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.

 vict0988 wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
How is surrendering cheating? "Having a fit"? The POINT of a game is to have fun. If it's no longer fun, people should walk away. Why do you want to turn Warhammer into Monopoly, an exercise in drawn out misery?

It sounds to me like you feel cheated that you only got to stomp him for a few turns instead of all the turns.

Not playing by the rules of the game is cheating. If you just invented a new warlord trait and used it without your opponent's permission it'd be cheating. Ending the game before the end of the mission is cheating if done without your opponent's permission.

It sounds like you a whiny grog that surrenders any game where you aren't stomping your opponent. It only makes sense to surrender all the time if your measure of having fun is how many games you win in a given month "oh this game isn't going so well, I'll be able to beat my quota if I surrender and start a new game".

Yup, just reinforcing the idea that he quit because he doesn’t want to play YOU rather than not want to play the game. Arguing that someone is cheating because they don’t want the play with you is pretty low.

 vict0988 wrote:

Not playing by the rules of the game is cheating. If you just invented a new warlord trait and used it without your opponent's permission it'd be cheating. Ending the game before the end of the mission is cheating if done without your opponent's permission. .

How on earth do you think you're going to force someone to play a game if they don't want to? I can't quit without your "permission"? Watch me. You carry on with the other three turns if you like, but I'm off to read a book, and that'll be the last time we ever play any game.

Was it a fun game for you, if you had to literally browbeat your fellow player into taking part?

 Kroem wrote:
For me a casual game is more about not bringing an optimally built list or quibbling the rules all the time rather than making deliberately stupid decisions in the game.

Although around here that's known as playing like a normal person!

This is pretty much it, I've played one apparently competitive game in my life, my opponent got into a rules argument with a passerby before the game even started, only reminded me of rules when it was to his benefit and played the most lifeless boring game of 40k I've ever been happy to be told the store was closing before the end of.

When you're playing to actually have fun rather than taking all possible steps to ensure your victory.

 ArbitorIan wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
How is surrendering cheating? "Having a fit"? The POINT of a game is to have fun. If it's no longer fun, people should walk away. Why do you want to turn Warhammer into Monopoly, an exercise in drawn out misery?

It sounds to me like you feel cheated that you only got to stomp him for a few turns instead of all the turns.

Not playing by the rules of the game is cheating. If you just invented a new warlord trait and used it without your opponent's permission it'd be cheating. Ending the game before the end of the mission is cheating if done without your opponent's permission.

It sounds like you a whiny grog that surrenders any game where you aren't stomping your opponent. It only makes sense to surrender all the time if your measure of having fun is how many games you win in a given month "oh this game isn't going so well, I'll be able to beat my quota if I surrender and start a new game".

Yup, just reinforcing the idea that he quit because he doesn’t want to play YOU rather than not want to play the game. Arguing that someone is cheating because they don’t want the play with you is pretty low.

Yeah, as this thread has gone on I'm leaning more towards this conclusion too. It ties in to what I mentioned in my original post in this thread - one of the key ways to define a casual game is in the attitudes of both opponents and the way they approach the game itself. You can have two cut-throat lists played in the final of a big tournament but it's still possible to have a casual attitude towards the game. What I'm seeing now from the OP seems like the opposite of that. If you're going to define conceding as cheating and call people "whiny grogs" for doing so I think the problem your opponent had with the game may not have been just with what happened on the board but with the attitude of the opponent.

A casual game is one when you play stuff you like thematically, and aren’t out to build a monster list to make people cry at tournaments. That said, I come from an environment growing up where we were competitive; we wanted to do the best job we could. There was smack-talk, there was ball-busting, and we tried to make the dirtiest lists possible to cheese each other. I’m past that now, I don’t play (or live near) with that group anymore, and I’m looking for more laid back play. I still want to play the models I LIKE, and don’t plan to play like I’m a four year old, but I won’t try to run the cheesiest thing I can think of (unless I’m playing against someone I know deserves it). We have one local guy who is such a poor sport, cheats, and acts like the biggest GW know-it-all, that I will deliberately run the most broken stuff I can think of to chew him apart and drive him off. Store managers have been on the fence about kicking him out because of the scene he makes when he loses, so THAT kind of player I want to crush and drive off. Other players, like the guy I played against last week...I want FUN games where it could go either way.

