Switch Theme:

Why does nobody talk about casual play?  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in ch
Warped Arch Heretic of Chaos





Deadnight wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:


Honestly, i think it's also strategy from GW to insulate itself and it's custommers . (nvm their shops)

It's also something with the recent focus on Competitive that mndates all official rules... despite the core problem right now being GW day 1 DLC.


I disagree. Its no planned strategy. Its just human psychology 101. Basic instinctive tribalism and herd mentality. Stay in the ‘protection’ of the group, don’t deviate, follow orders, get in line. If I may quote Equilibrium ‘its not the message that is important but our obedience to it’. And its always been there, in every edition of the game, its not a recent focus. You’ll see this is every group, hobby, belief system, political party etc. Heck, if we think of the cult of officialdom in terms of religion, those of us who homebrew, accommodate and DIY are basically the heretics and atheists and ne’er-do-wells of the analogy. At the more extreme end, we all know what the blind zealots of a religion think of heretics, don’t we? Pitchforks and flaming torches. I’m sure you’ve seen the internet versions of these.

Actually no, it is facilitated and planned by GW. infact, GW attempted to break into the Swiss market at one point, decided against it, however the local FLGS and biggest seller of GW in switzerland had a decent offer to them, GW laughed at them and then promptly proceeded to lower supply for FLGS compared to their own stores in Germany and other sourounding countries. GW knows basic psychology, as do most games companies nowadays thanks to "inovations " in the mobile gameing industry and marketing.
Incidentally 6th and 7th did shatter gw's chokehold on TG's over here, but if you genuinely liked 40k for what 40k was the group mentality and interconnectedness with gaming scenes in germany and austria did facilitate that by the rules officialdom cult.
They want to controll the player experience, hence why GW bothers with stores at all, because they realised they can controll information.



Not Online!!! wrote:


And then there's the fact that the most regular players seem to be the ones at least locally that are competitive minded so they will always demand up to date rules use, even IF the up to date rules are in fact worse than what once was. Yup, had that admitted to my face, which makes me wonder, what if GW officialdom cult would not exist, or turn as bad as it once did, would we see more local and often better approaches torwards the comp scene?





Yes, and no. You’d ultimately get a fracturing of the community, which arguably is not necessarily a bad thing in and of itself since in reality, there is no ‘one’ community anyway. ‘Better’ would be down to perspective. I’d prefer ‘different’. Clubs and stores would reflect what the garagehammer scene already reflects, and rather than any kind of official dogma or ‘one true way to play’, you’d have more local variations and eccentricities in the real world. People would ultimately make it work for themselves and their group and what they see in their area, but other groups with an alternative approach may find frictions and incompatibilities when directly compared. No different to dealing with a different culture or language barrier when you go abroad. You move locations or play in a different club, you’d need to appreciate more that ‘folks do things a bit differently here’ rather than a universal meta based on the lowest common denominator of ‘I can turn up, grunt, throw my stuff on the table, not need to speak to speak to anyone and still get a game in’. If you’re ok with that, and are happy/willing to adapt, it’s not necessarily an issue.

Then again, not everyone is going to play everyone else everywhere else, so I often find the cries of potential frustration that ‘this would mean I’d need to buy a totally different army to play in the shop ten miles down the road’ are more than a little bit of overblown hyperbole.

By all means. infact the more the better i think, however on a baseline the core experience as dictated by the core rules is important and it's not wrong to point at GW and state that their recent focus strengthens that psychological dependency of the hobby and also the officaldom cult.
I remember where WD had pictures of fully converted ork armies with other plastic kits happily intermingled with GW plastic. That's not happening anymore. It has become... sanitised? Insulated?


Not Online!!! wrote:


I am split on the matter, on one hand i think that if i pay for a ruleset it should be working without me needing to intervene all too much, or at all indeed (NVM that there are better games out there with rules not costing a dime so yeah..... about that). Otoh, it is my responsibility to have fun with my hobby indeed and as such modifying a ruleset should come naturally.

.



Fair, but no rules set will ever accommodate the demands that the competitive (and especially competitive-at-all-costs) crowd insist they are due, especially to keep ‘those people’ in line. These are limited systems with limited load bearing abilities and rough edges. No rules set will ever be without issue, or aspects that cannot be gamed. Unfortunately, those approaches, especially the latter caac, are all about gaming the system, and exploiting those issues. These modes of play often have an undue influence in shaping how the game is played (especially online), and left unchecked these approaches can rapidly toxify an environment to everyone’s detriment regardless of how things work at lower levels.

It’s the same as recycling, in a lot of ways. Regardless of what the big players are doing or not doing, you should still do your bit at your end. We all have responsibilities and obligations after all.

