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.
2019/07/13 01:39:22
Subject: Competitive 40K going off the rails - Why the hate?
oni wrote: With the millennial snowflakes being what they are... I hope W40K and AoS never reach high levels of popularity. To be in the spotlight at that level would absolutely destroy the game and likely GW.
You have absolutely nothing to worry about. Esports barely functions for the MOST popular games (which are all shooters or RTS/MOBA games) and Fortnite last quarter clocked in at 300 million hours of viewing on Twitch. People who watch warhammer games on Twitch is atleast 300 times less than that, and I'd wager more so. If games with 300 MILLION hours cant have stable esports leagues then we dont even have to fathom 40k with its extremely tiny fan base (compared to actual video games)
I agree, it will never be an Esport because advertisers care about view time. There is a reason successful YouTubers keep their videos under 10 minutes, anything longer and folks lose interest and leave, and an advertiser doesn't want that. 40k content creators rely on patreon generally, which is basically donations like public access. In a 3+ hour game how on earth do you get multiple advertisers on board, they would never be guaranteed to be seen over another advert before the viewer leaves, so your looking at a single sponsor per game, yikes. Then there's the Elephant in the room of GW supporting it and being OK with outside advertising. They already want tables to be 100% GW product now. I couldn't imagine them being OK with an event stream with Kromlech adds for example. Hell, you couldn't even get army painter or exacto. Why would GW pay some stream when they already have streaming capability and full control over pushing their own product? If they did they would impose on it.
Watching 40k on stream is excruciatingly boring and that isn't even the biggest hurdle.
Not Online!!! wrote: Well PETA allready is annoyed and i feel like slaanesh or SoB would be prime targets for such groupes.
Which is why dnd died and rpgs have all been outlawed. Wait
Automatically Appended Next Post:
oni wrote: With the millennial snowflakes being what they are... I hope W40K and AoS never reach high levels of popularity. To be in the spotlight at that level would absolutely destroy the game and likely GW.
Do you think the imperium are the unironic good guys and should be inspirations for real politics?
I think your missing their points pretty badly.
The game has no good guy. The closest you get to good guys are the Tyranids mostly because they are amoral. I think the fear is that real world politics start influencing the game and setting not the other way around.
Real world politics has always influenced the game though. Like, what do you think rogue trader 1st ed was a satire of?
There's a reason GW novels have to stress "No guys, really, the imperium is a giant mess and could do everything better with less mass murder."
There's a problem with some people though because for them, satire is dead. The imperium is to be taken as is the best you can do and all their baddies have wonderful real world standins you can hate.
I think you're misunderstanding, I don't care about that. The point was that 40k becomes an esport, whole bunch of crazies are suddenly exposed to it, and they find stuff to freak out about. The advertisers paying for it suddenly become a target and in turn pressure gw to remove stuff like the cawdor hood. The next day you have ten spikeybits articles about gw being racist or whatever they come up with...
Obviously I'm being hyperbolic but the point still stands.
No one cares about the crazies. GW isn't the bastion of... I dunno, the own the libs right? The nazis? That some people claim it as. They already have an eye to not looking like, well, fascist enablers. No one is going to force them to do anything. No one in GW wants to do the things some people imagine they do, and they very much don't. No one is actually talking about the cawdor hood except people who want to play up some people mentioning it in the past. The imagined SJW conspiracy crouching there ready to pounce on ALL YOUR MEDIA! ANY SECOND NOW! And, like, we all know how much certain right wing groups love their shadowy conspiracies.
2019/07/13 02:19:29
Subject: Competitive 40K going off the rails - Why the hate?
auticus wrote: You have set army lists for each race. That is exactly how the historical tournaments I went to in the late 80s and early 90s ran as well as Battletech.
If someone wanted to write an essay “What’s the difference between how people play Battletech and how people play 40k...”.
The only thing more disasterous than trying to suggest army lists for each 40k faction, would be watching someone attempt to defend their choices and then wonder why no one came to play.