 AndrewGPaul wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:

Not playing by the rules of the game is cheating. If you just invented a new warlord trait and used it without your opponent's permission it'd be cheating. Ending the game before the end of the mission is cheating if done without your opponent's permission. .

How on earth do you think you're going to force someone to play a game if they don't want to? I can't quit without your "permission"? Watch me. You carry on with the other three turns if you like, but I'm off to read a book, and that'll be the last time we ever play any game.

Was it a fun game for you, if you had to literally browbeat your fellow player into taking part?

I'm stronger and less fat than most nerds, I grew up on a farm and I pick things up and put them down sometimes at work, so it's really not that hard. It really shouldn't be that hard to catch me being facetious either. It's pretty simple, if I feel like you waste my time by surrendering earlier than when the game is decided and if you aren't going somewhere then I'll prioritize picking games up with other people just like you might prioritize picking games up with people who are into the narrative aspect of the game, rather than a kind of casual tournament environment which I'm more into (no top lists and lots of take-backsies, but also a focus on trying to play the game well).

I honestly believed my opponent had a chance of winning and a huge chance of making a bad experience of "losing" (which he hadn't) into a proper fight. I was also afraid that my opponent might be beginning to develop a bad habit of quitting games he could still win because I asked him to play and he told me he had a game set-up and shortly after he asked me if I wanted to do the game I had asked him to play because he had surrendered his last game already. I also hate to leave my opponents crushed, especially in a casual game. I have a moral quibble with purposefully losing so I don't do that, but I try to lift my opponent's spirits in every other way I can short of hm hmm. It's also why I always prioritize bringing snacks to casual games, but then a couple of gits come into the thread and suggest (on an unrelated tangent) that I get off on keeping people in games they've already lost so I can spank my tactical acumen. If I wanted to do that I would have continued posting battle reports in the Necron tactics thread.

Maybe you just weren't fun to play with.

 vict0988 wrote:

 AndrewGPaul wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:

Not playing by the rules of the game is cheating. If you just invented a new warlord trait and used it without your opponent's permission it'd be cheating. Ending the game before the end of the mission is cheating if done without your opponent's permission. .

How on earth do you think you're going to force someone to play a game if they don't want to? I can't quit without your "permission"? Watch me. You carry on with the other three turns if you like, but I'm off to read a book, and that'll be the last time we ever play any game.

Was it a fun game for you, if you had to literally browbeat your fellow player into taking part?

I'm stronger and less fat than most nerds, I grew up on a farm and I pick things up and put them down sometimes at work, so it's really not that hard.

Jesus Christ, dude. There was already a metaphorical non-consent issue here then you go and say this. Joking or not, it's not cool.

Basically the realistic answer is casual = noncompetitive ie. not in a tournament setting.

Narrative games by their nature are casual, but to say that narrative is the ONLY way to play casual is a misnomer.

For instance, the last game of 6th Ed WFB I played (which was a few months ago, lucky me) was a mission where my forces were half the points of the Attacking force. There was no way for me to win in standard terms, but the scenario set victory conditions for my win. Since I was playing to win by those conditions, I might have been interpreted as a competitive gamer by the CAACs on here. The WAACs, on the other hand, may think I'm a filthy casual for playing a thematic scenario like that.

Me? I think I'm a player. I play competitively when in a tourney, and casually with pick up games. I still play to win, but I play casually.



Here's a question: in 3rd Ed there was a scenario in the Dark Angels Codex that replayed the battle where Sgt. Naamen died. If he survived the game, did the game suddenly become competitive instead of casual because it wasn't played exactly to fluff?

 Just Tony wrote:
I play competitively when in a tourney, and casually with pick up games. I still play to win, but I play casually.

I'd put myself in the same category. There are behaviors I follow when I'm playing in a tournament (no do-overs, "cracked" dice consistency, limited out-of-context conversation) that are entirely different from how I act when I'm playing in a relaxed setting with friends or fellow gamers (do-overs, re-rolling of dice, plenty of talk, and resets if things go disastrously in the first couple turns).