Which is also true. It's just a shame that GW facilitates it more. However it also breaks open GW's glaring issues of general balance aswell. Sure, you may never contain the people that attempt to break a system or optimise a build to the nth degree but you can have a solid game system that would atleast facilitate at the comp level an equalish playing field. However GW was often so uncapable at providing a solid system that even for garagehammering it becomes an potential issue, and i don't know you, but i'd rather bring my models and have 2 matches, or plan a campaign out for the next month, rather than adressing core rules problems after the first match because what GW provided as a framework is less a framework and more a disaster in all but name because it lacks general technical oversight over it's ruleswriters seemingly which seem to refuse to coordinate and communicate.



Not Online!!! wrote:


Maybe that's an issue with how i went along the hobby road, being somewhat competitively minded initially, before switching over to a casual and narrative approach.



I dunno. It was exactly the same approach for me. Played competitive 40k back in 3rd and 4th amongst a very competitive group, played competitive WMH for most of Mk2, burned out twice with both and honestly, learning to appreciate the hobby side brought me back the first time, and learning to appreciate modes of play outside of ‘tournament play’ brought me back the second time – when I lost interest in the competitive scene and chasing the dragon, it was our far more laid-back weekend garagehammer (or garagehistoricals, garagefinity and garage-other-gw-games) that kept me excited and actively engaged in rolling dice. After nearly 20 years and half my life playing TTGs, its not the tournament meta or the top table talk that keeps me engaged after all this time. And I don’t have anything to prove to any try-hard either.



Ultimately, unlike the interwebs where you can more easily be a poser spouting vengeful absolutist uncompromising and extremist nonsense, you have to make compromises when it comes to gaming in the real world if you want to enjoy your hobby long term and keep your community healthy. There are a lot of things we want in our games in the real world that are mutually exclusive. Within games, from my POV, ‘variety’, ‘competition’ and ‘social aspect’ all feed off of each other – you can’t be 100% in all 3 (and to be fair, there’s probably more than 3). You want to play at the top table? Say goodbye to the 97% of the game that isn’t mathematically efficient enough as well as a lot of the players and lists that reflect the lore. You want to play all the variety the game has? Say goodbye to the top table. You want to be welcoming to everyone, accommodate everyone else type of game completely – you’re playing everyone else’s version of the game, or different games, not necessarily the game/game style you want to play. Adapting to how your community plays opens some doors and closes others, both in terms of ‘who’ you play and ‘how’ you play – sometimes you gotta be assertive and push back on what you want to play too, which may be at their expense. Accomodation goes both ways after all. Everything is a compromise to some extent. That’s just the reality.

Also true, however i think it is an issue, even for casual or narrative, when there are choices (especially subfaction choices for narrative) that are so unoptimal that you could remove 97% (hyperbole of course but on occaison certain codices felt that way).
It goes back to the ease of play, i am perfectly willing to commit 10 hours to plan a campaign meticulously with my mates. I am not happy if am forced to add another 10 hours to fix up a codex / faction because GW couldn't bother to implement seemingly minimal quality controll.

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page
A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

In the 41st millennium there is only overpriced hamberders.

 
   
Made in us
Pulsating Possessed Chaos Marine




 Charistoph wrote:
Table wrote:
If you do not have the money to chase the meta then you cannot play 40k in a competitive manner.

This is a flat out lie.

First it is hyperbole. It overly states a concept that the only way one can play is one only wins. If that was the truth, then only the Harlem Globetrotters play basketball. This hyperbole drives me nuts.

Second is that one doesn't have to chase the meta to in order to consistently win. There are a few armies that stay consistently good edition to edition, but more importantly, how one plays an army is far more important. A player who constantly switch armies will always be a few steps behind one that is consistent with their army to be fully comfortable with it, and know how to maximize their strengths and minimize their weaknesses. That isn't to say that a good player with a bad army will succeed against a good player with a good army, it is more that a good player with a bad army can do well against a medium or bad player with a good army.


It is not a flat out lie. If you chose to play 40k on a comp level then winning is your goal. All other participation on that level is a non-factor as it can be found in other game formats. And if you want to win you need to not only the best tools to do so but you also have to observe what it is you are facing. Both functions are "chasing" the meta. And to chase the meta you need time and money. That is not something every player has. Hyperbole, not in the slightest. Unfortunate truth and logic, yes.

As I stated, and I guess you did not read, there are armies which are good edition to edition. But even a favored faction (imperial) has its stinkers. The current GK's are those stinkers. If a good player with a bad army wont succeed against a good player with a good army then you prove my point. The goal of competitive activities is to win. How this is undertaken can be argued about. But the results cannot. And with this game, you need the best tools to post a consistent performance which is a key part to winning, which is the goal. I honestly do not even understand what you were trying to do here besides either react in a negative manner to a idea you did not like (which could be ok, if you did not reinforce the idea you disliked) or I just dont know. Very few "pros" if any play a singular army with a unchanging list. Id wager there are none. None that place top 10. But as always, I am not a warhammer seer, I only casually follow the tournaments. If a top placing player does indeed play this way then I will be glad to modify my views.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut







The only top tournament player who regularly stayed within the same faction (Chaos) recently was caught cheating and admitted to it.