“We chose Chapter X out of the Space Marine book, Legion Y out of the Chaos Space Marine book, God Z out of Chaos Demons.”
Or, for that matter, the difference in cost between “Buy this arbitrary lance of mechs” vs. “Buy this arbitrary 40k army”.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/07/13 02:21:45
2019/07/13 03:14:28
Subject: Competitive 40K going off the rails - Why the hate?
oni wrote: With the millennial snowflakes being what they are... I hope W40K and AoS never reach high levels of popularity. To be in the spotlight at that level would absolutely destroy the game and likely GW.
You have absolutely nothing to worry about. Esports barely functions for the MOST popular games (which are all shooters or RTS/MOBA games) and Fortnite last quarter clocked in at 300 million hours of viewing on Twitch. People who watch warhammer games on Twitch is atleast 300 times less than that, and I'd wager more so. If games with 300 MILLION hours cant have stable esports leagues then we dont even have to fathom 40k with its extremely tiny fan base (compared to actual video games)
I agree, it will never be an Esport because advertisers care about view time. There is a reason successful YouTubers keep their videos under 10 minutes, anything longer and folks lose interest and leave, and an advertiser doesn't want that. 40k content creators rely on patreon generally, which is basically donations like public access. In a 3+ hour game how on earth do you get multiple advertisers on board, they would never be guaranteed to be seen over another advert before the viewer leaves, so your looking at a single sponsor per game, yikes. Then there's the Elephant in the room of GW supporting it and being OK with outside advertising. They already want tables to be 100% GW product now. I couldn't imagine them being OK with an event stream with Kromlech adds for example. Hell, you couldn't even get army painter or exacto. Why would GW pay some stream when they already have streaming capability and full control over pushing their own product? If they did they would impose on it.
Watching 40k on stream is excruciatingly boring and that isn't even the biggest hurdle.
Not Online!!! wrote: Well PETA allready is annoyed and i feel like slaanesh or SoB would be prime targets for such groupes.
Which is why dnd died and rpgs have all been outlawed. Wait
Automatically Appended Next Post:
oni wrote: With the millennial snowflakes being what they are... I hope W40K and AoS never reach high levels of popularity. To be in the spotlight at that level would absolutely destroy the game and likely GW.
Do you think the imperium are the unironic good guys and should be inspirations for real politics?
I think your missing their points pretty badly.
The game has no good guy. The closest you get to good guys are the Tyranids mostly because they are amoral. I think the fear is that real world politics start influencing the game and setting not the other way around.
Real world politics has always influenced the game though. Like, what do you think rogue trader 1st ed was a satire of?
There's a reason GW novels have to stress "No guys, really, the imperium is a giant mess and could do everything better with less mass murder."
There's a problem with some people though because for them, satire is dead. The imperium is to be taken as is the best you can do and all their baddies have wonderful real world standins you can hate.
I think you're misunderstanding, I don't care about that. The point was that 40k becomes an esport, whole bunch of crazies are suddenly exposed to it, and they find stuff to freak out about. The advertisers paying for it suddenly become a target and in turn pressure gw to remove stuff like the cawdor hood. The next day you have ten spikeybits articles about gw being racist or whatever they come up with...
Obviously I'm being hyperbolic but the point still stands.
No one cares about the crazies. GW isn't the bastion of... I dunno, the own the libs right? The nazis? That some people claim it as. They already have an eye to not looking like, well, fascist enablers. No one is going to force them to do anything. No one in GW wants to do the things some people imagine they do, and they very much don't. No one is actually talking about the cawdor hood except people who want to play up some people mentioning it in the past. The imagined SJW conspiracy crouching there ready to pounce on ALL YOUR MEDIA! ANY SECOND NOW! And, like, we all know how much certain right wing groups love their shadowy conspiracies.
