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.

In the past, some of these complaints were fairly true (there were armies that were either invulnerable or could just blast you anywhere on the board and it didn't matter). Balance has actually improved quite a bit in 9th edition. 8th had a sweet spot right before marine supplements were released when things were quite diverse and they're steadily moving back to it.

It's also true that tournaments were very 'clique-ey' and there was an ingroup and an outgroup (the majority of players). This, too, has been falling down and we're seeing more diversity. Guys like Nanavati were struggling to rack up wins while Siegler came on the scene last year and won basically everything. So there is improvement here.

When it comes to depth and tactics we've also been seeing improvement thanks to 9th's mission system. 'The wedge' is the first real non-datasheet strategy I've scene come up and be wildly successful. Playing the corners is now an option against lists that favor the center. We've still got a ways to go and there are strong improvements to be made but GW really did take a step forward in the right direction.

Can 40k work as e-sports with shoutcasters? I've been predicting for years that GW would try (and I remember getting scolded down here on Dakka that there was no way GW was trying to do that so here's my 'I told you so'). I'm not sure it'll work either. 40k does have some serious lag time and watching miniatures get pushed around isn't nearly as exciting as the spectacle video games offer for e-sports.

That said, Chess is popular enough to have attention and watchers, just not on a mass level. That may be 40k's future. A sustainable niche market develops where people who are really into it watch and analyze to improve, but it never hits the huge numbers e-sports has.

'Hey fans were taking a quick break from the 'action' whilst the players discuss one of the rules'.

'Yes jack, there is some ambiguity over what happens here'

'All part of the fun of GW's Warhammer 40K'

'Well the players are rolling for it. This is a key part of the game where poor rules writing means a random roll determines what the rules mean'.

'John, it should be said that that only matters in this particular context. Table 2 just had the same issue and it went the other way'.

'Wow! its exciting'.

'Sure is!'

'Hold the front page jack! Someone just put out an entirely primed army over on table 4, lets get the camera over there!'

Its a spectacle!'.

40K has disagreements over rule interpretations same as MTG - meanwhile tennis has players screaming and crying over if the ball landed on the line or not to the point they now have satellite cameras and lasers and multiple angle cameras all just pointed at the boundary lines.

 Overread wrote:
40K has disagreements over rule interpretations same as MTG - meanwhile tennis has players screaming and crying over if the ball landed on the line or not to the point they now have satellite cameras and lasers and multiple angle cameras all just pointed at the boundary lines.

I agree that many TTG and TTCG have rules issues but 40k stands apart in a competitive environment as the philosophy behind the rules isn't even 'filthy casual' (I say this tongue in cheek) I would argue its 'here are some words and numbers we scribbled down, you have to work at them to make them fit your games....have fun'.

As for tennis. The rules are clear. Umpires decision is final. Arguing in the heat of the moment is fine.
If tennis were 40k you would have to have an errata to replace all instances of the word 'Lime' with 'Line'. Discussion would take place before each game as to what what constitutes a 'clay court'. Players receiving the serve could make the serving player commit a foot fault just by moving.
.

If MTG were 40k I would take a basic starter deck and scribble on them. I now have a meta burn deck. Looks good on TV.

 Mr. Burning wrote:

 Overread wrote:
40K has disagreements over rule interpretations same as MTG - meanwhile tennis has players screaming and crying over if the ball landed on the line or not to the point they now have satellite cameras and lasers and multiple angle cameras all just pointed at the boundary lines.

I agree that many TTG and TTCG have rules issues but 40k stands apart in a competitive environment as the philosophy behind the rules isn't even 'filthy casual' (I say this tongue in cheek) I would argue its 'here are some words and numbers we scribbled down, you have to work at them to make them fit your games....have fun'.

As for tennis. The rules are clear. Umpires decision is final. Arguing in the heat of the moment is fine.
If tennis were 40k you would have to have an errata to replace all instances of the word 'Lime' with 'Line'. Discussion would take place before each game as to what what constitutes a 'clay court'. Players receiving the serve could make the serving player commit a foot fault just by moving.
.

If MTG were 40k I would take a basic starter deck and scribble on them. I now have a meta burn deck. Looks good on TV.