And he didn't even play one "army" or "list"; he floated between lots and lots of Chaos options.
   
Made in de
Ork Admiral Kroozin Da Kosmos on Da Hulk






Deadnight wrote:
Jidmah wrote:

Recently there have been some voices in my club about some players getting to competitive, and I genuinely asked whether I was one of them. Three guys of vastly varying experience and competitiveness told me that they always feel like they are getting a great game and a fair fight from me.

It wouldn't be possible for me to tune my armies to match my respective opponent as well as I do if I didn't know my orks and DG inside out.





While I disagree with you on banning talk about casual play as I feel it has value, with the caveat that context should also be firmly declared, I think that if there is any take-home message for you, you should be proud of this Jidmah, that folks who play at a lot of varied levels want to play against you.


Thanks

Mind you, if you come to the ork tactics thread and want to know how to make best use of an army that is running Makari and Da Red Gobbo in an all-grot list, people will help you win the game with your casual/fluff list. I firmly believe "buy new models" is not a great advice unless people a genuinely weird collection.
Competitive doesn't mean "top table tournament play only", it just means playing to win. There is little value in discussing strategies that fall apart if your opponent stops doing the same mistakes over and over or when those tactics simply aren't supported by the current game only exist in your head (running boyz in wedge formation, for example).
If you assume everyone is trying to win the game and are fighting competent people who build lists that actually work, you have a common ground to argue.

In the end, I didn't ban the discussion because casual play was a problem, but because toxic people kept moving goalposts and dragging the discussion into the same "casual vs WAAC" arguments because they refused to admit when they were wrong.
As many people have pointed out, casual play is a wide spectrum, not a defined state. Anyone who as played at number of games at stores should have experienced the same lists being called "too casual" and "too cutthroat".

Earth is not flat
Vaccines work
We've been to the moon
Climate change is real
Chemtrails aren't a thing
Evolution is a fact
Orks are not a melee army
Stand up for science!
 
   
Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba






This comes back to the whole 'casual vs narrative' thing. it can take more effort to come up with an interesting, close matchup to fit a given narrative than it does to make an interesting, close competitive matchup or a quick slapped together casual game.

A little while back someone came by who was a big model collector/painter and not so much gamer, and his list was like, every Cadian named character (so pask, creed, kell, and nork deddog plus the new lady commissar SC) and an extremely un-optimized cadian gunline list with a bunch of regular oggryns, Kasrkins as Scions on foot, just a random jumble of stuff. All mostly the oldschool metal models, the old 3rd ed leman russes that were just battle cannon+lascannon with no sponsons, etc.

In terms of creating a good game, it was tough to take any army even GSC and create a scenario where I could field my stuff in the configurations that I actually have built, without playing at a massive advantage. Creating a narrative scenario where the cadians were trying to hold the breach against infinitely respawning GSC units, we didn't use Cult Ambush as it was a frontal assault, and I didn't use Goliath Trucks or Ridgerunners because I could envision them being fast and durable enough to basically just cross the board no problem against his fairly light anti-tank capabilities.

And it worked out really well, but in order to actually construct the scenario, I had to go

"ok if I use cult ambush in any significant way, I'm just going to roll right over the top of him.

....but if I go with loads of goliaths and ridgrunners he's got no way to kill those.

...But if I just run acolytes on foot, the game is gonna be me walking 6" onto the board and then getting wiped every turn.

....OK so I will take Rockgrinders then for the squads of acolytes I do take, and I'll go for Twisted Helix for fast advances for everyone else, and we'll go for a good number of Purestrains and Aberrants rather than lots of Acolytes because they'll survive better against the wall of lasguns

My units respawning will allow for my stuff to not get wiped off the table entirely before it gets near him, and it prevents my army from hitting his army in one huge wave and tabling him in melee instantly, so we'll replace Cult Ambush with that and make my goal leaving the board via his edge"

It takes more effort and thought prior to the game if your ultimate goal is "get the score as close as possible, make the game go as long as possible" than it does if the ultimate goal is "get my score as high a possible, make the game as short as possible with me winning." That's not "Casual" it's a whole, separate, sort of alternate game mode and alternate goal.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/05/11 13:44:56


"I can't believe all these tryhard WAACs out there just care about winning all the time when it's supposed to be a game for fun!!!!!!! Also here's my 27 page essay on why marines are OP and Orkz should get a bunch of OP rules so I can win more games

-the_scotsman"

-ERJAK 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut







Right, and that's the space where there is to talk about casual play. For example, I'd love to be able to share my 30k narrative primer (at least the rules portion) and get people's opinion on it from a narrative perspective and a fun-to-play perspective.

But I guarantee you I'd get a slew of "wow you're buffing X?!" or "Y is already bad, this rule seems to interact in strange rube-goldberg X-Y-Z way with that rule and makes Y even less competitive!!1!!" rather than

"that doesn't sound narratively engaging"
or
"I wouldn't have fun with this mechanic, could you try making the roll to trigger it a 4+?" or whatever.
   
Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba






 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Right, and that's the space where there is to talk about casual play. For example, I'd love to be able to share my 30k narrative primer (at least the rules portion) and get people's opinion on it from a narrative perspective and a fun-to-play perspective.

But I guarantee you I'd get a slew of "wow you're buffing X?!" or "Y is already bad, this rule seems to interact in strange rube-goldberg X-Y-Z way with that rule and makes Y even less competitive!!1!!" rather than

"that doesn't sound narratively engaging"
or
"I wouldn't have fun with this mechanic, could you try making the roll to trigger it a 4+?" or whatever.


Yeah, there's also the element of 'paper is fine, nerf rock, sincerely scissors." I recently made a little rules patch to make small sub-1k games more interesting and did some testing with it using 500pts games, and one very vocal dude had a lot of complaints about how OP the little vehicle flanking bonus made fast anti-tank units, because he decided that putting 190 of his points into a predator destructor with two lascannons and a storm bolter and a hunter killer missile would make his list basically unbeatable because he could use the Vehicle Damage Table to avoid losing wounds....but then his opponent took a couple of melta guns, drove round the side of the tank, and when he rolled on the VDT to avoid the 10 damage they were going to do to him, he rolled and instead it auto-exploded.

Like, if you see a custom mechanic, and you think 'oh man that's super busted im gonna totally abuse that by skewing my list in this direction' and then make the argument that the thing that the designer put in to counterbalance that custom mechanic is OP, then you're misunderstanding what the purpose of the thing was in the first place.

"I can't believe all these tryhard WAACs out there just care about winning all the time when it's supposed to be a game for fun!!!!!!! Also here's my 27 page essay on why marines are OP and Orkz should get a bunch of OP rules so I can win more games

-the_scotsman"

-ERJAK 
   
Made in de
Ork Admiral Kroozin Da Kosmos on Da Hulk






Narrative and casual are not the same thing though.
Neither is every casual game automatically is a narrative game, nor is every narrative game a casual game.

Earth is not flat
Vaccines work
We've been to the moon
Climate change is real
Chemtrails aren't a thing
Evolution is a fact
Orks are not a melee army
Stand up for science!
 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut







 Jidmah wrote:
Narrative and casual are not the same thing though.
Neither is every casual game automatically is a narrative game, nor is every narrative game a casual game.


Clearly you missed my definition earlier in the thread.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I would define casual play as "any form of play where winning the game matters less than having fun (in some people's case, fun = collaborative storytelling, in other people's case it's seeing cool models hit the table, in still more people's case it's a time to be social while rolling dice, etc).".

It's why I generally don't think competitive players CAN play casually, because to them "fun = victory" so their very existence automatically makes the prior paragraph impossible.
   
Made in de
Ork Admiral Kroozin Da Kosmos on Da Hulk






Clearly, I disagree with it.

There is nothing casual about a person naming, sculpting, and writing a background story about every single one of their guard platoon.

There also is nothing casual about organizing a large narrative campaign.

You also can have a highly competitive game with narrative armies in a narrative setting.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/05/11 14:45:22


Earth is not flat
Vaccines work
We've been to the moon
Climate change is real
Chemtrails aren't a thing
Evolution is a fact
Orks are not a melee army
Stand up for science!
 
   
Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba






 Unit1126PLL wrote:
 Jidmah wrote:
Narrative and casual are not the same thing though.
Neither is every casual game automatically is a narrative game, nor is every narrative game a casual game.


Clearly you missed my definition earlier in the thread.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I would define casual play as "any form of play where winning the game matters less than having fun (in some people's case, fun = collaborative storytelling, in other people's case it's seeing cool models hit the table, in still more people's case it's a time to be social while rolling dice, etc).".

It's why I generally don't think competitive players CAN play casually, because to them "fun = victory" so their very existence automatically makes the prior paragraph impossible.


Yeah I disagree with your assessment. I don't consider the high-effort narrative game setups and house rule setups I make to be casual. They require more effort to put together (and, honestly, more compettiive analysis on my part) than competitive games, but winning absolutely matters less than having fun.

the game I played a little while ago where an opponent just wanted to throw 7 dreads down on the table so I grabbed however many dread-size things I could fit into 1500, that was a casual game. The amount of thought and setup that went into it was basically none, and the objective was just 'as many walkers/monsters fighting in melee as possible.'

"I can't believe all these tryhard WAACs out there just care about winning all the time when it's supposed to be a game for fun!!!!!!! Also here's my 27 page essay on why marines are OP and Orkz should get a bunch of OP rules so I can win more games

-the_scotsman"

-ERJAK 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut







Jidmah wrote:Clearly, I disagree with it.

There is nothing casual about a person naming, sculpting, and writing a background story about every single one of their guard platoon.

There also is nothing casual about organizing a large narrative campaign.


Sure, I guess you could call it "non-competitive" then, instead of casual, if that floats your boat. When I say casual, I mean "non-competitive" play. And I think that's what the person who wrote the thread meant based on their OP, but I could be wrong.