And I always play to win. It's a wargame - there's going to be a winning side and a losing side at the end of the day, and I'd prefer to be a winner. But I'm not going to be a jerk about it (or at least, I try my hardest not to be, and I'm pretty good at recognizing if I'm starting to get "tilt" from a bad game). And "winning" doesn't always means doing the best in the game at hand. If I'm playing in a campaign, winning a scenario at the cost of my troops is much worst than losing a game but keeping my force in fighting condition.

 vict0988 wrote:

 AndrewGPaul wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:

Not playing by the rules of the game is cheating. If you just invented a new warlord trait and used it without your opponent's permission it'd be cheating. Ending the game before the end of the mission is cheating if done without your opponent's permission. .

How on earth do you think you're going to force someone to play a game if they don't want to? I can't quit without your "permission"? Watch me. You carry on with the other three turns if you like, but I'm off to read a book, and that'll be the last time we ever play any game.

Was it a fun game for you, if you had to literally browbeat your fellow player into taking part?

I'm stronger and less fat than most nerds, I grew up on a farm and I pick things up and put them down sometimes at work, so it's really not that hard. It really shouldn't be that hard to catch me being facetious either. It's pretty simple, if I feel like you waste my time by surrendering earlier than when the game is decided and if you aren't going somewhere then I'll prioritize picking games up with other people just like you might prioritize picking games up with people who are into the narrative aspect of the game, rather than a kind of casual tournament environment which I'm more into (no top lists and lots of take-backsies, but also a focus on trying to play the game well).

I honestly believed my opponent had a chance of winning and a huge chance of making a bad experience of "losing" (which he hadn't) into a proper fight. I was also afraid that my opponent might be beginning to develop a bad habit of quitting games he could still win because I asked him to play and he told me he had a game set-up and shortly after he asked me if I wanted to do the game I had asked him to play because he had surrendered his last game already. I also hate to leave my opponents crushed, especially in a casual game. I have a moral quibble with purposefully losing so I don't do that, but I try to lift my opponent's spirits in every other way I can short of hm hmm. It's also why I always prioritize bringing snacks to casual games, but then a couple of gits come into the thread and suggest (on an unrelated tangent) that I get off on keeping people in games they've already lost so I can spank my tactical acumen. If I wanted to do that I would have continued posting battle reports in the Necron tactics thread.

Besides being rather offensive in this last post, you seem to have a bizarre understanding of the implicit social contract in tabletop games as well as the rules. Both players have to agree to play and its not against the rules to leave a game. Now, it might be somewhat unsportsmanlike to quit a game and leave somebody hanging who could have had a full game against somebody else. It would be understandable if you chose to play other people in future games if you did not simply reset the game and try again. On the other hand, its also unsportsmanlike for you to be overbearing or condescending against your opponent when they say that they concede. Given your reaction to folks here I am prepared to give the benefit of the doubt to your opponent. It has nothing to do with casual or competitive. A tabletop game is two gamers that have agreed to play. You can't force them, and there is absolutely nothing in the rules saying that you can!

As an aside, I've always seen a pretentious edge to the term "social contract". How can anyone claim to view anything as casual while simultaneously assuming unspoken contractual obligations?

 Just Tony wrote:
As an aside, I've always seen a pretentious edge to the term "social contract". How can anyone claim to view anything as casual while simultaneously assuming unspoken contractual obligations?

It's just a way of saying behave according to common expectation, phrased for people who don't understand how to do that.

 Just Tony wrote:
As an aside, I've always seen a pretentious edge to the term "social contract". How can anyone claim to view anything as casual while simultaneously assuming unspoken contractual obligations?

That is because all human interactions represent social contracts between those humans. Expectations. Ideals. Shared concepts. All such things are "binding" in so much as when one ceases to desire to adhere one discontinues the contact and the contract. But in the real world there are expectations.

In work, in family, in friendships, in the home, and in the game store. You adhere to a social contract of acceptable behavior while in the store or the store asks you to leave. You fail to leave and usually the other other social contracts come into play.. usually involving sirens and handcuffs.

It's not pretentious at all. Its called, life.

The concept of "Don't be a gak heel" is not pretentious at all. Wrapping it up with comforting therapy terms is what comes off as pretentious.



The concept is still sound. Don't enjoy the player? Don't play against the player.

 vict0988 wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
How is surrendering cheating? "Having a fit"? The POINT of a game is to have fun. If it's no longer fun, people should walk away. Why do you want to turn Warhammer into Monopoly, an exercise in drawn out misery?

It sounds to me like you feel cheated that you only got to stomp him for a few turns instead of all the turns.

