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.
2012/08/17 12:39:53
Subject: Re:What if GW succeeds in its war against competitive 40k gameplay?
As long as GW games have a winner and a loser there will always be competitive play. To think otherwise is to tell humans to go against what comes to them naturally.
They have tournaments for Rock, Paper, Scissors and I don't think you can get more casual than that.
Also with all the forum browsing I've been doing since I started 40k a year ago I immediately noticed a very strong view among the wargaming community that competitive & casual gameplay are somehow mutally exclusive. Which has then created this imaginary war between the "casuals" who have their fun games ruined by WAAC players and the "competitive" players who have no life and want only to administer soul crushing defeats.
That focusing on one means you have to ignore the other which is completely incorrect, see every video game played at a tournament level. Developers spend lots of resources ensuring that their games are as balanced as possible for high level play which then in turn actually improves the enjoyment of the game for "casual" play.
Double Fine Adventure, Wasteland 2, Nekro, Shadowrun Returns, Tropes vs. Women in Video Games, Planetary Annihilation, Project Eternity, Distance, Dreamfall Chapters, Torment: Tides of Numenera, Consortium, Divinity: Original Sin, Smart Guys, Raging Heroes - The Toughest Girls of the Galaxy, Armikrog, Massive Chalice, Satellite Reign, Cthulhu Wars, Warmachine: Tactics, Game Loading: Rise Of The Indies, Indie Statik, Awesomenauts: Starstorm, Cosmic Star Heroine, THE LONG DARK, The Mandate, Stasis, Hand of Fate, Upcycled Machined Dice, Legend of Grimrock: The Series, Unsung Story: Tale of the Guardians, Cyberpunk Soundtracks, Darkest Dungeon, Starcrawlers
I have a KickStarter problem.
2012/08/17 12:51:28
Subject: What if GW succeeds in its war against competitive 40k gameplay?
Captain Avatar wrote:It seems to me that GW has been waging a systematic war against competitive 40k gameplay. When you combine a very *meh* non-competitive 6th ed release, increased imbalance between the factions and then add their recent move to stop the tourney friendly Army Builder...to me it just seems that GW is treating the concepts of balanced competition as if it was somehow politically incorrect or morally wrong.
IMO, 40K is turning into an elitist hobby with no real game behind it. Cinematic and Narrative is not a game, it is a movie and/or a book. And we all know that there are much better sources for both, movies and books, than what GW publishes.
My question is this:
If GW succeeds in making 40K a non-competitive game, what will be the long-term impact of such?
Really?
This is a stretch. You've got literally zero evidence to support your theory. No one is trying to wage war against competitive game play.
On a related topic, of the most obnoxious players I've dealt with, almost all fall into the 'friendly' gamer group that refuses to attend tournaments. Tournament players are almost universally (IMO) nice people who are just out to have fun, and even the ultra competitive ones still take a loss with a smile and a laugh.
"Did you ever notice how in the Bible, when ever God needed to punish someone, or make an example, or whenever God needed a killing, he sent an angel? Did you ever wonder what a creature like that must be like? A whole existence spent praising your God, but always with one wing dipped in blood. Would you ever really want to see an angel?"
2012/08/17 13:07:34
Subject: Re:What if GW succeeds in its war against competitive 40k gameplay?
ZebioLizard2 wrote:If you can only have fun by beating the other player 100% to the ground, your stuck in a competitive mindset to much and need to relax.
Which is not at all what I was talking about; in any game in which there are victory conditions (so pretty much all games excepting the more simulationist/narrativist RPGs) then the players' fun comes principally from trying to beat the tar out of the other guy while he's trying to do the same to you.
Madcat87 wrote:That focusing on one means you have to ignore the other which is completely incorrect, see every video game played at a tournament level. Developers spend lots of resources ensuring that their games are as balanced as possible for high level play which then in turn actually improves the enjoyment of the game for "casual" play.
It's the unfortunate but inevitable result of GW's recent rhetoric in which they've thrown around "narrative", "cinematic" and "beer and pretzels" as excuses for non-existent balance and poorly-worded/considered rules. Whether the design studio really have the intention of socially-engineering players into a different mindset, I couldn't say; they have, however, succeeded in creating a noticeable rift in the player community along just those lines.
