armies). The other example, Old Sagat, is soft banned not because he's breaking the game, but because he makes a few other choices invalid for play, so by agreeing not to use him (and, although it's not explicitly mentioned I'm guessing there's sort of an air of "cheating" if someone were to use him even though it's technically allowed, like it would taint victory and make the person out to be a jerk) the playing field is wider. I can find that quote again, but it's basically an example why Warhammer SHOULD enforce hard or soft bans even in competitive gaming simply because not doing so means that certain army choices can't be played with any reasonable expectation.

hobojebus wrote:
AoS 1.0 flopped hard which is why 2.0 with points was rushed out so it's fair to say AoS was only for the die hard GW can do no wrong crowd who were far fewer than the wfb crowd.

The AoS community on reddit is now larger than the WHFB community ever was (and still growing), and much, much larger than the KoW community::

http://redditmetrics.com/r/ageofsigmar#compare=warhammerfantasy+kingsofwar

I guess the "die hard GW can do no wrong crowd" are more numerous than you'd expect.

 Peregrine wrote:

That directly contradicts all of the information I've seen, that AoS was a failure on release and adding points was a recognition of this fact. We don't have GW's internal numbers, but the ones from third-party stores suggest pretty strongly that AoS was not selling well.

I suspect your "information" is hearsay and rumors, likely as biased as many of the comments in this thread. Feel free to quote a credible source here with data please.

GW have flat out said AoS is selling better in their financial report than fantasy had in the past few years. That's the official word on the matter.

FYI here's the Sirlin part talking about hard/soft bans. This is how I think warhammer needs to be approached, rather than with "scrub" vs. "expert" mentality due to its gross imbalances.



The bolded part is where I think the comparison to warhammer comes into play. If you replace Old Sagat with various game-breaking things in 40k or AOS, you get the same result: Armies that are otherwise invalidated suddenly become viable options when you remove outliers tht "beats half the characters in the game" in Warhammer parlance.

Wayniac wrote:
As I said, I don't think Sirlin can be applied to any Warhammer game. The game is much more meant to be a fun social thing than purely competitive. I do not think with Warhammer in particular that the "experts" are having more fun than the scrubs, because Warhammer is a game that specifically caters to scrubs and pushes scrub gameplay (remember: In this context scrub isn't derogatory)

I've read that particular passage (although I think you changed it, since I don't recall talk of a "degenerate game" in the version I'm familiar with), in fact I used it as an argument against my Warmachine group for NOT playing in a competitive manner but wanting to try weird "special snowflake" type lists or flat out say they would refuse to play against certain casters/models. So don't talk to me about Sirlin and "Scrub" mentality, because I'm familiar with it under the right circumstances, and like I said I used it (and still do once in a while) as a reason why Warmachine SHOULD be played competitively.

Warhammer, AOS in particular, is not the right circumstance for Sirlin, because A) how imbalanced the game is with or without points, and B) because the game is intended to be much more engaging than just "let's play a game and see who's better". Sirlin applies to a lot of games; competitive video gaming, Magic, I'd even say Warmachine and X-Wing (can't speak to like Infinity but maybe that too). But not Warhammer, and I only mentioned it because some folks here to seem to want to apply similar concepts to a game that doesn't support it. I wouldn't apply Sirlin's concepts to historical gaming either.

I copied and pasted the passage, so if it's changed, it was done by the original author.

Also, I don't think your point A) is a very good defense (although if it wasn't intended as one, I apologize in advance) - an imbalanced game is not a good one. Yes, asymetrical games are aplenty these days, but even then they try to find some equilibrium between different characters/factions/whatever.

I still maintain, however, that the lack of points/structured army building excludes more people than there are narrative players. Like the MtG comparison I posted above: Timmy is just interested in having a good time, but Jimmy can't find an outlet for his/her creativity when s/he's not given a frame to do so within, and Spike doesn't have a way to play because the narrative gaming that GW was selling excludes them.

motski wrote:
GW have flat out said AoS is selling better in their financial report than fantasy had in the past few years. That's the official word on the matter.

But that doesn't prove anything. AoS might be selling better than WHFB, but WHFB was a dead game that had dropped off the lists of top selling games. What matters is how AoS compares to 40k/X-Wing/Warmachine/etc, and the third-party store reports (anecdotal as they may be) are that AoS wasn't selling well compared to other games. And the fact that GW released points for AoS after being so proud of their no-points "casual" game suggests that this is accurate. GW looked at sales of AoS, looked at the complaints of "this is garbage without points", and rushed out a point system to salvage the game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Wayniac wrote:
FYI here's the Sirlin part talking about hard/soft bans. This is how I think warhammer needs to be approached, rather than with "scrub" vs. "expert" mentality due to its gross imbalances.

