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.
Peregrine wrote: WAAC (which should really be called "competitive" not WAAC). I don't care about your awful fanfiction for your space marines, just bring a good list and play the game.
Iow: "I, Peregrine, know the ONE TRUE WAY of playing Warhammer 40k!"
Sounds familiar?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/05/31 23:42:22
Traditio wrote: Iow: "I, Peregrine, know the ONE TRUE WAY of playing Warhammer 40k!"
Sounds familiar?
Yep. Except, unlike your false way, mine is the divinely-proclaimed One True Way To Have Fun.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
Peregrine wrote: WAAC (which should really be called "competitive" not WAAC).
I think that many people can agree that Competitive =/= WAAC. In your opinion, how are they the same?
Spoiler:
Traditio wrote:
Peregrine wrote: WAAC (which should really be called "competitive" not WAAC). I don't care about your awful fanfiction for your space marines, just bring a good list and play the game.
Iow: "I, Peregrine, know the ONE TRUE WAY of playing Warhammer 40k!"
Sounds familiar?
Peregrine wrote:
Traditio wrote: Iow: "I, Peregrine, know the ONE TRUE WAY of playing Warhammer 40k!"
Sounds familiar?
Yep. Except, unlike your false way, mine is the divinely-proclaimed One True Way To Have Fun.
IllumiNini wrote:I think that many people can agree that Competitive =/= WAAC.
In warhammer 40k, it's difficult to distinguish. 40k, as such, is not suitable for competitive gaming. The interior and exterior balance of the codices simply does not lend itself to fair gameplay assuming normal competitive principles.
In a normal competitive environment, I think that Peregrine is basically correct:
You select the strongest options and do everything permitted within the rules of the game to obtain a victory. That's why it's called "competitive." The goal is to win.
The problem is that 40k is not a normal competitive environment in which the parties involved can be assumed to be starting out on an even playing field at the beginning of the game and are relying solely on skill in order to win.
In that context, the only way to avoid being that guy (namely, those guys that voted that the wraithknight is appropriately costed or undercosted in my other poll), in my view, is either:
1. Only to play 40k matches in which both parties agree to play "competitively." 2. Consciously avoid making list decisions in a "competitive" spirit.
Why? Otherwise, you attempt to impose a form (competitive gameplay) on a matter which is ill disposed to receive it, and that's just as perverse as trying to make a statue out of water.
Peregrine, of course, won't bring himself to admit this, nor do I expect him to do so, nor do I expect you to do so.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/06/01 02:54:03
Well just beause it's difficult to distinguish between the two at times doesn't mean there isn't a distinct difference between the two ideas (especially of you look ard enough).
I think that saying they are the same thing is wrong, but saying that they often coincide is correct.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/06/01 02:57:12
I do wish, however, for what it's worth, to dispute the dichotomy of the poll.
I don't consider myself to be either a "fluffy" player or a WAAC/competitive player.
My list approaches fluffiness, but I don't make decisions based solely on what the fluff says.
Even in a non-competitive environment, it's not out of the question to make "optimal" decisions. I play crimson fists. I'm not wasting 10 points on vet sarge upgrades on tactical squads, and I'm most certainly not putting power fists on tactical sergeants.
In my view, the standard that 40k players should hold themselves to is:
NO SHENANIGANS!
Did you smile when you picked that codex entry? Pick something else.
Did you snicker when you thought of a combination? Pass it over.
If you don't have a straight/serious face on the whole time, your list is shenanigans. Try again.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/06/01 03:00:56
Traditio wrote: I do wish, however, for what it's worth, to dispute the dichotomy of the poll.
I don't consider myself to be either a "fluffy" player or a WAAC/competitive player.
My list approaches fluffiness, but I don't make decisions based solely on what the fluff says.
Even in a non-competitive environment, it's not out of the question to make "optimal" decisions. I play crimson fists. I'm not wasting 10 points on vet sarge upgrades on tactical squads, and I'm most certainly not putting power fists on tactical sergeants.
In my view, the standard that 40k players should hold themselves to is:
NO SHENANIGANS!
Did you smile when you picked that codex entry? Pick something else.
Did you snicker when you thought of a combination? Pass it over.
If you don't have a straight/serious face on the whole time, your list is shenanigans. Try again.
So if I really like Scouts and I smile when I decide to include them in my list as I always do then my list is shenanagins? Alright.
TheEyeOfNight- I swear, this thread is 70% smack talk, 20% RP organization, and 10% butt jokes
TheEyeOfNight- "Ordo Xenos reports that the Necrons have attained democracy, kamikaze tendencies, and nuclear fission. It's all tits up, sir."