I mean, most major tournaments handle the pre-game stuff in their packets (X is X and Y is Y). NOVA was probably the best at this with 'every table will have exactly this terrain and no different, this terrain functions exactly this way and no different'. ITC and NOVA also put out statements in advance (not really far enough in advance, but in advance) regarding how certain combos involving Genestealers and IH will be handled and what interpretation would be followed.

I do a lot of streaming on my channel and the major fundamental problem with 40k as an E-sports is

1) Lack of concise rules that video games have
2) Its excessively boring to fracking watch.
2.5) Too much focus on the game and not about being a "personality"

Audustum wrote:

 Mr. Burning wrote:

 Overread wrote:
40K has disagreements over rule interpretations same as MTG - meanwhile tennis has players screaming and crying over if the ball landed on the line or not to the point they now have satellite cameras and lasers and multiple angle cameras all just pointed at the boundary lines.

I agree that many TTG and TTCG have rules issues but 40k stands apart in a competitive environment as the philosophy behind the rules isn't even 'filthy casual' (I say this tongue in cheek) I would argue its 'here are some words and numbers we scribbled down, you have to work at them to make them fit your games....have fun'.

As for tennis. The rules are clear. Umpires decision is final. Arguing in the heat of the moment is fine.
If tennis were 40k you would have to have an errata to replace all instances of the word 'Lime' with 'Line'. Discussion would take place before each game as to what what constitutes a 'clay court'. Players receiving the serve could make the serving player commit a foot fault just by moving.
.

If MTG were 40k I would take a basic starter deck and scribble on them. I now have a meta burn deck. Looks good on TV.

I mean, most major tournaments handle the pre-game stuff in their packets (X is X and Y is Y). NOVA was probably the best at this with 'every table will have exactly this terrain and no different, this terrain functions exactly this way and no different'. ITC and NOVA also put out statements in advance (not really far enough in advance, but in advance) regarding how certain combos involving Genestealers and IH will be handled and what interpretation would be followed.

I think 40k does have great potential to become an esport in its own way. The terrain design, minis design and the custom paint jobs give them an edge over many other hobbies. I think the rules are moving in the right direction at least.

The drawbacks are the higher than usual entry point with not only the cost of the army but also the time required to have such army ready for tournament standard.

 Kirasu wrote:
I do a lot of streaming on my channel and the major fundamental problem with 40k as an E-sports is

1) Lack of concise rules that video games have
2) Its excessively boring to fracking watch.
2.5) Too much focus on the game and not about being a "personality"

Ugh, I always hated 3, but it seems to be the consensus it sells (and I have no data to dispute that). 2 is right for 40k though. It's almost better being treated like a radio show rather than a video. Just something to listen to.

 Kirasu wrote:
I do a lot of streaming on my channel and the major fundamental problem with 40k as an E-sports is

1) Lack of concise rules that video games have
2) Its excessively boring to fracking watch.

Point 2 is the most important. Go and find a recording of a live stream from any of the big name 40k channels and I think most people would agree it's really difficult to get through the full 3.5 - 4 hours (or more!) And that's from channels with fairly charismatic players who are making a concerted effort to engage with the audience. Once you're left with other people commentating on a game it gets even worse. I remember trying to watch some of the LVO livestreams either this year or last year and my overriding impression was that the commentators were often just as confused about what units were which and what each dice roll was for as I was.

Many people don't even like the more condensed 60-minute YT battle report. I think 40k as an e-sport is destined for failure simply because it's just not even 10% as exciting to watch as it is to play.

gundam wrote:

Audustum wrote:

 Mr. Burning wrote:

 Overread wrote:
40K has disagreements over rule interpretations same as MTG - meanwhile tennis has players screaming and crying over if the ball landed on the line or not to the point they now have satellite cameras and lasers and multiple angle cameras all just pointed at the boundary lines.

I agree that many TTG and TTCG have rules issues but 40k stands apart in a competitive environment as the philosophy behind the rules isn't even 'filthy casual' (I say this tongue in cheek) I would argue its 'here are some words and numbers we scribbled down, you have to work at them to make them fit your games....have fun'.

As for tennis. The rules are clear. Umpires decision is final. Arguing in the heat of the moment is fine.
If tennis were 40k you would have to have an errata to replace all instances of the word 'Lime' with 'Line'. Discussion would take place before each game as to what what constitutes a 'clay court'. Players receiving the serve could make the serving player commit a foot fault just by moving.
.