That is going way beyond anything I said. A fictitious 40k esport is an entirely different beast with new incentives and exposed to more risks without all the malarkey you listed. A bunch of moms losing it over slaanesh bits appearing on the stream their kids are watching isn't political. The pointy hood just happens to be the first example of something like this.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/07/13 03:20:43
2019/07/13 08:47:55
Subject: Competitive 40K going off the rails - Why the hate?
auticus wrote: You have set army lists for each race. That is exactly how the historical tournaments I went to in the late 80s and early 90s ran as well as Battletech.
If someone wanted to write an essay “What’s the difference between how people play Battletech and how people play 40k...”.
The only thing more disasterous than trying to suggest army lists for each 40k faction, would be watching someone attempt to defend their choices and then wonder why no one came to play.
“We chose Chapter X out of the Space Marine book, Legion Y out of the Chaos Space Marine book, God Z out of Chaos Demons.”
Or, for that matter, the difference in cost between “Buy this arbitrary lance of mechs” vs. “Buy this arbitrary 40k army”.
An idea I've played around with and have, entirely without success, attempted to try out in my own !casual! gaming group was to randomly 'break' everyone's list before the game begins. Everybody builds their list, but the mission being played would during deployment force both players to leave behind all of their, say, Fast Attack choices. Or a single Heavy Support choice. Not knowing what part of your list is going to get shafted, you'd be forced to build a far more balanced list that relies less on comboing.
But I'm also a big fan of asymmetric armies and love the idea of chucking points out of the window entirely, so nobody takes my game ideas seriously unless I'm DMing custom missions
Bharring wrote: At worst, you'll spend all your time and money on a hobby you don't enjoy, hate everything you're doing, and drive no value out of what should be the best times of your life.
2019/07/13 08:53:34
Subject: Competitive 40K going off the rails - Why the hate?
auticus wrote: You have set army lists for each race. That is exactly how the historical tournaments I went to in the late 80s and early 90s ran as well as Battletech.
If someone wanted to write an essay “What’s the difference between how people play Battletech and how people play 40k...”.
The only thing more disasterous than trying to suggest army lists for each 40k faction, would be watching someone attempt to defend their choices and then wonder why no one came to play.
“We chose Chapter X out of the Space Marine book, Legion Y out of the Chaos Space Marine book, God Z out of Chaos Demons.”
Or, for that matter, the difference in cost between “Buy this arbitrary lance of mechs” vs. “Buy this arbitrary 40k army”.
Or, encourage people to not 'buy this XYZ to win'.
This attitude I saw with CCG players in the early 90s while working at a comics/game shop.
That is NOT how and why people bought armies in 40k or Warhammer.
Then, it was fantasy sci fi RPG nerds who liked hobby and chess, with beer bongs and sure, pretzels.
It was simulation, very first personal.
Now, everything is 'meta' this or 'that 'meta that... e.g. the knight meta.
This is the difference here.
oni wrote: With the millennial snowflakes being what they are... I hope W40K and AoS never reach high levels of popularity. To be in the spotlight at that level would absolutely destroy the game and likely GW.
Yes, millennials, obviously, but these are cognitive styles due affordance environments during development,
and not every millennial grew up in the same affordance environment.
So, sure, this cognitive style is dominant now, due CCG and vid game magic combo malarkey,
and this explains why realism and all the RPG elements have gone out the window for plastic crack.
You wanna win against v3.0 mahweens?
Buy the Tau BOOSTER PACK(many)!
auticus wrote: You have set army lists for each race. That is exactly how the historical tournaments I went to in the late 80s and early 90s ran as well as Battletech.
If someone wanted to write an essay “What’s the difference between how people play Battletech and how people play 40k...”.
The only thing more disasterous than trying to suggest army lists for each 40k faction, would be watching someone attempt to defend their choices and then wonder why no one came to play.
“We chose Chapter X out of the Space Marine book, Legion Y out of the Chaos Space Marine book, God Z out of Chaos Demons.”
Or, for that matter, the difference in cost between “Buy this arbitrary lance of mechs” vs. “Buy this arbitrary 40k army”.