Space Marine flyers are shaped for the greatest possible air resistance so that the air may never defeat the SPACE MARINES!
Sternguard though, those guys are all about kicking ass. They'd chew bubble gum as well, but bubble gum is heretical. Only tau chew gum
Traditio wrote: 40k, as such, is not suitable for competitive gaming.
Nor is it suitable for casual gaming, narrative gaming, or any other kind of gaming you can think of. Except maybe "throwing money at GW because we love spending money" gaming, but I don't think many people play that game.
The problem is that 40k is not a normal competitive environment in which the parties involved can be assumed to be starting out on an even playing field at the beginning of the game and are relying solely on skill in order to win.
Of course it is. All players have equal access to all options in 40k. Or are you one of those people who stubbornly insists that list building is not part of the game?
Why? Otherwise, you attempt to impose a form (competitive gameplay) on a matter which is ill disposed to receive it, and that's just as perverse as trying to make a statue out of water.
Your mistake here is assuming that 40k has some inherent non-competitive form, and playing competitively is imposing something new on it. This is not true. 40k has no inherent form, other than "give GW lots of money for zero-effort rules". You might as well say that playing narrative games is imposing a form on a matter which is ill disposed to receive it.
Peregrine, of course, won't bring himself to admit this, nor do I expect him to do so, nor do I expect you to do so.
I won't "admit" it because you're wrong, just like I won't "admit" that 1+1=4.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
War Kitten wrote:So if I really like Scouts and I smile when I decide to include them in my list as I always do then my list is shenanagins? Alright.
The fact that you smiled makes me suspicious.
Reconsider those scouts. You sound like you're up to something.
You obviously have something sinister planned, and I don't like it.
Nothing sinister. I promise. It's not like all my Scouts are secretly equipped with D-Scythes or anything
TheEyeOfNight- I swear, this thread is 70% smack talk, 20% RP organization, and 10% butt jokes
TheEyeOfNight- "Ordo Xenos reports that the Necrons have attained democracy, kamikaze tendencies, and nuclear fission. It's all tits up, sir."
Space Marine flyers are shaped for the greatest possible air resistance so that the air may never defeat the SPACE MARINES!
Sternguard though, those guys are all about kicking ass. They'd chew bubble gum as well, but bubble gum is heretical. Only tau chew gum
War Kitten wrote:So if I really like Scouts and I smile when I decide to include them in my list as I always do then my list is shenanagins? Alright.
The fact that you smiled makes me suspicious.
Reconsider those scouts. You sound like you're up to something.
Wow... just wow...
So he "Sounds like he's up to something" (not that i agree with this at all) is not a reason to think his army is employing shenanigans let alone shenanigans you cant handle (even with your self-imposed ridiculous limits).
Traditio wrote: If you don't have a straight/serious face on the whole time, your list is shenanigans. Try again.
I agree that 40k should be serious at all times. If you are having any fun at all while playing 40k you are having fun the wrong way, and are a Bad Person.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
Traditio wrote: 40k, as such, is not suitable for competitive gaming.
Nor is it suitable for casual gaming, narrative gaming, or any other kind of gaming you can think of. Except maybe "throwing money at GW because we love spending money" gaming, but I don't think many people play that game.
In what way is it not suitable for other styles of game? I understand why it is not suitable for competitive gaming because that style of gaming presupposes a certain amount of balance which is almost wholly missing from the bleeding edge of optimal choices. What is more, a highly competitive army often times causes basic apects to be irrelevant or break down entirely, which is even more damaging to the pretense that 40K is a competitive game. That doesn't mean that competitive games are not fun or without merit, but they definitely don't produce the sort of game that the rules intend.
But how does it not work as a narrative game? A casual game? I've played a dozen different rules sets in my life, from Piquet to DBM to Hail Caesar! to Clash of Arms and so on, and 40K does a decent job as a narrative and casual game compared to those other rules. You have to put in some effort to make it work but that's no different from innumerable historical rules sets that require you to design a scenario, an order of battle, and special rules for every match. 40K is substantially easier than those games because at least there is some structure to the Codexes, however poorly balanced they may be, that gives you a good guideline for how to play. In my experience all that it take to make 2000 points of Orks vs 2000 points of Eldar a fair, interesting game is some minor restrictions on army composition.