Not playing by the rules of the game is cheating. If you just invented a new warlord trait and used it without your opponent's permission it'd be cheating. Ending the game before the end of the mission is cheating if done without your opponent's permission.

If a person said this to me as I was packing up my minis, I would pity him.

It sounds like you a whiny grog that surrenders any game where you aren't stomping your opponent. It only makes sense to surrender all the time if your measure of having fun is how many games you win in a given month "oh this game isn't going so well, I'll be able to beat my quota if I surrender and start a new game".

I don't care about winning. I care about not having all but a tiny fraction of my forces killed or locked in some kind of combat that loses them a whole turn. Losing is often fun. Not being able to do anything, that is not fun. I will quit a game in an instant if I think my opponent wants to have fun at my expense rather than in collaboration, and I would expect the same if my opponent was having a miserable experience. I treat people how I want to be treated. I would prefer not to play at all rather than have some awkward, uncomfortable game getting my jollies while my partner isn't having fun.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
How is surrendering cheating? "Having a fit"? The POINT of a game is to have fun. If it's no longer fun, people should walk away. Why do you want to turn Warhammer into Monopoly, an exercise in drawn out misery?

It sounds to me like you feel cheated that you only got to stomp him for a few turns instead of all the turns.

Not playing by the rules of the game is cheating. If you just invented a new warlord trait and used it without your opponent's permission it'd be cheating. Ending the game before the end of the mission is cheating if done without your opponent's permission.

If a person said this to me as I was packing up my minis, I would pity him.

It sounds like you a whiny grog that surrenders any game where you aren't stomping your opponent. It only makes sense to surrender all the time if your measure of having fun is how many games you win in a given month "oh this game isn't going so well, I'll be able to beat my quota if I surrender and start a new game".

I don't care about winning. I care about not having all but a tiny fraction of my forces killed or locked in some kind of combat that loses them a whole turn. Losing is often fun. Not being able to do anything, that is not fun. I will quit a game in an instant if I think my opponent wants to have fun at my expense rather than in collaboration, and I would expect the same if my opponent was having a miserable experience. I treat people how I want to be treated. I would prefer not to play at all rather than have some awkward, uncomfortable game getting my jollies while my partner isn't having fun.

Unfortunately, for a certain portion of the population(overall, not just on the TT) that is the only way in which they can get their jollies. Unless they're completely demolishing their opponent or playing in a way which their fun is the only that matters, they just cant handle any other stimuli. It isnt just how they play that way, but the why they are playing like that, is what really is sad. If someone wants to capitulate and it is obvious why they are, then you are just being a dick if you wont let them. Cuz unless you are pointing a gun at them, you have absolutely zero say in whether they do or do not.

Now if someone consistently quits when things dont go their way; then eff'em, dont play 'em, and hopefully they'll just go away.

 Just Tony wrote:
Here's a question: in 3rd Ed there was a scenario in the Dark Angels Codex that replayed the battle where Sgt. Naamen died. If he survived the game, did the game suddenly become competitive instead of casual because it wasn't played exactly to fluff?

Ha! I guess it depends how you played the game. I’d be likely to play to try and keep him alive (probably what I’m meant to be doing as a Dark Angels player) but then have him sacrifice himself nobly in turn 5 or something.

A better comparison:

You’re playing in a game with a friend where your big scary leader has a chance to charge their big scary leader and that would be thematically appropriate (the obvious example here is Heresy - your Angron could charge their Leman Russ). However, doing so wouldn’t be the best thing for you to do - it wouldn’t be a disaster, but you’ve got more chance of winning the game if you don’t charge. Do you charge?

Steroetypical casual answer: yeah, that would be cool, let’s do it. (Note you're still trying to win the game, you just accept that cool stuff trumps that sometimes).
Stereotypical competitive answer: no, my World Eaters will hide in cover all game if that’s the best way of winning.

I don't think you can really fit "casual" with a proper definition. There are definitely casual traits to a game which you won't find in a proper competitive game.