If MTG were 40k I would take a basic starter deck and scribble on them. I now have a meta burn deck. Looks good on TV.

I mean, most major tournaments handle the pre-game stuff in their packets (X is X and Y is Y). NOVA was probably the best at this with 'every table will have exactly this terrain and no different, this terrain functions exactly this way and no different'. ITC and NOVA also put out statements in advance (not really far enough in advance, but in advance) regarding how certain combos involving Genestealers and IH will be handled and what interpretation would be followed.

I think 40k does have great potential to become an esport in its own way. The terrain design, minis design and the custom paint jobs give them an edge over many other hobbies. I think the rules are moving in the right direction at least.

The drawbacks are the higher than usual entry point with not only the cost of the army but also the time required to have such army ready for tournament standard.

It's true that will slow down people actually playing, but there is a subset of people who watch e-sports but don't play the games they watch (as is true of football and most anything else I'd imagine).

40k does look nice when painted and on a good board, but the combat is all imagined by the players from mono-pose. A video game presents, quite literally, a movie for the audience.

Audustum wrote:
[quote=Mr. Burning 794718 11012219 5f5eadd24a8bc78a24ee82ce8074a7ae.jpg

I mean, most major tournaments handle the pre-game stuff in their packets (X is X and Y is Y). NOVA was probably the best at this with 'every table will have exactly this terrain and no different, this terrain functions exactly this way and no different'. ITC and NOVA also put out statements in advance (not really far enough in advance, but in advance) regarding how certain combos involving Genestealers and IH will be handled and what interpretation would be followed.

Which is great.

I guess if GW want to get into bed with comp players or events they could....rule themselves on wonky interactions? So every organiser is singing from the same page?

Slipspace wrote:

 Kirasu wrote:
I do a lot of streaming on my channel and the major fundamental problem with 40k as an E-sports is

1) Lack of concise rules that video games have
2) Its excessively boring to fracking watch.

Point 2 is the most important. Go and find a recording of a live stream from any of the big name 40k channels and I think most people would agree it's really difficult to get through the full 3.5 - 4 hours (or more!) And that's from channels with fairly charismatic players who are making a concerted effort to engage with the audience. Once you're left with other people commentating on a game it gets even worse. I remember trying to watch some of the LVO livestreams either this year or last year and my overriding impression was that the commentators were often just as confused about what units were which and what each dice roll was for as I was.

Many people don't even like the more condensed 60-minute YT battle report. I think 40k as an e-sport is destined for failure simply because it's just not even 10% as exciting to watch as it is to play.

I agree, it is extremely boring to watch. I think the only thing that gets me through some games sometimes are the memes in chat. Take live chat out of 40k, I wouldn't watch a single livestream

I still enjoy watching things like Wargamer Girls Warmachine videos - but they clearly take a lot of preparation to work and aren't the same as live recording a game.


Like I said before I think that with the right staff and tools you can record a live game and have it be engaging; but it requires room around the table and gamers used to "the camera" being there and moving around not just an overhead that hardly shows anything.

Edited battle reports can be good watches from an entertainment point of view, but that's something totally different from live streaming, which I agree is super problematic from an e-sports perspective.

Even the best live streams are more like "hangout time" than actually watching the game itself. The game simply takes too long to play, and isn't engaging enough to watch in real time.

From an e-sports perspective, I think it's simply an insurmountable problem. You can't have an e-sports game that can't be streamed live, and that takes 2+ hours for a match, with at least 80% of the time just fiddling around with models or dice.

 Overread wrote:
I still enjoy watching things like Wargamer Girls Warmachine videos - but they clearly take a lot of preparation to work and aren't the same as live recording a game.


Like I said before I think that with the right staff and tools you can record a live game and have it be engaging; but it requires room around the table and gamers used to "the camera" being there and moving around not just an overhead that hardly shows anything.

They are doing something right at TableTop titans since it averages 10x-20x than any other 40k stream. But they also have a full team to handle chat/cameras, got started at YouTube Studios, have $30,000 worth of camera equipment, an insider at YouTube to get a blessing on the mighty algorithm (one of the guys works at Google) and have access to many more things due to their work/salary.