Kaldor wrote:On a related topic, of the most obnoxious players I've dealt with, almost all fall into the 'friendly' gamer group that refuses to attend tournaments. Tournament players are almost universally (IMO) nice people who are just out to have fun, and even the ultra competitive ones still take a loss with a smile and a laugh.
My experience bears out exactly the same; the players I've met at tournaments have been almost uniformly pleasant to play against, probably because the tournament side of the hobby obliges them both to be somewhat sociable and to cope gracefully with defeat.
Red Hunters: 2000 points Grey Knights: 2000 points Black Legion: 600 points and counting
2012/08/17 13:19:18
Subject: What if GW succeeds in its war against competitive 40k gameplay?
Kaldor wrote:
On a related topic, of the most obnoxious players I've dealt with, almost all fall into the 'friendly' gamer group that refuses to attend tournaments. Tournament players are almost universally (IMO) nice people who are just out to have fun, and even the ultra competitive ones still take a loss with a smile and a laugh.
This, with over 15 years of experience in GW tourneys from small local events to 300 player GTs. And while I wouldn't quite say that GW is waging war against tournament play, they are certainly being non-supportive of it. Sure, some GW stores and even a few of their retail specialists might support a tourney, if asked and prodded. but GW corporate. Nope. Too bad, cause the old GW US GTs were a blast, drew in lots of new players and spurred sales as people built new armies from the ground up to participate. Take a look at the success of the NOVA Open if you doubt that there is a market for tournament play.
Don "MONDO"
www.ironfistleague.com
Northern VA/Southern MD
2012/08/17 13:46:08
Subject: Re:What if GW succeeds in its war against competitive 40k gameplay?
TheAvengingKnee wrote:I play the game to have fun, 6th added some interesting elements and I just don't care about the super competitive level(mostly because those people aren't even fun to be around usually).
The game will continue on, I actually noticed an increased interest in tournaments in my area after 6th edition released.
Tournaments may exist, but they're not necessarily going to be the same. 6th ed has injected more random elements into the game.
If you look at various games along a continuum, at one end you get perfectly random games, like Candyland and Chutes and Ladders, and at the other end, you get perfectly non-random games like Chess, Checkers or Go. In a perfectly random game, each player has an equal chance to win. In a non-random game, player skill will determine the outcome. I can lose at Candyland to a 4-year-old, but I cannot beat a Grandmaster in Chess, ever.
GWs push towards the more random pushes the game further towards the Candyland end of the spectrum, and away from the Chess end. And, from a competitive point-of-view, the only reason to do this is to give poor players more of a chance to beat good players. From GWs perspective, they're probably concerned that they lose customers who are bad players, and so want to give those players a cookie.
What does this have to do with tournaments? I kind of see some of this in Fantasy. From my understanding, the best (most competitive) Fantasy players really stopped playing in tournaments in 8th. But more average players show up, because they have a chance. If you're an average player, the increased randomness gives you a chance to beat a better player, so you're going to tournaments knowing that you're not automatically going to lose to the same guys as always. But if you're an excellent player, the increased randomness means you're more likely to lose games that you should have won - and as a result, have less incentive to show up.
There will always be more average players than really good (or really bad) players - that's kind of the definition of average. So, if you increase the participation among the average, even at the expense of losing the good players, you should see increased tournament participation. But the 6th ed tournaments will be more like Bingo than what we currently see as tournaments. A lot of average players and results swinging on random events, while players who actually want to see skill-based events will look elsewhere.
Elsewhere may still be 40k - there are plenty of tournament organizers discussing how to remove/lessen the randomness of 6th ed in their events. Avoiding warlord traits, random objectives, and rolling for terrain densities are among the more popular solutions.
And, of course, GW-sanctioned events will continue to focus on selling things. The Chicago Bunker is running a 6th ed tournament tomorrow, with the following extra rule: Each player may field a fortification for free, if they bring one.
GWs push towards the more random pushes the game further towards the Candyland end of the spectrum, and away from the Chess end. And, from a competitive point-of-view, the only reason to do this is to give poor players more of a chance to beat good players. From GWs perspective, they're probably concerned that they lose customers who are bad players, and so want to give those players a cookie.