-If you're 5-10 points over the game limit, it's not a big deal.
-If you skipped a phase or forgot to do something, we can rewind a bit and let you fix it.
-If you took one of the warlord traits which is cool rather than the one "must have" in your codex? Cool.
-You didn't take the unquestionably best chapter/army trait? (i.e. taking anything other than Alaitoc for Eldar, etc.) Cool.
-You want to take units which are not only sub-optimal...but downright poor because you love the models? (read: assault marines) Cool.
-You want to have a thematic moment on the tabletop but it's just outside of the rules? Let's bend them and make it happen (example below)
-You're not going to use a re-roll strat to avoid blowing up your tank...because gak blowing up is awesome? Cool.
-Your Warlord wants to face my Warlord in close combat? Cool, neither of us will shoot them on the way in.
-A unit in your army doesn't take advantage of a game rule because acting in that fashion doesn't fit their home-made fluff? Cool.
-Your home-made fluff causes a unit to commit a suicidal game maneuver because it fits...even if you suffer in-game for it? Cool.
-You house-rule some minor rules issues because you both think they're lame? Cool.

Stuff like this is what I'd consider casual. Not something you'd likely do in a pick-up game (unless you know the person and have similar tastes). You're not prepping for a tournament. You're not building an optimal list. You're interested in more in the story-telling aspect of the game rather than the "Well, he wanted to face my warlord but...then I used a double-shoot strat on my nearby tank to obliterate him...so..." etc.

Just reading the above items is probably making some people clench their jaws because "AHHHH, that's not legal!" etc. That's...fine. No one is ever going to force you to play a casual game. Just as no one will ever force someone to play a competitive game. Hell some of the people go to your tournaments and do some of the above because they're indifferent.

Example of a casual game incident...

Playing a big 2v2 game of 40K a couple months back. First time I've played with some buddies from another city in years. We set up a massive table and throw ridiculous armies at eachother. My CSM Sorcerer with jump pack makes a successful charge against a nearby Valkyrie. For aesthetics I place the sorcerer on top of the Valkyrie (sure it's not legal, but who cares). Then, for fun I challenge anyone into the Valkyrie to fight me on top of the craft...because why? Because it'd be fething cool. Unfortunately I didn't realize Colonel Straken was onboard the Valkyrie. Anyway when he activated (we were playing token activations), Straken hopped up on the roof and slew my sorcerer moments before the Valkyrie was shot out of the sky. While some occupants died, Straken didn't. We, as a group, all agreed he had leapt off the Valkyrie clutching the dead Sorcerer - triggering his jump pack to land safely.

Was any of this in the rulebook for 8th? No. But it looked cool, and it was cool. That's more important than carefully and critically playing the game to achieve a mathematical points victory to some people.



So to me, casual means the game rules bend to the rule of cool rather than the rule of ruthless efficiency. I won't say it bends to the rule of fun - because people have fun in different ways. If, during a game, someone in our group says "oh man, you know what would be so cool..." it's probably going to happen. We'll find a way. Now, it's very noticeable in our group that the older players (late 30's, early 40's) are far more casual than the early 20's guys...but I think that's a pretty natural mentality change.

*My* definition of casual gaming is when the activity matters more than the result.

ArbitorIan wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:
Here's a question: in 3rd Ed there was a scenario in the Dark Angels Codex that replayed the battle where Sgt. Naamen died. If he survived the game, did the game suddenly become competitive instead of casual because it wasn't played exactly to fluff?

Ha! I guess it depends how you played the game. I’d be likely to play to try and keep him alive (probably what I’m meant to be doing as a Dark Angels player) but then have him sacrifice himself nobly in turn 5 or something.

A better comparison:

You’re playing in a game with a friend where your big scary leader has a chance to charge their big scary leader and that would be thematically appropriate (the obvious example here is Heresy - your Angron could charge their Leman Russ). However, doing so wouldn’t be the best thing for you to do - it wouldn’t be a disaster, but you’ve got more chance of winning the game if you don’t charge. Do you charge?

Steroetypical casual answer: yeah, that would be cool, let’s do it. (Note you're still trying to win the game, you just accept that cool stuff trumps that sometimes).
Stereotypical competitive answer: no, my World Eaters will hide in cover all game if that’s the best way of winning.

Personally? Even in tourneys I'd charge that charge. I don't milk the win, and I never have. If I can't win with an axe to the opposing army's faces, then I need to not play the game.

Also, parked units like that are why you make sure to run indirect fire weapons. Shell 'em till they move.

1. Put terrain down on the table in a way that looks awesome

2. flip around and find a cool sounding scenario

3. use the recommended power levels for the game, no points

4. place beer in hand

Enjoy 90 minutes of hanging out and playing a scenario.