Given all of that, it looks like that is the MINIMUM required headstart to have a watchable 40k stream. And 95% of 40k streamers will probably never be able to get enough traction to get over the low views hump before they give up.

It is one of those things that the rich just get richer type of situations.

 Mr. Burning wrote:

Audustum wrote:
[quote=Mr. Burning 794718 11012219 5f5eadd24a8bc78a24ee82ce8074a7ae.jpg

I mean, most major tournaments handle the pre-game stuff in their packets (X is X and Y is Y). NOVA was probably the best at this with 'every table will have exactly this terrain and no different, this terrain functions exactly this way and no different'. ITC and NOVA also put out statements in advance (not really far enough in advance, but in advance) regarding how certain combos involving Genestealers and IH will be handled and what interpretation would be followed.

Which is great.

I guess if GW want to get into bed with comp players or events they could....rule themselves on wonky interactions? So every organiser is singing from the same page?

I'm all for uniformity so not a problem in my book. I think GW is trying to go that way with terrain keywords. That way tournaments can just say 'our terrain has the following keywords' and call it a day.

gundam wrote:

 Overread wrote:
I still enjoy watching things like Wargamer Girls Warmachine videos - but they clearly take a lot of preparation to work and aren't the same as live recording a game.


Like I said before I think that with the right staff and tools you can record a live game and have it be engaging; but it requires room around the table and gamers used to "the camera" being there and moving around not just an overhead that hardly shows anything.

They are doing something right at TableTop titans since it averages 10x-20x than any other 40k stream. But they also have a full team to handle chat/cameras, got started at YouTube Studios, have $30,000 worth of camera equipment, an insider at YouTube to get a blessing on the mighty algorithm (one of the guys works at Google) and have access to many more things due to their work/salary.

Given all of that, it looks like that is the MINIMUM required headstart to have a watchable 40k stream. And 95% of 40k streamers will probably never be able to get enough traction to get over the low views hump before they give up.

It is one of those things that the rich just get richer type of situations.

Aye, but we are talking about competitive esports style events here - so in theory that 30K for equipment would be easily afforded once you add sponsors and event money and the backing of something like GW standing behind the event itself. Ergo we aren't talking about Joe Average doing this. Just the same as pro-league football has thousands sunk into camera equipment whilst your local football club is lucky if they've got a local photographer and Uncle Dave with a video camera to turn up to a match.


Also for $30K I'd expect enough camera equipment, for steaming, to easily support several concurrent games. At least if they are using DSLRs and not using top end video cameras (because chances are for steaming you don't need that kind of equipment). Of course if the budgets grew you can bet they'd invest in higher and higher spec kit over time and as demands required it.

Obviously if we're talking about a fully sponsored event then equipment costs are not a problem. The cost of a top-tier streaming set-up is not cheap but it's well within a very reasonable budget for an organisation the size of GW. They already have at least one for Warhammer TV.

That still doesn't get around the single biggest problem with streaming which is that the game is just not suited to it. You can have the very best cameras and microphones all you want, it won't solve that problem. I think you'd need to come up with something truly innovative as far as the presentation of the game goes to make 40k even start to be attractive as an e-sport style event.

I'm confused - E-sports is about computer games?!

40K isn't a computer game. It would be more like playing Risk, Go or Chess on a very high level, none of which are E-sports games.

 tauist wrote:
I'm confused - E-sports is about computer games?!

40K isn't a computer game. It would be more like playing Risk, Go or Chess on a very high level, none of which are E-sports games.

E-sports is a colloquial usage here. Meant more as a live streamed, gaming sport. You are right on the technical definition.

I am curious if Combat Patrol has better legs for this. The more shorter run time and action resolutions seem more watchable at least.

 tauist wrote:
I'm confused - E-sports is about computer games?!

40K isn't a computer game. It would be more like playing Risk, Go or Chess on a very high level, none of which are E-sports games.

Well, there is an audience for chess.

But 40K is nothing like that. It probably has more in common with D&D then chess, emphasising narrative simulation over game-mechanical precision.

 LunarSol wrote:
I am curious if Combat Patrol has better legs for this. The more shorter run time and action resolutions seem more watchable at least.