Quite the opposite.
The less random elements are involved, the greater the ultimate result will be determined by the right list or right faction you choose (unless they are perfectly symmetrical, which defeats the point of a multi-faction game.. (though allies improve symmetry between factions and therefore are, as well, a huge step towards making the game more competitive).
The more random elements are included, the less your choice of army will matter and the more players will have to think on their feet in the actual game (as opposed to during the list-building beforehand).
6th Edition has made 40K a much more competitive game compared to the competitive list-building that was 5th edition.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2012/08/17 14:10:37
Zweischneid wrote:6th Edition has made 40K a much more competitive game compared to the competitive list-building that was 5th edition.
If the best that can be said for 6th edition is that it's tacked-on, unbalancing randomness mitigates GW's embarrassingly poor list-balancing - something entirely within their power to correct - then that's a pretty damning indictment of its quality as a game.
Red Hunters: 2000 points Grey Knights: 2000 points Black Legion: 600 points and counting
2012/08/17 14:36:14
Subject: Re:What if GW succeeds in its war against competitive 40k gameplay?
The less random elements are involved, the greater the ultimate result will be determined by the right list or right faction you choose (unless they are perfectly symmetrical, which defeats the point of a multi-faction game.. (though allies improve symmetry between factions and therefore are, as well, a huge step towards making the game more competitive).
The more random elements are included, the less your choice of army will matter and the more players will have to think on their feet in the actual game (as opposed to during the list-building beforehand).
6th Edition has made 40K a much more competitive game compared to the competitive list-building that was 5th edition.
Wait, you're saying that the addition of random events has decreased the significance of player choices, and that this makes the game more competitive somehow?
A more powerful list is still going to be an advantage, even in 6th. Look at what happens when a Necron flyer army goes against an assault army. If you're trying to claim that it's a good thing that some random die roll will decide the game in favour of an inferior army, well, we're just going to disagree on that. What you bring is a player choice, it's a skill to design a synergistic list, and it's a skill to maneuver it well on the tabletop. Replacing skills with die rolls is never a good thing, in my opinion.
Not supporting Tournaments is not the same as attempting to “Destroy Competitive Game Play”.
Tournaments are about going out and seeing who the best is. This includes Skill, Code of Conduct and even appearance. The term Tournament has been corrupted over the centuries; they should be listed as “Competitions.”
If you want to have a real Tournament you would have to change how the whole thing operates. First the winner is not the guy who beats everybody, but the one who showed the best in Sportsmanship, Fairness, Courage and Showmanship. Then it is the crowds that determine the winner not win/loss, but overall behavior. In a medieval Tournaments if a Knight were to challenge a Squire and won he would not be look on well if he then beat him into the ground, but if the Squire challenged the Knight and then lost, but gave the Knight a good fight, the Squire would declared the better combatant.
In the Warhammer 40k Players World it should be the same. If the 20 year player challenges the Noob and then tables him, that makes him WAAC or TFG. On the other hand if the Noob challenges the same guy and looses badly by Victory Points, but both had a great time, then the Noob is the real winner.
This is how it should be if we all had Rose Colored Glasses, but his is not going happen, we all know it.
The second example in each is what True Completive Tournaments should be like, but as long as there are points and Victory Conditions and the ability to create your own army exist this can’t exist.
I don’t think Game Workshop sees this the same way [part of me hopes so], but they are large Multi-National Company who is trying to make a quick buck. They looked at all of the Tournaments and probably went “This is not making us as much money as we want.” Then looked at the sales charts and went “So the casual gamer with his Large Disposable Income is a majority of our sales, and we need to cut back somewhere how about Tournaments, they don’t bring us Large Sums of Cash, lets cut back on that expense.”
On the Point of WAAC and SPAM List: Unless they Ban SPAM List, it will always will be there. Look at the Space Wolf Codex, its all about individuality, they even have some rules about it and even tell you more than once “DON’T DO SPAM! It’s not the Space Wolf Way!” It is we the Community that ignored this and started to SPAM Long Fangs. Now, ME who is in the; “If I had a good time I have won camp” is called Cheesy, WAAC and TFG because I am playing the same army I have been since 1989.