Is that the way the game should be? No. Is it fair that GW writes such poor rules in 6th and 7th? No again. But it's not some horribly broken, non-functional system that can never produce an enjoyable outcome. My weekend games at the local store are all perfectly enjoyable and are achieved with a minimal amount pre-game house ruling, a state of affairs that I am certain is replicated a thousand times over ever week, at all sorts of clubs and stores. The rules kind of stink, but they have a lot of appealing aspects too and it's not rocket science to tweak army composition a tad to make it a fair and enjoyable game.
Madness is however an affliction which in war carries with it the advantage of surprise - Winston Churchill
Traditio wrote: 40k, as such, is not suitable for competitive gaming.
Nor is it suitable for casual gaming, narrative gaming, or any other kind of gaming you can think of. Except maybe "throwing money at GW because we love spending money" gaming, but I don't think many people play that game.
In what way is it not suitable for other styles of game? I understand why it is not suitable for competitive gaming because that style of gaming presupposes a certain amount of balance which is almost wholly missing from the bleeding edge of optimal choices. What is more, a highly competitive army often times causes basic apects to be irrelevant or break down entirely, which is even more damaging to the pretense that 40K is a competitive game. That doesn't mean that competitive games are not fun or without merit, but they definitely don't produce the sort of game that the rules intend.
But how does it not work as a narrative game? A casual game? I've played a dozen different rules sets in my life, from Piquet to DBM to Hail Caesar! to Clash of Arms and so on, and 40K does a decent job as a narrative and casual game compared to those other rules. You have to put in some effort to make it work but that's no different from innumerable historical rules sets that require you to design a scenario, an order of battle, and special rules for every match. 40K is substantially easier than those games because at least there is some structure to the Codexes, however poorly balanced they may be, that gives you a good guideline for how to play. In my experience all that it take to make 2000 points of Orks vs 2000 points of Eldar a fair, interesting game is some minor restrictions on army composition.
Is that the way the game should be? No. Is it fair that GW writes such poor rules in 6th and 7th? No again. But it's not some horribly broken, non-functional system that can never produce an enjoyable outcome. My weekend games at the local store are all perfectly enjoyable and are achieved with a minimal amount pre-game house ruling, a state of affairs that I am certain is replicated a thousand times over ever week, at all sorts of clubs and stores. The rules kind of stink, but they have a lot of appealing aspects too and it's not rocket science to tweak army composition a tad to make it a fair and enjoyable game.
Presumably because the rules are so unbalanced that even casual/narrative can have one side dominating. Jim likes Jetbikes so buys a lot of them for his Eldar. Bob likes Terminators so buys a bunch of them. Jim will stomp Bob 9 out of 10 times because Jetbikes (not even scatbikes) are good and Terminators are bad. That's why.
I would imagine it all depends on who you play with and how.
If your gaming group is overly competitive...you'll either need to adapt or get used to losing. Conversely if our group is all about narrative campaign game or large story-driven Apocalypse games etc. then perhaps army selection is a little less important for "cheese" or beardiness.
Presumably because the rules are so unbalanced that even casual/narrative can have one side dominating. Jim likes Jetbikes so buys a lot of them for his Eldar. Bob likes Terminators so buys a bunch of them. Jim will stomp Bob 9 out of 10 times because Jetbikes (not even scatbikes) are good and Terminators are bad. That's why.
Maybe Jim agrees to take fewer jetbikes in order to make it a better game for Bob. Maybe Jim and Bob talk things out and devise a better strategy for Bob to employ, one that will make for a better game. Or maybe Bob doesn't care about losing so long as he gets to put his terminators on the field. Seems like a pretty normal issue to encounter with the game, one that is easily resolved to the satisfaction of both players.
Or am I missing you point? Because I really don't see how your hypothetical falls outside of the parameters I've presented in the posts above.
Madness is however an affliction which in war carries with it the advantage of surprise - Winston Churchill
Presumably because the rules are so unbalanced that even casual/narrative can have one side dominating. Jim likes Jetbikes so buys a lot of them for his Eldar. Bob likes Terminators so buys a bunch of them. Jim will stomp Bob 9 out of 10 times because Jetbikes (not even scatbikes) are good and Terminators are bad. That's why.
Maybe Jim agrees to take fewer jetbikes in order to make it a better game for Bob. Maybe Jim and Bob talk things out and devise a better strategy for Bob to employ, one that will make for a better game. Or maybe Bob doesn't care about losing so long as he gets to put his terminators on the field. Seems like a pretty normal issue to encounter with the game, one that is easily resolved to the satisfaction of both players.