Shorter definitely helps. Kill Team would be fastest buuut you lose the fun of big centerpiece models. So yeah, 1,000-1,500 might be a bit better for streaming.

Thing is over the years armies have got bigger.

Models are bigger
Diversity of models is greater
Unit sizes are bigger.


Basically most things have grown to the point where some former FW models are now smaller than their plastic equivalents (Greater Demon of Nurgle). The thing is people have bought those models and they want to use them; meanwhile GW has made those models and wants to sell them.

So the 2K game is going to be a big drawing point. Yes 9th edition GW has reigned things in a little with army size; there is a balance and they clearly don't want to slip into the trap of expanding things so much that its only attractive to long term, big collection customers.


Perhaps the real trick is to avoid a 1 system approach. Perhaps start with killteam or other smaller format games; build a reliable sport around it and an infrastructure and then steadily scale things up

40k as a sport would need an umpire and commentators.

Tygre wrote:
40k as a sport would need an umpire and commentators.

So the tournament live streams have these.

People watch golf and bowling, so I'm not willing to dismiss the idea of people watching streamed games of 40k. For that matter, people watch chess and go streaming...

As someone who doesn't honestly really care to watch a video of someone else playing a game, I don't have any idea what it would it take to make it interesting enough to be "marketable".

I'd bet someone a pot of paint that it'd be easier to mimic pro-wrestling to make wargaming interesting, than to try to recreate the commentary and analysis that gets added to other games.

 solkan wrote:
People watch golf and bowling, so I'm not willing to dismiss the idea of people watching streamed games of 40k. For that matter, people watch chess and go streaming...

As someone who doesn't honestly really care to watch a video of someone else playing a game, I don't have any idea what it would it take to make it interesting enough to be "marketable".

I'd bet someone a pot of paint that it'd be easier to mimic pro-wrestling to make wargaming interesting, than to try to recreate the commentary and analysis that gets added to other games.

You are right, it all comes down to expensive equipment and engaging commentary. People watch arguably more boring stuff

gundam wrote:

 solkan wrote:
People watch golf and bowling, so I'm not willing to dismiss the idea of people watching streamed games of 40k. For that matter, people watch chess and go streaming...

As someone who doesn't honestly really care to watch a video of someone else playing a game, I don't have any idea what it would it take to make it interesting enough to be "marketable".

I'd bet someone a pot of paint that it'd be easier to mimic pro-wrestling to make wargaming interesting, than to try to recreate the commentary and analysis that gets added to other games.

You are right, it all comes down to expensive equipment and engaging commentary. People watch arguably more boring stuff

I'm not sure those are really directly comparable. Golf and bowling may both take a while to complete a game but they are easily broken down into smaller, bite-size chunks that are meaningful and impactful on their own. Golf, for example, usually covers each set of shots by the players on a hole, then jumps to a different group of players. I'm not sure there's really a suitable comparison between a golf hole and an activity in 40k.

Chess can be played in rapid or bullet formats, which are popular for streaming and only take 5-10 minutes for a complete game. For the more traditional, classical, chess format the time tends to be filled with in-depth analysis. You could do something similar in 40k, but the problem there is there isn't the same downtime in a 40k game to do the analysis. Stuff's always happening, it's just often not very exciting.

Audustum wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:
I am curious if Combat Patrol has better legs for this. The more shorter run time and action resolutions seem more watchable at least.

Shorter definitely helps. Kill Team would be fastest buuut you lose the fun of big centerpiece models. So yeah, 1,000-1,500 might be a bit better for streaming.

KillTeam or Space Hulk could indeed work in terms of timescale.

OG Space Hulk would probably fit the best, the rules are very clear cut, not too many dice per roll, and the marine player has a time limit for finishing their turn.

I dont agree you'd necessarily need big centerpiece models. In terms of visual interest, you could add it with esquisite looking boards, lights, special fx like smoke & pyrotechnics..

Furthermore, the models would be gorgeous in no time flat. Pro Comission painters would make all the minis of the biggest players, who'd have the best sponsorship deals, and so on.. It could look at least as good as anything that's on display at Warhammer World.

I like that idea about taking it towards WWE-style things! Players could wear cosplay stuff, they could have backstories written to them and so on, just like in wrestling hehe