In conclusion: It is not GW that is ruining Competition and Tournaments it is us.
Mr Morden wrote:of the 40K gamers I know and game with - about 75% have only a passing interest in tournaments and of the 25% that are big tournament players - well to be honest there are the least fun to play with or against.
I think what GW is trying to (apart from make money) is to make a fun hobby for the majority.....
Honestly this. I have been to like one or two tournaments, didn't really care for them. I know some players that are ultra-competitive, and they would likely be bummed out, everyone else I know would probably be happier overall. As for the tournament players, I can see some tournaments start to be organized using older editions if it means that much to competitive players.
On an added note, the newest faction isn't always best, it is just that armies that are two editions old have everything poorly priced and have crappy wargear. C:SM (and many of the flavour marines), Grey Knights, Guard, Dark Eldar, Necrons are all fairly good armies. The ones that really suck are Tau because they are old and Nids because they have a gakky codex and no potential for allies.
2012/08/17 14:55:43
Subject: What if GW succeeds in its war against competitive 40k gameplay?
There is competitive play outside tournaments as well. Not in the "I want the trophy" sense, but because people like feeling that their armies have sound footing and alternatives to deal with what is coming out there.
I'm really biased on this, so take my words with a grain of salt. 4 of the 8 new players that were joining our club and and finishing their first army flat out quit the game with 6Th ed, and many others put it on the back-burner to play stuff like Flames of War, Infinity and Mordheim. MORDHEIM.
It's entirely possible that my experience has been worse than the norm and that people buying allied detachments more than makes up for the revenue lost to my pals leaving the game, making the point moot for GW. But it still irks me a lot.
Also, for those going "competitive players just want to ROFLstomp everyone 24/7!", keep in mind that necron airforce and the Vendetta-backed IG aegis gunline, who are akin to spiting in the other guy's face in casual friendly games, are brought to you by the supposedly beer&pretzly new metagame.
In Boxing matches, you actually get paid to take a dive and make the other guy look good.
In Warhammer 40K, you're expected to pay cash out of your pocket for the privilege of having Marines and IG trample all over your Xenos/Chaos.
2012/08/17 15:18:53
Subject: What if GW succeeds in its war against competitive 40k gameplay?
Waging war on competitive gamers is really a hyperbolic and ridiculous way of saying they are not really supporting ultra-competitive play...
I brought a really tough list to my last tournament, which I won, and everyone marked down if they'd want to play against you again. My really competitive list, at a tournament? yea, no one wanted to play against that list again.
As for tournaments, custom rules; just remove some of the randomness, its not like its hard. No more warlord traits, random objectives/terrain, 7" (average) charge distance. I mean, if a big tourney removes these things and finds the game to be much more friendly competitively, do you really think GW is going to care?
As a tangent, a few friends of mine a while back really enjoyed playing Smash bros; and we'd always turn off a whole ton of drops because they were random bs and would basically win you the game. The same thing applies to this, 'turn off' the rules you see as too random, and lobby the tournament organizers to do the same, for more competitive play.
Its not like GW is going to tell tournament organizers they aren't allowed to use custom rules.
Sephyr wrote:Also, for those going "competitive players just want to ROFLstomp everyone 24/7!", keep in mind that necron airforce and the Vendetta-backed IG aegis gunline, who are akin to spiting in the other guy's face in casual friendly games, are brought to you by the supposedly beer&pretzly new metagame.
.
This is a problem with players not the edition. Hell, in 5th ed I could run 9-12 razorbacks but I didn't. In this edition you can run 9 fliers. Notice the only people who are doing it are not the "for fun" gamers. They are the WAAC gamers (note I did not say competitive because WAAC != every competitive gamer).
@ the OP, the problem with these what if questions is that we cannot analyze this question in a vacuum. There are simply too many variables/ different types of players to know what would happen if GW did "win its war on competitive gaming" as you put it. To be honest I'm sure it will affect everyone differently, IF it were to happen it wouldn't affect my group minus 1 or 2 people. I'm sure some groups would just give up. On the large scale we can't know.