Jidmah wrote:You also can have a highly competitive game with narrative armies in a narrative setting.

You can, yes, though the big distinction is that both players can win, because objectives can be asymmetric. This makes it inherently less competitive, since you're not fighting to determine the sole victor or best player between the two.

the_scotsman wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
 Jidmah wrote:
Narrative and casual are not the same thing though.
Neither is every casual game automatically is a narrative game, nor is every narrative game a casual game.


Clearly you missed my definition earlier in the thread.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I would define casual play as "any form of play where winning the game matters less than having fun (in some people's case, fun = collaborative storytelling, in other people's case it's seeing cool models hit the table, in still more people's case it's a time to be social while rolling dice, etc).".

It's why I generally don't think competitive players CAN play casually, because to them "fun = victory" so their very existence automatically makes the prior paragraph impossible.


Yeah I disagree with your assessment. I don't consider the high-effort narrative game setups and house rule setups I make to be casual. They require more effort to put together (and, honestly, more compettiive analysis on my part) than competitive games, but winning absolutely matters less than having fun.

Like I told Jidmah, call it "non-competitive" instead of "casual" then. But it is this type of play I imagine the OP had in mind when he asked his question.

the_scotsman wrote:the game I played a little while ago where an opponent just wanted to throw 7 dreads down on the table so I grabbed however many dread-size things I could fit into 1500, that was a casual game. The amount of thought and setup that went into it was basically none, and the objective was just 'as many walkers/monsters fighting in melee as possible.'

That actually fits my definition also.
   
Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba






Sure, but then I'd consider it to be a bad definition, and also it applies a connotation that comes along with the actual real definition of the word 'casual' that makes no sense when applied to the sort of high-effort narrative scenarios that are usually required if at least one player really wants to just take a random jumble of units with zero coherent gameplan and throw them down on the table and have a good game.

Real, actual, casual games (as in, games where minimal effort is put in and neither player particularly cares about what they're throwing down) are often pretty low quality 40k games. Personally I think theyre generally better than competitive games, because you do get units that can't interact with gak on the board, you do get imbalanced matchups, you do have terrain that's pointless and wonky rules interactions...but they at least generally don't tend to be two-turn tabling miserable bs like competitive games often are, and while the games often ARE decided in the list building stage, with a random jumble of funky units you at least have a higher chance of the players not realizing that fact until later on in the game, rather than it being abundantly clear the second minis are unpacked. But the complaints levied about them by competitively minded players do have merit, they're just delusional about how much wiggle room actually exists in the games on their side of the fence.

"I can't believe all these tryhard WAACs out there just care about winning all the time when it's supposed to be a game for fun!!!!!!! Also here's my 27 page essay on why marines are OP and Orkz should get a bunch of OP rules so I can win more games

-the_scotsman"

-ERJAK 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut







I disagree only because I think it's impossible to play 40k "casually" in the way you're describing and have it be distinct enough to be its own category of play.

What you describe could be competitive (throw gak together randomly, but I STILL WANT TO WIN OR IT ISN'T FUN!) or narrative (we want to smash our walkers together because my mek likes walkers and your magos does too).

"Casual" isn't the same as "not giving a gak" in 40k, because I would argue it's not trivial to play a 40k game in the slightest. Generally, in the context of 40k, when people talk about "casual" gaming, they distinguish it from tournament or competitive play. So it makes sense to define it relative to tournament and competitive play.

If a game can be between two WAACers and still be casual, I think that's probably not what people mean when they say they want a casual game. Similarly, if I ask for a casual game in my local club and a WAACer responds, I will politely decline - even though by your definition I am wrong to do so, as it's perfectly capable for a WAACer to play "casually" in the sense that he doesn't give a crap as long as he wins.
   
Made in de
Ork Admiral Kroozin Da Kosmos on Da Hulk






Most people defining casual in such a way are just looking for a way to vilify people that enjoy playing in a different way than oneself and are often referred to as CAAC.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/05/11 15:54:50


Earth is not flat
Vaccines work
We've been to the moon
Climate change is real
Chemtrails aren't a thing
Evolution is a fact
Orks are not a melee army
Stand up for science!
 
   
Made in gb
Regular Dakkanaut




Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
 Castozor wrote:
I had not considered that to be honest. I think you make a fair point, I'll try and offer him to play 2200 vs my 2000 points and see if he accepts.
But realistically I think he will still decline on grounds of me belittling him even if I don't mean it in that way. Weird how people can agree one army (DG) is better than another (IW) and still refuse to actually do anything about it themselves.

Because we sholdn't HAVE to do anything ourselves. Instead what happens is GW does this crap and you give it the ultimate pass: you buy it.


"I know I put no effort into the marriage, but it totally blindsided me when she walked out one day"
   
Made in ca
Jinking Ravenwing Land Speeder Pilot



Canada

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
 Jidmah wrote:
Narrative and casual are not the same thing though.
Neither is every casual game automatically is a narrative game, nor is every narrative game a casual game.