This is my weekly 40k hangout at my house at my gaming tables with my pals who all don't give a gak about points matches

 Just Tony wrote:
Basically the realistic answer is casual = noncompetitive ie. not in a tournament setting.
Narrative games by their nature are casual, but to say that narrative is the ONLY way to play casual is a misnomer.

With respect, I cannot agree with either of these statements.

Whilst tournaments are the ultimate expression of the game to some, to others, they're everything bad, and to others again, a tournament is just an organised event rather than a status, and it's nothing more than a good way to get 3 or 4 games in in a day, when gaming time is limited(wife, kids etc) and to catch up with old friends and have a few beers and roll lots of dice.

When you talk about ‘casual’ and ‘non-competitive’, you are making a mistake of putting them on the opposite ends of the same scale ie casual is not competitive. While there may be some overlap, ‘casual’ and ‘competitive’ are better seen as separate scales/metrics. ‘Casual’ lies on the casual/serious scale, as the opposite of casual is serious, not competitive. Competitive lies on the competitive/not-competitive scale. A ‘casual’ football fan will say he supports team x, but probably won’t have a season ticket, probably won’t follow the daily news updates, or every game result, but will probably keep an eye on the big games. And may or may not have the club strip. This is different to how a ‘serious’ fan will behave. Let’s be clear – neither is wrong. Similarly, you can be in a tournament setting, with a ‘tournament-grade’ or S-class army, and play casually. You can be in a ‘casual’ setting, with a ‘grass leagues’ or D-class army, and take the game, and in-game decisions very seriously and play ‘properly’. I regard myself as a ‘serious’ player, as I take my hobby/games quite seriously, but on the competitive scale, I am somewhere in the middle, i.e. somewhere between ‘not-competitive’ and ‘competitive-at-all-costs’. Maybe you could say ‘tactically competitive’, based on the 'headline' that strategy=list building, and tactics=what you do on the table with your list (though this itself will have many different interpretations).

‘Narrative’ games are not necessarily casual. In fact, I would argue to be enjoyed, they need to be taken seriously. While they can be casual, in my experience, people referring to them as ‘casual mode’ often don’t play them or have more limited experience of them or limited exposure to people that do play them. As a more-or-less narrative player these days (and for the record, I do play pick-up-games, and have played (and enjoyed immensely) tournaments for the best part of 15 years across multiple gaming systems, including 40k and warmachine), I have to say that in my experience, narrative games are, for the most part, the opposite of ‘casual’. They are often, in fact, ‘by their nature’ pretty ‘serious’ affairs. Don’t make the mistake of thinking that just because they’re not a tournament, that people don’t take them seriously. They require a very deep understanding of the games systems themselves and require a lot more preparation and ‘game-building’ than pick-up-games/tournament games, as often they require asymmetric missions/scenarios and ‘eyeballing’ the relative ‘strength/values/worth’ of the opposing forces, ‘relative’ list-matching (as opposed to ‘list-building-for advantage’) being a function of the scenario/theme and often being collaborate in nature (I really dislike the term ‘co-operative’ in these circumstances), or under the control of a neutral third-party or ‘umpire’ rather than a function of the players’ strategy (an ‘absolute’ approach of each individual, in isolation, ‘picking the best list’). Similarly, once the game is on, narrative games in my experience can get serious and cut-throat with both players going for the win (let's call it tactically competitive), rather than faffing about and not bothering. In my point of view, none of that represents a ‘casual’ attitude to the hobby or a 'casual' kind of game. Getting ‘good’ at narrative gaming is as much of a skill as ending up at the top table of a tournament fighting for first place.

To answer the OP, to me ‘casual’ is ‘not-serious’. In terms of attitude, more laid back. What that means specifically is entirely nebulous and entirely depends on the perspective of the individual player. And it's a gradient, not a hard line in the sand.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
How is surrendering cheating? "Having a fit"? The POINT of a game is to have fun. If it's no longer fun, people should walk away. Why do you want to turn Warhammer into Monopoly, an exercise in drawn out misery?