Spoiler:

Japan, however, does not officially ban Akuma from tournaments! They have what is called a "soft ban." This is a tacit understanding amongst all top players that Akuma is too good to be played, and that he destroys an otherwise beautiful game, so they unofficially agree not to play him. There are always a very small number of people who do play him in tournaments, but never the top players. Usually a few poor players try their hand at the god-character and lose, which is utterly humiliating and crowd-pleasing. This is an interesting alternate take on the "hard ban" we have in America.

That's all well and good, but Japan has also shown signs of a soft-ban on another character in Super Turbo. I bring up this example because it lives on the threshold. It is just on the edge of what is reasonable to ban because it is "too good." Anything less than this would not be reasonable, so perhaps others can use it as a benchmark to decide what is reasonable in their games.

The character in question is the mysteriously named "Old Sagat." Old Sagat is not a secret character like Akuma (or at least he's not as secret!). Old Sagat does not have any moves like Akuma's air fireball that the game was not designed to handle. Old Sagat is arguably the best character in the game (Akuma, of course, doesn't count), but even that is debated by top players! I think almost any expert player would rank him in the top three of all characters, but there isn't even universal agreement that he is the best! Why, then, would any reasonable person even consider banning him? Surely, it must be a group of scrubs who simply don't know how to beat him, and reflexively cry out for a ban.

But this is not the case. There seems to be a tacit agreement amongst top players in Japan--a soft ban--on playing Old Sagat. The reason is that many believe the game to have much more variety without Old Sagat. Even if he is only second best in the game by some measure, he flat out beats half the characters in the game with little effort. Half the cast can barely even fight him, let alone beat him. Other top characters in the game, good as they are, win by much more interaction and more "gameplay." Almost every character has a chance against the other best characters in the game. The result of allowing Old Sagat in tournaments is that several other characters, such as Chun Li and Ken, become basically unviable.

If someone had made these claims in the game's infancy, no sort of ban would be warranted. Further testing through tournaments would be warranted. But we now have ten years of testing. We don't have all Old Sagat vs. Old Sagat matches in tournaments, but we do know which characters can't beat him and as a result are very rarely played in America. We likewise can see that this same category of characters flourishes in Japan, where Old Sagats are rare and only played by the occasional violator of the soft ban. It seems that the added variety of viable characters might outweigh the lack of Old Sagat. Is this ban warranted then? To be honest, I am not totally convinced that it is, but it is just barely in the ballpark of reasonableness since there is a decade of data on which to base the claim.

The bolded part is where I think the comparison to warhammer comes into play. If you replace Old Sagat with various game-breaking things in 40k or AOS, you get the same result: Armies that are otherwise invalidated suddenly become viable options when you remove outliers tht "beats half the characters in the game" in Warhammer parlance.

And you know what a better solution is? A balanced point system, with hard bans on problem units/upgrades/whatever if necessary to preserve the diversity of the game. Soft bans are just an excuse for being too lazy to fix the rules.

My point is that Warhammer is not going to be balanced like that, where Sirlin's opinion can be applied to it. But in all honesty I don't think we are going to get through to each other, especially not with someone like Peregrine who keeps reiterating the fact that Warhammer is a crap game designed by crappy people, which has never been refuted.

If I want a solid, competitive game, it sure as hell won't be warhammer. that doesn't mean I think warhammer should have things that turn it into that game.

Wayniac wrote:
The problem is that 40k is basically a game made for scrubs, by scrubs, and applying a Sirlin-esque mindset isn't how the game is intended to work.

No, the problem is that AoS and 40k are garbage games made by lazy and incompetent game designers. Point systems, well designed balance, etc, all benefit "casual" players and the lack of those things hurts "casual" players. Nothing is gained for "casual" players by removing points, ignoring balance, publishing ambiguous rules that need negotiation over what interpretation you're going to use, etc. The only reason we have those problems in 40k and AoS is that GW either refuses to, or is incapable of, doing a better job.

Peregrine is basically arguing the equivalent of stating that Akuma in street fighter is way more powerful than everyone else in the game, so I'm going to use him all the time because he gives me the best chance of winning (the irony being that Sirlin talks about a hard ban on Akuma because he's so much more powerful that every competitive Street Fighter event would be Akuma vs. Akuma), and anyone who doesn't use Akuma is making a bad decision and not playing competitively.