Clearly you missed my definition earlier in the thread.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I would define casual play as "any form of play where winning the game matters less than having fun (in some people's case, fun = collaborative storytelling, in other people's case it's seeing cool models hit the table, in still more people's case it's a time to be social while rolling dice, etc).".

It's why I generally don't think competitive players CAN play casually, because to them "fun = victory" so their very existence automatically makes the prior paragraph impossible.


Unit,

That your definition of casual cannot survive your own quick logic check should tell you that it is not a workable definition. Linking "casual" with "fun" and then saying that "casual is when winning matters less than fun" locks out people for whom playing to win is part of the fun.

I would accept that casual could refer to the approach to the game - more laid back and not terribly concerned with winning. It could mean "not all that invested." But linking it to fun is a blind-alley.

I find that there are very casual tournament players and there are super-serious narrative players. Hopefully both are having fun, or I question why they are doing it?

All you have to do is fire three rounds a minute, and stand 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut







 Jidmah wrote:
Most people defining casual in such a way are just looking for a way to vilify people that enjoy playing in a different way than oneself and are often referred to as CAAC.


Well, what do you make of this very thread?

Does it make sense to say "Why does nobody talk about casual play?" when defining casual play as "not caring"? I feel like if that were the definition the OP meant, the answer would be self-evident. So clearly, the definition "not really caring about the game" isn't what's intended in this thread.

Or do you think he really was curious why earnest discussions weren't being had about not giving a gak?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
TangoTwoBravo wrote:

Unit,

That your definition of casual cannot survive your own quick logic check should tell you that it is not a workable definition. Linking "casual" with "fun" and then saying that "casual is when winning matters less than fun" locks out people for whom playing to win is part of the fun.

I would accept that casual could refer to the approach to the game - more laid back and not terribly concerned with winning. It could mean "not all that invested." But linking it to fun is a blind-alley.

I actually said that in my post. "Competitive" is the term you are looking for here. I covered exactly this critique at the end of my post, positing "competitive" as the term for people whom winning = fun. Casual is the term for people who thing fun = something other than winning. Locking out the people for whom winning is fun is the point, because those people are not casual.

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
I find that there are very casual tournament players and there are super-serious narrative players. Hopefully both are having fun, or I question why they are doing it?

Your comment begs the question. That is to say that your use of the word casual implies a definition I do not espouse. You have included the conclusion to your argument (the definition of casual) in the argument itself (about the definition of casual).

There are tournament players who don't care very much - this I agree with. They're not casual by my definition.

There are super serious narrative players who ARE casual, by my definition.

Both can have fun, but one is competitive and one is casual.

This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2021/05/11 16:13:00


 
   
Made in de
Ork Admiral Kroozin Da Kosmos on Da Hulk






Actually, that definition nails it.

Casual is not caring enough to invest a lot into 40k as a game.

And that's precisely why no one on a board full of people caring a lot about the game discusses casual games.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I actually said that in my post. "Competitive" is the term you are looking for here. I covered exactly this critique at the end of my post, positing "competitive" as the term for people whom winning = fun. Casual is the term for people who thing fun = something other than winning. Locking out the people for whom winning is fun is the point, because those people are not casual.


Competitive players are players who enjoy a challenge in their game. Actually winning or losing matters a lot less than you think.

But I don't expect a person who equates competitive to insulting terms such as WAAC to understand.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/05/11 16:19:30


Earth is not flat
Vaccines work
We've been to the moon
Climate change is real
Chemtrails aren't a thing
Evolution is a fact
Orks are not a melee army
Stand up for science!
 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut







 Jidmah wrote:
Actually, that definition nails it.

Casual is not caring enough to invest a lot into 40k as a game.

And that's precisely why no one on a board full of people caring a lot about the game discusses casual games.

Well, the OP clearly disagrees with your definition as well, given that he asked the question that seems so obvious to you. Either that or you must assume he can't make this somewhat trivial connection.


 Jidmah wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I actually said that in my post. "Competitive" is the term you are looking for here. I covered exactly this critique at the end of my post, positing "competitive" as the term for people whom winning = fun. Casual is the term for people who thing fun = something other than winning. Locking out the people for whom winning is fun is the point, because those people are not casual.


Competitive players are players who enjoy a challenge in their game. Actually winning or losing matters a lot less than you think.

That's not true at all. I've never met a competitive player who would let me use a 2+ armor save Baneblade that can only move 8" (to use an example from earlier in the thread), even if it would increase the challenge for them.

 Jidmah wrote:
But I don't expect a person who equates competitive to insulting terms such as WAAC to understand.

I didn't equate them, or if I did, could you show it?

What I did do was use WAAC as an example of a competitive player, because whilst not all competitive players are WAAC, I am certain all WAACers are competitive. It's like using a square as an example of a rectangle, and then being yelled at for equating squares and rectangles...