People have this misconception that 40k is not a random dominant game and it is somehow a reflection of skill and that points make a balanced game. All of that is false. The moment one rolls dice, skill leaves; and 40k 8th has been designed to roll as many dice as possible. Now, combine this with a matched play points system that is a complete failure (as all points systems are - ie, a Lascannon is worth 'more' when fighting an army of vehicles and worth far, far 'less' when fighting a horde army - something that is not reflected, and therefore renders the points system irrelevant and useless).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Deadnight wrote:
‘Narrative’ games are not necessarily casual.

Fantastic, actually - and a fairly good description of miniatures gaming throughout history. "matched play" games is a fairly recent thing in the overall history of minis gaming. (There's nothing like watching a tournament gamer break down and start complaining when a narrative or historical scenario isn't "fair". )

No matter what game I'm playing, I do prefer winning to losing. It feels good to win, I'm not going to lie. But I would rather have a fun game that's tight, where you're not sure who'll win and squeaking out a hard earned victory at the end from a well thought out placement as opposed to Godzilla curb-stomping Bambi. That's in a casual setting, for me. In a tournament, I don't care if I club you like a baby seal in the first round; if there is a prize on the line (you know, store credit, full boxes, $$, etc), anything goes, and I will do my best to wreck you as quickly as possible. I've done those tournaments. My 5th edition 40k Daemon list clubbed many a baby seal to snag some swag. But I've hung up my tournament jacket and I'm out for fun games now. Give me a challenge, I want it. But I'm not looking to kick in teeth.

 vict0988 wrote:
Surrendering is not in the rulebook, it is in fact cheating

 vict0988 wrote:
Ending the game before the end of the mission is cheating if done without your opponent's permission.

You've exposed a lot about yourself with these posts. I'd urge you to take a closer look at how and why you participate in this hobby and how you're treating the people you interact with.

 vict0988 wrote:
I'd argue no using a list that has made it to top 5 in a 30+ player tournament and allowing your opponent to go back if they forgot to do something, maybe even reminding them if they forgot something.

I played a game the other day and my opponent got a little cross with me when I used the Veil of Darkness to teleport my 10 Lychguard and my Warlord over to the other side of the field, I then rolled a 12 for my charge and instead of piling everyone in as close as possible to the unit I charged, I spread out and moved them in such a way that I was able to lock two Leman Russ battle tanks in combat and take an Infantry Squad captive, preventing them from retreating. My opponent wanted to concede then and there because he had nothing he could do to my Lychguard (60 Guardsmen and 10 tanks, no melee) and because he felt I was too good at the game. I told him to continue the game a little longer, he eventually surrendered turn 3 when it looked like he couldn't keep up with missions (we rolled a mission that benefitted my army), I think this was a fair time to surrender because at that point he actually couldn't win, while the game hadn't yet been decided at the end of my first turn.

Can you play the game at a high level casually? Do you play for the mission or just for fun in a casual game. I've gotten really into the competitive mindset, I put my HQ in front of my line in a crater knowing he'd draw fire, he died but he also absorbed fire that could have killed my Warriors, I did it because I knew that holding an objective with my Warriors was more important than whatever that support HQ could do, was I playing with too competitive a mindset? I allowed my opponent to do his Astra Militarum orders after he started shooting (despite it needing to be done at the start of the shooting phase), but I think I'd do that in a competitive game as well, maybe not if my opponent was strict. If my opponent had been a better player he could have completely screened me out and protected his tanks, but he thought his tank was safe because his Guard Squad were in front of them, not assuming that I'd be able to go around and behind them. He said it was a learning experience, but I understand that a lot of people play once a month and maybe don't need a "learning experience", they just want to have fun. Are manouvres like taking captives, and moving models in ways other than straight toward your opponent something that should be saved for only competitive games?

If that is casual to you, I'd hate to see your war face.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 judgedoug wrote:
1. Put terrain down on the table in a way that looks awesome

2. flip around and find a cool sounding scenario

3. use the recommended power levels for the game, no points

4. place beer in hand

Enjoy 90 minutes of hanging out and playing a scenario.

This is my weekly 40k hangout at my house at my gaming tables with my pals who all don't give a gak about points matches

I can attest to this. I've know JudgeDoug to tell an opponent or two that they were making a bad move and let them rework said bad move. The games become learning opportunities, and opponents are playing for play sake. Sometimes a "WIN" is just having a good time with mates and learning something new about the game. IIRC, the Richmond crew was not as balls-out cutthroat as some people play 40K at.