As it has been mentioned, nothing is stopping TOs from modifying the rules to be more "competitive" friendly.
Jidmah wrote:That's why I keep my enemies close and my AOBR rulebook closer.
2012/08/17 16:10:35
Subject: Re:What if GW succeeds in its war against competitive 40k gameplay?
Zweischneid wrote:6th Edition has made 40K a much more competitive game compared to the competitive list-building that was 5th edition.
If the best that can be said for 6th edition is that it's tacked-on, unbalancing randomness mitigates GW's embarrassingly poor list-balancing - something entirely within their power to correct - then that's a pretty damning indictment of its quality as a game.
Well said, sir.
"It is not the bullet with your name on it that should worry you, it's the one labeled "To whom it may concern. . ."
DQ:70S++G+++MB+I+Pwhfb06+D++A+++/aWD-R++++T(D)DM+
2012/08/17 16:41:57
Subject: Re:What if GW succeeds in its war against competitive 40k gameplay?
Waiting for my shill money from Spiral Arm Studios
I actually think 6th edition is going to be great for competitive play.
Of course there is still the typical GW problem of failing to adaquatly proof read their rule sets, but hey, we're used to that by now.
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
Some Throne-Forsaken Battlefield on the other side of the Galaxy
GW will not succeed. As long as there is a game, there will be people willing to play competitively. If you ask me, balance in 5th was way worse than in 6th, and yet, there were still tons of competitive players in 5th. No amount of imbalance would make every player unwilling to play competitively.
289th Descaal Janissaries: around 2kpts
(no games played so far)
Imperial Fists 4th company (Work In Progress)
Warhost of Biel-Tan (Coming Soon!)
scarletsquig wrote: The high prices also make the game more cinematic, just like going to the cinema!
Some Flies Are Too Awesome For The Wall.
2012/08/17 17:58:22
Subject: What if GW succeeds in its war against competitive 40k gameplay?
Captain Avatar wrote:If GW succeeds in making 40K a non-competitive game, what will be the long-term impact of such?
So, to the OP, your concern is very well-justified, but it comes from the wrong scope. As in, it's a reasonable argument from a certain viewpoint, but the point of view itself is inaccurate.
You describe 40k as if it was a competitive game that was then invaded by a bunch of non-competitive rules. As if there is a war between two roughly equal factions, when this is not so. A much better analogy would be to say that 40k is a non-competitive game that has a small, stubborn competitive insurgency against which there is a coordinated police action. Not a war.
The thing you've got to know is that 40k never was a seriously competitive game. It isn't a seriously competitive game, and it never will be a seriously competitive game. 40k started as a hobby, with some rules lightly draped over it so that you could actually do something with all those miniatures you were painting. The game continues today as a game of dice where you get to display your miniatures and make up stories about them.
As redbeard notes, 40k isn't a serious competitive game. The results of almost any given action are determined by dice, so really, it's a dice game. It's not quite candyland level of chance-only, but it's way, way closer to candyland than it is to chess.
This is something that competitive gamers always miss. 40k isn't a game of skill, it's a game of chance, with tiny inroads of skill that allow you to set the odds of the dice you're about to roll. If you're taking 40k as a competitive exercise, you're actually missing the point of 40k in the first place. Really, it's you making war on a beer and pretzels dice game, not the other way around.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/08/17 18:25:28
TheAvengingKnee wrote:I play the game to have fun, 6th added some interesting elements and I just don't care about the super competitive level(mostly because those people aren't even fun to be around usually).
I think for 40k there are a few things these videos make good points about(they are about video games but a lot of this applies to 40k as well):
I'm 100% with you. Thanks for posting the video. I'm going to have to watch more of that series seeing as it was so informative.
I do wonder at overall sells for GW if the tourney scene dies down (I doubt it really will). Those hardcore tourney guys tend to drop cash on GW products like they have the ability to sweat money from their skin pores.
WAAAGH Squigeye: 3500 and counting
2012/08/17 18:23:58
Subject: What if GW succeeds in its war against competitive 40k gameplay?