Exactly. If you don't play Akuma (assuming he's as good as stated, I don't play the game at all) every time, outside of figuring out some other character that has a better chance of winning against an Akuma-heavy metagame, then you aren't playing competitively. The difference between AoS and Street Fighter is that the SF tournaments changed the rules of the game in a very clear way: Akuma is banned, period. There's no question of "is this 'too cheesy' to be fun", Akuma just no longer exists in the game. And you pick the best strategy in the new Akuma-free game and do whatever you can to win. This is like how tournaments for AoS used third-party rules to change the game and attempt to fix the balance problem. What you're talking about with AoS, on the other hand, is a system where people refuse to change the game and instead rely on social pressure and shunning people from the community if they play a list that is "too powerful" in some vague way that is never specified exactly.

 Peregrine wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
The problem is that 40k is basically a game made for scrubs, by scrubs, and applying a Sirlin-esque mindset isn't how the game is intended to work.

No, the problem is that AoS and 40k are garbage games made by lazy and incompetent game designers. Point systems, well designed balance, etc, all benefit "casual" players and the lack of those things hurts "casual" players. Nothing is gained for "casual" players by removing points, ignoring balance, publishing ambiguous rules that need negotiation over what interpretation you're going to use, etc. The only reason we have those problems in 40k and AoS is that GW either refuses to, or is incapable of, doing a better job.

Peregrine is basically arguing the equivalent of stating that Akuma in street fighter is way more powerful than everyone else in the game, so I'm going to use him all the time because he gives me the best chance of winning (the irony being that Sirlin talks about a hard ban on Akuma because he's so much more powerful that every competitive Street Fighter event would be Akuma vs. Akuma), and anyone who doesn't use Akuma is making a bad decision and not playing competitively.

Exactly. If you don't play Akuma (assuming he's as good as stated, I don't play the game at all) every time, outside of figuring out some other character that has a better chance of winning against an Akuma-heavy metagame, then you aren't playing competitively. The difference between AoS and Street Fighter is that the SF tournaments changed the rules of the game in a very clear way: Akuma is banned, period. There's no question of "is this 'too cheesy' to be fun", Akuma just no longer exists in the game. And you pick the best strategy in the new Akuma-free game and do whatever you can to win. This is like how tournaments for AoS used third-party rules to change the game and attempt to fix the balance problem. What you're talking about with AoS, on the other hand, is a system where people refuse to change the game and instead rely on social pressure and shunning people from the community if they play a list that is "too powerful" in some vague way that is never specified exactly.

Well no, the point is the US banned Akuma. Japan did not, but they have an implicit "gentleman's agreement' (sound familiar?) to not use him because it would make things boring as hell as a result, so they just decide not to do it. Now I have no idea what would happen if someone did use him, because nothing stops them, but I'm pretty sure it would be something similar to being shunned for going against the unofficial code.

That's what I'm talking about. That's the equivalent of agreeing to not use X or Y or Z in games, because it's unbalanced; nothing stops you EXCEPT, presumably, peer pressure.

Japan, however, does not officially ban Akuma from tournaments! They have what is called a "soft ban." This is a tacit understanding amongst all top players that Akuma is too good to be played, and that he destroys an otherwise beautiful game, so they unofficially agree not to play him. There are always a very small number of people who do play him in tournaments, but never the top players. Usually a few poor players try their hand at the god-character and lose, which is utterly humiliating and crowd-pleasing. This is an interesting alternate take on the "hard ban" we have in America.

So basically, the "scrub" players are the ones who use the "OP combos" and as a result suck because they're expecting to win just because they're playing an OP character. I don't think that happens in Warhammer tournaments, at least not to the point where the good players aren't doing it, and the poor players are and still getting beat. In fact, I tend to see the opposite, a poor player with an OP list can steamroll a good player with what you would call a "scrub" list. I'm not saying that's not a problem with the game (because it IS) but what keeps getting lost I think is the idea that Warhammer is intended to more of a game where you talk about what is "fair" and not, and NOT just point to the rules and say "but I can!"

The disconnect here is that you keep saying how Warhammer is a bad game with bad balance, but everyone knows this. Points alone do not fix that. Only a "soft ban" on the OP things and/or a general agreement to play for fun without bringing OP lists can fix it. Yes, the game is bad and the rules are bad. But that doesn't mean it's not fun if you play with like-minded people. That's my thing. I would not play warhammer if I want a balanced, competitive focused game (and I don't). I want to play Warhammer because I like the flexibility and casual/narrative aspects it allows BECAUSE you're expected to be discussing things with your opponent so you can tweak the game to be fun for both of you.