Or am I missing you point? Because I really don't see how your hypothetical falls outside of the parameters I've presented in the posts above.
The point was that "Jim" shouldn't have to "agree to take fewer jetbikes in order to make it a better game for Bob" or Bob shouldn't have to not care about losing as long as he can play what he wants. These things should not be mutually exclusive. Bob should be able to play a Terminator army and not worry about being outclassed simply because he likes Terminators, and the "Powers That Be" have decided that, for whatever reason, Terminators perform poorly. Jim should be able to play what he wants without feeling like he's making the game not fun for his opponent just because Jetbikes are good.
Saber wrote: But how does it not work as a narrative game? A casual game? I've played a dozen different rules sets in my life, from Piquet to DBM to Hail Caesar! to Clash of Arms and so on, and 40K does a decent job as a narrative and casual game compared to those other rules. You have to put in some effort to make it work but that's no different from innumerable historical rules sets that require you to design a scenario, an order of battle, and special rules for every match. 40K is substantially easier than those games because at least there is some structure to the Codexes, however poorly balanced they may be, that gives you a good guideline for how to play. In my experience all that it take to make 2000 points of Orks vs 2000 points of Eldar a fair, interesting game is some minor restrictions on army composition.
Why it doesn't work as a narrative game:
* Terrible balance that requires you to carefully construct armies based on power level rather than just taking the fluff-appropriate units and knowing that everything will be reasonably well balanced.
* Excessive randomness (random warlord traits, maelstrom missions, etc) that replace player decisions about the story with random effects. This can be fixed by house rules, but doing so is a concession that the rules as published by GW are not suitable for narrative play.
* Complete lack of support for things like building your own story-driven missions, character development over an ongoing campaign, etc. They aren't in the core rules (and in fact have been taken out of the core rules, previous editions had more on narrative missions!), and when they do appear in various supplements they're presented as "here are some missions for you" rather than "here's how to make your own missions". GW certainly isn't going to stop you from coming up with your own stuff, but they aren't going to make much of an effort to help you do it.
* Rules that encourage "slaughter everything" games where both armies are almost entirely wiped out at the end of each game, making it difficult to create any ongoing characters for a story. Sure, after one "death" in game you can call it "heavily wounded but survived", but when it happens every game it starts to become a lot less plausible.
The short form of it is that "forge the narrative" really means "don't ask awkward questions about why our rules are bad", not genuine support for narrative gaming.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
You touch upon a big problem with 40K for campaign or scenario based games - there is no meaningful morale in the game.
Motivation isn't really a consideration but it should be. A unit in enemy territory waiting for evacuation is likely much more motivated to continue fighting than the enemy forces pursuing them. A unit that is patrolling to contact will not be motivated to fight and will break from combat at the earliest opportunity.
With a system that considers this and the effect of wounded unit members on the rest of the squad casualties are dramatically lower.
Of course, some factions are different. Marines and orks become much scarier in a system where morale and casualties are well handled as they shrug off light injuries, leave their wounded behind and are (nearly) always highly motivated.
Presumably because the rules are so unbalanced that even casual/narrative can have one side dominating. Jim likes Jetbikes so buys a lot of them for his Eldar. Bob likes Terminators so buys a bunch of them. Jim will stomp Bob 9 out of 10 times because Jetbikes (not even scatbikes) are good and Terminators are bad. That's why.
Maybe Jim agrees to take fewer jetbikes in order to make it a better game for Bob. Maybe Jim and Bob talk things out and devise a better strategy for Bob to employ, one that will make for a better game. Or maybe Bob doesn't care about losing so long as he gets to put his terminators on the field. Seems like a pretty normal issue to encounter with the game, one that is easily resolved to the satisfaction of both players.
Or am I missing you point? Because I really don't see how your hypothetical falls outside of the parameters I've presented in the posts above.
The point was that "Jim" shouldn't have to "agree to take fewer jetbikes in order to make it a better game for Bob" or Bob shouldn't have to not care about losing as long as he can play what he wants. These things should not be mutually exclusive. Bob should be able to play a Terminator army and not worry about being outclassed simply because he likes Terminators, and the "Powers That Be" have decided that, for whatever reason, Terminators perform poorly. Jim should be able to play what he wants without feeling like he's making the game not fun for his opponent just because Jetbikes are good.
OR Bob should have read his Codex carefully and realized there was more than one unit to choose from, and that all units have their own strengths and weaknesses, like almost every other game in existence. If I'm playing Starcraft 2 and I only use Siege Tanks, then I'm going to get run over by Zerglings. A balanced list is the key to having fun, not just spamming one unit and then complaining when that unit gets hard countered. Bob can easily buy a few new units to help combat the bikes.