Captain Avatar wrote:It seems to me that GW has been waging a systematic war against competitive 40k gameplay. When you combine a very *meh* non-competitive 6th ed release, increased imbalance between the factions and then add their recent move to stop the tourney friendly Army Builder...to me it just seems that GW is treating the concepts of balanced competition as if it was somehow politically incorrect or morally wrong.
IMO, 40K is turning into an elitist hobby with no real game behind it. Cinematic and Narrative is not a game, it is a movie and/or a book. And we all know that there are much better sources for both, movies and books, than what GW publishes.
My question is this:
If GW succeeds in making 40K a non-competitive game, what will be the long-term impact of such?
First; have you even played a tournament in 6th? It's just as competitive as ever.
Second; your "war on competitive play" is incredibly abstract. As long as there are two players on opposing sides in ANYTHING, there will be viability for competition.
Dakka member since 2012/01/09 16:44:06
Rick's Cards&Games 1000pt Tourney: 2nd Legion's Winter Showdown 1850: 2nd Place Snake Eyes 1000pt Mixed Doubles: 3rd Place
Elysian 105th Skylance W:37-L:3-D:6 in 6th Edition
Ratius wrote:I cant see how you can justify the premise with the following you have put forward:
A meh non competitive release? You're judging that after 2 months since release and how many major tourneys held/attended?
Sorry I just dont see any hard emperical evidence to back that.
Poor balance in the armies? Of course there is, several codexes need updates, several need total rewrites and others dont gel so well with 6th but it is early days yet. Nothing has changed in that regard, gw were never top of the pile for army balance and these early imbalances have nothing to do with "gws war on tourney play".
Im unfamiliar with gws move against ab but dont see the issue really. At tourneys you are required to have your army codices and rules so building your army on ab whilst convenient should not be a given. Infact I agree that armies should be written from the cidexes with no 3rd party allowances.
And finally how is 6th becoming elite? I cannot fathom where you are getting that from. Infact its widely held in some quarters that tourney players are the elite. Yet you claim gw is punishing them?
1) How can I justify the *meh* non-competitive comment? Don't have to because GW's designers said such in a recent interview.
a) Emperical evidence is the rules themselves. Increased randomness, increased book keeping, longer game times and inconsistant faq's.
2)Unbalance between the factions is not new, the allies matrix is new and completely screws about half of the factions. So yes, there is something new to the level of imbalance. There are also powerful new units that are in the game now that GW has not provided an across the board equivalency to the factions.
3)You may feel that the move against AB is not a big issue and that you prefer hand written lists. Doesn't make them tournament friendly.
I prefer to handwrite my own lists, but AB was a boon for my opponents. I have essential tremors that make my hands shake and my penmanship difficult to decipher for those not used to it.
4)How is GW becoming Elitist?
Only GW themselves having indicated that this is the direction that they want to go. It is one of the justifications of their annual price hikes, their price point and, again, has been stated through their target demographic of individuals/families whose annual earnings are well above the national average.
BTW, I love the nebulous anti-tourney player shot of "It being widely held in some quarters that tourney players are the elite". So, is it widely held or is it in some circles?
Again, this thread is not about Super comp vs fluffers. It is about what happens if GW continues to push until the players stop viewing it as a game.
1.
Just becuase GW have said so themselves does not make it true or applicable. Players/TOs and tourneys adapt as they see fit to rulesets. Always has been, always will. That point proves nothing so far.
As mentioned by other posters, having a more random element to the game does not necessarily take away from competitive play. Claiming otherwise this early into an edition release is hubris.
Inconsistent FAQs have always been around and again players adapt. Im unsure of what you mean by increased bookeeping - random terrain, WL traits? Hardly that time consuming or detremental time wise int the grand scheme of things.
2.
Unbalance? Perhaps. Early edition unbalance? Of course but this will be rectified going forward as more FAQs, Codicies and releases get made. Will it ever be perfect? No, its GW but once again its been like that in other editions and does not back up the warmaking on competitive play hypothesis.
3.
I cant comment on personal conditions like yours but tournament after torunament have gone off without a hitch with hand written lists and no AB printouts. Players will adapt and move on. I guarantee if AB does get nerfed by Christmas people wont even remember it.
Its a loss, sure, I love AB but not a gamebreaker.