Wayniac wrote:
Well no, the point is the US banned Akuma. Japan did not, but they have an implicit "gentleman's agreement' (sound familiar?) to not use him because it would make things boring as hell as a result, so they just decide not to do it. Now I have no idea what would happen if someone did use him, because nothing stops them, but I'm pretty sure it would be something similar to being shunned for going against the unofficial code.

That's what I'm talking about. That's the equivalent of agreeing to not use X or Y or Z in games, because it's unbalanced; nothing stops you EXCEPT, presumably, peer pressure.

And the hard ban is the clearly superior option. The end result is the same, except there's no chance of someone saying "screw it, I'm taking Akuma" and getting an easy win while everyone else is upset about breaking the unwritten rule. Why do you think that it's the other way around, and soft bans/social pressure/etc instead of fixing the rules explicitly are a good thing?

but what keeps getting lost I think is the idea that Warhammer is intended to more of a game where you talk about what is "fair" and not, and NOT just point to the rules and say "but I can!"

No, AoS/40k are intended to be marketing material for plastic toys, much like the "games" on the backs of cereal boxes. GW doesn't care if you play them, they just want to give kids the idea of a miniatures game as a reason to beg their parents for space marine starter sets. Having to talk about what is "fair" adds nothing to the game, it's purely a failure of game design.

Points alone do not fix that. Only a "soft ban" on the OP things and/or a general agreement to play for fun without bringing OP lists can fix it.

This is not true at all. A bad point system doesn't fix the problem, but a good point system does. The solution is to make a good point system, not to dismiss the importance of points and praise the idea of shunning people from the community if they don't play a "fun" list.

I want to play Warhammer because I like the flexibility and casual/narrative aspects it allows BECAUSE you're expected to be discussing things with your opponent so you can tweak the game to be fun for both of you.

The rules do no such thing. Nothing about having no points, poor balance, etc, enables any kind of positive discussion or tweaking of the game. Nor do these things help at all with the narrative or casual aspect of the game.

 Peregrine wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
Well no, the point is the US banned Akuma. Japan did not, but they have an implicit "gentleman's agreement' (sound familiar?) to not use him because it would make things boring as hell as a result, so they just decide not to do it. Now I have no idea what would happen if someone did use him, because nothing stops them, but I'm pretty sure it would be something similar to being shunned for going against the unofficial code.

That's what I'm talking about. That's the equivalent of agreeing to not use X or Y or Z in games, because it's unbalanced; nothing stops you EXCEPT, presumably, peer pressure.

And the hard ban is the clearly superior option. The end result is the same, except there's no chance of someone saying "screw it, I'm taking Akuma" and getting an easy win while everyone else is upset about breaking the unwritten rule. Why do you think that it's the other way around, and soft bans/social pressure/etc instead of fixing the rules explicitly are a good thing?

but what keeps getting lost I think is the idea that Warhammer is intended to more of a game where you talk about what is "fair" and not, and NOT just point to the rules and say "but I can!"

No, AoS/40k are intended to be marketing material for plastic toys, much like the "games" on the backs of cereal boxes. GW doesn't care if you play them, they just want to give kids the idea of a miniatures game as a reason to beg their parents for space marine starter sets. Having to talk about what is "fair" adds nothing to the game, it's purely a failure of game design.

Points alone do not fix that. Only a "soft ban" on the OP things and/or a general agreement to play for fun without bringing OP lists can fix it.

This is not true at all. A bad point system doesn't fix the problem, but a good point system does. The solution is to make a good point system, not to dismiss the importance of points and praise the idea of shunning people from the community if they don't play a "fun" list.

I want to play Warhammer because I like the flexibility and casual/narrative aspects it allows BECAUSE you're expected to be discussing things with your opponent so you can tweak the game to be fun for both of you.

The rules do no such thing. Nothing about having no points, poor balance, etc, enables any kind of positive discussion or tweaking of the game. Nor do these things help at all with the narrative or casual aspect of the game.

The soft ban IS the superior option because it considers that the players aren't dunderheads and thus are more than capable for feeling simpathy (ie: they are mature enough to see they are being pricks). The other ban only feeds "resentment" (ie, if it ever gets lifted everyone will try to use at the drop of the hat). Soft bans are born of agreement, communication, not imposition: people won't break them because they want it that way.
Nevertheless, it's like speaking to a wall.

Lord Kragan wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
Well no, the point is the US banned Akuma. Japan did not, but they have an implicit "gentleman's agreement' (sound familiar?) to not use him because it would make things boring as hell as a result, so they just decide not to do it. Now I have no idea what would happen if someone did use him, because nothing stops them, but I'm pretty sure it would be something similar to being shunned for going against the unofficial code.