An idea I've played around with and have, entirely without success, attempted to try out in my own !casual! gaming group was to randomly 'break' everyone's list before the game begins. Everybody builds their list, but the mission being played would during deployment force both players to leave behind all of their, say, Fast Attack choices. Or a single Heavy Support choice. Not knowing what part of your list is going to get shafted, you'd be forced to build a far more balanced list that relies less on comboing. But I'm also a big fan of asymmetric armies and love the idea of chucking points out of the window entirely, so nobody takes my game ideas seriously unless I'm DMing custom missions
That is a great idea, and very much could be employed in tournaments blindly with mission pack distribution.
Would be great, if 8th rules were any good.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/07/13 08:57:19
.
2019/07/13 11:17:39
Subject: Competitive 40K going off the rails - Why the hate?
People would bitch nonstop if they had to leave certain things out. Let's not forget that ITC *removes* the idea of balanced lists, it doesn't encourage them. Do you know what does? Chapter Approved and Maelstrom missions since you can't guarantee what you get or what you might need.
And you know what else happens? Tournament players bitch and say how awful those are while kissing ITC's ass for "balanced" missions which remove pesky things like bringing a well-rounded army rather than a meta skew.
- Wayne
Formerly WayneTheGame
2019/07/13 12:29:15
Subject: Competitive 40K going off the rails - Why the hate?
auticus wrote:The #1 reason I see for people leaving GW games, and often the hobby, is that they go in to the store, love models, buy those models, and find out that the game is about listbuilding and they chose wrong and get stomped.
This was what pushed me out of WHFB. I had miniatures that I liked, but because they weren't the power choices I had two choices; fork out for practically a whole new army or just play an older edition. For the most part I chose the later.
Wayniac wrote:Do you know what does? Chapter Approved and Maelstrom missions since you can't guarantee what you get or what you might need.
Mission variety is by far one of the easiest ways to mess with hyper-optimised lists.
If you mention second edition 40k I will find you, and I will bore you to tears talking about how "things were better in my day, let me tell ya..." Might even do it if you mention 4th/5th/6th WHFB
2019/07/13 13:41:43
Subject: Competitive 40K going off the rails - Why the hate?
Horst wrote: Lol.... your ideas for tournaments are pretty hilarious. Funny joke. If you don't like tournaments, just don't play in them. No need to ruin them.
Yet those ideas you say "ruin" them actually make you take well-rounded armies and show that you have better tactics, rather than just brought a better list.
I think it's pretty clear to see that tournament players WANT listbuilding to be the focus, as they are quick to shoot down anything which throws unknowns into the mix because god forbid it means they can't plan out everything beforehand.
- Wayne
Formerly WayneTheGame
2019/07/13 14:11:43
Subject: Competitive 40K going off the rails - Why the hate?
People complaining about "millenials" playing 40K. Hahahah. Millenials started being born in the 80s, so most of us have been playing since 2nd edition 40K. But sure, our entitled nonsense has been ruining the game for 6 editions.
Da Boss wrote: People complaining about "millenials" playing 40K. Hahahah. Millenials started being born in the 80s, so most of us have been playing since 2nd edition 40K. But sure, our entitled nonsense has been ruining the game for 6 editions.
Hilarious nonsense.
Pointed that out a page ago. Millennials don't like being told they're Millennials, which right here is being pointed out by a 34yo (a Millennial).
EDIT, I see you're the same age as me. I meant myself in the above.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/07/13 14:16:07
Games Workshop Delenda Est.
Users on ignore- 53.
If you break apart my or anyone else's posts line by line I will not read them.
2019/07/13 15:23:19
Subject: Competitive 40K going off the rails - Why the hate?
auticus wrote: You have set army lists for each race. That is exactly how the historical tournaments I went to in the late 80s and early 90s ran as well as Battletech.
If someone wanted to write an essay “What’s the difference between how people play Battletech and how people play 40k...”.
The only thing more disasterous than trying to suggest army lists for each 40k faction, would be watching someone attempt to defend their choices and then wonder why no one came to play.
“We chose Chapter X out of the Space Marine book, Legion Y out of the Chaos Space Marine book, God Z out of Chaos Demons.”