4.
But that wont stop players collecting, ebaying, 2nd handing models or discount stores. I dont agree with the GW price hikes in many cases but its a sales trend to maximise proifit, not ruin competitive play or tournament environments.
BTW, I love the nebulous anti-tourney player shot of "It being widely held in some quarters that tourney players are the elite". So, is it widely held or is it in some circles?
I was trying to be polite, as demonstrated perfectly in this thread as soon as competitive play is mentioned, it immediatley divides the player base into the "friendluies" and WWACs. I long ago gave up picking a side and can see both point of views.
I was trying to say that in some quarters (aptly shown within this thread) some competitive players are seen as elitiiest.
You knew what I meant, poking holes in my linguistic expression of the point is disingenuous tbh.
I can see that you feel strongly however so will probably just leave it at that and politely disagree with your opinions. I dont believe GW is trying to kill comp/tourney play whatsoever.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/08/17 18:39:58
Dman137 wrote:
goobs is all you guys will ever be
By 1-irt: Still as long as Hissy keeps showing up this is one of the most entertaining threads ever.
"Feelin' goods, good enough".
2012/08/17 18:37:40
Subject: Re:What if GW succeeds in its war against competitive 40k gameplay?
Mr Morden wrote:of the 40K gamers I know and game with - about 75% have only a passing interest in tournaments and of the 25% that are big tournament players - well to be honest there are the least fun to play with or against.
Note, that you said 75% have a passing interest.
The point that I am encouraging people to consider is that a removal of competitive game play would affect all "players". This is not about the WAAC crowd, this is about GW moving away from a game and towards a narrative role playing system. (As I get older, I'm beginning to view role playing systems as not really being games but more as exercisies in creativity and story-telling.)
The point is, that poeple need to drop all of the assinine competitive players ruin the "game" bs. That is now what this thread is about. The thread is about the game becoming an elitist role-playing system and the impact such will have if GW completely moves in this direction.
Yeah passing interest - I find the idea vaguely interesting (I have played and won tournaments in other systems) but never got round to it, most of the people at the club have played in one or two at most but have been playing the game for years or like me decades.
I never said Competitive gamers ruin the game - I was replying to your statement that if the game is less competitive it will die........somehow. My point is that GW seem to want a fun game for as many people as possible (and hence make more money) making lists that appeal to competitive gamers only does not do this. Impact that it will have if the game is more fun - err more people play it and GW makes more money...............
I suggest that if you are going to keep calling anyone who does not like tournaments "Elitist rpgers" then you have to accept the counter accusation of Elitist Tournement players........
Again I just talked about people I had met and played with - the "Grand tournament player " at our club is no fun to play against - he gets rules wrong (and wont admit it - just says "I am a grand tournament player I KNOW the rules" even though he does not), has only a "ubber" army that he likes clubbing new players with.
6th ed is not perfect by any stretch but it seems to be heading to the fun zone more than the 5th edition
I AM A MARINE PLAYER
"Unimaginably ancient xenos artefact somewhere on the planet, hive fleet poised above our heads, hidden 'stealer broods making an early start....and now a bloody Chaos cult crawling out of the woodwork just in case we were bored. Welcome to my world, Ciaphas."
Inquisitor Amberley Vail, Ordo Xenos
"I will admit that some Primachs like Russ or Horus could have a chance against an unarmed 12 year old novice but, a full Battle Sister??!! One to one? In close combat? Perhaps three Primarchs fighting together... but just one Primarch?" da001
Wow... an odd moment, I'm actually starting to feel sorry for GW... it;s a very odd emotion. Sort of like the Cattle feeling sorry for the butcher. I shudder to think how much of my money has gone into the all conquering death robot that GW must be building to complete their "Ming the merciless" Reputation but the longer I am part of the wargaming hobby the more I feel sorry for them. I mean in the eyes of their less than adoring fanbase, can they do anything right?
1st ed was too Long
2nd ed was too complicated
3rd ed's CC rules were a minefeild
4th ed was borken
5th ed was too streamlined
6th ed is apparently not streamlined enough
Im starting to think if Chuck Norris, wearing a GW shirt, descended from on high with a set of rules chiseled on a stone tablet from God himself it would take about 11.5 seconds before someone complained about it.