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/05/11 16:23:42


 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Unit1126PLL wrote:


"Casual" isn't the same as "not giving a gak" in 40k, because I would argue it's not trivial to play a 40k game in the slightest. Generally, in the context of 40k, when people talk about "casual" gaming, they distinguish it from tournament or competitive play. So it makes sense to define it relative to tournament and competitive play.


Its the other way round, actually, and no, it doesn't.

The use of the term casual in this manner, ie defining casual as not competitive' or 'not tournament's is whats flawed. The opposite of competitive is non-competitive. The opposite of casual is serious.

Dictionary definitions of casual include 'without definite or serious intention; careless or offhand; passing'

'seeming or tending to be indifferent to what is happening; apathetic; unconcerned'.

You can absolutely be a casual tournament player. I've met enough folks at tourneys who were married with kids who were using the tournament as a way to chill out for a day and roll some dice and couldn't be bothered with where they placed. 'Tournament' is not a gold standard.

You can be perfectly serious about some aspects of the hobby/game and also still want low investment games (long day, tough day at work, kids are driving you round the bend and you just want to roll some dice) some or even all of the time.

greatest band in the universe: machine supremacy

"Punch your fist in the air and hold your Gameboy aloft like the warrior you are" 
   
Made in de
Ork Admiral Kroozin Da Kosmos on Da Hulk






Ugh, I fell for your trolling again.

Keep going, I should have known better as to answer to any of your posts.

Earth is not flat
Vaccines work
We've been to the moon
Climate change is real
Chemtrails aren't a thing
Evolution is a fact
Orks are not a melee army
Stand up for science!
 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut







Deadnight wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:


"Casual" isn't the same as "not giving a gak" in 40k, because I would argue it's not trivial to play a 40k game in the slightest. Generally, in the context of 40k, when people talk about "casual" gaming, they distinguish it from tournament or competitive play. So it makes sense to define it relative to tournament and competitive play.


Its the other way round, actually, and no, it doesn't.

The use of the term casual in this manner, ie defining casual as not competitive' or 'not tournament's is whats flawed. The opposite of competitive is non-competitive. The opposite of casual is serious.

Dictionary definitions of casual include 'without definite or serious intention; careless or offhand; passing'

'seeming or tending to be indifferent to what is happening; apathetic; unconcerned'.

You can absolutely be a casual tournament player. I've met enough folks at tourneys who were married with kids who were using the tournament as a way to chill out for a day and roll some dice and couldn't be bothered with where they placed. 'Tournament' is not a gold standard.

You can be perfectly serious about some aspects of the hobby/game and also still want low investment games (long day, tough day at work, kids are driving you round the bend and you just want to roll some dice) some or even all of the time.


Yes, the dictionary definition doesn't line up with mine. I agree that non-competitive may be a better term, then, if it is preferable to use the "dictionary definition" of casual in this context rather than developing our own.

As for casual tournament players, I agree. Non-competitive (<- casual or not) players can attend a tournament (I have). But as you yourself admit, they aren't concerned with winning. They want to "chill out for a day and roll some dice". That's casual even by my definition. Remember, my definition doesn't even include the word tournament. But, to reiterate, if the dictionary definition is preferred to deriving our own, then I agree mine does not match the dictionary and 'non-competitive' would.

Jidmah wrote:Ugh, I fell for your trolling again.

Keep going, I should have known better as to answer to any of your posts.

I have no idea what you are talking about, but okay? I'm sorry I communicated badly, and if I can offer any further clarifications feel free to ask.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2021/05/11 16:58:49


 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




To my mind being "competitive" in 40k is just playing on the basis that each decision you make should be the best one you could make to win the game.

Casual or narrative is doing something other than that.

Players may do a bit of both. I know when I've had games go horribly wrong I've played them "for fun" rather than trying to claw my way back into a seemingly doomed game. This was especially the case when I played a mainly goblin army in WHFB.

So for example lets say its turn 5 and you could win just by disengaging and running everything away. Competitively its the right call. Casually though it might be a bit boring. You might instead throw what's left of your army into theirs just to see what happens. Equally you might decide narratively its a bit lame to have Space Marines or whatever running away in fear because "technically" they would win the game. (Although equally you can argue it the other way, which is why I think narrative isn't much of a distinction.)

There are many reasons why you would make moves other than the seeming "best" ones in 40k. Maybe you think its fluffy. Maybe you want to kill that unit your friend has just finished painting up. Maybe you just want to see what happens when character X runs into character Y.

This is I think different to something like Chess, where you really have to try and come up with a contrived reason why you want to send a knight on a five turn adventure... rather than try to win the game.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut







Tyel understands my point.

-Non-competitive play is putting some other objective above winning. (I used to call this casual, but I think I'm wrong to do so, even if this thread doesn't make sense)
-Competitive play is putting winning above any other objective.

Typically, this is because the non-competitive players have more fun doing something other than winning, whilst competitive players have more fun in trying to win.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2021/05/11 17:02:32


 
   
Made in ca
Secretive Dark Angels Veteran




Vancouver, BC

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
That's not true at all. I've never met a competitive player who would let me use a 2+ armor save Baneblade that can only move 8" (to use an example from earlier in the thread), even if it would increase the challenge for them.