Or, for that matter, the difference in cost between “Buy this arbitrary lance of mechs” vs. “Buy this arbitrary 40k army”.
It worked fine for many years. For many game systems, not just battletech. I wouldn't try it today. Because no one would want to do it because then they couldn't build a list that bent the game.
But that is the only way to highlight table skill at a tournament over listbuilding and elementary school math skills at a tournament. That is by and far not what tournament players today want, so yes it would be a disaster for any company to try it.
And I'm speaking as a former tournament player that did very well in the tournament scene based solely off my listbuilding.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/07/13 15:26:30
2019/07/13 16:00:02
Subject: Competitive 40K going off the rails - Why the hate?
Da Boss wrote: People complaining about "millenials" playing 40K. Hahahah. Millenials started being born in the 80s, so most of us have been playing since 2nd edition 40K. But sure, our entitled nonsense has been ruining the game for 6 editions.
Hilarious nonsense.
Pointed that out a page ago. Millennials don't like being told they're Millennials, which right here is being pointed out by a 34yo (a Millennial).
EDIT, I see you're the same age as me. I meant myself in the above.
Most millenials don't care. Its the millenials who listen to, say, fox talking about how gakky millenials are and how millenials are the true cause of all the worlds ills, certainly none of the people currently in power, that hate being told they're millenials.
2019/07/13 16:17:49
Subject: Competitive 40K going off the rails - Why the hate?
Horst wrote: Lol.... your ideas for tournaments are pretty hilarious. Funny joke. If you don't like tournaments, just don't play in them. No need to ruin them.
How else would you drive tournament player out of the hobby? They're the reason everything is horrible! I personally blame Jim Vesal for my army not being painted!
You just can't enjoy the hobby if someone else is doing it wrong.
2019/07/13 18:06:56
Subject: Competitive 40K going off the rails - Why the hate?
Da Boss wrote: People complaining about "millenials" playing 40K. Hahahah. Millenials started being born in the 80s, so most of us have been playing since 2nd edition 40K. But sure, our entitled nonsense has been ruining the game for 6 editions.
Hilarious nonsense.
Really now.
So, there is no difference between the world in which you grew up
the way that you turned out
and the world in which I grew up
and the way that I turned out
solely due that we emerged into different spaces of value,
regardless of other differences?
And, were you the one to read those rules, those 2nd ed rules, when you were 5?
Or did big brother my generation help you get started?
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/07/13 18:08:56
.
2019/07/13 18:21:27
Subject: Competitive 40K going off the rails - Why the hate?
Dude I read those rules when I was 12, I was born in 1984. That is the start of the millenial generation.
I got my big brother into the game, actually.
And of course there is a difference between generations, but I don't hold with all this "Get offa my lawn!" crap that people come out with.
Your post is just a bunch of inserting words into my mouth that I never said to create a strawman to argue against. I don't see the point, but if it makes you happy knock yourself out, just don't expect me to respect it.
bouncingboredom wrote: This was what pushed me out of WHFB. I had miniatures that I liked, but because they weren't the power choices I had two choices; fork out for practically a whole new army or just play an older edition. For the most part I chose the later.
But that's not the only two choices you had. But what you could've done is asked for a handicap of some sort - start off with an extra small unit, or a bonus victory point, some extra command points, or given the unit a tough-like attribute where if you roll a 6, it ignores that wound. Or heck, play a scenario that favors your terrible models. There were very easy and obvious ways for you to play an underpowered army. Anyone who looks at your troop choice and laughs will not have a problem giving you a small bonus to make the match more sporting.
I'm more of an open play type of guy (one the few, apparently), so there's no unit or model that I'm not okay with playing. I just have to figure out the right circumstances in which to play it. I guess you could say that I fit the game to the models, rather than fitting the models to the game.
2019/07/13 21:47:27
Subject: Competitive 40K going off the rails - Why the hate?