That's what I'm talking about. That's the equivalent of agreeing to not use X or Y or Z in games, because it's unbalanced; nothing stops you EXCEPT, presumably, peer pressure.

And the hard ban is the clearly superior option. The end result is the same, except there's no chance of someone saying "screw it, I'm taking Akuma" and getting an easy win while everyone else is upset about breaking the unwritten rule. Why do you think that it's the other way around, and soft bans/social pressure/etc instead of fixing the rules explicitly are a good thing?

but what keeps getting lost I think is the idea that Warhammer is intended to more of a game where you talk about what is "fair" and not, and NOT just point to the rules and say "but I can!"

No, AoS/40k are intended to be marketing material for plastic toys, much like the "games" on the backs of cereal boxes. GW doesn't care if you play them, they just want to give kids the idea of a miniatures game as a reason to beg their parents for space marine starter sets. Having to talk about what is "fair" adds nothing to the game, it's purely a failure of game design.

Points alone do not fix that. Only a "soft ban" on the OP things and/or a general agreement to play for fun without bringing OP lists can fix it.

This is not true at all. A bad point system doesn't fix the problem, but a good point system does. The solution is to make a good point system, not to dismiss the importance of points and praise the idea of shunning people from the community if they don't play a "fun" list.

I want to play Warhammer because I like the flexibility and casual/narrative aspects it allows BECAUSE you're expected to be discussing things with your opponent so you can tweak the game to be fun for both of you.

The rules do no such thing. Nothing about having no points, poor balance, etc, enables any kind of positive discussion or tweaking of the game. Nor do these things help at all with the narrative or casual aspect of the game.

The soft ban IS the superior option because it considers that the players aren't dunderheads and thus are more than capable for feeling simpathy (ie: they are mature enough to see they are being pricks). The other ban only feeds "resentment" (ie, if it ever gets lifted everyone will try to use at the drop of the hat). Soft bans are born of agreement, communication, not imposition: people won't break them because they want it that way.
Nevertheless, it's like speaking to a wall.

I can assume his counter argument is that the social pressure is wrong because it's basically saying you CAN do this, but you're a prick if you do. The hard ban removes the chance that someone will do it anyways and then play all butthurt because they're treated like a jerk for doing what is allowed but frowned upon. I agree though that a soft ban is better because it's not always there, which is part of the communication part of having a social game, maybe that cutthroat stuff is fine once in a while, maybe it's not. It's not black and white, that's the issue here. It shouldn't be black and white, either this is allowed or it isn't.

Lord Kragan wrote:
The soft ban IS the superior option because it considers that the players aren't dunderheads and thus are more than capable for feeling simpathy (ie: they are mature enough to see they are being pricks).

Except everyone has a different definition of "being pricks". One player thinks that X is the worst WAAC TFG army ever, the other thinks that X is fine (as an example, every 40k argument over Eldar balance). All you've succeeded in doing with the soft ban is replacing clear communication with arguments and smug superiority about the "right" way to play the game.

The other ban only feeds "resentment" (ie, if it ever gets lifted everyone will try to use at the drop of the hat).

This exact same thing happens with soft bans. In fact, it happens more because people see the "banned" thing, get ideas about using it, and have to be pressured into voluntarily putting away the option they're interested in. With a hard ban there's no resentment because nobody ever gets the idea that it's possible to do the banned thing. The option just doesn't exist in the first place.

Soft bans are born of agreement, communication, not imposition: people won't break them because they want it that way.

Why do you think that a hard ban magically appears out of nowhere? Hard bans happen because people communicated and agreed that a thing is a problem, and made a rule to fix the problem. The only difference between the two is that with a hard ban they say explicitly "X is too powerful and no longer exists in this game", while the soft ban involves people being too afraid to make explicit rules and leaving it at "X is too powerful, but I guess you can use it if you really want to, I'll just whine and act resentful the whole time if you don't give me what I want". Don't be that guy, if you think that X needs to be banned then be honest enough to say so openly and make an explicit rule that X is banned.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Wayniac wrote:
I agree though that a soft ban is better because it's not always there, which is part of the communication part of having a social game, maybe that cutthroat stuff is fine once in a while, maybe it's not. It's not black and white, that's the issue here. It shouldn't be black and white, either this is allowed or it isn't.

If something is so powerful that we're talking about banning it and calling people WAAC TFGs for using it then why should it be allowed? Fix its point cost so that its power level is in line with the rest of the game and ensure that things are fair.

(What, you don't have a point system in your game? Fix that problem too.)