6000 pts
2000 pts
2500 pts
3000 pts
"We're on an express elevator to hell - goin' down!"
"Depends on the service being refused. It should be fine to refuse to make a porn star a dildo shaped cake that they wanted to use in a wedding themed porn..."
Fluffy. Just remember that the current Eldar, Necron, Tau and Marine codexes are fluffy as written. These armies frequently win in the fluff..and the current rule set reflects that.
Retrogamer0001 wrote: OR Bob should have read his Codex carefully and realized there was more than one unit to choose from, and that all units have their own strengths and weaknesses, like almost every other game in existence. If I'm playing Starcraft 2 and I only use Siege Tanks, then I'm going to get run over by Zerglings. A balanced list is the key to having fun, not just spamming one unit and then complaining when that unit gets hard countered. Bob can easily buy a few new units to help combat the bikes.
Except we're talking about fluff, not tactics, and all-terminator forces are a thing in the fluff. If they aren't viable in the tabletop game without compromising the fluff and taking other units then it's another example of 40k being a bad narrative game.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
Retrogamer0001 wrote: OR Bob should have read his Codex carefully and realized there was more than one unit to choose from, and that all units have their own strengths and weaknesses, like almost every other game in existence. If I'm playing Starcraft 2 and I only use Siege Tanks, then I'm going to get run over by Zerglings. A balanced list is the key to having fun, not just spamming one unit and then complaining when that unit gets hard countered. Bob can easily buy a few new units to help combat the bikes.
Except we're talking about fluff, not tactics, and all-terminator forces are a thing in the fluff. If they aren't viable in the tabletop game without compromising the fluff and taking other units then it's another example of 40k being a bad narrative game.
That's a pretty specific example, one that I don't feel represents 40K as being "a bad narrative game." If you want narrative, then stage it that way, use house-rules and very specific army lists to achieve the type of game you want. There's literally nothing stopping anyone from playing 40K the exact way they want to in a strictly narrative, casual way.
6000 pts
2000 pts
2500 pts
3000 pts
"We're on an express elevator to hell - goin' down!"
"Depends on the service being refused. It should be fine to refuse to make a porn star a dildo shaped cake that they wanted to use in a wedding themed porn..."
JimOnMars wrote: Fluffy. Just remember that the current Eldar, Necron, Tau and Marine codexes are fluffy as written. These armies frequently win in the fluff..and the current rule set reflects that.
For these armies, waac IS fluffy.
Partly this is why I think that the WAAC vs. fluffy thing is just silly.
Traditio wrote: If you don't have a straight/serious face on the whole time, your list is shenanigans. Try again.
I agree that 40k should be serious at all times. If you are having any fun at all while playing 40k you are having fun the wrong way, and are a Bad Person.
If WAAC players are having fun, then the game is being played the wrong way. I will say that.
If you're the kind of player, say, who likes to min/max in video games, then when I just play the game and don't stop every 5 seconds to min/max my gear/stats/etc., then you should be frustrated...
...
...and learn to deal with it.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2016/06/01 21:16:38
Retrogamer0001 wrote: If you want narrative, then stage it that way, use house-rules and very specific army lists to achieve the type of game you want. There's literally nothing stopping anyone from playing 40K the exact way they want to in a strictly narrative, casual way.
IOW, "if you want a narrative game don't play 40k, play your own game where you take some of 40k's ideas and make up your own rules based on those ideas". If that's what you have to resort to then I'll take it as your concession that 40k sucks as a narrative game.
Where "fair" is defined as "Traditio's C:SM tactical spam army has at least a 50% chance of winning".
If WAAC players are having fun, then the game is being played the wrong way. I will say that.
IOW, "STOP HAVING FUN THE WRONG WAY I DON'T LIKE IT WHEN YOU HAVE FUN DOING THINGS I DON'T ENJOY".
If you're the kind of player, say, who likes to min/max in video games, then when I just play the game and don't stop every 5 seconds to min/max my gear/stats/etc., then you should be frustrated...
...
...and learn to deal with it.
IOW, "STOP HAVING FUN THE WRONG WAY MY WAY OF HAVING FUN IS THE ONLY CORRECT WAY AND EVERYONE ELSE MUST PLAY MY WAY AND DEAL WITH IT".
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/06/01 21:19:02
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
6000 pts
2000 pts
2500 pts
3000 pts