Da Boss wrote: People complaining about "millenials" playing 40K. Hahahah. Millenials started being born in the 80s, so most of us have been playing since 2nd edition 40K. But sure, our entitled nonsense has been ruining the game for 6 editions.
Hilarious nonsense.
Really now.
So, there is no difference between the world in which you grew up
the way that you turned out
and the world in which I grew up
and the way that I turned out
solely due that we emerged into different spaces of value,
regardless of other differences?
And, were you the one to read those rules, those 2nd ed rules, when you were 5?
Or did big brother my generation help you get started?
Well that's such a millenial thing to say!
"Our fantasy settings are grim and dark, but that is not a reflection of who we are or how we feel the real world should be. [...] We will continue to diversify the cast of characters we portray [...] so everyone can find representation and heroes they can relate to. [...] If [you don't feel the same way], you will not be missed"
https://twitter.com/WarComTeam/status/1268665798467432449/photo/1
2019/07/13 22:54:02
Subject: Competitive 40K going off the rails - Why the hate?
auticus wrote: You have set army lists for each race. That is exactly how the historical tournaments I went to in the late 80s and early 90s ran as well as Battletech.
If someone wanted to write an essay “What’s the difference between how people play Battletech and how people play 40k...”.
The only thing more disasterous than trying to suggest army lists for each 40k faction, would be watching someone attempt to defend their choices and then wonder why no one came to play.
“We chose Chapter X out of the Space Marine book, Legion Y out of the Chaos Space Marine book, God Z out of Chaos Demons.”
Or, for that matter, the difference in cost between “Buy this arbitrary lance of mechs” vs. “Buy this arbitrary 40k army”.
It worked fine for many years. For many game systems, not just battletech. I wouldn't try it today. Because no one would want to do it because then they couldn't build a list that bent the game.
Thank you for disqualifying your own opinion by providing a suggestion and then saying that you wouldn't even try it.
Adding the "Because ..." statement just gets you added to the ignore list as non-helpful and apparently not actually wanting to let people enjoy playing the games.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/07/13 22:55:49
2019/07/14 01:12:23
Subject: Competitive 40K going off the rails - Why the hate?
auticus wrote: You have set army lists for each race. That is exactly how the historical tournaments I went to in the late 80s and early 90s ran as well as Battletech.
If someone wanted to write an essay “What’s the difference between how people play Battletech and how people play 40k...”.
The only thing more disasterous than trying to suggest army lists for each 40k faction, would be watching someone attempt to defend their choices and then wonder why no one came to play.
“We chose Chapter X out of the Space Marine book, Legion Y out of the Chaos Space Marine book, God Z out of Chaos Demons.”
Or, for that matter, the difference in cost between “Buy this arbitrary lance of mechs” vs. “Buy this arbitrary 40k army”.
It worked fine for many years. For many game systems, not just battletech. I wouldn't try it today. Because no one would want to do it because then they couldn't build a list that bent the game.
Thank you for disqualifying your own opinion by providing a suggestion and then saying that you wouldn't even try it.
Adding the "Because ..." statement just gets you added to the ignore list as non-helpful and apparently not actually wanting to let people enjoy playing the games.
Auticus is probably one of the most knowledgeable and intelligent posters here, and almost everything he says is absolutely true. People today would bitch and moan and throw tantrums if they couldn't listbuild and use that to prove their "skill". That's evident right here by the vehemence against anything which doesn't push list building as the pinnacle of skill.
This thread really shows who has good ideas, and who just hides behind "Don't tell me how to have fun" no matter how wrong their bs idea of fun is. If anything, your post shows you're incapable of seeing others points.,
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2019/07/14 01:16:24
- Wayne
Formerly WayneTheGame
2019/07/14 01:14:37
Subject: Competitive 40K going off the rails - Why the hate?
What you are describing is a gamist gamer using a gamey gamey game mechanic vs a simulationist gamer whose head explodes because that would never happen on a real battlefield butting heads. I don't think casual has anything to do with that scenario.
One of the most mind blowing moments I’ve had with the game is still a blood angel player telling me they refuse to take a jump pack on a captain because the fluff doesn’t allow it.