People play 40K at different levels of scale. Some will hand you your head, Smack talking you the whole game- You walk away feeling like you've been gaked by the milkman. (5th Page to the worst level possible)
Others will play like your playing a game. And with all of the rules 40K has- not everyone memorizes each and every rule/ counter rule/ and exception, unless they are trying to cheese out a win, or are there to teach how to play.

I've been to a few places where people were real Jimmies, and on one side of the town was one type of player in the shop, and on the other side of the town the other type of player was in That shop. Casual Play is low key, not there for a WIN-WIN, but there for a good game.

judgedoug wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Deadnight wrote:
‘Narrative’ games are not necessarily casual.

Fantastic, actually - and a fairly good description of miniatures gaming throughout history. "matched play" games is a fairly recent thing in the overall history of minis gaming. (There's nothing like watching a tournament gamer break down and start complaining when a narrative or historical scenario isn't "fair". )

word


Last time I checked war is not fair, matter of fact it is purposefully not so. Why on earth would anyone want to fight fair?

A modern military skirmish is going to be as one sided as the belligerents can make it. Whether it is through intelligence, disparity of force, air superiority, etc...they will "stack the deck" to give them the highest probability of success. The most expensive piece of equipment any a military can have is the human using it. So sending soldiers into a meat grinder is less preferable than say sending in a spec ops team to kill Geronimo.

While I agree it's amusing watching tournament minded people balk at historical based scenarios, it's also important to remember there's a reason we call it a war"game". I see a lot of people defend hyper-competitive play with the same logic "In the real world, a military would crush its opponents..."

Sure, but we're not resolving a diplomatic dispute using force of arms. We're playing a game, base on toy soldiers, while sharing a hobby. Unless you know your opponent (which, honestly is pretty common) every gamer's default approach should be "hey we're here to enjoy ourselves doing a hobby".

When people ask for the definition of "TFG", my response has always been: a person who doesn't care at all if their opponent is enjoying themselves. That's what makes you TFG. Being a tournament player doesn't make you TFG. Being a tournament player and intentionally beating the gak out of a new player at the local game store because you're bored? That makes you TFG.

This is one of the reason I dislike people trying to state that Warhammer 40K gamers are all one big community. We're not, and that's fine. The only way to guarantee you're going to enjoy yourself is to play with likeminded people. If you want to play a 200 point game, using half the rules and substituting My Little Pony figures because that's what you enjoy? Cool, find a similar minded person and have at it. If you're a top-tier tournament player then hopefully you're playing against similarly minded opponents and you both enjoy that style of game.

There's no shame in 40K appealing to different groups of gamers. Forcing people to play cross-over games outside of their enjoyment zone doesn't help anyone. There is a local guy here on the Facebook group who's a general ass. He's a braggart, runs his mouth, buys and commissions all the latest meta-winning stuff, etc. He's very much TFG. He asked me for a game on facebook and I politely declined. He was so butthurt about it he's been mouthing off about "garage gamers" etc. (despite not realizing he's been blocked by a dozen of the local group users and we have our own chat) and how awesome he is at tournaments etc. Some people really can't handle that other gamers don't want to spend time with them.

 Elbows wrote:
There is a local guy here on the Facebook group who's a general ass. He's a braggart, runs his mouth, buys and commissions all the latest meta-winning stuff, etc. He's very much TFG. He asked me for a game on facebook and I politely declined. He was so butthurt about it he's been mouthing off about "garage gamers" etc. (despite not realizing he's been blocked by a dozen of the local group users and we have our own chat) and how awesome he is at tournaments etc. Some people really can't handle that other gamers don't want to spend time with them.

Is he actually awesome at tournaments? Look him up on https://www.frontlinegaming.org/community/frontline-gamings-independent-tournament-circuit/itc-2015-rankings/

If he's not ranked in the top 500 or better, call him on it and tell him to git gud. Should piss him off real good

I agree with the TFG not caring about opponents enjoyment in casual settings, but I'd be sure to differentiate between casual and tournaments. At a tournament, I don't particularly care if my opponents have a good time. Not to say I'll go out of my way to be a dick or anything, but we're playing to win here, and if you didn't bring something that can beat my army, that's not really my fault. We can have a good time and joke around, maybe curse the luck of the dice, but if you're getting your teeth smashed in and pouting, I really don't care, because it's a tournament game.