And even if 6th ed is less geared for the tournament setting, so what? your hardly going to alienate your entire WAAC fanbase, after all I'm sorry to point out your alternatives are fairly limited to whether you want to drink at GW;s water hole or Privateer Press'. You might even open the game up so the common or garden variety human could play. Trying to appeal to more than one market does have its advantages both as a business and for the growth of the game itself.
TLDR Less QQ More PEWPEW
Check out my Facebook store for more custom made metal Gaming Accessories
danp164 wrote:
Im starting to think if Chuck Norris, wearing a GW shirt, descended from on high with a set of rules chiseled on a stone tablet from God himself it would take about 11.5 seconds before someone complained about it.
.
Wouldn't take me that long. I hate Chuck Norris.
2012/08/17 20:20:41
Subject: What if GW succeeds in its war against competitive 40k gameplay?
English Assassin wrote:Both of which posts entirely miss the point. 6th edition has done nothing to discourage WAAC players; it's still every bit as unbalanced and exploitable as its predecessor. The players it will discourage are ones like me, whose enjoyment of the game relies principally upon trying to win in a reasonably balanced contest the outcome of which is decided primarily by player skill, not by a random roll which causes one army to die of plague, be eaten by trees, or fall into some magma they inexplicably hadn't noticed until they stepped in it.
And people have argued that 6th is poison for WAAC players...where, exactly? Oh that's right, they've not, they've been contesting the idea that 6th is GW's "final solution" for tournament lovers.
WAAC players will never go away, no matter how balanced you make the rules. WAAC'ers exist all the way through from Chess to tabletop RPGs, the rules have nothing to do with it. The question is whether we should deny narrative and casual players options which enrich their gaming experience in a futile attempt to reign in WAAC'ers, and GW have answered "No" - good for them.
"Your society's broken, so who should we blame? Should we blame the rich, powerful people who caused it? No, lets blame the people with no power and no money and those immigrants who don't even have the vote. Yea, it must be their fething fault." - Iain M Banks
-----
"The language of modern British politics is meant to sound benign. But words do not mean what they seem to mean. 'Reform' actually means 'cut' or 'end'. 'Flexibility' really means 'exploit'. 'Prudence' really means 'don't invest'. And 'efficient'? That means whatever you want it to mean, usually 'cut'. All really mean 'keep wages low for the masses, taxes low for the rich, profits high for the corporations, and accept the decline in public services and amenities this will cause'." - Robin McAlpine from Common Weal
2012/08/17 21:17:20
Subject: Re:What if GW succeeds in its war against competitive 40k gameplay?
If the rules allow you to do something stupid or bring something ridiculously powerful, then of course people are going to do it. That does not mean it is the players fault for doing so. The fault will always lie with the rules for allowing it in the first place. Since the rules allow you to play the super Necron air force, some people will do so. That doesn't make them bad people, though they are certainly not fun to play against.
To the guy who mentioned Space Wolves: Yes SW's are supposed to be individual. But the rules don't really enforce this beyond a few restrictions on your HQ units. Should we then blame the players for bring lots of Long Fangs? No. The rules let you do it - the fault is with the designers, and never the players.
If GW really wants to make a poorly - written game that doesn't do tourneys well ... people will go to other games. There *are* plenty of other games out there that are great for tournaments. GW is only hurting themselves by arbitrarily separating us into Casual and Competitive gamers and then damning the competitive gamers.
And as a side note, I know quite a few very competitive players who normally do very well at tournaments. These people are great fun to play against and know the rules very well. So this false idea that a competitive player equals a WAAC donkey-cave needs to go.
2012/08/17 21:41:36
Subject: Re:What if GW succeeds in its war against competitive 40k gameplay?
Red Hunters: 2000 points 
Grey Knights: 2000 points 
Black Legion: 600 points and counting 
Imperial Fists 4th company (Work In Progress)
Warhost of Biel-Tan (Coming Soon!)
WAAAGH Squigeye: 3500 and counting 
W/L/D 6e 3/2/0
W/L/D 6e 0/2/0