2019/07/14 01:17:00
Subject: Competitive 40K going off the rails - Why the hate?
What you are describing is a gamist gamer using a gamey gamey game mechanic vs a simulationist gamer whose head explodes because that would never happen on a real battlefield butting heads. I don't think casual has anything to do with that scenario.
One of the most mind blowing moments I’ve had with the game is still a blood angel player telling me they refuse to take a jump pack on a captain because the fluff doesn’t allow it.
That's just somebody being an idiot.
- Wayne
Formerly WayneTheGame
2019/07/14 02:41:45
Subject: Competitive 40K going off the rails - Why the hate?
auticus wrote: You have set army lists for each race. That is exactly how the historical tournaments I went to in the late 80s and early 90s ran as well as Battletech.
If someone wanted to write an essay “What’s the difference between how people play Battletech and how people play 40k...”.
The only thing more disasterous than trying to suggest army lists for each 40k faction, would be watching someone attempt to defend their choices and then wonder why no one came to play.
“We chose Chapter X out of the Space Marine book, Legion Y out of the Chaos Space Marine book, God Z out of Chaos Demons.”
Or, for that matter, the difference in cost between “Buy this arbitrary lance of mechs” vs. “Buy this arbitrary 40k army”.
It worked fine for many years. For many game systems, not just battletech. I wouldn't try it today. Because no one would want to do it because then they couldn't build a list that bent the game.
Thank you for disqualifying your own opinion by providing a suggestion and then saying that you wouldn't even try it.
Adding the "Because ..." statement just gets you added to the ignore list as non-helpful and apparently not actually wanting to let people enjoy playing the games.
Someone mentioned what would be required to have tournaments be actually more about skill. I responded that in my opinion you need to have set lists like you used to years ago in historical and battletech tournaments before there was a giant internet meta.
No one would go for that. Not today. Not last year. Not ten years ago. If it involves removing listbuilding as a "skill" it will never be something you will see in tournaments.
If the culmination of all that means ignore list, then ignore list away.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/07/14 02:42:55
2019/07/14 03:41:23
Subject: Competitive 40K going off the rails - Why the hate?
Horst wrote: Lol.... your ideas for tournaments are pretty hilarious. Funny joke. If you don't like tournaments, just don't play in them. No need to ruin them.
How else would you drive tournament player out of the hobby? They're the reason everything is horrible! I personally blame Jim Vesal for my army not being painted!
You just can't enjoy the hobby if someone else is doing it wrong.
I heard Jim Vesal goes into people's houses at night and wrecks up the place.
2019/07/14 07:05:54
Subject: Competitive 40K going off the rails - Why the hate?
Da Boss wrote: Dude I read those rules when I was 12, I was born in 1984. That is the start of the millenial generation.
I got my big brother into the game, actually.
And of course there is a difference between generations, but I don't hold with all this "Get offa my lawn!" crap that people come out with.
Your post is just a bunch of inserting words into my mouth that I never said to create a strawman to argue against. I don't see the point, but if it makes you happy knock yourself out, just don't expect me to respect it.
Hmmm... I was 24.
Looking at them, again, these were not written for a 12 year old.
Simulations need some experience of the way the world works to fill in the blanks and make the (simulated) world work.
Maybe an assumption that this experience is not necessary, and that the rules should work without it,
is part of the problem.
An assumption that seems to have carried through to this day...
And, thusly illustrated, this is a generational problem, at least in part.
Might explain something.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2019/07/14 09:37:28
.
2019/07/14 12:23:40
Subject: Competitive 40K going off the rails - Why the hate?
auticus wrote: No one would go for that. Not today. Not last year. Not ten years ago. If it involves removing listbuilding as a "skill" it will never be something you will see in tournaments.
No animosity here but I'm not sure it is the case, because for instance the equivalent in CCG would be set decks, and Keyforge got quite popular around here even with set decks, which do totally remove deckbuilding as a skill.
But maybe I misunderstood what you meant?
"Our fantasy settings are grim and dark, but that is not a reflection of who we are or how we feel the real world should be. [...] We will continue to diversify the cast of characters we portray [...] so everyone can find representation and heroes they can relate to. [...] If [you don't feel the same way], you will not be missed"
https://twitter.com/WarComTeam/status/1268665798467432449/photo/1
2019/07/14 13:58:12
Subject: Competitive 40K going off the rails - Why the hate?
auticus wrote: No one would go for that. Not today. Not last year. Not ten years ago. If it involves removing listbuilding as a "skill" it will never be something you will see in tournaments.
No animosity here but I'm not sure it is the case, because for instance the equivalent in CCG would be set decks, and Keyforge got quite popular around here even with set decks, which do totally remove deckbuilding as a skill.
But maybe I misunderstood what you meant?
No that's what he meant. In wargaming, Warhammer in particular, listbuilding seems to be the main focus. Just look at this thread, look at all the tactics and stuff that's discussed. Almost all of it revolves around the "meta" and picking X unit over Y unit and trying to eke out as many points as possible in listbuilding before your army ever hits the table.
Having the equivalent of set decks in wargaming for competitive purposes would be met with rioting.
- Wayne
Formerly WayneTheGame
2019/07/14 14:02:05
Subject: Competitive 40K going off the rails - Why the hate?
It's much harder to implement that format into a TTG then a CCG. Ignoring pricing, CCG don't require hours of building and painting. You just tear film off of packs or decks and your good.
Set lists would actually most likely result in even less casual folks since they aren't the ones buying specific models for a tournament already. It's the competitive crowd that goes out and buys a new army because of the shift in meta.
auticus wrote: No one would go for that. Not today. Not last year. Not ten years ago. If it involves removing listbuilding as a "skill" it will never be something you will see in tournaments.
No animosity here but I'm not sure it is the case, because for instance the equivalent in CCG would be set decks, and Keyforge got quite popular around here even with set decks, which do totally remove deckbuilding as a skill.
But maybe I misunderstood what you meant?
No that's what he meant. In wargaming, Warhammer in particular, listbuilding seems to be the main focus. Just look at this thread, look at all the tactics and stuff that's discussed. Almost all of it revolves around the "meta" and picking X unit over Y unit and trying to eke out as many points as possible in listbuilding before your army ever hits the table.
Having the equivalent of set decks in wargaming for competitive purposes would be met with rioting.
Literally every thread in the "Tactics" forum have maybe 10% of the discussion based on actual tactics while the majority of the discussions are about list building. X unit is pure trash, take Y, etc. etc.
So yea, 40k is definitely tilted toward list building, but I don't really see that changing. 40k as a game can get incredibly boring without that sandbox.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/07/14 14:06:00
We will never know. Because no one will try it. Because few would go if they were forced to use what they consider a non optimal army. Even if everyone had to field similar armies at that event.
And based on my past experience that's because a lot of folks know they wouldnt do so hot without the ability to bend the game.
Actual tactics discussions in 40k are light because indeed... its listbuilding and then playing is target priority.
You cant really have meaningful discussion beyond that and the “tactics” forums reflect that.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/07/14 14:09:48
2019/07/14 14:15:36
Subject: Competitive 40K going off the rails - Why the hate?
auticus wrote: We will never know. Because no one will try it. Because few would go if they were forced to use what they consider a non optimal army. Even if everyone had to field similar armies at that event.
And based on my past experience that's because a lot of folks know they wouldnt do so hot without the ability to bend the game.
Actual tactics discussions in 40k are light because indeed... its listbuilding and then playing is target priority.
You cant really have meaningful discussion beyond that and the “tactics” forums reflect that.
Yes, listbuilding is a component. One I and many other competitive gamers enjoy. Removing that would remove much of the fun. Again, if you don't like tournaments just don't play them, you don't have to try and ruin the fun of those who do enjoy it. And saying our fun is "wrong" answers OPs question, that's why casuals and other non tournament players get hate.