I think most competitive players prefer to play within the established official rules of the game and would probably view your suggestion as akin to cheating. They want you to come at them as hard as you can within the rules not to bend the rules to give them a good match with the non-competitive forces you've brought to the game that day.

EDIT: As a sports fan your suggestion would be like asking if your rec league hockey team can put illegal pads on their goalie or use a smaller net because otherwise, the game will be a blowout. It will make the game more challenging for the other team but it doesn't do so in a fair way.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/05/11 17:38:54


 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




NE Ohio, USA

 Jidmah wrote:
Actually, that definition nails it.

Casual is not caring enough to invest a lot into 40k as a game.


BS.
Casual games are ones where there's nothing on the line. Doesn't matter how much time/$/years/book shelves full of crap you've got.
Fun will be had. And within the context f that single game? Sure we'll certainly try to win with whatever we've brought. But tomorrow it won't matter one way or another if I won the game the night before. We'll come back in a few days or so and play some more.

Non-casual games have something at stake. Bragging rights, world domination in your current escalation league, internet fame & glory, prizes....Even just validation as a player in Karol's case.
And the more valuable the prize? The further away from casual it becomes. In fact, it becomes..... work.
Fun here, while preferred, is optional. Especially if the payout is enough.
   
Made in us
Grumpy Longbeard





washington state USA

Unit1126PLL wrote:Right, and that's the space where there is to talk about casual play. For example, I'd love to be able to share my 30k narrative primer (at least the rules portion) and get people's opinion on it from a narrative perspective and a fun-to-play perspective.

But I guarantee you I'd get a slew of "wow you're buffing X?!" or "Y is already bad, this rule seems to interact in strange rube-goldberg X-Y-Z way with that rule and makes Y even less competitive!!1!!" rather than

"that doesn't sound narratively engaging"
or
"I wouldn't have fun with this mechanic, could you try making the roll to trigger it a 4+?" or whatever.



Reminds me a bit of a guy i used to play regularly back when 5th was the current edition. he had an old chapter approved kroot list he loved to play. it had some unique abilities, but seriously who plays kroot other than to bubble wrap the tau if they are a WAAC player? It turns out it was a fun list to fight, even if it was not what you would expect to see in a tau army.



Unit1126PLL wrote:Tyel understands my point.

-Non-competitive play is putting some other objective above winning. (I used to call this casual, but I think I'm wrong to do so, even if this thread doesn't make sense)
-Competitive play is putting winning above any other objective.

Typically, this is because the non-competitive players have more fun doing something other than winning, whilst competitive players have more fun in trying to win.


I think that pretty well nails it. when i fight the 3.5 chaos codex players in our 5th ed games and khorne berserkers blood frenzy while holding an objective and then run it towards the nearest enemy. it isn't what a WAAC player would want, but it is what berserkers would do in universe.

I could give dozens of examples in our games where the lore based rules made the games more enjoyable win or loose because the play part of the game was the focus of the enjoyment. some of the best games i have had have been very close or i have lost, but the actual game play was epic.

I work a lot during the week and i get one day a week to hang out at the FLGS to game and socialize. i am not looking to get stressed over games on my fun day of the week.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/05/11 18:21:35




GAMES-DUST1947/infinity/B5 wars/epic 40K/5th ed 40K/victory at sea/warmachine/battle tactics/monpoc/battletech/battlefleet gothic/castles in the sky,/heavy gear 
   
Made in gb
Unhealthy Competition With Other Legions





Spoiler:
 Jidmah wrote:
Actually, that definition nails it.

Casual is not caring enough to invest a lot into 40k as a game.

Hell no. I'm a casual player but holy have I invested heavily into 40k to the point where I am now on my second rounds of "oh God I need to sell some of this I never use it".

Spoiler:
 aphyon wrote:

I work a lot during the week and i get one day a week to hang out at the FLGS to game and socialize. i am not looking to get stressed over games on my fun day of the week.

This is exactly what I imagine when someone says they are a casual player, not someone who doesn't care to the point of apathy. To me someone is casual if they don't like/want/have time to play the game competitively i.e. attending tournaments, meta chasing, playing FOTM so they can win. If that's your jam, then cool beans, that's great but not everyone is like that.
   
Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba






You can also add "keeping track of the rules release schedule" to that list I think.

I played a death guard list with mortarion recently and mid-way through the explanation of his sixth special rule I just had to stop my opponent and say "you know what, I trust you to get this stuff right, I'll just assume anything I fling his way is unlikely to hurt him, and anything he gets near is likely to be dead."

"I can't believe all these tryhard WAACs out there just care about winning all the time when it's supposed to be a game for fun!!!!!!! Also here's my 27 page essay on why marines are OP and Orkz should get a bunch of OP rules so I can win more games

-the_scotsman"

-ERJAK 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: